Date:         Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:49:47 -0400
Reply-To:     Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject:      Re: Simpler is better? Some nonVW content... & diesel
Comments: To: Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
In-Reply-To:  <f05100304c2e9b7cd5cd3@203.167.171.55>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>
> "Simpler is better" isn't necessarily the case.



I think it it must be evaluated within the proper context. If the context is
risk management/problem prevention(as reliability of a vehicle is), then it
will be true UNLESS it introduces a new dependency or negative condition at
the same time, because in all cases the systems being talked about must
still satisfy the original goals of their function regardless of how they
are implemented. If both a simple system and complex system satisfy the
purpose of their functions to the same extent, and if the simpler one does
not add any negatives in relation to the more complex system, the simpler
one is always better. Of course we could get even more complicated in the
evaluation, and include things like externalities involved in the choice of
systems etc, and maybe it would transition into a philosophical question
about net utility... but let's keep it simple, since it'll have a much
higher probability of being better :)

Jim Akiba