Still Building the Dreamliner, originally uploaded by Craig Damlo.

Despite the image and title, this post is not about the 787 but is instead a rant (so fair warning). First, I will point out that those of us in the aerospace industry are not surprised at all with the delays that have plagued Boeing's 787. Almost all new aircraft are late and one with so many new technologies is bound to have problems in development. But I have to say that I'm happy to see that Boeing has not adopted the modern electronic/software ethos to push items out the door and update them later. We have all experienced getting new products that require updates out of the box before you can use them. This drives me insane. I could just imagine during the first commercial flight of a new airplane and the pilots would have to connect to the internet to update the firmware if they planned to use the landing gear because the aircraft manufacturer wasn't ready when they shipped the first plane.

I think it is telling that Microsoft had to create  a "Patch Tuesday" because even they recognized that more than one patch a month wasn't enough. But I want to take it even further and end Patch Tuesday; let's see companies release products that are fully tested and ready for release. And I think consumers need to take responsibility in judging products not just on how they work after updates, but rather on how many updates and how long did it take for that product to get to that stage. Don't get me wrong; I believe in updates for significant improvements and expansions, but not for correcting errors missed because of a lack of testing or time. We shouldn't have to pay for something that will require patches when factory seals on the a box imply "This product is complete."

Don't bring your camera to capture your visit to "The Charters of Freedom" at the National Archive Building Rotunda. Recently, the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA) has banned photography and videography for personal use at the exhibits of the National Archives Experience (NAE), which include the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Now don't worry if you would like to take home a copy of the documents because the NARA has made all of them available on its site so everyone can have a copy. But, this overlooks the fact that most people take their pictures in front of the documents to document their visit to some of the most important documents in our country's history. The NARA states that it seeks "to ensure the necessary protection for the documents from the cumulative effects of photographic flash and to enhance the overall visitor experience."<1> Seems like it would be hard to argue with that line of reasoning, but I will.

First, I will concede that flash is damaging to the documents, but this seems to be the end of the NARA's argument. I ask the question to them: "If you are protecting the documents from photographic flash, then why not ban flash?" And the answer to that question is simple; they think Americans are stupid. And, the organization may be right. The NARA states, "This final rule applies only to the general public, who are the source of most photographic flash from either accidental or intentional action."<1> The NARA also stated that what is driving the organization to this decision is that people are ignoring currently posted signs that ban the use of flash. So, why would a new sign banning photography change things? Because, under the new rules the NARA includes enforcement that wasn't present under the old "no flash" rule. Under this new enforcement, individuals will be escorted out of the facility after receiving a second warning about no photography. Why doesn't the organization not simply add enforcement to the old rule?

But, I think this represents a systemic problem in our government: if x is a negative, then ban x and y when the opportunity presents itself. It is a slow erosion of our rights—specifically photographers, who have been the target of many new "rules" since 2001. And, how will this new power to kick people out of the rotunda affect those who have gained this power? One commenter of the proposed rule had suggested that the new powers would create overzealous security guards who might harass and harm those with cameras. The NARA states "that those hypothetical behaviors and policies will not happen,"<1> simply pointing to the new guidelines for how the security guards will act. But, if anyone has been through an airport in the last 9 years, I will let them determine for themselves if a small bit of power will lead to abusive guards.

But that's not the worst part of it: the NARA also highlighted another problem with our government, its complete lack of respect for those whom it represents. The NARA had published the proposed rule to the Federal Register (74 FR 38153) for two months to allow the general public to comment on the new rule. And, NARA did: "In response, NARA received comments from three private citizens. All three of the commenters were opposed to the proposed rule."<1> And yet they went forward with the rule, with zero concrete support from the general public. Instead NARA "monitored the NAE's informal visitor comment log as well as letters received from visitors requesting and demanding that NARA eliminate all photography."<1> If there was such overwhelming support to ban photography, why were 100% of the comments opposed to the new rule? And, if individuals had been demanding the elimination of all photography, why is NARA only banning photography by the general public? Begin infinite loop on old "no flash" rule.

My final question to the NARA would be simply this: "How does the new rule enhance the overall visitor experience?"