System Flexibility Quotes

I've always believed that. I'm not a guy who comes in with an offensive system, and we try to fit guys to it. I think it goes the other way. 'Here's who we've got. Let's put them in the right spots where they can be productive.'

You go with what you got. That's the thing about having a system, then you plug guys into your system.

Democracies are much better at adapting to modernization than other systems.

Unix gives you just enough rope to hang yourself - and then a couple of more feet, just to be sure.

Android is one of the most open systems I've ever seen. What makes Android great is it's literally designed from the ground up to be customised in a very powerful way.

A lot of the so-called systems composers have this thing that the system is always right. You don't fiddle with it at all. Well, I don't think that. I think the system is as right as you judge it to be. If for some reason you don't like a bit of it you must trust your intuition on that. I don't take a doctrinaire approach to systems.

The point is that you want to have a system that is responsive.

Thus, they are free to replace some objects by others so long as the relations remain unchanged.

I don't see a sea change by 2020, but I see migration in the direction of modernization and more flexibility in the generating system going forward.

Coaches are well aware, especially at quarterback, that it's not the system but the player who comes first.

I don't like closed systems.

If I'm serious about patients and their GPs being able to have more control of their health care, I can't have a top-down system that imposes restrictions on the services they need.

One argument against open systems is that they become open to everything, good and bad. Like a Richard Meier skyscraper, the anal retentive, Bauhaus elegance of the Mac does prevent the loose ends and confusion of a less sterile environment. But it also prevents fertility. Apple's development must come from within.

Slack is actually a technical term in product management that means the excess capacity the system has to absorb any failures or to take on new work. That's something that was really on our minds when we came up with it.

As an open system, Android is not under the tight control of its creator, Google.

To be fair to Pete, I had just come off a very difficult owner relationship with my then head coach and I was looking for a different style. So I didn't give Pete all the power he should have had. I don't think there's any exact formula for how it's done. It's really what fits each individual system.

It is not about the system, it is about how individuals perform on the pitch and whether they do the right things, so it is not as simple as just picking a system.

There are considerable advantages to using many degrees of freedom to store information, stability and controllability being perhaps the most important.

When you have large systems, it becomes almost impossible to make even very simple changes.

You can put the players on the pitch but they always move and systems change. I think, though, that Messi has to be a special case and that the other nine outfield players should support him. But one player on his own is not going to win you the World Cup.

For a franchise system to work well, you really need people with an entrepreneurial mind-set because, while you have a large, overarching system that everybody has to work with, a lot of local issues have to be handled.

You want to favor systems that benefit from error, disorder, variability and things like that. You want to favor these systems and unfortunately, when - there's something I call the Soviet Illusion. The more the government becomes intrusive, the more things have to follow a script, and it can't handle this kind of system.

For the VA to thrive as an integrated health care network, it must be agile and adaptive.

In framing a system, which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce.

The techno-industrial system is exceptionally tough due to its so-called "democratic" structure and its resulting flexibility. Because dictatorial systems tend to be rigid, social tensions and resistance can be built up in them to the point where they damage and weaken the system and may lead to revolution. But in a "democratic" system, when social tension and resistance build up dangerously the system backs off enough, it compromises enough, to bring the tensions down to a safe level.