"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:487cc8b8@news.povray.org...

> Mmm, I guess it's not only M$ that sometimes rushes things due to
> "launch shedules".
>
> (You see what I did there?)

Hint: pointing out your own puns makes them irritating more than funny

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

> Hint: pointing out your own puns makes them irritating more than funny

Question: Are *my* puns even funny in the first place?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> NASA?
> 
>> Aren't they those guys who tried to launch a rocket with a faulty O-ring?
> 
>   Take two programs of comparable size made in Microsoft and in NASA,
> and compare the total amount of bugs found during testing. The former will
> have in the order of thousands, while the latter will have something
> like 10.
> 
>   And the latter while never exceeding budgets nor deadlines.

A NASA rocket exploding is something like an M$ product having a severe 
security vulnerability.

So far, NASA has had, what, 2 major incidents like this? In its entire 
history?

(...I'm sure you see where I'm going with this...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> 
>> Hint: pointing out your own puns makes them irritating more than funny
> 
> Question: Are *my* puns even funny in the first place?
> 

It is possible ...

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:487ccf56$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > Hint: pointing out your own puns makes them irritating more than funny
>
> Question: Are *my* puns even funny in the first place?
>

Some are, some I would miss. That's how puns are supposed to be

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:36:10 -0500, Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> (PID - Andrew should know what this means, Proportional, 
>> Integral, Derivative ) 
> 
> Thank you I read it as "Piping & Instrumentation Diagram" 

...and I read it as Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc

John

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> A NASA rocket exploding is something like an M$ product having a severe 
> security vulnerability.

I don't think that's a fair comparison .. Sure, a security vulnerability 
is a headache, but it did just kill the crew, and spread flaming debris 
across half of Texas ...

> So far, NASA has had, what, 2 major incidents like this? In its entire 
> history?
> 
> (...I'm sure you see where I'm going with this...)
> 

Didn't the ESA lose a mars probe because of a program error?

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:36:10 -0500, Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>> (PID - Andrew should know what this means, Proportional, 
>>> Integral, Derivative ) 
>> Thank you I read it as "Piping & Instrumentation Diagram" 
> 
> ...and I read it as Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc
> 
> John

At least no one has read it as "Personal Integrity Device" ...

Post a reply to this message

>> A NASA rocket exploding is something like an M$ product having a 
>> severe security vulnerability.
> 
> I don't think that's a fair comparison .. Sure, a security vulnerability 
> is a headache, but it did just kill the crew, and spread flaming debris 
> across half of Texas ...

...which is why software bugs are "acceptable", and safety issues 
aren't. ;-)

But I think it *is* a fair comparison: M$ Windoze is not capable of 
killing anybody [usually], so a severe security issue is just about the 
most catastrophic kind of problem it can experience.

> Didn't the ESA lose a mars probe because of a program error?

Possibly.

Space is a pretty harsh environment, so there's a whole array of 
possible malfunctions that could end a mission - broken motors or 
sensors, compromised computer hardware, corrupted RAM portions, or 
conceivably simple programmer error. The last one would seem one of the 
easiest classes of fault to prevent, but sure, one might have slipped 
though somewhere...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> (PID - Andrew should know what this means, Proportional, 
>> Integral, Derivative ) 

Andrew did *not* know what it means. I was assuming Process ID...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:56:40 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> NASA?
> 
> Aren't they those guys who tried to launch a rocket with a faulty
> O-ring?

Um, yeah, and it blew up, killing all crew on board. :-(

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:26:23 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> NASA?
>> 
>>> Aren't they those guys who tried to launch a rocket with a faulty
>>> O-ring?
>> 
>>   Take two programs of comparable size made in Microsoft and in NASA,
>> and compare the total amount of bugs found during testing. The former
>> will have in the order of thousands, while the latter will have
>> something like 10.
>> 
>>   And the latter while never exceeding budgets nor deadlines.
> 
> A NASA rocket exploding is something like an M$ product having a severe
> security vulnerability.

NO, it isn't.  People haven't died because of MS security vulnerabilities.

> So far, NASA has had, what, 2 major incidents like this? In its entire
> history?

Three that caused fatalities.  The first was a fire in a Mercury 7 
capsule during a test - pure oxygen atmosphere + spark = fire.  All three 
crew members were killed.  The most recent two were the Challenger and 
the Columbia - the first exploded about 23 seconds into the launch, the 
second burned up on re-entry.

Now, if you count the rockets that were unmanned that blew up, there were 
a fairly significant number of very spectacular failures.  Find a copy of 
"When We Left Earth:  The NASA Missions" to see some archive footage.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> A NASA rocket exploding is something like an M$ product having a severe
>> security vulnerability.
> 
> NO, it isn't.  People haven't died because of MS security vulnerabilities.

Yes, but that's because nothing M$ makes is *capable* of killing anybody 
[directly]. So a security flaw is about the most serious malfunction it 
*is* capable of. :-P

>> So far, NASA has had, what, 2 major incidents like this? In its entire
>> history?
> 
> Three that caused fatalities.

I was almost right. :-D

Either way, the number of severe security issues from M$ dwarfs this 
number by any reasonably reconing.

> Now, if you count the rockets that were unmanned that blew up, there were 
> a fairly significant number of very spectacular failures.  Find a copy of 
> "When We Left Earth:  The NASA Missions" to see some archive footage.

Isn't that like counting the number of bugs M$ had *and fixed* before 
"launching the product"?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Well, at last I have a reply!

They said I can keep the mug, and they'll send me the thing I actually 
ordered shortly. Seems reasonable to me... (Assuming they get it right 
this time. I imagine they will.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Space is a pretty harsh environment, so there's a whole array of 
> possible malfunctions that could end a mission - broken motors or 
> sensors, compromised computer hardware, corrupted RAM portions, or 
> conceivably simple programmer error. The last one would seem one of the 
> easiest classes of fault to prevent, but sure, one might have slipped 
> though somewhere...

  The good thing about software bugs is that if they are caught before
problems happen, they can be fixed even if the probe is half-way through
the solar system from here. Hardware problems can't.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:05:41 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> A NASA rocket exploding is something like an M$ product having a
>>> severe security vulnerability.
>> 
>> NO, it isn't.  People haven't died because of MS security
>> vulnerabilities.
> 
> Yes, but that's because nothing M$ makes is *capable* of killing anybody
> [directly]. So a security flaw is about the most serious malfunction it
> *is* capable of. :-P

That is the most serious malfuction, probably, but equating that with the 
loss of life doesn't work for me.

>>> So far, NASA has had, what, 2 major incidents like this? In its entire
>>> history?
>> 
>> Three that caused fatalities.
> 
> I was almost right. :-D
> 
> Either way, the number of severe security issues from M$ dwarfs this
> number by any reasonably reconing.
> 
>> Now, if you count the rockets that were unmanned that blew up, there
>> were a fairly significant number of very spectacular failures.  Find a
>> copy of "When We Left Earth:  The NASA Missions" to see some archive
>> footage.
> 
> Isn't that like counting the number of bugs M$ had *and fixed* before
> "launching the product"?

Um, no, because they happened during launches.  They just happened to be 
unmanned launches.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Some, but definitely not all. Many places a small fix-up may not need a 
> day's worth of meetings, but with the shuttle, not a single line of code 
> can be changed.

The same happens for code for cars, but IIRC only after the first version 
has been released and tested during development.  After that point there is 
a huge amount of resource put onto testing and evaluation, and after it has 
been "qualified", no changes are allowed without a big meeting and 
discussion for even tiny changes.

> Ah, I figured the avionics linkages would be hydraulic, not computer 
> controlled.

No, too risky to have lots of hydraulic lines going all round the plane, 
also harder to detect when they've (partially) failed and automatically 
switch to a backup system etc.

It's funny, because a lot of the time people regard electronics as much more 
unreliable than mechanical systems.  It's just the failure mechanisms are 
different, but certainly electronics can be made just as reliable as 
mechanical systems, and even more reliable if necessary.  Take for example 
when cars changed from a mechanical distributor to an electronic system ... 
no more getting out the WD40 to dry it out after heavy rain!

>> about to switch it on, and then as he flicked the switch, the mass moved 
>> extremely quickly to point B, past point B, kept accelerating and smashed 
>> off the end of the demo. Everybody laughed.
>
> Heh. Ouch...

Yeh IIRC, his comment was something like "ok, well that didn't seem to work 
then", at which point someone shouted out "no s4!t" :-)

The other system they seemed to be very fond of was the inverted pendulum 
controller.  The pivot of the pendulum can be moved left and right by a 
motor/pulley system, and the idea is to keep the pendulum's tip upright. 
After a hideous amount of maths you finally get to implement it on a real 
system and watch how some people's go totally ape and smash against the end, 
while most people got theirs working eventually.  In the end it is really 
cool to be able to add weights and stuff to the top and wobble it, all the 
while the motor is making tiny adjustments to stop it falling over.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:02:36 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:20:31 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Also when the Romans were in power Greece was subjective to them and I  
>>> would think that they would talk about Jupiter or Jove rather than  
>>> Zeus to Romans out of respect.
>>
>> I wasn't sure that was the case. My ancient history isn't too good. :-)
>
> I guessed :-)

Saying that though the Romans (and others) were quite happy with the idea  
of localised deities. They might know that Zeus and Jove were the same  
god, but in a Greek temple they'd most likely use the name by which he was  
known there.

When in Rome...

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> 
> Either way, the number of severe security issues from M$ dwarfs this 
> number by any reasonably reconing.

Lets be fair. The security issues are only security issues because of 
the ubiquity of the product. I'm sure other vendors' products have a 
good number of security problems, but they aren't exploited because no 
one cares to exploit it.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> Lets be fair. The security issues are only security issues because of 
> the ubiquity of the product. I'm sure other vendors' products have a 
> good number of security problems, but they aren't exploited because no 
> one cares to exploit it.

I doubt that M$ is the *only* vendor that produces insecure software. 
However, I reject the claim that *all* software is equally faulty. This 
is simply not the case. There are products that work far better than 
anything M$ has produced so far.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:54:28 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>
>When in Rome...

Eat "Gnocchi alla Romana" :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> NO, it isn't.  People haven't died because of MS security vulnerabilities.

That is in part because MS explicitly says it's not supposed to be good 
enough for life-critical situations.

And I wouldn't be surprised, anyway, if some MS software had a bug that 
caused some patient to get over-dosed with radiation during cancer 
treatment or some such.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
>> (You see what I did there?)
> 
> Hint: pointing out your own puns makes them irritating more than funny

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=puns

(That said, "You see what I did there?" is a meme not unlike lolcats or 
some such. Pointing it out with *that* phrase actually makes it funny 
again.)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:56:40 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>> NASA?
>>
>> Aren't they those guys who tried to launch a rocket with a faulty
>> O-ring?
> 
> Um, yeah, and it blew up, killing all crew on board. :-(

It wasn't actually a faulty O-ring. It was an O-ring used outside the 
environment the engineers knew it was supposed to be used in 
(temperature-wise).

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:17:21 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> NO, it isn't.  People haven't died because of MS security
>> vulnerabilities.
> 
> That is in part because MS explicitly says it's not supposed to be good
> enough for life-critical situations.

Yeah, that's true enough.  Most commercial software vendors have that 
clause in the license agreement.

> And I wouldn't be surprised, anyway, if some MS software had a bug that
> caused some patient to get over-dosed with radiation during cancer
> treatment or some such.

I would be, since the machines that control that sort of thing tend to be 
custom-built and not PC-controlled, at least not that I've seen 
(admittedly, I've not spent a lot of time in cancer treatment facilities).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:19:58 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:56:40 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> 
>>> NASA?
>>>
>>> Aren't they those guys who tried to launch a rocket with a faulty
>>> O-ring?
>> 
>> Um, yeah, and it blew up, killing all crew on board. :-(
> 
> It wasn't actually a faulty O-ring. It was an O-ring used outside the
> environment the engineers knew it was supposed to be used in
> (temperature-wise).

Point - yeah, the ring itself wasn't faulty as far as anyone knows.  
While the commission didn't find fault with the ring itself, it is 
possible that it was faulty - don't suppose we'll ever know for certain 
if it was or not.  The report itself, though, had to state a conclusion 
so the program could move on.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

>> And I wouldn't be surprised, anyway, if some MS software had a bug that
>> caused some patient to get over-dosed with radiation during cancer
>> treatment or some such.
> 
> I would be, since the machines that control that sort of thing tend to be 
> custom-built and not PC-controlled, at least not that I've seen 
> (admittedly, I've not spent a lot of time in cancer treatment facilities).

I remember seeing the heart monitor in a NICU reboot. Looked like it was 
running some customized *NIX judging by the lines of boot information 
that scrolled across.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:56:32 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>>> And I wouldn't be surprised, anyway, if some MS software had a bug
>>> that caused some patient to get over-dosed with radiation during
>>> cancer treatment or some such.
>> 
>> I would be, since the machines that control that sort of thing tend to
>> be custom-built and not PC-controlled, at least not that I've seen
>> (admittedly, I've not spent a lot of time in cancer treatment
>> facilities).
> 
> I remember seeing the heart monitor in a NICU reboot. Looked like it was
> running some customized *NIX judging by the lines of boot information
> that scrolled across.

That seems most common - for implementations that involve life and death, 
the systems tend to be custom-built for a specific purpose, not based on 
a general purpose operating system.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> That seems most common - for implementations that involve life and death,
> the systems tend to be custom-built for a specific purpose, not based on
> a general purpose operating system.

It's not just the software, all the hardware will also need to be certified 
for applications where human life is at risk.  You think your PC is 
reliable?  You trust it enough, that if it ever failed you'd die?  Didn't 
think so :-)

Post a reply to this message

> It wasn't actually a faulty O-ring. It was an O-ring used outside the 
> environment the engineers knew it was supposed to be used in 
> (temperature-wise).

But the million dollar question is, was the shuttle taking off in ambient 
conditions outside of the designed temperature range, or had the designers 
failed to check that every component would remain within its operating range 
during take off?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> But the million dollar question is, was the shuttle taking off in 
> ambient conditions outside of the designed temperature range, or had the 
> designers failed to check that every component would remain within its 
> operating range during take off?

IIRC, it was bloody cold that day, and several engineers advised against 
the launch due to the temperatures. But the actual spec sheet? IDK.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> That seems most common - for implementations that involve life and death,
>> the systems tend to be custom-built for a specific purpose, not based on
>> a general purpose operating system.
> 
> It's not just the software, all the hardware will also need to be 
> certified for applications where human life is at risk.  You think your 
> PC is reliable?  You trust it enough, that if it ever failed you'd die?  
> Didn't think so :-)

The work I do affects human life in the most indirect way imaginable.

(Specifically: It is hypothetically plausible that some obscure computer 
system to malfunction in such a way as to generate erroneous data that 
somehow manages both to "look" geniune, and also appear to show that a 
drug is safe when in fact it is not.)

Even though what my company does is extremely indirectly linked with 
human health, the level of checking and certification involved is quite 
phenominal. And we don't even MAKE anything that goes anywhere near a 
human being! We just produce numbers.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> But the million dollar question is, was the shuttle taking off in ambient 
>> conditions outside of the designed temperature range, or had the 
>> designers failed to check that every component would remain within its 
>> operating range during take off?
>
> IIRC, it was bloody cold that day, and several engineers advised against 
> the launch due to the temperatures. But the actual spec sheet? IDK.

Well I'd jolly well hope that every single part of the shuttle would be 
designed to work in the temperature range specified on the spec sheet!

Doesn't sound very NASA-like to have some Engineer going "oh it's a bit 
chilly today old chaps, that o-ring might not be so good".  Where's the 
temperature spec of the O-ring?  Where's the simulation/test results of 
expected temperatures at each point on the shuttle?  Why wasn't this brought 
up during the design stage?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:29:19 +0100, Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:36:10 -0500, Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> 
>>> (PID - Andrew should know what this means, Proportional, 
>>> Integral, Derivative ) 
>> 
>> Thank you I read it as "Piping & Instrumentation Diagram" 
>
>...and I read it as Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc
>
>JohLOL
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:41:00 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>>> (PID - Andrew should know what this means, Proportional, 
>>> Integral, Derivative ) 
>
>Andrew did *not* know what it means. I was assuming Process ID...

Since when did you start speaking about yourself in the 3rd person?
:)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:41:00 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> >>> (PID - Andrew should know what this means, Proportional,
> >>> Integral, Derivative )
> >
> >Andrew did *not* know what it means. I was assuming Process ID...
>
> Since when did you start speaking about yourself in the 3rd person?
> :)
> --
>
> Regards
>      Stephen

Since he is at version 8? ;-)

Regards,
bluetree

Post a reply to this message

>> IIRC, it was bloody cold that day, and several engineers advised 
>> against the launch due to the temperatures. But the actual spec sheet? 
>> IDK.
> 
> Well I'd jolly well hope that every single part of the shuttle would be 
> designed to work in the temperature range specified on the spec sheet!
> 
> Doesn't sound very NASA-like to have some Engineer going "oh it's a bit 
> chilly today old chaps, that o-ring might not be so good".  Where's the 
> temperature spec of the O-ring?  Where's the simulation/test results of 
> expected temperatures at each point on the shuttle?  Why wasn't this 
> brought up during the design stage?

The information I heard was that it was an unusually cold day, and the 
entire craft was covered in sheets of solid ice, and several people 
suggested that they hadn't really tested for this and it would be better 
to wait for the weather to change. But that didn't suit the launch 
schedule, so they launched anyway.

Weather the temperatures were actually outside the spec sheet I have no 
idea. (I'm also not actually sure how accurate the above tale is, for 
that matter.) I'm sure temperature ranges were tested, but ice? Maybe 
they hadn't thought about that. IDK.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> The information I heard was that it was an unusually cold day, and the 
> entire craft was covered in sheets of solid ice, and several people 
> suggested that they hadn't really tested for this and it would be better 
> to wait for the weather to change. But that didn't suit the launch 
> schedule, so they launched anyway.
>
> Weather the temperatures were actually outside the spec sheet I have no 
> idea. (I'm also not actually sure how accurate the above tale is, for that 
> matter.) I'm sure temperature ranges were tested, but ice? Maybe they 
> hadn't thought about that. IDK.

OK, I just read about it on Wikipedia, and apparently they knew of the 
design flaw that the o-rings could be compromised at low temperatures, but 
they didn't address the problem.  I wonder who the most senior person was 
who knew about this, and why they didn't escalate it further...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:17:21 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> And I wouldn't be surprised, anyway, if some MS software had a bug that
>> caused some patient to get over-dosed with radiation during cancer
>> treatment or some such.
> 
> I would be, since the machines that control that sort of thing tend to be 
> custom-built and not PC-controlled, at least not that I've seen 
> (admittedly, I've not spent a lot of time in cancer treatment facilities).
> 
> Jim

Even the custom built control software isn't always bug free. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

Post a reply to this message

> Even the custom built control software isn't always bug free. 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

That's just bad hardware design, there should have been some sort of 
mechanical interlock to prevent that happening.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:16:46 +0200, scott wrote:

>> That seems most common - for implementations that involve life and
>> death, the systems tend to be custom-built for a specific purpose, not
>> based on a general purpose operating system.
> 
> It's not just the software, all the hardware will also need to be
> certified for applications where human life is at risk.  You think your
> PC is reliable?  You trust it enough, that if it ever failed you'd die? 
> Didn't think so :-)

Ah yes, absolutely true. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 03:38:31 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:17:21 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> And I wouldn't be surprised, anyway, if some MS software had a bug
>>> that caused some patient to get over-dosed with radiation during
>>> cancer treatment or some such.
>> 
>> I would be, since the machines that control that sort of thing tend to
>> be custom-built and not PC-controlled, at least not that I've seen
>> (admittedly, I've not spent a lot of time in cancer treatment
>> facilities).
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> Even the custom built control software isn't always bug free.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

Oh, sure, I wouldn't say they were, but special purpose machines with a 
single purpose in life tend to be much easier to troubleshoot than a 
complex general-purpose system.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:37:15 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> I'm sure temperature ranges were tested, but ice? Maybe they hadn't
> thought about that. IDK.

Having lived in Florida for a brief time, I can tell you that the general 
feeling is the risk of ice forming is relatively low.  Given that the 
shuttle was designed to take off from KSC in Florida, it may well not 
have been a design consideration.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:29:13 EDT, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:41:00 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>> >>> (PID - Andrew should know what this means, Proportional,
>> >>> Integral, Derivative )
>> >
>> >Andrew did *not* know what it means. I was assuming Process ID...
>>
>> Since when did you start speaking about yourself in the 3rd person?
>> :)

>Since he is at version 8? ;-)
>

Gosh! He is getting old :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> NASA?
> 
> Aren't they those guys who tried to launch a rocket with a faulty O-ring?

It wasn't exactly faulty, it just had poorly understood design limits.

Doing statistical analysis on the failures, they were all over the map. 
  Out of the thousands of variables that could have influenced the 
O-ring failing, none had any statistical link to the failure rate.

After the Challenger exploded, they began running analysis on the times 
that the O-Rings *didn't* fail, and found that a certain range of 
temperatures coincided exactly with the successes.

So, the O-Ring was perfectly fine, as long as it was used within a 
certain temperature range.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> So, the O-Ring was perfectly fine, as long as it was used within a 
> certain temperature range.

A bit like saying "Micro$oft Word is perfectly fine, as long as you 
don't try to use numebered lists". ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:58:24 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>  
did spake, saying:

> Chambers wrote:
>
>> So, the O-Ring was perfectly fine, as long as it was used within a  
>> certain temperature range.
>
> A bit like saying "Micro$oft Word is perfectly fine, as long as you  
> don't try to use numebered lists". ;-)

Perhaps more like our military designing weapons and vehicles for use in  
Europe (read Russia) and then sending them over to Iraq; they work fine  
with the cold and the mud, but didn't like the heat and the sand. It's not  
a design fault they simply weren't tested for conditions that they would  
normally never have encountered.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> Perhaps more like our military designing weapons and vehicles for use in 
> Europe (read Russia) and then sending them over to Iraq; they work fine 
> with the cold and the mud, but didn't like the heat and the sand. It's not 
> a design fault they simply weren't tested for conditions that they would 
> normally never have encountered.

That's why we have specifications for everything.  Included in the spec will 
be operating and storage conditions, including temperature and humidity, 
there will also be dust and water ingression specifications, which will 
specify under exactly what conditions the device can be operated.  If it's 
operating outside the spec, the maker does not guarantee it will work.  If 
it's within the specified conditions and it fails, you ask for your money 
back.

Post a reply to this message

>> It's not a design fault they simply weren't tested for conditions that 
>> they would normally never have encountered.
> 
> That's why we have specifications for everything.

It's a pity nobody ever does this for software, eh? ;-)




[Yes, I'm aware that a tiny percentage of people *do* in fact do this. 
But it is such a tiny minority as to be almost non-existent. Unfortunately.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:44:10 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake, saying:

>> Perhaps more like our military designing weapons and vehicles for use  
>> in Europe (read Russia) and then sending them over to Iraq; they work  
>> fine with the cold and the mud, but didn't like the heat and the sand.  
>> It's not a design fault they simply weren't tested for conditions that  
>> they would normally never have encountered.
>
> That's why we have specifications for everything.  Included in the spec  
> will be operating and storage conditions, including temperature and  
> humidity, there will also be dust and water ingression specifications,  
> which will specify under exactly what conditions the device can be  
> operated.  If it's operating outside the spec, the maker does not  
> guarantee it will work.  If it's within the specified conditions and it  
> fails, you ask for your money back.

Which was my point. You can't blame the manufacturers just the people who  
decided to use whatever it is outside its specifications. In the case of  
the weaponry the deployers should have asked if it would work in those  
conditions and in the case of the Shuttle 'have all our launch parts been  
tested at this abnormally low temperature?'.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message