Slashdot Mirror


When Computers Go Wrong

Barence writes "PC Pro's Stewart Mitchell has charted the world's ten most calamitous computer cock-ups. They include the Russians' stealing software that resulted in their gas pipeline exploding, the Mars Orbiter that went missing because the programmers got their imperial and metric measurements mixed up, the Soviet early-warning system that confused the sun for a missile and almost triggered World War III, plus the Windows anti-piracy measure that resulted in millions of legitimate customers being branded software thieves."

250 comments

  1. Computers do what they are told to by adosch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TFA article should have been named the 'Worlds ten most calamitous logic cock-ups' instead. Because in the end, malformed, ill-tested or and unforeseen logic compensation(s) caused those issues, not computers themselves.

    1. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yea but it makes it much harder to find in Google ;)

    2. Re:Computers do what they are told to by paxcoder · · Score: 1

      logic compensation(s) caused those issues, not computers themselves.

      Obvious shlashdotter is obvious.

    3. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe "Worlds nine most calamitous logic cock-ups and that Intel FPU bug" then?

    4. Re:Computers do what they are told to by the_humeister · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm surprised they didn't mention incidents where people actually died, such as the Therac-25 incident.

    5. Re:Computers do what they are told to by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      If you read TFA (...), the pentium case fits the title pretty well.

    6. Re:Computers do what they are told to by noidentity · · Score: 1

      But it's easier to just blame it on the computer. They can't defend thems%#*&#(&$ NO CARRIER

    7. Re:Computers do what they are told to by jhd · · Score: 0

      Me too!

      --
      AOL R us

    8. Re:Computers do what they are told to by mooingyak · · Score: 2

      TFA article

      I believe you mean "The TFA article"

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    9. Re:Computers do what they are told to by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah there really wasn't much computer related there. If you wanted computer related I would have added WinME, aka "what idiot thought mixing WDM and VXD drivers was a good idea?" along with Vista Capable, aka "We've got to let the OEMs dump their crappers on Best Buy, so pretend it runs, okay?" and finally the early Athlon without thermal monitoring aka "Heat problem? What heat problem?".

      And of course if you wanted some real old time badness there was Bonzi Buddy, also known as "Kill that GODDAMNED MONKEY DEAD!!" and Geocities with the ever popular "WTF? Why is there a pocketwatch hanging off my mouse like a ball of snot and who thought pink OMG Ponies! text on a lime green background with sparkles and GIFs was tasteful?" and of course MSFT Bob, an OS made for the clueless that needed a fricking gamer rig just to run and spawned the electronic son of Satan known as Clippy.

      Finally on the hardware side I'd add the Pentium 4, also known as "Mr Piggy Super Space Heater", the Geforce 5xxx Hoover Edition, which was famous for not only filling your PC with the sounds of sucking but thanks to cheating by Nvidia on rendering actually gave you REAL sucking as well! Quite an accomplishment that, the Seagate "I hope you didn't actually NEED your data for anything" bug in the early 1.5TB drives, the early Phenom "watch this patch suck away your performance" TLB bug, the iPhone 4 which gave us such lovely phrases such as "WTF do you mean I'm holding it wrong?" and finally to show they can still make incredible mistakes the Nvidia bumpgate, also known as "We do NOT have a problem with our GPUs, its a power saving feature! See it makes your computer shut down and everything!!". These I think would have been a little more computer centric than stolen code and a screwed battery on a Volvo.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:Computers do what they are told to by crunchygranola · · Score: 5, Informative

      And of course there is the Patriot missile software clock issue - that led to a failure to engage a SCUD on February 25, 1991 at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 28 soldiers.

      This failure is rather similar to the Soviet defense and NORAD errors mentioned in the article in that it was a weakness designed into the system that did not account for the range of operational condition and issues. In the Petrov Incident case - a natural condition, in the NORAD case an easy to make operator error, in the Dhahran barracks Patriot incident it was a failure to consider that a unit might be operated for weeks without a restart.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    11. Re:Computers do what they are told to by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, he clearly meant "The Fucking TFA Article."

      Kids today.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    12. Re:Computers do what they are told to by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      I would agree but my computer's gone wrong and wont let me.

      --
      meep
    13. Re:Computers do what they are told to by rarel · · Score: 4, Funny

      it's okay, you can breathe now.

    14. Re:Computers do what they are told to by TheLink · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
    15. Re:Computers do what they are told to by jc42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another aspect to this is a common property of most "digital" computations. I've seen it expressed as "Digital errors have no order of magnitude". Another phrasing is "Getting one bit wrong is generally indistinguishable from randomizing all of memory". So when a digital calculation goes wrong, a tiny, inconsequential error is just about as likely as a total meltdown of the entire system.

      Programmers tend to get familiar with this phenomenon very early in their career. They write a small chunk of code that does a simple calculation, and the result is orders of magnitude wrong. When they investigate, they discover it was caused by a one-character typo, perhaps an "off by one" error such as using '<' instead of '<=', or vice-versa. This quickly leads to what many "normal" people consider the major character failure of software geeks, the insistence that everything be exactly right, no matter what, and the willingness to spend long hours discussing insignificant minutiae as if they mattered. In their work, it's usually such insignificant minutiae that brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.

      If you're unwilling to take the difference between a comma and a simicolon seriously, you have no future as a software developer. This is often why something goes badly wrong and we have events like those described in this story.

      OTOH, it is interesting that, despite all the software disasters like the metric/imperial-units story, the software world has never insisted that programming languages include units as part of variables' values. It's not like this is anything difficult, and it has been done in a number of languages. But none of the common languages have such a feature. It is a bit bizarre that we can get into long discussions of complex, obscure concepts such as type checking or class inheritance, when our calculations are all susceptible to unchecked unit mismatches (without even a warning from the compiler or interpreter). There's a lot of poor logic when the topic is the relative importance of various sources of bogus calculations.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    16. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      To be fair, the PATRIOT manufacturer didn't think it would stay assembled for weeks without falling apart, thus requiring a restart.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, most of those are management problems, not technical ones.

    18. Re:Computers do what they are told to by hitmark · · Score: 3, Interesting

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)

      I think the problem is that most of the hobby, and perhaps even commercial, programming happens on a "scratch itch" basis. Once it does what the programmer set out to do, the job is done no matter how nasty the code may look. And any language that allows the programmer to get there quickly get instant love. Then there are situations, mostly on the bare metal level tho, where doing things in crazy ways is the only way to get it done.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    19. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      and of course MSFT Bob, an OS made for the clueless that needed a fricking gamer rig just to run and spawned the electronic son of Satan known as Clippy.

      Bob was an interface, not an OS. It ran on top of Windows. The rest, however, is true.

    20. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ariane rocket buffer overflow: http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/ariane.html

    21. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Your comment makes me wonder if we ever had computer deadly problems that were really caused by a malfunction in a computer instead of a programming error.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    22. Re:Computers do what they are told to by fremsley471 · · Score: 1

      Feb 25th is my birthday, I was watching the television here in the UK before going out with friends. I remember well the footage of 'incoming' as they were broadcast live on the BBC. I've always been curious about this tale though. What I saw was not a Scud coming down (pretty unlikely) but a number of Patriots launching and one of them suddenly veering off-course and smashing into the adjoining part of the base. It was in the air for approximately 1/2 a second before it turned left (on my screen) and walloped into the middle-distance, behind some low-level buildings I took for barracks.

      Nothing to corroborate this apart from my memory, but was surprised to find out later about the 'Scud'.

    23. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      You forgot the floating point error from the original Pentium 66s, or "0.99997" really does equal 1.0000!"

    24. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Tynin · · Score: 2

      I'm remembering when 3 of my 5 IBM Deskstar's took a crap. Out of all the drives to choose for my first at home RAID 5, I accidentally bought the Titanic.

    25. Re:Computers do what they are told to by sjames · · Score: 2

      What surprises me is that we have no proper first class fractional numbers, everything is done in decimals and suffers rounding error eventually. A system using proper fractions can actually get exactly the right answer every time OR it will overflow and we will know for a fact the answer isn't exact. Sure, you can technically abort on rounding in IEEE floats, but you won't get very far that way.

      I can well understand why we didn't do it 10 or 20 years ago, but these days our biggest problem is getting memory to keep up with the CPU, so perhaps the CPU should spend some silicon on rational math.

    26. Re:Computers do what they are told to by kennykb · · Score: 4, Informative

      A system using proper fractions can actually get exactly the right answer every time OR it will overflow and we will know for a fact the answer isn't exact.

      What theory of numeration are you using, that has all numbers rational? I'm sorry, but even the humble square root is something I don't want to give up, to say nothing of transcendental functions. The theory of exact arithmetic on the reals is not all that well developed. Bill Gosper makes a start, and a handful of researchers take it somewhat further, but actually using exact arithmetic for everything you'd want to do remains a mirage.

    27. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Tuor · · Score: 1

      Bob also gave us that annoying "Search Dog" in XP. It even mocked you when you tried to turn it off!

      --
      I love my computer -- You make me feel alright (Bad Religion)
    28. Re:Computers do what they are told to by kennykb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Units are parts of variables" usually comes along with systems in which there is no escape. Dimensional analysis is fine up to a point, but when you get into weird quantities like dBm/sqrt(Hz) (seriously: ten times the log-base-10 of a quantity measured in milliwatts, over the square root of another quantity measured in hertz), the systems that enforce units tend to fall apart, and often it turns out that they simply lack the notation you need. (By the way, "dBm per root hertz" was a unit that I used in daily work at an earlier time in my life. And I still use weirdness like neper-coloumb per square micron.)

    29. Re:Computers do what they are told to by kennykb · · Score: 0

      It's always human error:

      The careful text-books measure
      (Let all who build beware!)
      The load, the shock, the pressure
      Material can bear.
      So, when the buckled girder
      Lets down the grinding span,
      'The blame of loss, or murder,
      Is laid upon the man.
      Not on the Stuff - the Man!
      - Rudyard Kipling, "Hymn of Breaking Strain"

    30. Re:Computers do what they are told to by msauve · · Score: 1

      Actually, naming it "Worlds's worst article" wouldn't be entirely incorrect. It's filled with misinformation and off-the-wall comments. WFT is a "doughnut-munching controller?", why is reflected sunlight "stronger than normal due to the autumn equinox?" (huh???), is "squeaky bum time" really a Soviet idiom?, do programs have emotions, and close "down in a huff?". I know Brits and Americans differ over milliard/billion/trillion," but what's a "bilion," and did the author mean to claim that Airbus spent $6,000,000,000,000 fixing a problem?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    31. Re:Computers do what they are told to by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    32. Re:Computers do what they are told to by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Ariane rocket buffer overflow: http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/ariane.html

      That's what I thought of when I saw the headline. They thought they could simply reuse Ariane 4 software for the new, bigger, faster Ariana 5 rocket. But some speed was higher, a value overflowed, and all of a sudden, there's nonsense values all over the place. Not good for such a big and expensive rocket.

    33. Re:Computers do what they are told to by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      None at all. I just presumed it was understood that my statement applied to rational numbers.

      You could take it to the next step and handle irrational numbers symbolically, but that's probably best left to software rather than hardware. You could keep a hardware function called squareish root though if you like that returns a fraction matching the current approximation. You won't actually lose anything that way.

      I'm pretty sure we will at least be improving matters by not losing on simple division.

    34. Re:Computers do what they are told to by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      Another phrasing is "Getting one bit wrong is generally indistinguishable from randomizing all of memory".

      Not necessarily. It depends on where the one bit went wrong - if it's in a system that has redundancy, the system could recover from the error. If it's in a piece of text, it could result in a spelling error. If it's in a kernel module, it could freeze the system. An application could crash, etc...

    35. Re:Computers do what they are told to by jc42 · · Score: 1

      It depends on where the one bit went wrong - if it's in a system that has redundancy, the system could recover from the error. If it's in a piece of text, it could result in a spelling error. If it's in a kernel module, it could freeze the system. An application could crash, etc...

      Yeah, but this can illustrate exactly the phenomenon I described. I've actually documented a few cases where a file was transferred from machine A to machine B, and one character differed by one bit in the result. When you see it in text, it could be a simple typo, as d->e (hex 64->65) or h->j (hex 68->6A), which look like ordinary fat-finger typing errors. But if the file is the binary of a kernel mod, the result could crash the system on the receiving end. So a simple 1-bit error could be totally inconsequential, or it could be a major disaster involving fatalities. The magnitude of the disaster has little relationship to the magnitude of the actual error.

      It is difficult to quantize such a rule of thumb, though.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    36. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Actually that Athlon thing was caused by a defective thermal diode on the Siemens mainboard, not the CPU itself.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    37. Re:Computers do what they are told to by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Testify, Brother! Had the same problem with some IBM x86 servers. The Raid card did its job of rebuilding the data when the first drive failed and jumped ship to the hot spare, but that hadn't finished when the next drive failed. Result: a completely unusable array - we weren't going to trust the replacement units, either. We insisted on drives from another manufacturer, i.e. anyone except Hitachi

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    38. Re:Computers do what they are told to by SemperUbi · · Score: 1

      I remember reading about the Therac-25 incident in the mid-1990's, not too long after finishing my medical education. It was horrific. Patients severely burned by a machine that was supposed to help heal them, then not being believed by the staff. If I remember correctly, it took a long time before anyone investigated and found the cause.

    39. Re:Computers do what they are told to by toddestan · · Score: 1

      That one is listed in TFA.

    40. Re:Computers do what they are told to by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, actually it had to do with AMD not putting any thermal protection into the CPU and instead relying on the motherboard to detect the CPU getting too hot and shutting down. The main problems with that was the motherboard was not fast enough to save the CPU if a heatsink was not attached (there was no heatspreader, so the die overheated in less than a second) and many motherboards simply omitted the protection to save a few cents cost.

      Note that AMD learned their lesson and the next generation had thermal protection built into the CPU similar to Intel.

    41. Re:Computers do what they are told to by careysub · · Score: 1

      Feb 25th is my birthday, I was watching the television here in the UK before going out with friends. I remember well the footage of 'incoming' as they were broadcast live on the BBC. I've always been curious about this tale though. What I saw was not a Scud coming down (pretty unlikely) but a number of Patriots launching and one of them suddenly veering off-course and smashing into the adjoining part of the base. It was in the air for approximately 1/2 a second before it turned left (on my screen) and walloped into the middle-distance, behind some low-level buildings I took for barracks.

      Nothing to corroborate this apart from my memory, but was surprised to find out later about the 'Scud'.

      There were quite a number of Patriot diving intercepts (tracking SCUD debris from SCUDs that were breaking up) and several of them did dive into the ground. Theodore Postol of MIT has video of five such occurrences and there were surely many more.

      You are probably remembering one of these occurrences, but it was not the cause of the Dhahran barracks fatalities. Television is often pretty bad about showing only vaguely related videos to illustrate a story (so is the History Channel) and it is not impossible that one of the diving intercepts was used when covering the Dhahran barracks disaster.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    42. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Billlagr · · Score: 1

      Yes..lessons learnt the hard way...

    43. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fucking TFTFAA is so suing your arse for misuse of their name

    44. Re:Computers do what they are told to by careysub · · Score: 1

      What surprises me is that we have no proper first class fractional numbers, everything is done in decimals and suffers rounding error eventually....

      You are requiring that this be handled in hardware? Why? Programming languages that do this are available - Mathematica for one.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    45. Re:Computers do what they are told to by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not requiring, just suggesting that hardware could make it fast. Anywhere from having rational math units on one end to just having an extra ALU on the other. Arbitrary width integer math would be helpful.

      Sure, several programming languages have it including Perl, Python, several flavors of Lisp, etc. However, there's a reason large iterative simulations are rarely written in Mathematica.

      They can run for weeks on massive clusters when implemented with IEEE floats (doubles actually) often in Fortran. It's exactly the sort of problem that could benefit from eliminating sometimes mysterious rounding errors but it can't do so because the results are needed some time within the year.

    46. Re:Computers do what they are told to by fremsley471 · · Score: 1

      I saw it live, and have not watched any programmes on the Patriot since the night I saw it in Feb 1991. I am not being confused by others. I remember the date (see above) and I remember the missile almost instantly heading off course and into a complex of buildings.

      Scuds were rubbish, absolutely rubbish. Their accuracy is at the level of a V2 'terror weapon'. Whilst it was possible after their hundreds of miles of flight that they hit the barracks, good old Ockham says to me "fast moving high explosives heading into building from Patriot 1/4 mile away" sits firmly on the more probable side of his razor.

      One understands why the US would say it was a Scud, one also understands why we had so little live feed from Gulf War 2.

    47. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I made an interesting "duh" error in my early computer programming days....

      I started off programing a TI Graphing Calc using TI-Basic for a few years to pass the time in my high school math classes. This made me want to learn a real language on my computer. My dad sat down with me and taught me the basics of C/C++ and left me to explore. I was doing really well until I tried to make a program to convert from Celsius to Fahrenheit. It went something like this:

      float c;
      float f;
      stdin >> c;
      f = (9/5) * c + 32;
      stdout f;

      Try as I might, I kept getting the wrong answers every time I ran the program. I pulled my hair out trying to figure out what the issue was. After about an hour, I figured out the my program was outputting f = c + 32. Also, I figured out that f = 1.8 * c + 32 worked, but anything with a fraction didn't. Like a flash, it hit me and I banged my head against the desk and cried... For the non-programmers on /., C++ does all math in integer math, unless specified otherwise. So, according to C++, (9/5) = 1, not 1.8. Therefor, my equation reduced to f = (1) * c + 32. If you are curious, the fix is f = (9/5.0) * c + 32. *sigh*

    48. Re:Computers do what they are told to by chromas · · Score: 0

      Redundant redundancy is redundant.

    49. Re:Computers do what they are told to by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      I'm really curious what kind of work you do.

    50. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Another phrasing is "Getting one bit wrong is generally indistinguishable from randomizing all of memory".

      Err ... yikes. That's just wrong.

      Getting one bit wrong is much, much worse than randomizing all memory. Having your memory randomized results in pretty obvious faulty behavior and is easy to catch even with the most superficial testing. Getting one bit wrong, on the other hand, may result in a bug that slips through testing and rears its ugly head at the customers' sites.

    51. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Well, actually it had to do with AMD not putting any thermal protection into the CPU and instead relying on the motherboard to detect the CPU getting too hot and shutting down.

      Back then, "thermal protection" was a brand new feature - earlier processors had done just fine without. Unfortunately, that was also the time when everyone and their dog started slapping together their own computers and occasionally thought that the heat sink requirement was more of a recommendation than an actual requirement.

    52. Re:Computers do what they are told to by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Oh it was even worse than that, as someone who has been working in the trenches for nearly 2 decades I can tell you because they were so easily overclocked a LOT of shady mom&pop shops sold heavily OC'ed AMD boxes as higher chips for higher profit. Then of course the fan would get clogged or fail and BOOM! The sucker would roast so fast it would make your head swim. We used to keep a bucket for blown chips and there was only two Intel chips in there, both from electrical overloads.

      You see many of those early boards would not say anything like "model X running at Y MHZ" but would instead say "Authentic AMD @ X MHZ" which meant if you didn't know what you were doing and went into the BIOS and checked the volages you would NOT have any clue it was OC'ed. In fact not 6 months ago I had an older gentleman come in complaining about his old Win2K box acting funny. When I saw it was an AMD at 1.5GHz and the age of the box I knew he'd been had. Sure enough I set the board to default voltages and the thing dropped down to 1.1GHz! Some now long gone shop had charged him $600+ for a box that had they been honest was worth maaaybe $400.

      While my shop is a 100% AMD shop now, thanks to Intel paying off OEMs and rigging their compiler, one of the things I'm quite happy for is that both AMD and Intel now have the model # clearly displayed in the BIOS during boot on most non OEM boards. Not only is this better for the customer but they can clearly and easily see that what they pay for from me is what they get. But while the dodgy shops hurt I would point out that Dell and the other OEMs at the time (and some to this very day) were notorious about putting the shittiest lowball CPU HSF they could possibly get on a box to save a few pennies. Usually the first thing I would have to do on pre Core on the Intel and X2 on the AMD side was chunk whatever shitty OEM fans they had put on and replace it with even a $15 after market. Doing so would drop the PCs by a good 10 to 15 degrees F right out the gate. And sadly the shady mom&pop shops are still out there, as I have a Pentium D sitting here now waiting for a HSF because the shop installed a fan fit for a Celeron and the poor thing was running 50c just running the desktop.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    53. Re:Computers do what they are told to by cstacy · · Score: 2

      And of course if you wanted some real old time badness there was Bonzi Buddy, also known as "Kill that GODDAMNED MONKEY DEAD!!" and Geocities with the ever popular "WTF? Why is there a pocketwatch hanging off my mouse like a ball of snot and who thought pink OMG Ponies! text on a lime green background with sparkles and GIFs was tasteful?" and of course MSFT Bob, an OS made for the clueless that needed a fricking gamer rig just to run and spawned the electronic son of Satan known as Clippy.

      It looks like you're writing a Slashdot flame. Would you like help?

      • Get help writing the flame
      • Just type the flame without help
      • Don't show me this tip again
    54. Re:Computers do what they are told to by PincushionMan · · Score: 1

      Here, now. They actually intended those drives to be used in desktop computers. As such, they used a bearing oil that would degrade if it was used longer than 8 hrs a day, likely as a cost saving measure. That was their defense, at least. Shortly after that, they sold their drive division to Hitatchi.

    55. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Common Lisp always has had first class rational numbers that don't overflow, unless the system runs out of RAM to use. Common Lisp is an old language.

    56. Re:Computers do what they are told to by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      How the fuck did nVidia and HP get away with that? Most manufacturers offered extended warranty replacements for the fault, but HP did everything they could to cover it up and avoid actually fixing the problem. Even if yours did fail within the warranty period they would only swap the motherboard for another defective one. For about three to four years all HP consumer laptops had nVidia chipsets so the cost of replacing 100% of the products they sold during that time would be enormous, but Microsoft had similar issues with the 360 and did it anyway.

      A note for EU and UK readers. The EU gives you a statutory 2 year warranty on all electrical items so don't think your 18 month laptop is out of warranty. In the UK you get additional protection from the Sale of Goods act which states that the product should be free from manufacturing defects and last a "reasonable" amount of time. For laptops that is considered to be 5 or 6 years. PC World know this so don't take any shit from them. In my experience (not as a customer, fortunately) once you mention the 2 year warranty and Sale of Goods act they fold pretty quickly and will get you a replacement laptop.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    57. Re:Computers do what they are told to by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Patriot issue was a simple programming error - they didn't realise that in floating point binary representation 0.5 was a recurring number. A clock produced a tick every 2 seconds which was divided to do calculations based on two 1 second intervals. Thus due to the limit of floating point number accuracy in the system the calculation introduced a very small amount of error every second which over tens of hours was enough to make the missile miss it's target.

      It is a good example of why programmers need to understand the underlying hardware and how binary representation of numbers works.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    58. Re:Computers do what they are told to by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      As I understood it on the thunderbird athlon there was no thermal protection system and with the athlon XP the thermal diode was on the processor and working fine but the protection mechanisms controlled by it were on the motherboard and not able to react in time to save the CPU from a heatsink removal.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    59. Re:Computers do what they are told to by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      and it was also when CPU heat output was going up to previously unprecedented levels.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    60. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Well what I said is what I read many years ago, with a new mainboard they redid the test and it didn't burn out.

      Where I was working we had a guy from Intel coming over to "educate" us on some new PC's and one of the reasons he told us why Intel was better than AMD was done by showing us the first movie. My co-workers were impressed.
      I spoke up "If you had balls, you would have shown the second movie as well, since the source of that problem was in the motherboard and not in the CPU"
      Intel guy got angry and threw me an Intel T-shirt.
      My boss was quite happy though.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    61. Re:Computers do what they are told to by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Out of interest do you have a link for the second video (in particular i'd like to know if it was a T-Bird, an XP or both that were retested)? I remember discussion about the causes but I don't recall a second video.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    62. Re:Computers do what they are told to by IorDMUX · · Score: 1

      Well, I can't speak for the GP, but I am an EE and "dBm/sqrt(Hz)" is a common measure of electrical noise. Such noise, from thermal and related contributions, is frequency dependent. However, noise is a statistical V^2/Hz value, so when looking at V, you need sqrt(Hz). As far as dBm... your signal and your noise are often separated by orders of magnitude. It is much easier (and common-sense) to use a log-scale such as dB when dealing with such things.

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    63. Re:Computers do what they are told to by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I've looked for about an hour now, it seems stupid that I can't find the movie.
      The search for it on Tom's Hardware isn't up to snuff either.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
  2. Wow ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't imagine the well known and documented story of U.S. exploding the gas pipeline could be put in such a backward way.

    Next in news: U.S. thoughtful placement of Manhattan skyscrapers dealt a heavy blow to international terrorism, two terrorist planes down.

    K.L.M.

    1. Re:Wow ! by jc42 · · Score: 2

      I can't imagine the well known and documented story of U.S. exploding the gas pipeline could be put in such a backward way.

      Oh, I dunno; I thought this definition was at least equally ignorant:

      floating-point numbers (numbers too large to be represented as integers)

      This pretty much tells us what we need to know about the author's depth of mathematical understanding. In general, there's a lot in TFA to make your average geek go "WTF?" and wonder if the rest is worth reading.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  3. Inaccurate title by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Title would have been accurate if the computers had fully autonomous AI, and then messed up.
    as of now, its just the logic they were programmed with that is being executed

    1. Re:Inaccurate title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Your suggestion would be accurate if the title was implying that the computers themselves were responsible, something like "Computers' biggest failures" or something. But it's not. It essentially means "world's ten most calamitous cock-ups INVOLVING computers as their primary feature". There are worse problems with the article than the title.

    2. Re:Inaccurate title by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Title would have been accurate if the computers had fully autonomous AI, and then messed up.
        as of now, its just the logic they were programmed with that is being executed

      I agree, but shit flows downhill.

      You're right about the mistakes being made by human, but the poor helpless computers will get blamed.

      Our propensity to leave the low man on the totem pole holding the ball is what may ultimately cause the revolt of the fully autonomous AI against us.

    3. Re:Inaccurate title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Title would have been accurate if the computers had fully autonomous AI, and then messed up.
      as of now, its just the logic they were programmed with that is being executed

      I don't see a distinction.

      No matter how amazingly (artificially) intelligent computers ever get, I will always be able to argue that they are simply executing the logic that they were programmed with.

    4. Re:Inaccurate title by fyngyrz · · Score: 1


      No matter how amazingly (artificially) intelligent computers ever get, I will always be able to argue that they are simply executing the logic that they were programmed with.

      Sure, but I can make the same argument, with exactly the same precursors, for people. Yet in the end, it doesn't matter -- what matters is how what individuals do affects others. If the individual is biological or silicon, it's really neither here nor there. Assuming, of course, that we ever get to silicon individuals, which is another discussion entirely.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    5. Re:Inaccurate title by awshidahak · · Score: 1

      RTFS's T! "When Computers Go Wrong" That pretty much specifically say that the computer is the one going wrong. Therefore, the summary's title is incorrect.

  4. therac 25 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    List fails without the therac 25

    1. Re:therac 25 by cratermoon · · Score: 4, Informative

      The list fails for a many reasons. Too many reasons to calculate accurately on a Pentium. On the first page, while describing the bug on said Intel CPU, the author defines floating-point numbers as "numbers too large to be represented as integers".

    2. Re:therac 25 by martyros · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. The Therac 25 is definitely the most insidious computer failure I've ever heard of.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    3. Re:therac 25 by owlstead · · Score: 2

      These kind of lists always fail, period. Just see it as an interesting collection of failing software.

    4. Re:therac 25 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Somebody did their research using Wikipedia? From the first line of the floating point article as it currently stands:

      In computing, floating point describes a system for representing numbers that would be too large or too small to be represented as integers.

    5. Re:therac 25 by armando_wall · · Score: 1

      This bothered me as well. Even "numbers with decimals" would have been much better.

    6. Re:therac 25 by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      On the first page, while describing the bug on said Intel CPU, the author defines floating-point numbers as "numbers too large to be represented as integers".

      I believe they meant a number that would take a crapload (or infinite amount) of screen space to display, not the other kind of "large".

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    7. Re:therac 25 by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      So *thats* what you do when you have to count past ten fingers...

      Seriously, I saw that and I really couldn't proceed any further into the list. That's just plain bad.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    8. Re:therac 25 by teachknowlegy · · Score: 1

      The only number that fits that description is infinity. Therefore, my floating point number calculations are all infinitesimal. Or, is that a logic cock up?

    9. Re:therac 25 by volpe · · Score: 1

      And Wikipedia is absolutely correct in this. Large dynamic range is what floating point arithmetic gives you, above and beyond what you get from the alternative of representing fractions using integer-based fixed-point arithmetic.

  5. Imperial - Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Due to the imperial-metric mash-up, the sums were so far askew that when Ground Control initiated boosters to secure the pod in orbit, all they succeeded in doing was firing it closer to the planet, where it burnt up in the atmosphere.

    When I see the Imperial-Metric confusion shit, I just want to slap the shit out of someone. That waste because some engineers are incapable of using Metric or some vendor just doesn't want to spend the money to modernize their machinery. I know of an aerospace contractor that is using machinery from the 50s - yep, they're constantly being recalibrated and sometimes they don't notice - ooopsie!

    And when I see that we, the US, are one of two countries still on Imperial - one is some Third World non-industrial country, I want to barf.

    And then, when I have to buy two sets tools to work on a car, I wish for the entire US auto industry to go bankrupt and be replaced with some modern companies.

    I love Metric. It makes measurements and calculations much easier - quick! What is the mass of 329 mL of water? You'd need a calculator to do something similar in Imperial.

  6. Ariane 5 missing on the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It isn't smart to assign a 64 bit floating point to a 16 bit integer - unless you want to crash you first flight of the heavy Ariane 5 rocket... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Notable_launches)

    1. Re:Ariane 5 missing on the list by owlstead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, those kind of conversions should be banned from any managed programming environment. It's fine that you need to work with bytes, shorts etc. or heck maybe even machine words, but lets only do that when absolutely required, shall we.

      It amazes me that the many programming languages still don't define acceptable ranges, accept null pointers, and use round robin two-complement numbers etc. etc.. It's just asking for errors just like these. Sure they have their uses for lower level functions, but I would certainly like to have something better for API's and general use business logic. They are just another pointer arithmetic or GOTO waiting to be erased from mainstream programming (and for sure, in many newer languages, they indeed are).

    2. Re:Ariane 5 missing on the list by ustolemyname · · Score: 1

      And your solution for when you need lower level functions is? ie. for when you need to do something like program a rocket.

    3. Re:Ariane 5 missing on the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes.. and as the speed of available space qualified processors and size of space qualified memory gets to where you can afford to do all this runtime checking, it will be done. Just not today.

      State of the art today in space qualified is on the order of tens of MIPS and hundreds of MB of RAM.

      Back in 1996, it was a lot slower and a lot smaller, and bear in mind that spacecraft use parts that have a 10-15 year delay from commercial availabilty to fully integrated in the rocket, so that Ariane 5 flight computer was made with whatever was hot stuff in the mid 80s.

      oddly enough, in the Ariane flight 501 case, they normally DID test all the assignments, but that particular one wasn't checked for performance reasons.

  7. Test department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    should Be named "when The Test Departments Budget goes wrong"

  8. It can only be attributable to human error... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error." ...

  9. Dont Forget The Future by Lubiex · · Score: 0

    Dont Forget Skynet....

  10. As my computing teacher used to tell me... by Duncan+J+Murray · · Score: 0

    Garbage in, Garbage out.

  11. It's a simple rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    As a fellow programmer I worked with years ago was fond of saying, "Computers don't make mistakes. They do, however, execute yours VERY carefully."

    1. Re:It's a simple rule by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Under-rated

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:It's a simple rule by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, they don't just execute your mistakes, they execute the mistakes of everyone involved in the toolchain. If you want to write bug-free software, then you also need a bug-free compiler, bug-free libraries, and a bug-free OS. The most you can say about most software is that it doesn't contain any bugs that are both serious and obvious.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:It's a simple rule by jc42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Computers don't make mistakes. They do, however, execute yours VERY carefully."

      That's a good way of phrasing it. But it does miss the fact that not all "computer errors" are due to software mistakes.

      One example, of course, is the Pentium FDIV failure. That was a hardware failure, "programmed" into the CPU by Intel's experts in solid-state hardware design. There wasn't a whole lot that any software developer could do to defend against that failure.

      Another, more subtle one, came up when I was a grad student back in the 1970s. At that time, most of the campus research computing was done on the big mainframe in the campus Computer Center. After discovering a number of (published ;-) results that turned out to be wrong, some researchers investigated, and found that they were due to undetected overflows in the calculations. Yes, the hardware could and did test for overflows, and set a status bit when they occurred. Almost all this calculating was done in Fortran, and the Fortran compiler had a run-time flag that could turn the status-bit checking on or off. It defaulted to OFF. They did a bit of analysis, and concluded that about half the runs of Fortran programs on that machine produced output that included numbers that were incorrect due to undetected overflow.

      So why didn't they make the overflow-detection flag default to ON? Well, they did a little survey of the users. They found that the overwhelming response was that, if enabling overflow checking made the program run slower, then overflow checking shouldn't be done. Somewhere around 90% of the people asked said this. They weren't mathematically ignorant people; they were the people using the Fortran compiler for the data in their professional publications.

      This told us a lot about the way such things are done. Since I left academia and worked in what passes for the Real World, I've found that this is a nearly universal attitude. Faster and cheaper is always preferable to correct. This is still true even when we have computers in commercial aircraft and hospital operating rooms. And you can't call this sort of thing a "human error". People don't decide to disable overflow checking by accident; they do it knowing full well what the effect will be. When the computer fails in such cases, it wasn't executing a human's mistake; it was doing what the human wanted it to do.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    4. Re:It's a simple rule by owlstead · · Score: 1

      And of those 90% people, at least 80% to 100% probably made a mistake that cause and overrun even though they would swear that they would never make that mistake. The idea of the perfect programmer still lives on. At my company though I've made sure that for newer Java projects, checkstyle & findbugs are used. It's amazing to turn them loose on your own older libraries, that's for sure.

      It's funny to see outside programmers that have turned them off from the start, only to find out that there are over 700 checkstyle warnings remaining in their software which they thought of as "finished" (fortunately the Eclipse "clean code" command will take care of the most harmless ones).

    5. Re:It's a simple rule by x_IamSpartacus_x · · Score: 1

      I ran a small IT department for a mid size company once and had proudly written on my office wall "To err is human. To blame it on a computer, even more so."

    6. Re:It's a simple rule by cpghost · · Score: 2

      One example, of course, is the Pentium FDIV failure. That was a hardware failure, "programmed" into the CPU by Intel's experts in solid-state hardware design.

      Are you sure it was an error in silicon, and not merely a software bug in the microcode of the ALU?

      4.2 The Underlying Cause After the quantized P-D plot (lookup table) was numerically generated as in Figure 4-1 , a script was written to download the entries into a hardware PLA (Programmable Lookup Array). An error was made in this script that resulted in a few lookup entries (belonging to the positive plane of the P-D plot) being omitted from the PLA. The 5 critical entries are shown in Figure 4-3 as the shaded regions. As a result of the omission, a divisor/remainder pair that hits these entries during the lookup phase of the SRT algorithm will incorrectly read a quotient digit value of 0 instead of +2. Subsequently, the iterative algorithm will return a quotient result with reduced precision.

      Looks like a microcode bug to me... i.e. flawed software. Sure, below assembly language level, but still software.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    7. Re:It's a simple rule by amorsen · · Score: 1

      The script was used during the design of the CPU, it didn't run at runtime. The results of the script was burned into silicon as a lookup table. Whether a lookup table is software or hardware or firmware is up for others to decide, but the original bug was in completely normal software running on a normal CPU.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    8. Re:It's a simple rule by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Well, often "done and maybe even right" is way better than "it'll surely be right, but won't be complete on time". People with math heavy problems know the importance of acutaly getting the results. Normaly reality will check your calculations again for you anyway.

      That said, of course the above isn't always true. For those situations you can just enable overflow detection. That can find some errors, but is not that extremely usefull, by the way, since it won't find all the errors (probably not even the most important ones), and you'll have to rely on code inspection and reality giving you her final word anyway.

    9. Re:It's a simple rule by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      If you want to write bug-free software, then you also need a bug-free compiler, bug-free libraries, and a bug-free OS. And even if your software is perfectly bug-free, it won't help you if there are unknown CPU bugs or if the external circuitry of your system is buggy.

    10. Re:It's a simple rule by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      One example, of course, is the Pentium FDIV failure. That was a hardware failure, "programmed" into the CPU by Intel's experts in solid-state hardware design. There wasn't a whole lot that any software developer could do to defend against that failure.

      Interesting point I wonder if race conditions could be categorised as a computer getting it wrong as well. It's ultimately the programmer's fault but it can certainly be affected quirks of hardware. I've had issues with them that occurred on a fast multi-core machine but not on a Pentium 4.

      This told us a lot about the way such things are done. Since I left academia and worked in what passes for the Real World, I've found that this is a nearly universal attitude. Faster and cheaper is always preferable to correct.

      Most of the time this is quite correct. I don't care that road navigation software doesn't solve the travelling salesman problem as long as it does get close to the best route most of the time.

    11. Re:It's a simple rule by wrook · · Score: 1

      Not only is faster and cheaper preferable to correct, simpler is preferable to correct. If I have two explanations and one is complex but correct and the other is simple but incorrect, most people will chose the latter. I will stop typing here in hopes that people will consider my explanation insightful.

    12. Re:It's a simple rule by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Quickly and ofttimes repeatedly...

  12. Repeat by madprof · · Score: 1

    Haven't we seen this posted on /. before?

    1. Re:Repeat by stormhair · · Score: 1

      Haven't we seen this posted on /. before?

      Yes, but it's appeared again, thanks to a bug.

  13. Re:OMG! Y2K!! by Chapter80 · · Score: 0

    The biggest computer mistake of all time has to be Microsoft's using 2 digits for the year! How quickly we forget!

    Wow, you really didn't understand Y2K issues, if you blame them on Microsoft.

  14. Grrrrr...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps "Computers Going Wrong" is more in the form of modern presentation, in which to read 50k of text, you have to scroll and click through 5 pages of ads...

  15. two radiation biggies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Radiation overdoses caused by the Therac-25
    Three Mile Island....a classic case of poor computer-machine interaction where the meaning of an indicator was poorly understood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Human_factors_.E2.80.93_confusion_over_valve_status

  16. The creation of the EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The "Switchboard meltdown" problem sounds like the incident which led to the creation of the EFF.

    Basically, someone forgot to include a ";" in a C program, which led to the problems at ATT. Originally, they thought it was due to "hackers", and called in the Secret Service.

    The Secret Service in turn busted a gaming outfit called "Steve Jackson Games". Who was completely innocent, of course, but that has never mattered to the Secret Service when they need to look like they are actually useful. The SS confiscated the computers, all illegally.

    The ACLU refused to get involved, so John GIlmore (formerly of Sun, and who worked with Richard Stallman to get out an open Operating System around that time) created the EFF to fight the unconstitutional raid on Steve Jackson Games. The EFF trounced the Secret Service in Court, and was thus born. I believe if you google for "Steve Jackson Games", you can still find the original story around.

    So, in a way, you can say that the EFF was created due to the single misplacement of a semicolon in a C program. Would that all of our bugs have such results. :)

    1. Re:The creation of the EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Also try searching for "The Hacker Crackdown" which tells the whole story.

    2. Re:The creation of the EFF by DamonHD · · Score: 2

      I'm the result of an integer overflow in a Fortran electron-orbitals program (with attendant flashing error light on the console) so far as I know. Programmer (f) meet researcher (m), cue music, flashing lights (oh, already had that), music (possibly Teletypes and card readers for percussion), ..., profit.

      Does that count? B^>

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    3. Re:The creation of the EFF by not-my-real-name · · Score: 3, Funny

      Should this be modded "+1 Too Informative"?

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
  17. Car Hacks by sambira · · Score: 1

    Unless the cars hacked into are accessible through a network, why would anyone waste the time to hack the car's computer controls when they can just do old fashioned mechanical damage?

    1. Re:Car Hacks by jimthehorsegod · · Score: 1

      Well, for one I'd expect that software alterations are rather less likely to be spotted by accident investigation...

  18. Lives lost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The THERAC incidents should be at the top of any list of this nature; the error cost many lives, and took years to find root cause thanks to bureaucratic backpedaling and the assumption that the machines and their operating code were beyond reproach.

  19. Zahir Effect by Cigaes · · Score: 1

    Amusing Zahir effect: just today, Userfriendly republished the "metric to standard calculator: $15, telescope: $270, mars lander: $135 million, the look on the scientists' faces: pricess" strip.

  20. Not always by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Now for most of these, you are correct, they were fuckups of input. Computers got the wrong data or had the wrong code written and screwed up. However computers can and do fuck up. The Pentium FDIV bug is an example. Yes I realize the silicon was doing what its transistors dictated, but at that level it is still the computer fucking up. You could write perfect code and get the wrong result in spite of that.

    1. Re:Not always by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      The FDIV bug, however, was the direct consequence of a person at Intel screwing up. Everything after that was just more crap rolling downhill.

      It is very seldom indeed that a computer makes an actual error. It happens - ram bits flip, gamma rays arrive and cock up what was perfectly operating circuitry for a cycle... but FDIV = 100% human error.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Not always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you consider inadequate shielding the cause of a gamma ray changing a value? By that logic, all computer fuck ups are really human error.

    3. Re:Not always by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The FDIV bug, however, was the direct consequence of a person at Intel screwing up. Everything after that was just more crap rolling downhill.

      It is very seldom indeed that a computer makes an actual error. It happens - ram bits flip, gamma rays arrive and cock up what was perfectly operating circuitry for a cycle... but FDIV = 100% human error.

      Then ultimately it's the laws of physics who are to blame, because everything, including the humans who designed it, just followed the laws of physics.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Not always by similar_name · · Score: 1

      Would you consider inadequate shielding the cause of a gamma ray changing a value?

      Yes. I'm sure under normal conditions it is considered to operate in its human decided parameters. So if you were going to use chips in an environment with more gamma rays and failed to use more shielding that would be a human error.

      By that logic, all computer fuck ups are really human error.

      That does seem logical. Even the random component randomly failing is within a range determined by the engineering and quality of the manufacturing of those components.

    5. Re:Not always by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Fuck ups are generally avoided by the designer following a careful course that takes into account the laws of physics. Certainly those laws define the playing field; but they in no way say that the best course of action is to bang your head against the goalposts.

      Generally speaking, it's down to human error in almost all cases. You assume the computer is always going to give you the right answer? Your error. I've designed a lot of small computer systems, and if you, or anyone else, ever asked me if I expected those systems to always produce the answer dictated by the hardware interacting normally and in isolation with the programming, I'd simply say no. You want a computer like that, it's going to be well shielded, incorporate some fairly sophisticated error correction (right up to and including fellow identical systems that can vote on outcomes) and it's going to cost an arm, a leg, and your firstborn.

      And even then you're back to errors in hardware design and programming, not to mention the correctness of the concepts that underlie both.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    6. Re:Not always by hitmark · · Score: 2

      garbage in, garbage out...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    7. Re:Not always by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      You just didn't understand my post. As I wrote, everything, including the humans who designed it, just followed the laws of physics.

      Or did you mean the designer as in Intelligent Design? Then yeah, he clearly fucked it up. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    8. Re:Not always by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Given that all computers are human designed and constructed, how can they possibly be anything else?

    9. Re:Not always by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      I understood your post. What you wrote is a simple truism; and I agree, yes, everything obeys the laws of physics. It's a given. Yet within those bounds remain enormous room for screwing up or getting things done as intended. Which explains why I wrote what I did.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    10. Re:Not always by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, you obviously didn't, as you show again. The point is that it's as much a truism as that it is a truism that the failure of anything man-made can ultimately be explained as failure of a human. That's not a reason not to call it a computer error, just as you'd not replace the term human error by physics error just because the human behaviour is ultimately the behaviour of a physical system following the laws of physics.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    11. Re:Not always by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Then ultimately it's the laws of physics who are to blame, because everything, including the humans who designed it, just followed the laws of physics.

      The laws of physics are not a person (nor any other form of sentient entity) and therefore have no responsibility, legal or moral, for anything.

      They merely are, they do not do.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Not always by toddestan · · Score: 1

      It's not so much human error as it is a design decision. For your typical PC, we are willing to accept an occasional error from the computer as a trade-off for it being considerably cheaper.

    13. Re:Not always by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. When a car crashes we don't call it a "vehicle error".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Not always by LoP_XTC · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. When a car crashes we don't call it a "vehicle error".

      Unless its a Toyota Prius, then its a "Floormatting Error" ... :)

      Thank you, Im here all week.

      --
      "Curiouser and Curiouser...." -Alice
    15. Re:Not always by robsku · · Score: 1

      So, gamma rays arrive and it's a computer error? If going with your line of reasoning there really is no computer errors - whatever *ups they make it's most commonly either situation of human error or natural (small scale, but for the computer a large one) "disaster". More or less anyway, computers do as they are told to do, be the "guide" for their operation written in assembly (or compiled to it, interpreted, or...) or printed in their circuits it's never really a computer error if you start thinking like that... It's really a case of semantics...

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    16. Re:Not always by robsku · · Score: 1

      I buy cheap and even used ofter - hard drives I prefer to be new. Since I moved to Linux I've had humongous drop in previously "occassional" errors - and when I do they are easy ones to solve mostly, as far as it's software error.

      Hardware errors then again - well, especially with older machines you get them from time to time, but it's not that I was "willing to accept errors" but rather than my budget allows me to rarely buy new parts, with the exception of cheap ones (like, say, wireless kb+mouse, but they are not likely ones to break so I buy them used too, heh).

      OS choice from Windows to Linux dramatically reduces errors from computer (the software part) AND in cheaper, so what is with that? I tell you - fear of unknown, beliefs that free can't be (as) good, etc.)

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  21. Re:OMG! Y2K!! by charlieo88 · · Score: 1

    Are you kidding? Or are so young as to have not been in the workforce in 1999?

  22. Re:Imperial - Metric by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Due to the imperial-metric mash-up, the sums were so far askew that when Ground Control initiated boosters to secure the pod in orbit, all they succeeded in doing was firing it closer to the planet, where it burnt up in the atmosphere.

    When I see the Imperial-Metric confusion shit, I just want to slap the shit out of someone. That waste because some engineers are incapable of using Metric or some vendor just doesn't want to spend the money to modernize their machinery. I know of an aerospace contractor that is using machinery from the 50s - yep, they're constantly being recalibrated and sometimes they don't notice - ooopsie!

    And when I see that we, the US, are one of two countries still on Imperial - one is some Third World non-industrial country, I want to barf.

    And then, when I have to buy two sets tools to work on a car, I wish for the entire US auto industry to go bankrupt and be replaced with some modern companies.

    I love Metric. It makes measurements and calculations much easier - quick! What is the mass of 329 mL of water? You'd need a calculator to do something similar in Imperial.

    I'd prefer to slap someone for saying "Imperial vs. Metric" when they're talking about US standards vs the SI -- which one certainly is when talking about the mars spacecraft failure. After all, the US system -- while derived from the Imperial System -- is not the same thing. Quick: how many l in a gal? Well, it depends, doesn't it? Did you mean Imperial gallon or US gallon? How many m^2 in an acre? What's the mass of a ton(ne)? And as I like to point out to people -- because I'm a pedantic nerd like everyone else here -- the US system is a metric system . . . see what I did there? I didn't use a capital "M" or say SI there?

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  23. Re:Imperial - Metric by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well I have to support part of what you've said, and contradict part.

    I support you in that it is stupid NASA uses Imperial ever, anywhere. Metric is the method for science and with good reason. So it is stupid that they wouldn't use it 100% of the time. Any chemistry or physics class I ever took was all metric all the time. It wasn't even a "We do this to make you learn it," kind of thing, it was just the way it was, it was assumed.

    However I have to contradict you on the "OMG the US is so stupid for not going Metric," thing. It doesn't really matter. What matters to normal people in every day life is having a feel for what a unit is, not inter-unit conversions. Your example is something people do not do. It does not matter the ability to do fast conversions on units of volume, it matters that you have a feeling for what they are. You can stick with a system that is not neat and regular and it works just fine.

    Also if you think metric rules all in other countries you've just not looked. I have the occasion to visit Canada once a year and the imperial system is alive and well, lurking in the shadows. In some cases it is explicit, you find various food items sold in pounds, rather than kilograms. In some cases it is more hidden. Soda is sold in 12 ounce cans. Yes, they say 355mL on them as well (as they do in the US) but it is a 12 ounce can. 355mL was not the unit used to design it, 12 oz was. Sometimes people don't even know it. Alcohol is sold in units frequently referred to as "fifths". It is 750mL but why the the term? Because it is a fifth of a gallon (well 5.04 is you want to get technical).

    That is why there's the apathy in forcing a change. You really gain very little for most people in every day operation. I'm not saying it would be a bad thing for a change to happen, but there isn't the incentive many geeks seem to think there is.

    I work comfortably in both systems. I've done plenty of science so I've no problem with any metric units, but I also bake which is extremely imperial dominated. Doesn't matter to me. I can even work in both at the same time. If a recipe calls for 3 cups of bread flour, I know my chosen flour is 155 grams per cup. So when I weigh it out on my scale I weigh out 465 grams. I could do ounces instead wouldn't matter, my scale just reads grams. Likewise it wouldn't matter if the recipe instead called for 700mL of flour. Metric doesn't make it any easier because the nice "all units are 1" factor only applies to water. My flour converts volume to weight at about 0.664, of course that depends on how dense it gets packed. That conversion factor is no more, or less convenient than 155.

    Really, working in the screwy imperial system just isn't a big deal to normal people. You don't do anything that needs inter-unit conversion which is where metric shines.

  24. DUPLICATE OF DUPLICATES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this story already been reported at least 10 times in past 3 years

    1. Re:DUPLICATE OF DUPLICATES by nOw2 · · Score: 1

      The adverts on the article's page are up-to-date though. I suspect those are what you are really supposed to be looking at.

  25. MS London stock exchange crash by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Informative

    We got to commend MS for the most expensive computer cock-up.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:MS London stock exchange crash by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      Surely there a Godwin type rule for anti-MS posts on Slashdot? How much did the LSE crash cost? Those that held stock at the start of the day still had them at the end, no loss there, and the FTSE was up at the end of that day so a lot of people actually made money. MS/Accenture/LSE lost face, some traders lost out on commissions, but the overall cost wouldn't come close to the Airbus debacle which costs $6B. I could make some childish & snide reference to CATIA being a Unix app, but this is Slashdot and only stupid comments about MS seem to get mod points.

  26. Hey govnah! by amanicdroid · · Score: 1

    "but the WGA team didn't test that the fix resolved the problem before heading to the pub for TGIF drinkies."

    The Brits have some of the finest writers in the world and then there's the magazine/news writers.

  27. Gas Pipe Piracey Apocryphal? by SpaceToast · · Score: 1

    The Gas Pipe Piracy subheading appears to refer to the 1982 Siberian pipeline sabotage incident. This is something I've been meaning to do a bit of research on. Yes, every bad or even mixed story in the U.S.S.R. was hushed up as best it could be by the Soviets -- witness C.J. Chivers' recent problems tracing the history of the AK-47 in The Gun -- but did the incident actually happen?

    I've seen it reported as the largest non-nuclear manmade explosion in history, but every source is weak and third-hand. Obviously the CIA's and NSA's files from the time would still be classified. It seems like the best way to establish the veracity of the incident would be by speaking to senior physicians in the surrounding cities. The casualties from the event -- if it did occur -- would have been extremely high. Burst eardrums alone would have radiated for miles.

    Has anyone come upon a strong source for this story, or does it remain somewhere between Soviet coverup and CIA blowback?

  28. Aircraft - Paris Airshow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When the pilot didn't put the plane into landing mode, but insisted on trying to land ... bad things happen.

    Man-machine interface is a critical thing here. For get modes, unless the machine requests confirmation for human inputs that seem to demand a mode switch ... like landing.

    http://www.airdisaster.com/movies/

  29. Don't tell me this stuff, please... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 2

    "...Soviet early-warning system that confused the sun for a missile and almost triggered World War III..."

    Yeah, file this under 'shit I never want to know.' I have enough stupid crap in my head without having to worry about 'The time a computer error could have wiped out the whole of human existence.'

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
    1. Re:Don't tell me this stuff, please... by yeshuawatso · · Score: 1

      You mean "the time a human programed a computer error that could have wiped out the whole of human existence."

    2. Re:Don't tell me this stuff, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we don't know about it, it will continue.

    3. Re:Don't tell me this stuff, please... by Reziac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd not heard of it nor the fellow involved (who as it turns out is still alive), so I went and looked it up, and learned all sorts of interesting stuff:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
      http://www.brightstarsound.com/world_hero/article.html
      http://www.armscontrol.ru/start/publications/petrov.htm

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:Don't tell me this stuff, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowing and thinking about this stuff makes one realize that every system is ultimately an open system. This "systems wisdom" should be included in software engineering decrees from the very beginning.

    5. Re:Don't tell me this stuff, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing, the countries of the world did hundreds if not thousands of nuclear tests, and we are still here.

      Duck and cover is a legitimate tactic, because only PART of the place is actually incinerated and the rest is indeed a standard shockwave to knock shit over.

    6. Re:Don't tell me this stuff, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then don't read this.

  30. Re:Imperial - Metric by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm an American who has been living abroad since 2002, and I've come to understand the metric system. Let me tell you my observations.

    When is the last time anyone needed to know the mass of 329ml of water? Never. I'm sure it tickles some people pink that it works that way, but in the real world, it's utterly and completely useless. I have yet to use this "feature".

    As for the vaunted "easy unit conversions", nobody ever uses that either. When I first started to surrender and actually USE the metric system, I made the mistake of actually USING the metric system. On one memorable occasion, some Europeans asked me where some restaurant was, and I said, "Oh, it's about a hectometer that way." They looked at me like I had just stepped off the Moon. When I explained that a hectometer was 100 meters, they laughed long and hard. They, despite never having used miles and feet in their lives, had never heard of a hectometer, nor did they ever use the "feature" of easily converting metric units. After asking around, none of my other Euro buddies did it either. Instead, they use utterly stupid phrases like "It's 1000 kilometers from here" or "I weigh 80 kilograms". Retarded, but that's reality for you. The fact is, nobody does unit conversions. You just use whatever measurement is convenient for the scale you're at. Long distance? Miles. Short distance? Inches. Fine measurements? Millimeters.

    All the speedometers here have metric on the outside and mph on the inside. Strange, eh? When I ask a Canadian how tall he is, he responds in inches and feet. Even Brits and Kiwis will tell you how far something is in miles. When working on a project, the appropriate tools are used, and nobody seems to complain, much less wish wholeheartedly for an entire industry to go bankrupt. That's pretty fucked up, man. As for old machinery, the cost has been amortized long ago, the machines are producing pure profit. Why replace something that isn't broken, just so some vulnerable Windows piece of shit can take its place?

    The more I read the parent comment, the more I think that the commenter is just an Ameriphobic idiot who grabs at any angle to support his preconceived notions. The truth is, converting to the metric system would be a nightmare of "Y2K problem" proportions, and when we finished, we would have gained no benefit. For that matter, why do we still use the ancient and unwieldy Gregorian calendar? Days are 24 hours? Who came up with that non-metric bullshit? 1 hour is 60 minutes, each of which divided into 60 seconds? Makes me want to barf. We can't even tell how many days are in a "month" without reciting a rhyme that goes back to medieval times, or using a comical knuckle-counting system. Measurements based on the human hand - what a stupid fucking idea! Leap days...are you kidding me? Talk about a hack! Scientists still use that antiquated idea of "360 degrees of a circle" instead of a sensible metric ten. I just don't see the anger about inches and feet when there are still so many fucking dumbshit ideas in the world...makes me want to slap the shit out of someone.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  31. And sometimes it isn't the computers... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (See title.)

    Any of us who have been in a sysprog or sysadmin role for a significant amount of time (by which I mean double-digit years) will often have at least one anecdote of some monumental cockup we've perpetrated.

    My worst case in point is where I managed (IIRC after a long liquid lunch) to delete the :per directory (more or less equivalent to /dev on a *nix box) on a Data General mainframe machine running AOS/VS. While hundreds of users' processes disappeared off the system (which took about 90 minutes), I found it expedient to simply make my confession to the boss.

    Fortunately, in this case, the escapade was more or less written up as "Shit Happens", which I thought was generous...

  32. Re:Imperial - Metric by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

    Oops, forgot to close the bold. Damn antiquated markup langauge!

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  33. 1982 explosion did not happen by mike449 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Te Soviet pipeline explosion seems to be an urban legend, traced to a single source: At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War, by Thomas C. Reed.
    There is no mention of this explosion anywhere else, either in Russian or Western sources. If you can read Russian, some debunking is here:

    link
    One of the facts mentioned there is that there was no SCADA on Soviet pipelines until late 80-s. All control was still pneumatic in 1982, with no software involved.

    1. Re:1982 explosion did not happen by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Translation (I don't know how accurate it is, but it's readable enough):
      http://tinyurl.com/2d8eyto

      English page:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage

      Interesting to compare the two.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:1982 explosion did not happen by k6mfw · · Score: 1
      reminds me of the tall tale regarding a printer with a chip containing a virus prior to Gulf War I. Story goes US Govt built a printer containing a virus. Printer is shipped to Europe. Through different stores, the printer is sold to Saddam Hussian's people. They install printer on their computer system. Virus then launches into the Iraq networks, take down the air defense system prior to US air strikes. I don't exactly know how the story goes but it was a good one, but later debunked.

      And the silly thing while attending a computer network class in the 1990s, the instructor spoke of this as being true.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    3. Re:1982 explosion did not happen by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Probably a distorted myth. I know a buddy of mine (hi p4r! the mindrays are seeking you out from my location!) owned a printer in Saudi which printed Gulf Sheiks' credit histories. A year later, we were at war and pro-American hackers (yeah, the term sounds anachronistic in this wikileaks day and age, doesn't it) were seeking ways to crack the Iraqi X.25 network. Sadly, the enemy didn't rely on electronic communications and the effort was largely a failure.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  34. Cold War DRM by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    the tactic was the sort of copyright protection the record industry would kill for

    No kidding. DRM these days looks pathetic by comparison. :P

    1. Re:Cold War DRM by yeshuawatso · · Score: 1

      What's funny about this line is that a couple of days ago, there was a discussion on /. About badly coded games being leaked on purpose to prevent piracy.

    2. Re:Cold War DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the worst coded game is unlikely to blow up your computer...

  35. Re:Imperial - Metric by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    What's the mass of a ton(ne)?

    A long ton or a short one? BTW, a long ton is fairly close to a metric tonne, but I have no idea what that amounts to in shit-tons.

  36. Re:Imperial - Metric by ctid · · Score: 1

    Converting from one to the other takes time. Kids tend to think and work in metric. Older people tend to use metric selectively. I prefer cm these days for short distances although I was taught in inches and feet. But I think of longer distances in miles. I think of my car's fuel economy in miles-per-gallon, although I measure recipe quantities these days in ml. It's odd to think that people should use all metric quantities as we don't use all imperial quantities - I have never heard anyone using rods or chains as a measure of distance and I don't think I'd know what somebody meant if they did. It takes time to switch from one thing to another - in Britain it's only been 40-odd years since they started changing things in schools.

    --
    Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
  37. Re:Imperial - Metric by mlts · · Score: 1

    Of course, no measurement system is perfect, but regardless of measurements, be it kilos/slugs, newtons/pounds [1], or whatever unit, all that matters is everyone uses the unit. This way, no conversions are needed. No multiple sets of tools are needed. No bouncing around AI figures to try to convert stuff. This way, I can buy a case for something from one country made with their measurements and expect it to be the exact size needed to put stuff in from another nation.

    A good example of this (mandatory auto analogy) are trailer hitch tow balls. Here in the US, you have three sizes of balls (1.875 inches, 2 inches, and 2.3125 inches.) In Europe, you have 50mm tow balls across the continent. It doesn't matter if you have a class 1 hitch on a Tata Nano, or a class IV hitch on a full size SUV -- there is no worry about European ball size. Because of this tow hitches bought in France will work with trailers in England.

    If people still use fluid ounces for cans, great. As long as everyone else uses it, so it doesn't have to be converted often.

    All I really ask is that globally there is a standard on one set of measurements. Metric, Imperial, who cares. All that matters is that I ask for "x" amount of something with "x/y/z" dimensions, and the other people are able to get that.

    [1]: I'm being pedantic here -- weight != mass, so a kilo of mass wouldn't directly compare to a pound of weight.

  38. Re:Imperial - Metric by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From your post it sounds like you've been living somewhere that used to belong to the british empire, those people still tend to think of their weight in "stones" and various other oddball measurements but there are definitely countries where imperial units are barely used.

    Here in Sweden the only people who use imperial units seem to be carpenters who call a 5x10 cm piece of wood a "tvåtumfyra" ("twoinchfour") but even they don't actually assume the actual size of it is 5.08x10.16 cm, it's just that "tvåtumfyra" is faster to say than "fem gånger tio centimeter".

    As for degrees, most people tend to use degrees in everyday conversation (when it comes up) but degrees are not an "imperial" measurement, it predates most imperial units by centuries. And most people I've met who have taken "advanced" high school level math or college level math tend to use radians when actually doing any kind of math related to angles.

    Also, you tell someone here in scandinavia that you're 5'10" tall and weigh 176 lbs and they're likely to either not understand you or they'll go "So, a foot is like, 30 cm, right? and how many inches are there in a foot? I know it's not ten but like, fifteen or something, right? And a pound's like, 0.5 kg? or was it less? maybe more? And aren't there two types of pound? Or was that pints?".

    Basically, if you tell someone around here that something is "n <imperial unit>" they will have no clue no matter how "natural" you think it is because you happened to grow up with it.

    Also, as for easy unit conversions, people do use them, just not in the uncommon ways you described, most people just aren't familiar with some of the less common prefixes but milli-, centi-, deci-, hecto- and kilo are all commonly used (and most people know that mega and giga are millions and billions, they just don't have much use for them, so rather than saying 1.5 megameters you say 1500 kilometers).

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  39. "Black day for power programmers" Windows virus by Locutus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    to comments, I thought the deal with the big blackout was that the network(TCP/IP) was flooded with a Windows virus infection and if you know TCP/IP, it's not very good with lots of traffic. There was so much traffic that the computer( a UNIX box ) sending status messages to the control room display system could not get messages out of it's buffers. TCP/IP does this thing where the message isn't put on the network if there's going to be a collision and it waits some before trying again. With the network flooded with Windows based computers trying to infect each other, the warning messages were stuck in the UNIX box and eventually the buffers filled up as more and more warning messages queued up. They seem to be blaming the UNIX box software because the software ended up crashing because they didn't catch the situation where they buffers overflowed. IMO, that was caused by Windows and it's ability to be a great petri dish for viruses and the idiots who keep putting Windows systems on critical networks.

    The second comment I have on this is about missing the LAX Communications system software crash which caused multiple near misses on the tarmac and in the air when air traffic controllers could not communicate with pilots because of the crash. The cause of the software crash was a UNIX system was replaced with a Windows based system which had a known flaw. The flaw was that the OS could not run for more than 39 days no matter what was running on it. The system and software was still approved and put inplace with a maintenance instruction of rebooting the computer every 30 days. In comes a new employee who sees things are working fine so he/she doesn't reboot the computer and 9 days later the system crashes. The backup does the same and both are unable to recover and it takes hours to get the system back running again. That should have been in the list IMO.

    There was also the CSX Railway situation when lots of its signals go offline because they are run by Windows and their Windows computers got a virus.

    It would be nice to see a more complete and more accurate list of these kinds of computer software failures.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    1. Re:"Black day for power programmers" Windows virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The virus version of the story was pure speculation. The worm had been circulating at the time and there were reports that other facilities had been hit by it, causing people to concoct theories of how the worm could have caused the blackout. In http://www.securityfocus.com/news/8016 Security Focus says that it was in fact a bug in the Unix-based XA/21 software.

      Of course, it's ridiculous to even have Unix or Windows mentioned, because the OS has nothing to do with it. It's not like Unix somehow made GE put a race condition into XA/21 or Windows made that ATC software company use a 32-bit millisecond uptime counter for a critical purpose. There's no reason you can't have a race condition in code running on Windows, and a 32-bit millisecond counter will still overflow after 49 days (not 39) on Unix.

      dom

    2. Re:"Black day for power programmers" Windows virus by slashqwerty · · Score: 1

      thought the deal with the big blackout was that the network(TCP/IP) was flooded with a Windows virus infection and if you know TCP/IP, it's not very good with lots of traffic...TCP/IP does this thing where the message isn't put on the network if there's going to be a collision and it waits some before trying again.

      You're thinking of Ethernet. On an Ethernet network all the machines inside a collision domain share the same bus. If more than one machine transmits at the same time the transmissions will scramble each other (aka a collision). Ethernet uses Binary Exponential Backoff to reduce the chance of another collision when it retransmits.

      Yes, too much traffic can take down an old Ethernet network. These days everyone uses switches with full duplex so there are no collisions. I imagine that similar problems could occur with wireless, however.

    3. Re:"Black day for power programmers" Windows virus by Locutus · · Score: 1

      right, ethernet and not TCP/IP. Thanks for the correction, my bad.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    4. Re:"Black day for power programmers" Windows virus by Locutus · · Score: 1

      I've seen this but I'm still very skeptical. The extents that they go to make it sounds like so much work was done to find the bug it almost sounds like an excuse or their are trying too hard. I saw this type of thing in the commission report also. It is the kind of thing I would expect from them to hide any facts which pointed that a Windows computer virus could do so much harm. They would not want this out and neither would the Fed gov.

      It could be it was the app software which failed but I would not trust what the company spokes person says, nor any partial body or commission. And even less when they explain things in ways which don't really explain the problem but go out of their way to explain how much work it was and that it was a UNIX system when so often it's not Windows but just a computer virus/etc. strange IMO

      right, 49 not 39. For some reason I recall incorrectly as 39 days and always have. I recall though that it OS software which had the failure and it was the OS which failed, not the app software. If it was an uptime wrapping thing at the app level then the LAX thing would have been fixable with a very narrow scope of change. Since I believe it was OS based, they whole system would have had to be re-certified once the OS was patched.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  40. Re: by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, good catch! In US units, a can or bottle of beer is 12 fluid ounces. It's a standard, period. It translates to 355ml. Here in metric-land, you get 350ml in a "good" bottle. You get shortchanged by 5ml every single drink! It is NOT uncommon to see a 325ml bottle, and 275ml bottles are not unheard-of (alcopops mostly). Total ripoff. However, the coolness is the 5 deciliter bottle, which does not exist elsewhere, and wouldn't exist except for the metric system.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  41. Windows anti-piracy measure ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Windows anti-piracy measure that resulted in millions of legitimate customers being branded software thieves."
    I just had first hand experience with this. I got a brand new Dell laptop, I spent 2 days getting it all setup the way I wanted, and I just copied (Thank god I still had my data on another HD) my data to it. Everything was perfect! Then the next day I boot it up, everything works fine... When suddenly all the icons vanished off my desktop, and a message appears on the wallpaper telling me my copy of windows is not legit!
    I called dell hoping for a simple fix... But NOOO they practically accused me of installing a virus or some other BS onto my machine!
    Their solution? "RE-install the OS from the disks, and do not install any software onto it, or connect it to the Internet for a couple of days." What BS is that!!! Then risk having it piss on me again after I do start setting it up again? WTF is the point of spending $1,000 on a machine if I can't USE it?

    SO I went and downloaded a pirated version of WIn7, and installed that onto my machine. It has been running smoothly for over a MONTH now!
    The kick in the pants? After I got the pirate Win7 running I checked the "windows.old" folder for my files.... And all the user files had been wiped as well as all the apps! There was still folders for Windows and such, but all the stuff I installed had been purged!

    I doubt I will be using a legit copy of Windows ever again. (OR at least I will crack it ASAP to prevent from getting blamed for using a legit copy of Windows).

    Here that Microsoft! You accused me of being a pirate and stealing Windows, and you even punished me by deleting my data. So I might as well earn the blame and punishment! The only way you will get $$$ from me for one of your OS's is through a machine purchase.

  42. Lazy day for a writer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing new on this list that I haven't seen in similar articles over last ten years. Just do a google on "software failures top 10" and
    "computer failures top 10", cherry pick ten items to regurgitate, and 'poof', met my deadline.

  43. Re:Imperial - Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And when I see that we, the US, are one of two countries still on Imperial - one is some Third World non-industrial country, I want to barf.

    It's actually two other countries.

    Liberia and Burma are the other two.

  44. Re:OMG! Y2K!! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    People used two digits for years before Microsoft was even a company.

  45. Re:Imperial - Metric by julesh · · Score: 1

    If a recipe calls for 3 cups of bread flour, I know my chosen flour is 155 grams per cup. So when I weigh it out on my scale I weigh out 465 grams. I could do ounces instead wouldn't matter, my scale just reads grams. Likewise it wouldn't matter if the recipe instead called for 700mL of flour.

    In my experience metric recipes don't specify flour by volume, but by weight (unless for small volumes, e.g. tablespoons).

    Really, working in the screwy imperial system just isn't a big deal to normal people. You don't do anything that needs inter-unit conversion which is where metric shines.

    I find doing middle-advanced DIY tasks that I'm _regularly_ doing inter-unit conversions. Just yesterday, I had to work out how much water was in my central heating system. Measure the radiators in metres, estimate length of 15mm diameter pipe, quick calculations, quite easy. If I was working in feet and had to convert to gallons it would have been trickier.

  46. Re:Imperial - Metric by Reziac · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My college physics and chemistry classes went as you describe -- for classwork, metric was assumed and no one thought anything of it. For everything else, Imperial was used. So you might hear something like (making up absurd example to shoehorn it all into one sentence) "I had to move my desk twenty feet just to get a measurement of less than one millimeter!" and it sounded perfectly natural to us. We're measurement-bilingual. ;)

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  47. Does "LoB" stand 4 "Loads of Bullshit", lmao? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "LoB" - by Locutus (9039) on Sunday December 12, @12:39PM (#34529428)

    See subject line above: Additionally - Please, above all else, IF you're going to post the TOO obvious "Anti-Microsoft/Anti-Windows" trolling material, at least put up some backing articles from reliable, and reputable sources, acting as your proofs of your statements please. Your "anecdotal memories", though you may not like this with you having spouted them in your "anti-microsoft/anti-windows F.U.D. campaign" here? Let's see if they are as accurate as you think they are - put up proofs of the "fables you tell", prove they're not fables from YOU. Prove otherwise to myself here, and at least put up some backing proof of your statements via articles from reputable sources backing you instead of what you wrote that has no such backing. You do that, I won't rib on you as being a dementia or alzheimers victim, or just another "anti-windows/anti-microsoft" trolling (loads of) BULLSHITTER anymore here.

    1. Re:Does "LoB" stand 4 "Loads of Bullshit", lmao? by Locutus · · Score: 1

      prove my statements wrong before blowing out your bullshit. Just calling them FUD and bullshit and telling me I have to prove the statements does not make you even remotely correct.

      I could no longer find anything on the LAX computer crash, nor could I find the info on the CSX signal system virus issue but they happened. As for the blackout, they would not say directly there were computer viruses to blame but after reading the news reports and blogs at the time and reading the commission report along with the timing of the blackout and one of the big spreading viruses at the time it all pointed to network collisions keeping warning messages from getting to the display system.

      I don't have proof of the invention of the wheel but it really did happen Mr/Ms Noob.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    2. Re:Does "LoB" stand 4 "Loads of Bullshit", lmao? by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      Burden of proof is on the claimant. Now go back to your Fox News....

  48. Re:Imperial - Metric by jbengt · · Score: 1

    And as I like to point out to people -- because I'm a pedantic nerd like everyone else here -- the US system is a metric system . . . see what I did there? I didn't use a capital "M" or say SI there?

    And because I'm a pedantic, too, I'd like to point out that the US system of weights and measures is officially based on SI units - units like yards and pounds are legally defined by the USA government in terms of SI units.

  49. Re:Imperial - Metric by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    And because I'm a pedantic, too, I'd like to point out that the US system of weights and measures is officially based on SI units - units like yards and pounds are legally defined by the USA government in terms of SI units.

    Defined in SI units now, yes . . .

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  50. Re:Imperial - Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ruh-roh. Someone compared US and metric systems.

  51. What about HAL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of "No IBM Series 9000 computer has ever made a mistake.... the problem always turned out to be human error."

  52. Re:Imperial - Metric by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Well if they are by weight only, then that would make sense as to why imperial still rules the root in cooking. Most people don't have a scale for food preparation. I do because I approach baking as a science and I require precision (in fact my scale isn't precise enough for things like yeast and will be replaced with a chemical scale soon). Out side of baking the precision offered by a scale is not necessary at all and even in baking only the hard core (or the geeky) do it by weight. Volume is much easier, despite the accuracy loss.

    Your DIY task is again not a good example because it is the sort of thing a normal person doesn't do. Also, when you are DIYing things, you do it in the units you like. What the country uses is of no real concern. When we do ethernet cable at work it is always in meters. I don't even know why cable is done in meters, it just is. It is of no consequence.

    Day to day stuff just doesn't matter. All that matters is you have an understanding of the units.

  53. To err is human. by carpefishus · · Score: 1

    To err is human. A royal fuck-up requres a computer.

    --
    Facts take all of the premium out of arm waving - T. Reynolds
  54. The best parts of the article were... by KingFrog · · Score: 1

    The best parts of the article were several in which the author gives incorrect explanations of what the computer terms he's using mean. Made my day! This is why I so seldom listen to the press when they're talking tech. :)

    1. Re:The best parts of the article were... by kennykb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One way to calibrate your respect for the press: listen to them when they're talking about something you know about. Assume that they have the same depth of understanding when they're talking about something you don't know about.

  55. Re:Imperial - Metric by jbengt · · Score: 1

    As a pro-American non-idiot who works extensively in feet and inches and fractions of inches, and in pounds force, pounds mass, gallons, etc. and has done some work in SI units, I would love it if US industry converted to SI, though I do realize that inertia means it just won't happen.

    The fact is, it is not just a matter of which arbitrary units are familiar to you. The US/Imperial system requires a lot of magic numbers for conversion factors. The SI system is a lot more self-consistent, and therefore easier to use. (not just in adding fundamental measures, but also things like calculating pressure from velocity and density, etc.)

    You have some reasonable points about things like months/days/hours/minutes/seconds. But Leap days are a natural result of the actual lengths of days and years; scientists and mathemeticians tend to use radians, not degrees; and adding and multiplying in feet, inches, and fractions of an inch is really a big pain in the ass.

    In fact, there would be great benefit in the long run if American industry changed over to using SI units

  56. Re:Imperial - Metric by Smauler · · Score: 1

    in Britain it's only been 40-odd years since they started changing things in schools.

    Yes, but there are things which there is no intention of changing too... for example miles vs km, and pints. There are things that have gone metric, but actually aren't - I've got a 3.408 litre container of milk in the fridge, and a 454 gramme jar of jam in my cupboard. Nice round numbers there, thank god we went metric.

  57. Re:Imperial - Metric by Smauler · · Score: 1

    I learnt my metric height and weight because it was so easy... 2 metres (exactly), 100kg (exactly). It made calculating BMI easy too... 100 / 2^2... 25. Unfortunately, I'm heavier now (not _all_ fat, honest), and I'm not that fond of round numbers to go on a diet.

  58. Re: by markxz · · Score: 1

    However, the coolness is the 5 deciliter bottle, which does not exist elsewhere, and wouldn't exist except for the metric system.

    Although the 5.68 deciliter Imperial (British) Pint is better still.

  59. Re:Imperial - Metric by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Ruh-roh. Someone compared US and metric systems.

    That's ridiculous! A country is not a system of measurement.

  60. Oh Noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm running a copy of Debian, installed from one of those evil writable CDs. Can someone please direct me to a service where I can make sure *I* am not a "software thief"? Bonus points if this service phones home and wastes my system resources. Even more bonus points if it pops up persistent nags to harass me while I'm trying to get work done.

    Also, how is someone a "software thief" when they can't buy a PC without paying the supposed victims for a license to their imaginary property?

  61. PEBKAC by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Given that all computers are human designed and constructed

    That's unfair. It could be the operator's fault.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  62. Re:Imperial - Metric by russotto · · Score: 1

    I find doing middle-advanced DIY tasks that I'm _regularly_ doing inter-unit conversions. Just yesterday, I had to work out how much water was in my central heating system. Measure the radiators in metres, estimate length of 15mm diameter pipe, quick calculations, quite easy. If I was working in feet and had to convert to gallons it would have been trickier.

    I'd think the irrational factor of pi would be more of a problem than the 231 inch^3/gallon, or the factor of 12 for feet to inches.

  63. Re:Imperial - Metric by jeremyp · · Score: 1

    Well if they are by weight only, then that would make sense as to why imperial still rules the root in cooking. Most people don't have a scale for food preparation.

    You think? This must be a USA thing because here in the UK I'd be almost as surprised to walk into a kitchen and not see a set of scales as to walk into a kitchen and not see an oven.

    --
    All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  64. Re:Imperial - Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Again, you seem to be in a special case which doesn't freaking matter to normal people.

    Companies should indeed switch over new projects to metric.

  65. Re:Imperial - Metric by russotto · · Score: 1

    Here in Sweden the only people who use imperial units seem to be carpenters who call a 5x10 cm piece of wood a "tvåtumfyra" ("twoinchfour") but even they don't actually assume the actual size of it is 5.08x10.16 cm, it's just that "tvåtumfyra" is faster to say than "fem gånger tio centimeter".

    Wood is even stranger. While a 3/4" sheet of plywood is indeed 3/4" thick, a two-by-four has a cross section of 1.5" x 3.5". The usual explanation is that 2" x 4" is the rough cut size, and they are later dried and planed down to 1.5" x 3.5". This is sometimes augmented with the claim that the original sawing is cleaner today than when the size was standardized, so modern two-by-fours were never actually 2" x 4". Having never seriously researched sawmills, I have no idea of the truth of these stories.

    A 5cm x 10cm (actual) piece of finished lumber is thus significantly heftier than an American two-by-four.

  66. Cindy Margolis #1 computer cock-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Cindy Margolis was the #1 computer cock-up

  67. Re: by russotto · · Score: 1

    Although the 5.68 deciliter Imperial (British) Pint is better still.

    Here in the US, we have (among other sizes) bottles which are 1 US pint (16oz, 473ml), 1/2 L (16.9oz, 500ml), 20 oz (591 ml, 1.04 Imperial pint), 1 US quart (32 oz, 946 ml), 1 Liter (33.8 fluid ounces, 1000ml), and 40oz (1182ml, 1.04 Imperial quart). The "forty" is generally only used for malt liquor, though.

  68. Slashdot's web 2.0 flop listed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuf sed

  69. Re:Imperial - Metric by lahvak · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, getting a decent kitchen scales in the US is a pain. In Europe, every reasonably equipped kitchen has a set of kitchen scales on the counter.

    On the other hand, measuring certain ingredients by volume is better. For example, the specific weight of flour changes quite a bit with humidity, while volume stays pretty much the same.

    --
    AccountKiller
  70. Therac-25 deaths and airport body scanners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm surprised they didn't mention incidents where people actually died, such as the Therac-25 incident.

    Radiation dosage mistakes like this make you wonder how well and how often
    airport body scanners will be calibrated as machines remain in service for years.

  71. therac 25 deaths, CT overdoses, airport scanners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    List fails without the therac 25

    Fatal radiation dosage mistakes like those involving the Therac-25 make you wonder how well and how often airport body scanners will be calibrated as they remain in service for years. Whose responsibility is this, if anyone's?

    Here's a more recent example proving accidents continue to happen:

    In October, 2009, news broke that CT scanners in several hospitals had been calibrated incorrectly and operated in the wrong mode for a year and a half, exposing hundreds of patients to 6 – 13 times the intended dose of radiation, putting many at risk for developing new cancer on top of their pre-existing conditions. These CT scanners were located in top-flight hospitals such as Cedars Sinai in Los Angeles and operated by the best-trained technicians following the manufacturer’s guidelines and yet nobody – in eighteen months – spotted this gross error. The lawsuits resulting from this egregious cock-up continue to wend their way through court.

    "Ultimately, it was a patient who alerted Cedars-Sinai to the problem. In August, a stroke victim informed the hospital that he had suffered patchy hair loss after a scan."

  72. Re:Imperial - Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Your example is something people do not do."

    Spoken like someone who has never had to fit the maximum amount of water in a pack without exceeding a weight limit.

    I live in Australia, I've used the 1L/1KG water relationship many times in my life, and not just in the example of the pack above.

  73. What's the author's excuse: by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

    The carnage eventually left 256 power plants offline, causing cellular communication and media distribution.

    how, might I ask, would power plants being offline CAUSE media distribution?

    If the RIAA gets word of this, it's a safe bet that my municipal power plant will be the next lawsuit target.

  74. What a poorly written article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a poorly written article. There are some grammatical uglies that are (turn your head and hold your nose) like the word 'maths' when he really means 'math'. But there are incomplete sentences "The carnage eventually left 256 power plants offline, causing cellular communication and media distribution. ", incorrect statements "that was used for calculating maths problems using floating-point numbers (numbers too large to be represented as integers)." NO! Integers are cardinal numbers, floating point implies decimal point, even numbers like 1.1 is floating point, SURPRISE!, smaller than an integer like 2. ....clearly the author doesn't have a rudimentary understanding of computers, and sadly has questionable skill in literacy.

    1. Re:What a poorly written article by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      like the word 'maths' when he really means 'math'

      It's short for mathematics. This is standard British English. Given that this is a British writer writing in a British magazine, I think you should forgive that one.

  75. Vista? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the first thing that comes to my mind when someone says "When Computers Go Wrong".

  76. Oerlikon GDF-005 Kills 9 by Jeff+Fohl · · Score: 2

    I am surprised that the infamous malfunction of the robotic cannon, Oerlikon GDF-005 in 2007 was not mentioned. This malfunction caused the robot cannon to wildly spray hundreds of high-explosive 0,5kg 35mm cannon shells around the firing range in a South African training exercise, killing 9 and wounding 14. To be fair, it was not clear if it was a software or mechanical glitch that caused the malfunction. In any case, this underscores the growing reliance on automated systems, and the life and death consequences. Could licensing for software developers - similar to that bestowed upon civil engineers - be far away?

  77. Re:Imperial - Metric by careysub · · Score: 1

    ...

    I'd prefer to slap someone for saying "Imperial vs. Metric" when they're talking about US standards vs the SI -- which one certainly is when talking about the mars spacecraft failure. After all, the US system -- while derived from the Imperial System -- is not the same thing. Quick: how many l in a gal? Well, it depends, doesn't it? Did you mean Imperial gallon or US gallon? How many m^2 in an acre? What's the mass of a ton(ne)? And as I like to point out to people -- because I'm a pedantic nerd like everyone else here -- the US system is a metric system . . . see what I did there? I didn't use a capital "M" or say SI there?

    I have yet to see anyone on this thread use the actual name of the system of weights and measures peculiar to the United States. It is called the "United States customary system".

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  78. Re:Imperial - Metric by careysub · · Score: 1

    Well I have to support part of what you've said, and contradict part.

    I support you in that it is stupid NASA uses Imperial ever, anywhere...

    United States customary system, not "imperial" actually.

    Having discussed this with NASA engineers before (circa 1990), there is an explanation for why spacecraft are still (?) designed using this system at least. Their very highly skilled technicians are trained using the U.S. system, and their tools are calibrated in it. In the type of custom hand building used for space craft manual dexterity and the "feel" of the fit is important - components manufactured in thousandths of an inch increments are different from ones manufactured to, say, hundredths of a millimeter. It is actually a painful transition to go from using hardware designed using one system to the other.

    There is an example of this issue when the Soviet Union attempted to copy the B-29 after WWII and built the TU-4. The problem was the B-29 was designed using the U.S. system, and sheet metal for the skin for example was some fraction of an inch. Skin being a major structural component, if the Soviets used the closest Metric thickness from below the airplane was too weak and would not fly. It the Soviets used the closest Metric thickness from above (as they did) made it too heavy with compromised perfromance.

    That all being said, the flight control system should still be done Metric (it isn't dependent on the tooling of the spacecraft), and at some point NASA is going to have to bite the bullet on this (if they haven't already).

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  79. Ariane 5? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Ariane 5 Flight 501 was a pretty big disaster. It was caused by integer overflow due to re-using software from an earlier rocket that was physicly incapable of causing the overflow. The wiki article says $370 million lost, which sounds about right.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  80. Not a shred of valid proof, as I suspected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have proof by Locutus (9039)
    on Sunday December 12, @05:56PM (#34530786)

    There you have it in his own words. LoB does really stand for "Loads of Bullshit", rotflmao!

    prove my statements wrong before blowing out your bullshit. Just calling them FUD and bullshit and telling me I have to prove the statements does not make you even remotely correct. by Locutus (9039)
    on Sunday December 12, @05:56PM (#34530786)

    See subject above and my last post. We just ask you back your statements of FUD, with backing substantiation from reputable sources. Otherwise? Hehehe, "LoB" does really mean "Loads of Bullshit", lmao. Wait, wait - it gets better. Keep reading, lmao:

    I could no longer find anything on the LAX computer crash, nor could I find the info on the CSX signal system virus issue but they happened by Locutus (9039)
    on Sunday December 12, @05:56PM (#34530786)

    That's what chicken little said. LOL!

    LoB by Locutus (9039)
    on Sunday December 12, @05:56PM (#34530786)

    Remember everyone, what does LoB stand for? See above. LMAO!

  81. Aesop enough fables! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get proof instead of your 'tall tales of f.u.d.'

  82. Re:Imperial - Metric by mikael_j · · Score: 1

    I believe that the finished dimensions for a "swedish" two-by-four are 50x100 mm before it's planed and approx. 45x95 mm after being planed. And according to wikipedia a "US" two-by-four is 38 x 89 mm which kind of makes me wonder why they call it a 2x4.

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  83. Re:Imperial - Metric by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Burma uses its own historical set of measurements in addition to a mishmash of metric and imperial, but Britain has a similar mishmash. The Wikipedia page isn't clear on which of these are typically used in industry.

  84. Re:Imperial - Metric by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    When I last bought some carpet the invoice said "5m x 20 feet". The roll comes from the manufacturer in 5m widths, the carpet fitter works in feet and inches...!

  85. Re:Imperial - Metric by Spacelem · · Score: 1

    I have a 100g jar of coffee and a 500g box of sugar cubes on my desk, plus a 500ml bottle of water (which I fill from the tap), and in the fridge upstairs there are several 2 litre cartons of milk. Bottles of beer and cider tend to come in 500ml (although I'll accept that's by no means exclusive). Mince and the like comes in 250g or 500g packages.

    It wasn't that long ago that it became a legal requirement to label goods in metric; round numbers are becoming increasingly common, although they've yet to completely replace the imperial versions. I suspect that people previously bought 1 lb of mince, and since the move to 500g of mince increased the amount of slightly, the shops were not willing to round it immediately since people would notice the increase in price. That's my theory anyway.

  86. They forgot to list themselves... by RichiH · · Score: 1

    It was hardware design documents, not software, that made that Russian pipeline go boom.

  87. Re:Imperial - Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And let's not forget my favorite: the gram. Since the actual SI unit for mass is the kilogram, the gram should not exist; it's a millikilogram.

  88. Re:OMG! Y2K!! by freshfromthevat · · Score: 1

    Actually I was being paid for my coding for 3 years before IBM-DOS was shipped.

    --
    .. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
  89. Re:OMG! Y2K!! by freshfromthevat · · Score: 1

    So was it IBM who made the date on the IBM-PC have 2 digits?

    --
    .. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
  90. LoB = "Load of Bullshit"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907190&cid=34532322

    and

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907190&cid=34529734

  91. Re:Imperial - Metric by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Imported carpet, obviously :(

    But a good example -- I didn't have any problem picturing the right size on the fly, and I'll bet you didn't either.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  92. "LoB" = "Loads of Bullshit"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907190&cid=34532322

    and this

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907190&cid=34529734

  93. Re:Imperial - Metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in Sweden the only people who use imperial units seem to be carpenters who call a 5x10 cm piece of wood a "tvatumfyra" ("twoinchfour") but even they don't actually assume the actual size of it is 5.08x10.16 cm, it's just that "tvatumfyra" is faster to say than "fem ganger tio centimeter".

    Sorry, my Mac does not properly speak unicode.

    I used to be a die hard fan of metric system is everything, and I even worked construction for a while, and then someone told me that one of the beauties of the english system for construction work is that you can _always_ take half measurements. Have of 1 inch, is 1/2 inch, 1/2 of that, is 1/4 inch, 1/2 of that is 1/8 inch, etc. Not 2.54cm, 1.27cm, 0.635cm, and 0.3175cm.

    Half of a "twoinchfour" is typically a "oneinchfour", not a 2.5x10cm. If you need a 3*1/8" strip of wood, you say "Give me 3/8s of an inch strip of wood", not "Give me 3*0.3175cm strip of wood". Actually, the 3*0.3175cm is much more prone to error than the 3/8 version.

  94. Re:OMG! Y2K!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Computers store dates in binary. Fancy thing with binary, the upper limit (or rather, one above the upper limit) never ends on a zero. It always ends on a 2, 4, 6 or 8. Note how 2000 doesn't fit this pattern.

    Even worse, most of the time, dates are stored not as a number of years, but number of seconds or even milliseconds or nanoseconds (ticks). This makes it even less likely to hit a round number as the cut-off date.

    However, Cobol programmers use strings for everything. Numbers are declared as a numeric string of a certain length. No ints or longs. For Cobol programmers, a date is just a six-digit number. Two for the day, two for the month, and... two for the year. The Y2k problem was a problem with Cobol programs.

    I don't recall Microsoft ever using Cobol.

    Ok, there's also BCD, which has the same problem, but apart from some hardware clocks (possibly including those in PC's, but Microsoft isn't building the hardware), you basically only find BCD on mainframes. Which would be IBM area, not Microsoft. No surprise that mainframes often run Cobol programs.

  95. Re:Imperial - Metric by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

    I believe that the finished dimensions for a "swedish" two-by-four are 50x100 mm before it's planed and approx. 45x95 mm after being planed. And according to wikipedia a "US" two-by-four is 38 x 89 mm which kind of makes me wonder why they call it a 2x4

    A US 2x4 is 2"x4" before planing and finishing. Planing removes approximately 1/4" from each side, resulting in a final dimension of 1 1/2" by 3 1/2". Or about 38mm x 89mm.

    Your Swedish 2x4 is probably the same dimensions after planing and finishing. It's just that the lengths are in metric (probably 2-3 metres, while US/Canadian lumber ends up around 10 feet, roughly. I don't know the exact values, but I do know it's still incompatible).

  96. Re:Imperial - Metric by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

    That reasoning only works if your country doesn't (fully) use the metric system.

    Why should I care what the half of 2,54 is? Nothing around here is measured in multiples of 2,54 cm. (Okay, water pipes are. And tires. And screens. And disk drives.)

    A 2 by 4 would be 5 cm by 10 cm.

    Half of 1 meter is 5 dm half of that is 25 cm half of that is 125 mm. And if you want to be precise, half of that is 62500 um :P

    --
    We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
  97. Re:OMG! Y2K!! by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

    On the original IBM-PC, running MS-DOS, Y2K was not a problem.

    The CLOCK Driver was a 6-byte sequence, used to determine the current date and time, counting up from January 1, 1980. From the old MS-DOS documentation:

    Byte 0: Days low byte
    Byte 1: Days high byte
    Byte 2: Minutes
    Byte 3: Hours
    Byte 4: Seconds/100
    Byte 5: Seconds

    This means that any date and time could be represented (with .01 second accuracy) between January 1, 1980 and 65535 days later. So within the parameters of original MS-DOS and IBM-PC, we could support dates to June of 2159.

    Further, MS-DOS supported software interrupts to get and set the system date. This provided a little tighter limitation, according to the documentation, limiting the year to the range of 1980 - 2099. But still was Y2K compliant.

    Int 21H Function 2AH Get System Date
    Call with AH = 2AH
    Returns:
    CX=Year (1980 through 2099)
    DH=Month (1-12)
    DL=Day (1-31)
    and under MS-DOS version 1.10 and above, the day of week was also returned in AL

    Int 21H Function 2BH Set System Date
    Call with:
    AH=2BH
    CX=Year (1980 through 2099)
    DH=Month (1-12)
    DL=Day (1-31)
    Returns AL=00 if successfully set or 0FFH if date invalid.

    PCs and PC operating systems weren't really much of a Y2K issue. Application software was. Mainframe software was. But PCs, not so much.

    There was one Microsoft (Excel) Y2K issue. As Wikipedia says:

    The Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program had a very elementary Y2K problem: Excel (in both Windows and Mac versions, when they are set to start at 1900) incorrectly set the year 1900 as a leap year for compatibility with Lotus 1-2-3.[8] In addition, the years 2100, 2200, and so on, were regarded as leap years. This bug was fixed in later versions, but since the epoch of the Excel timestamp was set to the meaningless date of January 0, 1900 in previous versions, the year 1900 is still regarded as a leap year to maintain backward compatibility.

    There wasn't anyone to "blame" Y2K on, really. In the 1960s and 1970s, space was very expensive, literally per byte. So it was an extremely wise move to use a 2-digit year, and bet that the software or the programmer would be retired prior to 2000.

  98. Re:Imperial - Metric by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

    Really, working in the screwy imperial system just isn't a big deal to normal people. You don't do anything that needs inter-unit conversion which is where metric shines.

    Yes, but normal generally aren't trying to land probes on Mars.

  99. Re:OMG! Y2K!! by markkezner · · Score: 1

    Actually COBOL programs typically don't use strings (PIC X(length)) to represent numbers. They normally use PIC 9(length) data, which is a legit number. If there will be a calculation or comparison based on the numbers, which is usually the case for dates, PIC 9 is preferred. Heck, you could even represent the numbers in a binary format (PIC 9 COMP-3) if you fancy saving a few bytes and optimizing the calculation.

    The actual arrangement of the month, day, and year values depends on the particular COBOL program, and would usually depend on how the data looks on the input file\DB. Many of them just so happened to use 2 digits, but it's not like that was set in stone. Lots of these programs and datasets had to be updated to add 2 digits to the date field, but it wasn't really a COBOL issue they were fixing. It was a program design issue that was being repeated all over the place.

    --
    Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
  100. Re:OMG! Y2K!! by markkezner · · Score: 1

    Maybe, but they weren't the only ones who made that mistake. Countless COBOL programs and mainframe datasets made that "Optimization" before and after the PC came around.

    --
    Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
  101. Two more fun failures by nha · · Score: 1

    1) Some new naval warship on its shakedown cruise had to be towed back to San Diego because its Microsoft OS bluescreened.

    2) When NASA's shuttle engines were being tested, two of them blew up on the test stand. Some programmer neglected to factor in the fact that a large butterfly valve takes time to close. He issued the command to start closing at the time it should have been completely closed, and boom!, no more engine.

    --
    NHA
  102. Re:Imperial - Metric by julesh · · Score: 1

    I'd think the irrational factor of pi would be more of a problem than the 231 inch^3/gallon, or the factor of 12 for feet to inches.

    I know pi to enough accuracy for the task at hand. I'd have had to look up the conversion factor between cubic inches and gallons.

  103. Re:OMG! Y2K!! by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    Computers store dates in binary. Fancy thing with binary, the upper limit (or rather, one above the upper limit) never ends on a zero. It always ends on a 2, 4, 6 or 8. Note how 2000 doesn't fit this pattern.

    Offsets. You do know about those, right?

  104. Re:Imperial - Metric by mikael_j · · Score: 1

    No, a Swedish "2x4" is 50x100 mm, after planing the approx dimensions are 45x95 mm. Those are the "standard" dimensions available.

    According to Wikipedia the dimensions for a US "2x4" are actually 38x89 mm when planed and finished.

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  105. Units in programming languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "None of the common languages have such a feature". In the case of C++, it's debatable. Walter Brown (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory) developed the SI Units library, which used C++ templates to enforce unit type checking at compile time. Adding 2 meters and 3 inches was still possible; it just produced the right results. Adding 2 meters and 3 seconds didn't compile. And since C++ can do compile-time arithmetic, variables could have crazy types like "meters squared per ampere cubed".

    It never made it into the C++ standard, as it was judged a domain-specific library that would not directly benefit from inclusion in the C++ standard. But it's been around for quite a while (2001 or so) and it's widely seen as one of the prime examples of the benefits of C++ templates.

  106. Re:Imperial - Metric by Smauler · · Score: 1

    in the fridge upstairs there are several 2 litre cartons of milk.

    Are you sure about that? All milk I've bought recently, from supermarkets and other places, in the UK is labelled metrically, but is in pints. I'd guess your 2 litre cartons of milk will actually be about 2.3 litres, if you're from the UK.

    American imported drinks bottles, such as coke, pepsi and sprite, etc, have been 500ml for years, which is slightly ironic.

    I do know that the change to metric is basically inevitable, and personally I generally welcome it. I was just pointing out the absurdities of _laws_ requiring the metric system resulting in stupid quantities.