Context. Maybe try reading my reply in the context of the OP. As for *me* calling police thugs, I think you need to look at the rest of the slashdot threads on this post man. I suggest if you're going to go off the rails the way you did about my post you don't browse at -1.
That's not "safe action" of a control system detecting failure, that's called inherently safer design. So back to the topic at hand, you have a control system that's required for safe operation of a plane, what do you do with your sensor reading,... or with the absence of it?
At a certain point you need to realize that your design is at the end of its life and move on.
Boeing knew this well in advance, they were about to be put out of business by Airbus, it wasn't about money it was literally about time and not sinking the company.
You may only change your oil every 18,000 miles but that is not what most people are advised to do.
You must drive an old beater. It's not only what most people *are* advised to do, it's what their cars are programmed to advise them to do.
Also, you understate the need for regular maintenance and the complicated engine/emissions/transmissions having problems.
Maybe I just own a more reliable car than you since no part of the manufacturer's maintenance manual of my vehicle has any part of the emission systems scheduled for maintenance (though I stopped reading through it by the time I got to the 150k service, so maybe it gets done with the second timing belt). Don't get me wrong, an O2 sensor fails and the shit will go into limp mode to the garage, and cars are tested against emissions on a yearly basis here, but there's no preventative maintenance, only breakdown maintenance and my subtle dig at Range Rover was that was the only car I or any of my friends have ever had problems with their emissions systems with... and breaks... and accessory belt, some ECU issue, the central locking failed etc etc.
All of my ICE cars required several trips a year for routine maintenance or things that broke.
Wow! Just wow! Maybe you're unlucky in choice of car or just in general but the only thing my car is in the garage for is tire changes and oil changes, every 12-16months depending on how far I drive it. If it goes in the workshop twice a year it's because I didn't drive it enough and the maintenance cycle and roadworthy cycles go out of sync.
Actually I defend those. Those reactors in design and engineering predate all modern concepts of safety. They were designed when safety specifications were prescriptive leading to a disconnect between risk and safety systems. They didn't follow the barrier triangle starting with inherent safety which really wasn't realised until the 80s. Three mile island would be captured these day by a first year student doing a mandatory HAZard and OPerability study using the queue card high-flow, a process which came long after all 4 reactors were built. Let's not kid ourselves, no amount of safety system designs could ever have prevented Chernobyl as that was institutional stupidity which led to that incident rather than a perfectly functioning (disabled intentionally) safety system. And while I have high hope that people would have caught what ultimately escalated Fukushima it isn't actually considered in any of the safety system design standards which would specify they have redundancy (they did), would specify that they have individual systems for shutdown, individual systems for maintaining power, but specifically exclude the consideration or calculation of double-jeopardy events which is what ultimately led to the Fukushima meltdown.
You missed my subtle point. The numbers are fine. In all 4 cases no single reactor incident was caused by a randomised failure event of safety equipment. Ultimately it's the idiots running the show that decide to do things like put generators in flood prone basements, disable safety systems, or not consider passing PRVs, and above all... shit's old. We'll keep having these incidents until we actually start retiring 50 year old reactors and replace them with something modern.
but I doubt something as core as "who maintains the servers" has not had reasonable continuity
Continuity is no where near as important as turnover. A lot is lost in any change in staff. You're foolish to think changing company and or staff doesn't have a huge impact on your backup strategy / capability.
Also do you have evidence that Murdoch didn't just stick it in a box and said bye? I mean according to TFS they just lost a shitton of stuff, which is quite at odds with the pedestal on which you have elevated them.
Its a modern day burning of the Alexandria Library, A lot of history just got killed.
Oh please. MySpace was not ever an archive. It was a place for bands to spread a couple of their tracks. It is the modern day burning down of your favourite pub, nothing more. A venue for discovering a couple of bands has been lost. If those bands were worth while they either have published music, moved on to other platforms, or bothered to actually save copies of their songs on their computers.
Comparing it to one of the most significant archives of history is beyond asinine.
The summary reads like nonsensical whinging about things that have nothing to do with Adobe.
Animated GIF not being supported is a good thing. We almost killed that crappy thing until bloody Facebook decided to create a GIF keyboard that allowed you to reply with animated memes. What good purposes outside of this still remains for GIF? Leave it in the 90s along with Zip drives, floppy disks, and computer cases without any style. You complain that Adobe carries itself like it's the only game in town while acknowledging that it's the only game in town and that you can't get away from it. *golfclap*.
As for not supporting an OSX feature, I'm sorry. I'm sorry you think Mac is as relevant as it once was. Once the platform of creators has for so long rested on its laurels, provided no good incentive for consumers to favour it and its expensive non-customisable hardware, and repeatedly shat on developers of it's own platform to the point where it's x64 migration was managed poorly enough that an entire major version of Adobe's suite wasn't released on Mac in 64bit variant at a time where > 4GB of memory was actually relevant to the industry. OSX has a native fullscreen feature? Cool, the couple of percent of the market may be disappointed that Adobe doesn't support it, instead it rolled it's own fullscreen feature for the far more popular (almost by an order of magnitude now) windows platform.
Right until you look at outcomes. You're speaking emotionally from a recent tragic incident. You're not speaking based on data. The airline (along with others such as the process and automotive) industries have had a long downward trend of safety incidents. One of the primary drivers of that has been taking control away from people. As a Boeing noses down to prevent a stall, a car somewhere in the world saves a drive thanks to forward crash avoidance. An operator who mistakenly lowers the level from a high pressure separator is greeted by flashing alarms on his screen and a valve slamming shut in the field to prevent an explosion.
Humans make mistakes, giving them full control is not the answer. It's always worth remembering why this system was built, and how in the past pilots have through their own failure demolished plenty of planes due to putting the aircraft into a stall.
Sidenote: The thing that is really missing here which goes against industry trends is a lack of inherently safer design. A more stable plane is preferable to a plane that is only stable when a certain control system is active.
What we see here is reflected somewhat in most major incident investigations through industry involving instrumented systems, the reliability of the equipment is not in question. Throughout the process industry some 80% of safety system failures were systematic. Poor design, poor maintenance, poor interaction, incorrect operation, etc. One in 100000 units failing is not what ultimately caused these planes to crash, it was a bunch of engineers who didn't think about how the system works in operation.
This issue seems like something the pilots can work around if they know what is going on, which the U.S. pilots seem to.
Based on:
That's a lot of flights they have done with the plane, so it's not like the plane is inherently unsafe
You can't draw that conclusion from the data they presented you. This isn't like a plane that is hard to fly. What we are talking about here is pilots responding to a very specific instrumentation problem. The only relevant statistic for how well U.S. pilots can cope with this is how many times Southwest Cargo pilots have suddenly had MCAS fail on them and try to trim down the nose, and how many times in the face of this problem they successfully disabled the system and landed safely. The total number of hours in the air is entirely meaningless to what your pilots know or are capable of.
so it's not like the plane is inherently unsafe
Indeed the plane is not inherently unsafe, however it presents an incredible risk to crew and cargo when a very specific instrumented failure occurs.
The statement of using only one sensor is scary especially for something that automatically adjust the flight path, but even having two is scary. With 2 sensors how does the software know which is right when they disagree ? For true fault tolerance you need a minimum of 3 sensors
It is scary, but it is also a trend. As we have continued to advance in our sensor and instrumentation development (not only in airlines but across many industries where sensors are required) we have become increasingly more reliable. As new standards are published they have continued to reduce requirements for redundancy and independence for safety critical equipment. Even the latest IEC standards stopping your local chemical plant from gassing all its neighbours is following this trend.
That said, I can't speak for the airline industry but one thing has been clear, more often than not doing reliability calculations is borderline a waste of time. Saying a unit fails ever x number of units is irrelevant as the vast majority of sensor problems across multiple industries are systematic. Incorrectly designed or not suitable for service. Assembly faults, poor maintenance, sheer dumb luck, all of these don't play out in manufacturers reliability figures.
But to your point of multiple sensors you're absolutely right. It's like the old saying: A man with a watch knows what time it is, but a man with 2 watches is never quite sure. If you can't nominate a "safe" condition for your control scheme then you can't operate with 1 or 2 sensors as even if you can detect a fault you are unable to handle it. In this case there is no "safe" condition for the system to act.
A system designed to overcome aerodynamic flaws of larger engines is not a major failure scenario?
Of course it is, but what is the safe action? Return control to the pilot when the system is designed to actively kick in to prevent the pilot stalling, or to maintain control in the face of being wrong (which is what happened here).
what pilot would trim up 21 times before disconnecting auto pilot and flying by hand while figuring out what is going on. This is showing the pilot is way to reliant on computers rather than hand flying the plane
You made a dangerous assumption and misplaced your blame. Autopilot was not enabled here. Engaging autopilot disables MCAS and disabling autopilot enables MCAS, which comes back to the pilot training component of the Lion Air investigation. The system as designed is too complex to disable under stress.
Who's at fault here, Boeing or the country with lax pilot regulation?
With your second point specifically identified early in the investigation, Boeing. They are the ones who provide the pilot training materials for their planes.
Stopping motorists for speeding is "manpower heavy", but the police do it all the time.
Indeed and it is very much non-consistent which is precisely why: 1) Post accident your punishment may be adjusted once police determine you were speeding either through analysis or blackbox data if some were recoverable from the ECU. 2) Fixed speed cameras are a thing.
Fining people for distracted driving would be a literal gold mine for them
Indeed, and until we have a technical and legal system in place to do this we'll have to make do with what we have.
I did say you're not wrong. But that is very much American. You're guilty of something and the cops are there to arrest as many people as possible. I truly retarded way for citizens to be policed.
But don't let this put you off keeping all your data on the cloud.
I won't. I mean MySpace has as much to do with the cloud as it does my local supermarket, and I'm not put off going down there to buy a bottle of coke either.
Seriously are you guys young and don't remember that absolutely nothing about MySpace involved them "storing" things on your behalf? From what I recall there wasn't even a way of downloading things you uploaded on the platform.
Errr this is MySpace. No one "stored" anything on there. Don't talk about it like a cloud provider. Literally nothing of value was lost, it's just no longer being shared with both of the remaining MySpace customers.
I mean that literally. It's impossible to believe there are literally no backups at all
It's impossible to believe that there's no backup of a site that has been bought and sold a number of times and has so little interest that people couldn't believe it was still operating in the first place?
You proved me point poetically. People are too concerned with posting lists of links than to actually read what they are about. You posted an alphabetical list. A single police officer getting in trouble for some corruption related issue, even when identified internally by the police and handled with justice would qualify a country to be on that list.
Your ignorance is perpetuating hate and stupidity.
Any testimony given to the police can not be used to your benefit in a trial
You've already made a decision about why you're talking to the police. The vast majority of people advise to never talk to police period. If you're doing it in your defense then obviously never do so without a lawyer.
If the police want to talk to you, have a lawyer present.
And you're back to that generalisation. There are many reasons a police officer may want to talk to you that has nothing to do with them wanting to take you to trial. My own experiences: a) I was a witness of something I didn't realise was a crime in progress, b) I was a victim of a crime I didn't know happened.
No trial for me, just a lovely chat with lovely police officers.
Really. Go have a look at the mailing lists. In the top of the project level for Debian there are no dramatic discussions about systemd. At their level they fully support the implementation and have unwavering for the best part of since the decision was made to adopt it.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't have Spaceforce without some pew pew. I wonder if the space force logo will be an eagle with Trump's haircut.
Says the person who calls the US police thugs.
Context. Maybe try reading my reply in the context of the OP. As for *me* calling police thugs, I think you need to look at the rest of the slashdot threads on this post man. I suggest if you're going to go off the rails the way you did about my post you don't browse at -1.
That's not "safe action" of a control system detecting failure, that's called inherently safer design. So back to the topic at hand, you have a control system that's required for safe operation of a plane, what do you do with your sensor reading, ... or with the absence of it?
At a certain point you need to realize that your design is at the end of its life and move on.
Boeing knew this well in advance, they were about to be put out of business by Airbus, it wasn't about money it was literally about time and not sinking the company.
You may only change your oil every 18,000 miles but that is not what most people are advised to do.
You must drive an old beater. It's not only what most people *are* advised to do, it's what their cars are programmed to advise them to do.
Also, you understate the need for regular maintenance and the complicated engine/emissions/transmissions having problems.
Maybe I just own a more reliable car than you since no part of the manufacturer's maintenance manual of my vehicle has any part of the emission systems scheduled for maintenance (though I stopped reading through it by the time I got to the 150k service, so maybe it gets done with the second timing belt). Don't get me wrong, an O2 sensor fails and the shit will go into limp mode to the garage, and cars are tested against emissions on a yearly basis here, but there's no preventative maintenance, only breakdown maintenance and my subtle dig at Range Rover was that was the only car I or any of my friends have ever had problems with their emissions systems with ... and breaks ... and accessory belt, some ECU issue, the central locking failed etc etc.
All of my ICE cars required several trips a year for routine maintenance or things that broke.
Wow! Just wow! Maybe you're unlucky in choice of car or just in general but the only thing my car is in the garage for is tire changes and oil changes, every 12-16months depending on how far I drive it. If it goes in the workshop twice a year it's because I didn't drive it enough and the maintenance cycle and roadworthy cycles go out of sync.
but after redoing the seals a few times
Yeah I wasn't joking about Range Rover :-)
Actually I defend those. Those reactors in design and engineering predate all modern concepts of safety. They were designed when safety specifications were prescriptive leading to a disconnect between risk and safety systems. They didn't follow the barrier triangle starting with inherent safety which really wasn't realised until the 80s. Three mile island would be captured these day by a first year student doing a mandatory HAZard and OPerability study using the queue card high-flow, a process which came long after all 4 reactors were built. Let's not kid ourselves, no amount of safety system designs could ever have prevented Chernobyl as that was institutional stupidity which led to that incident rather than a perfectly functioning (disabled intentionally) safety system. And while I have high hope that people would have caught what ultimately escalated Fukushima it isn't actually considered in any of the safety system design standards which would specify they have redundancy (they did), would specify that they have individual systems for shutdown, individual systems for maintaining power, but specifically exclude the consideration or calculation of double-jeopardy events which is what ultimately led to the Fukushima meltdown.
You missed my subtle point. The numbers are fine. In all 4 cases no single reactor incident was caused by a randomised failure event of safety equipment. Ultimately it's the idiots running the show that decide to do things like put generators in flood prone basements, disable safety systems, or not consider passing PRVs, and above all... shit's old. We'll keep having these incidents until we actually start retiring 50 year old reactors and replace them with something modern.
Can someone explain this for those of us who don't live and breath bash?
but I doubt something as core as "who maintains the servers" has not had reasonable continuity
Continuity is no where near as important as turnover. A lot is lost in any change in staff. You're foolish to think changing company and or staff doesn't have a huge impact on your backup strategy / capability.
Also do you have evidence that Murdoch didn't just stick it in a box and said bye? I mean according to TFS they just lost a shitton of stuff, which is quite at odds with the pedestal on which you have elevated them.
Its a modern day burning of the Alexandria Library, A lot of history just got killed.
Oh please. MySpace was not ever an archive. It was a place for bands to spread a couple of their tracks. It is the modern day burning down of your favourite pub, nothing more. A venue for discovering a couple of bands has been lost. If those bands were worth while they either have published music, moved on to other platforms, or bothered to actually save copies of their songs on their computers.
Comparing it to one of the most significant archives of history is beyond asinine.
The summary reads like nonsensical whinging about things that have nothing to do with Adobe.
Animated GIF not being supported is a good thing. We almost killed that crappy thing until bloody Facebook decided to create a GIF keyboard that allowed you to reply with animated memes. What good purposes outside of this still remains for GIF? Leave it in the 90s along with Zip drives, floppy disks, and computer cases without any style. You complain that Adobe carries itself like it's the only game in town while acknowledging that it's the only game in town and that you can't get away from it. *golfclap*.
As for not supporting an OSX feature, I'm sorry. I'm sorry you think Mac is as relevant as it once was. Once the platform of creators has for so long rested on its laurels, provided no good incentive for consumers to favour it and its expensive non-customisable hardware, and repeatedly shat on developers of it's own platform to the point where it's x64 migration was managed poorly enough that an entire major version of Adobe's suite wasn't released on Mac in 64bit variant at a time where > 4GB of memory was actually relevant to the industry. OSX has a native fullscreen feature? Cool, the couple of percent of the market may be disappointed that Adobe doesn't support it, instead it rolled it's own fullscreen feature for the far more popular (almost by an order of magnitude now) windows platform.
Often old and simpler is far better....
Right until you look at outcomes. You're speaking emotionally from a recent tragic incident. You're not speaking based on data. The airline (along with others such as the process and automotive) industries have had a long downward trend of safety incidents. One of the primary drivers of that has been taking control away from people. As a Boeing noses down to prevent a stall, a car somewhere in the world saves a drive thanks to forward crash avoidance. An operator who mistakenly lowers the level from a high pressure separator is greeted by flashing alarms on his screen and a valve slamming shut in the field to prevent an explosion.
Humans make mistakes, giving them full control is not the answer. It's always worth remembering why this system was built, and how in the past pilots have through their own failure demolished plenty of planes due to putting the aircraft into a stall.
Sidenote: The thing that is really missing here which goes against industry trends is a lack of inherently safer design. A more stable plane is preferable to a plane that is only stable when a certain control system is active.
What we see here is reflected somewhat in most major incident investigations through industry involving instrumented systems, the reliability of the equipment is not in question. Throughout the process industry some 80% of safety system failures were systematic. Poor design, poor maintenance, poor interaction, incorrect operation, etc. One in 100000 units failing is not what ultimately caused these planes to crash, it was a bunch of engineers who didn't think about how the system works in operation.
This issue seems like something the pilots can work around if they know what is going on, which the U.S. pilots seem to.
Based on:
That's a lot of flights they have done with the plane, so it's not like the plane is inherently unsafe
You can't draw that conclusion from the data they presented you. This isn't like a plane that is hard to fly. What we are talking about here is pilots responding to a very specific instrumentation problem. The only relevant statistic for how well U.S. pilots can cope with this is how many times Southwest Cargo pilots have suddenly had MCAS fail on them and try to trim down the nose, and how many times in the face of this problem they successfully disabled the system and landed safely. The total number of hours in the air is entirely meaningless to what your pilots know or are capable of.
so it's not like the plane is inherently unsafe
Indeed the plane is not inherently unsafe, however it presents an incredible risk to crew and cargo when a very specific instrumented failure occurs.
The statement of using only one sensor is scary especially for something that automatically adjust the flight path, but even having two is scary. With 2 sensors how does the software know which is right when they disagree ? For true fault tolerance you need a minimum of 3 sensors
It is scary, but it is also a trend. As we have continued to advance in our sensor and instrumentation development (not only in airlines but across many industries where sensors are required) we have become increasingly more reliable. As new standards are published they have continued to reduce requirements for redundancy and independence for safety critical equipment. Even the latest IEC standards stopping your local chemical plant from gassing all its neighbours is following this trend.
That said, I can't speak for the airline industry but one thing has been clear, more often than not doing reliability calculations is borderline a waste of time. Saying a unit fails ever x number of units is irrelevant as the vast majority of sensor problems across multiple industries are systematic. Incorrectly designed or not suitable for service. Assembly faults, poor maintenance, sheer dumb luck, all of these don't play out in manufacturers reliability figures.
But to your point of multiple sensors you're absolutely right. It's like the old saying: A man with a watch knows what time it is, but a man with 2 watches is never quite sure. If you can't nominate a "safe" condition for your control scheme then you can't operate with 1 or 2 sensors as even if you can detect a fault you are unable to handle it. In this case there is no "safe" condition for the system to act.
A system designed to overcome aerodynamic flaws of larger engines is not a major failure scenario?
Of course it is, but what is the safe action? Return control to the pilot when the system is designed to actively kick in to prevent the pilot stalling, or to maintain control in the face of being wrong (which is what happened here).
what pilot would trim up 21 times before disconnecting auto pilot and flying by hand while figuring out what is going on. This is showing the pilot is way to reliant on computers rather than hand flying the plane
You made a dangerous assumption and misplaced your blame. Autopilot was not enabled here. Engaging autopilot disables MCAS and disabling autopilot enables MCAS, which comes back to the pilot training component of the Lion Air investigation. The system as designed is too complex to disable under stress.
Who's at fault here, Boeing or the country with lax pilot regulation?
With your second point specifically identified early in the investigation, Boeing. They are the ones who provide the pilot training materials for their planes.
(Possibly wired.)
pffft. Millennial. Back in my day they were literal mechanical plungers threaded through a stainless steel braid. ;-)
Stopping motorists for speeding is "manpower heavy", but the police do it all the time.
Indeed and it is very much non-consistent which is precisely why:
1) Post accident your punishment may be adjusted once police determine you were speeding either through analysis or blackbox data if some were recoverable from the ECU.
2) Fixed speed cameras are a thing.
Fining people for distracted driving would be a literal gold mine for them
Indeed, and until we have a technical and legal system in place to do this we'll have to make do with what we have.
I did say you're not wrong. But that is very much American. You're guilty of something and the cops are there to arrest as many people as possible. I truly retarded way for citizens to be policed.
But don't let this put you off keeping all your data on the cloud.
I won't. I mean MySpace has as much to do with the cloud as it does my local supermarket, and I'm not put off going down there to buy a bottle of coke either.
Seriously are you guys young and don't remember that absolutely nothing about MySpace involved them "storing" things on your behalf? From what I recall there wasn't even a way of downloading things you uploaded on the platform.
Errr this is MySpace. No one "stored" anything on there. Don't talk about it like a cloud provider. Literally nothing of value was lost, it's just no longer being shared with both of the remaining MySpace customers.
I mean that literally. It's impossible to believe there are literally no backups at all
It's impossible to believe that there's no backup of a site that has been bought and sold a number of times and has so little interest that people couldn't believe it was still operating in the first place?
Apparently the world disagrees with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You proved me point poetically. People are too concerned with posting lists of links than to actually read what they are about. You posted an alphabetical list. A single police officer getting in trouble for some corruption related issue, even when identified internally by the police and handled with justice would qualify a country to be on that list.
Your ignorance is perpetuating hate and stupidity.
Any testimony given to the police can not be used to your benefit in a trial
You've already made a decision about why you're talking to the police. The vast majority of people advise to never talk to police period. If you're doing it in your defense then obviously never do so without a lawyer.
If the police want to talk to you, have a lawyer present.
And you're back to that generalisation. There are many reasons a police officer may want to talk to you that has nothing to do with them wanting to take you to trial. My own experiences: a) I was a witness of something I didn't realise was a crime in progress, b) I was a victim of a crime I didn't know happened.
No trial for me, just a lovely chat with lovely police officers.
Good post! People often forget that last point.
Really. Go have a look at the mailing lists. In the top of the project level for Debian there are no dramatic discussions about systemd. At their level they fully support the implementation and have unwavering for the best part of since the decision was made to adopt it.
So because a few kids skipped school you're vilifying the cause which showed a turnout larger than what Trump would define "the biggest ever"?
You have a shithouse attitude towards humanity.