If you are referring to the Ariane 5 rocket that self-destructed shortly after lift-off, you have the wrong error. The problem was reusing the code without testing it properly for the new system.
The problem was that the variable containing the acceleration was not large enough to hold the actual number. The Ariane 5 was more powerfull and had higher acceleration than the Ariane 4, which used the code in question with out a problem.
Basically the variable should have been changed from int to long. But, because the software was not retested with new maximum values, the problem went undetected.
When the value exceded the max size of int, the value went negative and the computer thought the rocket had flipped and auto-destruct was triggered.
This as a problem with the testing of the software. The error checking or exception handling worked perfectly.
The difference between from what you are referencing and what has happened today is that former is a strike meant to minimize "collateral damage" or unnecessary loss of innocent life and the later was clearly intended to maximize the number of lives taken.
It is the difference between a doctor performing surgery and a maniac attacking a crowd with a sword.
As someone who has been both a Unix admin and a professional driver, I can honestly say all these car analogies fail miserably. Here's why:
Most people can drive a car with an automatic transmission.
Many people can drive a car with a manual transmission.
Some people can safely drive a large vehicle
Relatively few people can get into a tractor, hook up a trailer, drive across the country, and then back that tractor-trailer up into a space with a clearance of less than 3 feet to either side.
Most people can turn on a windows computer and use it to browse the web
Many people can use a windows computer and application software productively.
Some people can use a linux computer effectively and proficently.
Relatively few people load, customize, build and install a linux distribution, configure X-windows by hand, secure linux, and troubleshoot problems with a linux distribution.
Like it or not, many people don't have the skills or interest to become proficient with linux. Just like many people don't need to be able to drive a race car or a tractor-trailer.
You are so horribly misinformed, I am not sure where to begin, and hope that you are, in fact, a troll.
First off, you can not just shut off a reactor.
Well, depending on the type of reactor, to shut it off one lowers the control rods, which takes the reactor sub-critical.
You can turn off the current leading into the uranium but it takes over 24 hours to began to cool.
No current goes to the uranium in a reactor.
When the reactor goes subcritical, it begins to cool immediately. It can take over 24 hours for a reactor to cool down, but the same can be said of conventional power plants.
Even with with adaquate water pumping. Suppose there was a serious problem with a few water pumps. How would you shut if off?
All reactors I know of are designed to maintain coolant flow without the pumps working. Natural convection is the means. The only way to stop the natural coolant flow is by closing the valves. As for shutting it off, see what I said about control rods above.
This problem actually did happen at three mile island in 1979. No, it didn't.
By the time they found the problem with the help of president carter the core was already half-way dry out of water!
What you claim to be the problem was not the problem.
President Carter had nothing to do with anything involving Three Mile Island.
The core was never uncovered. If it had been uncovered, there would have been a danger of meltdown. If it had been half-way dry, there would have been a meltdown.
I believe the problem russia was also due to a water cooling problem.
Having read the report on Chernobyl and understood it, it is apparent that the operators were at fault. During a restart after maintanence, the operators received conflicting information from gauges. Rather than shutting down and determing the problem (which should be and was SOP), they chose to believe one reading over another. They overrode safety protocols. That was the cause of the failure.
There are reactor designs that will shutdown if the coolant flow is drained from them. They are called Water Moderated Reactors. They are the safest reactors that I know.
As for the problem of disposal of waste, the best play I have seen involves burying the waste under ground on the Abysal Plain in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. This happens to be the most geologically stable location on the planet.
And, if you are wondering, yes I have been trained in nuclear physics, nuclear reactor design, and nuclear reactor operation.
I had to deal with Pilot Trainees. They couldn't understand why their computer stopped working after they left it turned on, in a thunderstorm, under an open window, on the windward side of the building. The big puddle of water didn't even clue them in. These same trainees, are now pilots in the USN.
They are living proof idiots can graduate flight school in the military.
I was in high school in Tampa, FL. We went outside to watch the launch. It was a beautiful day. We watched as it came up into view and climbed. Then, it turned into a ball of smoke.
I looked a little bit like a dandelion. The SRBs
we flying around it like flies. I remember saying
"That's not right." We watched.. it was horrifically fascinating... like watching a car accident happen in slow motion. We went in and watched the debris rain from the sky.
Exactly where in the founding document of the United States of America (i.e. The Constitution)
does it state "this country is founded upon the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" or anything near that?
For the record, the Declaration of Independence is not apart of the Founding of the U.S. It grants nor promises any rights. The closest the Constitution comes to any of that is saying "... to secure the blessing of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..."
Regrettfully, this country was founded by people who believed in one things that is now in short supply, Personal Responsiblity. If people would start taking responsiblities for themselves and their actions, we would not have so many lawsuits, stupid laws, over-regulation, poorly qualified elected officials. We would not have dwindling personal freedom. We would not have such a poorly informed populace. We might even have a government to be proud of.
We, as hackers, like to tinker with the internals of things. Well, go out and hack the political system, the government, and the parties.
Remember, this is your government. It started out as Open Source, make it so again.... or shut up and be sheep. The only thing you have to fear is fear, itself.
Even if we assume that none of the cancers forecasted has arisen (and that's an absurd assumption to make, since cancers take decades to appear in exposed populations)
Apparently, you did not read your own source:
an accidental re-entry of the spacecraft into Earth's atmosphere
There was NO accidental re-entry, therefore there will be NO exposed populations for the cancer to appear in. Ergo, it is NOT an absurd assumption.
And to address your concern over the cancer risks should the probe have crashed, it may have caused no cancers at all as well. There is a whole branch of science devoted to communicating risk. It is by no means perfect. The major question is:
How did Dr. Burden arrive at his numbers?
If Dr. Burden assumed the world population as the
exposure group then: 3,480 / ~ 6,000,000,000 = 0.000058% chance that any one person will be afflicted. Also, if Dr. Burden assumed impact in a
highly populated location (population > 5,000,000) then one needs to determine the odds of such an impact and adjust the end result as well. And there are other consideration.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are referring to the Ariane 5 rocket that self-destructed shortly after lift-off, you have the wrong error. The problem was reusing the code without testing it properly for the new system.
The problem was that the variable containing the acceleration was not large enough to hold the actual number. The Ariane 5 was more powerfull and had higher acceleration than the Ariane 4, which used the code in question with out a problem.
Basically the variable should have been changed from int to long. But, because the software was not retested with new maximum values, the problem went undetected.
When the value exceded the max size of int, the value went negative and the computer thought the rocket had flipped and auto-destruct was triggered.
This as a problem with the testing of the software. The error checking or exception handling worked perfectly.
The difference between from what you are referencing and what has happened today is that former is a strike meant to minimize "collateral damage" or unnecessary loss of innocent life and the later was clearly intended to maximize the number of lives taken.
It is the difference between a doctor performing surgery and a maniac attacking a crowd with a sword.
Those involved should be and will be hunted down. They have declared war on the U.S. and the U.S. will respond in kind.
If the U.S. does not respond and retaliate, we will be targeted again.
My question to you is Why you are asking the U.S. not to retaliate, but not condeming the act?
My question to the people involved is Why don't you make yourselves known?
As someone who has been both a Unix admin and a professional driver, I can honestly say all these car analogies fail miserably. Here's why:
Like it or not, many people don't have the skills or interest to become proficient with linux. Just like many people don't need to be able to drive a race car or a tractor-trailer.
You are so horribly misinformed, I am not sure where to begin, and hope that you are, in fact, a troll.
First off, you can not just shut off a reactor.
Well, depending on the type of reactor, to shut it off one lowers the control rods, which takes the reactor sub-critical.
You can turn off the current leading into the uranium but it takes over 24 hours to began to cool.
Even with with adaquate water pumping. Suppose there was a serious problem with a few water pumps. How would you shut if off?
All reactors I know of are designed to maintain coolant flow without the pumps working. Natural convection is the means. The only way to stop the natural coolant flow is by closing the valves. As for shutting it off, see what I said about control rods above.
This problem actually did happen at three mile island in 1979.
No, it didn't.
By the time they found the problem with the help of president carter the core was already half-way dry out of water!
I believe the problem russia was also due to a water cooling problem.
Having read the report on Chernobyl and understood it, it is apparent that the operators were at fault. During a restart after maintanence, the operators received conflicting information from gauges. Rather than shutting down and determing the problem (which should be and was SOP), they chose to believe one reading over another. They overrode safety protocols. That was the cause of the failure.
There are reactor designs that will shutdown if the coolant flow is drained from them. They are called Water Moderated Reactors. They are the safest reactors that I know.
As for the problem of disposal of waste, the best play I have seen involves burying the waste under ground on the Abysal Plain in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. This happens to be the most geologically stable location on the planet.
And, if you are wondering, yes I have been trained in nuclear physics, nuclear reactor design, and nuclear reactor operation.
Dave
I worked on NAS Pensacola with Training Wing 6.
I had to deal with Pilot Trainees. They couldn't understand why their computer stopped working after they left it turned on, in a thunderstorm, under an open window, on the windward side of the building. The big puddle of water didn't even clue them in. These same trainees, are now pilots in the USN.
They are living proof idiots can graduate flight school in the military.
Dave
It can't be R/Eed without violating the DCMA, so no one can write an agent for spying.
I was in high school in Tampa, FL. We went outside to watch the launch. It was a beautiful day. We watched as it came up into view and climbed. Then, it turned into a ball of smoke. I looked a little bit like a dandelion. The SRBs we flying around it like flies. I remember saying "That's not right." We watched.. it was horrifically fascinating... like watching a car accident happen in slow motion. We went in and watched the debris rain from the sky.
I will never forget it.
I hope the 7 rest well. Dave
Exactly where in the founding document of the United States of America (i.e. The Constitution) does it state "this country is founded upon the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" or anything near that?
For the record, the Declaration of Independence is not apart of the Founding of the U.S. It grants nor promises any rights. The closest the Constitution comes to any of that is saying "... to secure the blessing of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..."
Regrettfully, this country was founded by people who believed in one things that is now in short supply, Personal Responsiblity. If people would start taking responsiblities for themselves and their actions, we would not have so many lawsuits, stupid laws, over-regulation, poorly qualified elected officials. We would not have dwindling personal freedom. We would not have such a poorly informed populace. We might even have a government to be proud of.
We, as hackers, like to tinker with the internals of things. Well, go out and hack the political system, the government, and the parties. Remember, this is your government. It started out as Open Source, make it so again.... or shut up and be sheep. The only thing you have to fear is fear, itself.
Check out the membership section of www.t13.org
I can envision a way to work this fairly easily.
Maybe I will make it my next project: a visual piping facility
DaveApparently, you did not read your own source:
an accidental re-entry of the spacecraft into Earth's atmosphere
There was NO accidental re-entry, therefore there will be NO exposed populations for the cancer to appear in. Ergo, it is NOT an absurd assumption.
And to address your concern over the cancer risks should the probe have crashed, it may have caused no cancers at all as well. There is a whole branch of science devoted to communicating risk. It is by no means perfect. The major question is: How did Dr. Burden arrive at his numbers?
If Dr. Burden assumed the world population as the exposure group then: 3,480 / ~ 6,000,000,000 = 0.000058% chance that any one person will be afflicted. Also, if Dr. Burden assumed impact in a highly populated location (population > 5,000,000) then one needs to determine the odds of such an impact and adjust the end result as well. And there are other consideration.
I could go on, but I will begin to ramble. Dave