What is worse is that they stabbed pilots in the back and that they completely ignored the requirement that in avionics everything critical for safety needs to be redundant. Feeding this system from a single sensor is criminally negligent in the first place, but combine that with not telling the pilots and the whole thing is a trap that was sure to kill sooner or later.
Naa, that is the old thinking, were safety was more important than profits. These days profits are everything and who cares if 350 people get killed by some severe violations of the elementary base principles of safety-engineering.
That said, I think that the decision makers here may well have committed criminally negligent homicide in 350 cases. I mean, feeding a safety-critical system from only one sensor, not educating pilots and building an inherently unstable aircraft in the first place? How much worse can they realistically screw this up? They must have known this was a high-risk design, but they pushed it anyways. That makes them fully responsible.
Naa, that is the old thinking. The new thinking is that it must be as cheap as possible, profits must be maximized and if it goes wrong, blame the young end inexperienced engineers that did not have the guts to give management a clear "no". Also, do not tell the pilots about the crap engineering you put in there, they may refuse to fly that thing otherwise.
If you ignore all principles of safety engineering, then it can. Otherwise it cannot. Seems that Boeing is doing on their planes what Intel does on its CPUs. If you optimize profits at any cost, things usually gets hugely expensive at some time.
Probably. The whole thing is a mess, these engines have no business being on that plane. Add an apparently completely incompetent belief that software can fix anything and you get a lot of dead people, all for profit optimization.
Being able to turn it of and having actually been informed how to turn it off ans what it does are two different things. Boeing tried to keep this system secret, probably because pilots would have refused to fly a plane that has such a critical system dependent on a single sensor.
I doubt very much than any senior, experienced engineer was in favor of this. It was very likely management that said "do it or look for a new job". Some will have looked for a new job instead, but some people cannot afford to.
For a system that can kill the aircraft? That sounds like criminal negligence to me. Somebody wanted to do things on the cheap obviously, ignoring all rules of the design of critical systems. In particular, you never, ever rely on a single sensor, and you make damn sure the operators (pilots) understand how things work. About 300 killed people later, Boeing seems to have remembered at least some of the basics.
Just means you cannot compete. If your best business strategy is lying about the products of the competition, then you do not have a future. Obviously that is one part of what is going on. The second one may be that US has trouble breaking into Huawei products to spy in its "allies". ("Vassals", really in their thinking.)
I don't think that getting anything from the Moon to Earth will be worthwhile anytime soon. Use it there or in space is something else. And we will need to be doing that, because getting stuff from Earth to the moon is extremely expensive and will likely remain so for quite a while.
There is also the little problem that if this stuff could be brought back cheaper than mining it on Earth, the prices would just drop, killing the profits again. The thing is, anything mined on the moon will only be useful for using it on the Moon or in space. We are not quite there yet to be doing that. Maybe in 20...50 years.
I don't think they have to support stuff forever, that would not be reasonable.
What I think is that if they have security fixes, they must make them generally available. I really making security-fixes that _are_ available pay-only, enterprise-only is not acceptable.
I mean, what they are fixing are defects in their product. This is not about extended or better functionality, this is about fixing their own screw-ups. The law is utterly borked here and has no relation to the actual reality of software.
She lived off campus and the landlord was never contacted by the school. Unless her ISP was contacted, there was no way for them to know enough to even accuse her. They didn't even know her IP address. And the school officials clearly don't understand computer forensics as they seem to think that editing a photo is the same as spoofing the cryptographic signatures on a picture.
Interesting. The ISP query would need at the very least law-enforcement privileges and may still be ineffective. Also, how can they have the MAC address and no IP address? That does not make any sense. You cannot actually use the MAC address for anything over the network except to get an IP address. Something is really screwed up here.
Slashdot Mirror
What is worse is that they stabbed pilots in the back and that they completely ignored the requirement that in avionics everything critical for safety needs to be redundant. Feeding this system from a single sensor is criminally negligent in the first place, but combine that with not telling the pilots and the whole thing is a trap that was sure to kill sooner or later.
Naa, that is the old thinking, were safety was more important than profits. These days profits are everything and who cares if 350 people get killed by some severe violations of the elementary base principles of safety-engineering.
That said, I think that the decision makers here may well have committed criminally negligent homicide in 350 cases. I mean, feeding a safety-critical system from only one sensor, not educating pilots and building an inherently unstable aircraft in the first place? How much worse can they realistically screw this up? They must have known this was a high-risk design, but they pushed it anyways. That makes them fully responsible.
Makes complete sense to me. Things are really messed up in the consumer desktop space...
Otherwise, why go to all that trouble?
Naa, that is the old thinking. The new thinking is that it must be as cheap as possible, profits must be maximized and if it goes wrong, blame the young end inexperienced engineers that did not have the guts to give management a clear "no". Also, do not tell the pilots about the crap engineering you put in there, they may refuse to fly that thing otherwise.
Technology is fine. But redundancy costs money and an MBA moron telling an engineer to do it cheap or look for a new job can do untold damage.
No spanning tree in that box? What cheap crap were you using?
If you ignore all principles of safety engineering, then it can. Otherwise it cannot. Seems that Boeing is doing on their planes what Intel does on its CPUs. If you optimize profits at any cost, things usually gets hugely expensive at some time.
Probably. The whole thing is a mess, these engines have no business being on that plane. Add an apparently completely incompetent belief that software can fix anything and you get a lot of dead people, all for profit optimization.
Being able to turn it of and having actually been informed how to turn it off ans what it does are two different things. Boeing tried to keep this system secret, probably because pilots would have refused to fly a plane that has such a critical system dependent on a single sensor.
I doubt very much than any senior, experienced engineer was in favor of this. It was very likely management that said "do it or look for a new job". Some will have looked for a new job instead, but some people cannot afford to.
For a system that can kill the aircraft? That sounds like criminal negligence to me. Somebody wanted to do things on the cheap obviously, ignoring all rules of the design of critical systems. In particular, you never, ever rely on a single sensor, and you make damn sure the operators (pilots) understand how things work. About 300 killed people later, Boeing seems to have remembered at least some of the basics.
Just means you cannot compete. If your best business strategy is lying about the products of the competition, then you do not have a future. Obviously that is one part of what is going on. The second one may be that US has trouble breaking into Huawei products to spy in its "allies". ("Vassals", really in their thinking.)
I do not think Microsoft has that skill anymore...
Clearly, MS does not have the maturity to responsibly decide what to install and what not.
The humans making the decision will just send the robots in there, the ones killed will have done _something_ to deserve it, right?
Hehehehe....
Indeed.
I don't think that getting anything from the Moon to Earth will be worthwhile anytime soon. Use it there or in space is something else. And we will need to be doing that, because getting stuff from Earth to the moon is extremely expensive and will likely remain so for quite a while.
There is also the little problem that if this stuff could be brought back cheaper than mining it on Earth, the prices would just drop, killing the profits again. The thing is, anything mined on the moon will only be useful for using it on the Moon or in space. We are not quite there yet to be doing that. Maybe in 20...50 years.
I don't think they have to support stuff forever, that would not be reasonable.
What I think is that if they have security fixes, they must make them generally available. I really making security-fixes that _are_ available pay-only, enterprise-only is not acceptable.
I mean, what they are fixing are defects in their product. This is not about extended or better functionality, this is about fixing their own screw-ups. The law is utterly borked here and has no relation to the actual reality of software.
She lived off campus and the landlord was never contacted by the school. Unless her ISP was contacted, there was no way for them to know enough to even accuse her. They didn't even know her IP address. And the school officials clearly don't understand computer forensics as they seem to think that editing a photo is the same as spoofing the cryptographic signatures on a picture.
Interesting. The ISP query would need at the very least law-enforcement privileges and may still be ineffective. Also, how can they have the MAC address and no IP address? That does not make any sense. You cannot actually use the MAC address for anything over the network except to get an IP address. Something is really screwed up here.
That is ok, and I think I lean your way. But for many people it is different.
Yes indeed.