On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."very lucky
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."They were lucky ...
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:cant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer <headstone255@yahoo.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote:In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's software, >>>>>>>>>>> and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is
The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code >>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather than >>>>>>>>>>>> detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual bugs. >>>>>>>>>>>
necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author in the
first place and to study with equal determination the specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding layouts. >>>>>>>>>>>
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which >>>>>>>>>>> caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related to >>>>>>>>>> systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system >>>>>>>>>> failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs (one >>>>>>>>>> being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the the problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its airworhtiness
certificate, so that could be a problem.
overheating engines .....
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines".
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either.
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines"
that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."very lucky
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."They were lucky ...
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:cant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with >>>>>>>> overheating engines .....
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer <headstone255@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote:In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's software, >>>>>>>>>>>> and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is
The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>> detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual bugs. >>>>>>>>>>>>
necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author in the
first place and to study with equal determination the specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding layouts.
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which >>>>>>>>>>>> caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related to >>>>>>>>>>> systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system >>>>>>>>>>> failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs (one
being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the the problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its airworhtiness
certificate, so that could be a problem.
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines".
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either. >>>>>
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines"
that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?
Talking of dark, did you give Geraldine that Cleveland Steamer you promised her, Jim?
On 17/03/2019 17:19, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:get to fuck you sick bastard.....
On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."very lucky
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."They were lucky ...
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:cant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with >>>>>>>>> overheating engines .....
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer <headstone255@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote:In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's software,
The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual bugs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is
necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author in the
first place and to study with equal determination the specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding layouts.
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which >>>>>>>>>>>>> caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related to >>>>>>>>>>>> systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system >>>>>>>>>>>> failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs (one
being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the the problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its airworhtiness
certificate, so that could be a problem.
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines".
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either. >>>>>>
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines"
that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?
Talking of dark, did you give Geraldine that Cleveland Steamer you promised >> her, Jim?
Jim GM4DHJ ...<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer<headstone255@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote:
The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code
inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better
validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code
inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather than
detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find
violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual bugs.
In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's software,
and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author in
the
first place and to study with equal determination the specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so
what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding
layouts.
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which
caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related to
systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system
failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs
(one
being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If
that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off
the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the the
problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its airworhtinesscant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with overheating engines .....
certificate, so that could be a problem.
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines".They were lucky ...
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either.very lucky
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines"common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark
that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?
Talking of dark, did you give Geraldine that Cleveland Steamer you promised her, Jim?
On 17 Mar 2019, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote
(in
article<263522202.574535903.295306.usenet- stephenthomascole.com@news.individual.net>):
Jim GM4DHJ ...<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."They were lucky ...
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:cant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with >>>>>>>>> overheating engines .....
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer<headstone255@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote:In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's software,
The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better >>>>>>>>>>>>>> validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find >>>>>>>>>>>>>> violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual bugs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is
necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
first place and to study with equal determination the >>>>>>>>>>>>> specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so >>>>>>>>>>>>> what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding >>>>>>>>>>>>> layouts.
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which >>>>>>>>>>>>> caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related to >>>>>>>>>>>> systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system >>>>>>>>>>>> failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs >>>>>>>>>>>> (one
being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If >>>>>>>>>>> that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off >>>>>>>>>>> the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the the >>>>>>>>>>> problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its
airworhtiness
certificate, so that could be a problem.
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines".
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either. >>>>> very lucky
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines"
that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?
Talking of dark, did you give Geraldine that Cleveland Steamer you promised >> her, Jim?
The Yanks have always played dirty and been bad losers when it comes to aviation.
Remember the childish way they kicked off over Concorde? Wouldn’t allow it to fly to the USA initially, and then refused to allow it to land in New York. Meanwhile they were desperately trying to buy time in order that their rival version could be completed and brought into service and (so they thought) wipe the floor with the European version.
Of course it never happened, so in a fit of revenge their shitty airlines never ordered any, and put pressure on worldwide airlines to do likewise.
And these are the twats who want to sell us their shit covered chicken washed in chlorine.
Keema's Nan<fruity_sorric@bungay.com> wrote:
On 17 Mar 2019, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote
(in
article<263522202.574535903.295306.usenet- stephenthomascole.com@news.individual.net>):
Jim GM4DHJ ...<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer<headstone255@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote:
The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code
inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better
validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code
inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather
than
detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find
violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual
bugs.
In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's
software,
and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author
in
the
first place and to study with equal determination the
specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so
what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding
layouts.
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which
caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related
to
systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system
failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs
(one
being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If
that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off
the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the
the
problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its airworhtinesscant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with
certificate, so that could be a problem.
overheating engines .....
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines".They were lucky ...
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either.very lucky
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines" that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark
Talking of dark, did you give Geraldine that Cleveland Steamer you promised
her, Jim?
The Yanks have always played dirty and been bad losers when it comes to aviation.
Remember the childish way they kicked off over Concorde? Wouldn’t allow it
to fly to the USA initially, and then refused to allow it to land in New York. Meanwhile they were desperately trying to buy time in order that their
rival version could be completed and brought into service and (so they thought) wipe the floor with the European version.
Of course it never happened, so in a fit of revenge their shitty airlines never ordered any, and put pressure on worldwide airlines to do likewise.
And these are the twats who want to sell us their shit covered chicken washed
in chlorine.
One of ukra’s most Brexity contributors says he’s more than happy to eat chicken that’s been doused in chlorine.
On 17 Mar 2019, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote
(in
article<641765251.574539864.554418.usenet- stephenthomascole.com@news.individual.net>):
Keema's Nan<fruity_sorric@bungay.com> wrote:
On 17 Mar 2019, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote
(in
article<263522202.574535903.295306.usenet-
stephenthomascole.com@news.individual.net>):
Jim GM4DHJ ...<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:Talking of dark, did you give Geraldine that Cleveland Steamer you promised
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark >>>>
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:cant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with >>>>>>>>>>> overheating engines .....
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs
Computer<headstone255@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote:
The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bugs.
In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software,
and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
the
first place and to study with equal determination the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> layouts.
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system >>>>>>>>>>>>>> failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (one
being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If >>>>>>>>>>>>> that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off >>>>>>>>>>>>> the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its >>>>>>>>>>>> airworhtiness
certificate, so that could be a problem.
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines". >>>>>>>>> They were lucky ...
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either. >>>>>>> very lucky
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines" >>>>>> that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?
her, Jim?
The Yanks have always played dirty and been bad losers when it comes to
aviation.
Remember the childish way they kicked off over Concorde? Wouldn’t allow it
to fly to the USA initially, and then refused to allow it to land in New >>> York. Meanwhile they were desperately trying to buy time in order that their
rival version could be completed and brought into service and (so they
thought) wipe the floor with the European version.
Of course it never happened, so in a fit of revenge their shitty airlines >>> never ordered any, and put pressure on worldwide airlines to do likewise. >>>
And these are the twats who want to sell us their shit covered chicken
washed
in chlorine.
One of ukra’s most Brexity contributors says he’s more than happy to eat >> chicken that’s been doused in chlorine.
And?
Is he the Pied Chicken-Shit Piper of Usenet?
On 17 Mar 2019, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote
(in
article<263522202.574535903.295306.usenet- >stephenthomascole.com@news.individual.net>):
Jim GM4DHJ ...<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."They were lucky ...
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:cant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with >> > > > > > > > overheating engines .....
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer<headstone255@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote:
The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code
inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better
validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code
inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather than
detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find
violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual bugs.
In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's software,
and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is
necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author in
the
first place and to study with equal determination the >> > > > > > > > > > > > specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so
what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding
layouts.
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which
caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related to
systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system
failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs
(one
being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If
that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off
the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the the
problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its
airworhtiness
certificate, so that could be a problem.
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines".
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either. >> > > > very lucky
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines"
that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?
Talking of dark, did you give Geraldine that Cleveland Steamer you promised >> her, Jim?
The Yanks have always played dirty and been bad losers when it comes to >aviation.
Remember the childish way they kicked off over Concorde? Wouldn’t allow it
to fly to the USA initially, and then refused to allow it to land in New >York. Meanwhile they were desperately trying to buy time in order that their >rival version could be completed and brought into service and (so they >thought) wipe the floor with the European version.
Of course it never happened, so in a fit of revenge their shitty airlines >never ordered any, and put pressure on worldwide airlines to do likewise.
And these are the twats who want to sell us their shit covered chicken washed >in chlorine.
On 17 Mar 2019, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote
(in
article<263522202.574535903.295306.usenet- stephenthomascole.com@news.individual.net>):
Jim GM4DHJ ...<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."They were lucky ...
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:cant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with >>>>>>>>> overheating engines .....
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer<headstone255@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote:In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's software,
The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better >>>>>>>>>>>>>> validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find >>>>>>>>>>>>>> violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual bugs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is
necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
first place and to study with equal determination the >>>>>>>>>>>>> specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so >>>>>>>>>>>>> what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding >>>>>>>>>>>>> layouts.
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which >>>>>>>>>>>>> caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related to >>>>>>>>>>>> systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system >>>>>>>>>>>> failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs >>>>>>>>>>>> (one
being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If >>>>>>>>>>> that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off >>>>>>>>>>> the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the the >>>>>>>>>>> problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its
airworhtiness
certificate, so that could be a problem.
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines".
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either. >>>>> very lucky
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines"
that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?
Talking of dark, did you give Geraldine that Cleveland Steamer you promised >> her, Jim?
The Yanks have always played dirty and been bad losers when it comes to aviation.
Remember the childish way they kicked off over Concorde? Wouldn’t allow it to fly to the USA initially, and then refused to allow it to land in New York. Meanwhile they were desperately trying to buy time in order that their rival version could be completed and brought into service and (so they thought) wipe the floor with the European version.
Of course it never happened, so in a fit of revenge their shitty airlines never ordered any, and put pressure on worldwide airlines to do likewise.
And these are the twats who want to sell us their shit covered chicken washed in chlorine.
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 17:19, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:get to fuck you sick bastard.....
On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark >>>>
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."very lucky
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."They were lucky ...
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:cant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with >>>>>>>>>> overheating engines .....
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer <headstone255@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote:
The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather than
detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual bugs.
In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's software,
and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author in the
first place and to study with equal determination the specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding layouts.
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related to
systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system
failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs (one
being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the the problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its airworhtiness
certificate, so that could be a problem.
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines". >>>>>>>>>
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either. >>>>>>>
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines"
that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?
Talking of dark, did you give Geraldine that Cleveland Steamer you promised >>> her, Jim?
Did it not go well, Jim?
On 17 Mar 2019, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote
(in
article<641765251.574539864.554418.usenet- stephenthomascole.com@news.individual.net>):
Keema's Nan<fruity_sorric@bungay.com> wrote:
On 17 Mar 2019, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote
(in
article<263522202.574535903.295306.usenet-
stephenthomascole.com@news.individual.net>):
Jim GM4DHJ ...<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:Talking of dark, did you give Geraldine that Cleveland Steamer you promised
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark >>>>
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:cant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with >>>>>>>>>>> overheating engines .....
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs
Computer<headstone255@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote:
The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bugs.
In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software,
and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
the
first place and to study with equal determination the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> layouts.
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system >>>>>>>>>>>>>> failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (one
being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If >>>>>>>>>>>>> that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off >>>>>>>>>>>>> the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its >>>>>>>>>>>> airworhtiness
certificate, so that could be a problem.
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines". >>>>>>>>> They were lucky ...
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either. >>>>>>> very lucky
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines" >>>>>> that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?
her, Jim?
The Yanks have always played dirty and been bad losers when it comes to
aviation.
Remember the childish way they kicked off over Concorde? Wouldn’t allow it
to fly to the USA initially, and then refused to allow it to land in New >>> York. Meanwhile they were desperately trying to buy time in order that their
rival version could be completed and brought into service and (so they
thought) wipe the floor with the European version.
Of course it never happened, so in a fit of revenge their shitty airlines >>> never ordered any, and put pressure on worldwide airlines to do likewise. >>>
And these are the twats who want to sell us their shit covered chicken
washed
in chlorine.
One of ukra’s most Brexity contributors says he’s more than happy to eat >> chicken that’s been doused in chlorine.
And?
Is he the Pied Chicken-Shit Piper of Usenet?
On 17/03/2019 18:21, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:no the evening didn't go well but not in the way you filthy mind
On 17/03/2019 17:19, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:get to fuck you sick bastard.....
On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark >>>>>
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."very lucky
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."They were lucky ...
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:cant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with >>>>>>>>>>> overheating engines .....
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer <headstone255@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote:
The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather than
detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual bugs.
In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's software,
and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author in the
first place and to study with equal determination the specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding layouts.
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related to
systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system
failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs (one
being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the the problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its airworhtiness
certificate, so that could be a problem.
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines". >>>>>>>>>>
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either. >>>>>>>>
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines" >>>>>> that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?
Talking of dark, did you give Geraldine that Cleveland Steamer you promised
her, Jim?
Did it not go well, Jim?
works..she ended up in hospital and is about to get her inflamed
gallbladder removed ...so again I say to you fuck off you rancid filthy disgusting little excuse for a man......
On 17/03/2019 18:17, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 17 Mar 2019, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote
(in
article<263522202.574535903.295306.usenet- stephenthomascole.com@news.individual.net>):
Jim GM4DHJ ...<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
The Yanks have always played dirty and been bad losers when it comes to aviation.
Remember the childish way they kicked off over Concorde? Wouldn't allow
it to fly to the USA initially, and then refused to allow it to land in
New York. Meanwhile they were desperately trying to buy time in order
that their rival version could be completed and brought into service and (so they thought) wipe the floor with the European version.
Of course it never happened, so in a fit of revenge their shitty
airlines never ordered any, and put pressure on worldwide airlines to do likewise.
And these are the twats who want to sell us their shit covered chicken washed in chlorine.
wonder how they conned the FAA to let passengers fly on an overheating
jet? ..... suppose money talks
On 17/03/2019 18:21, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:no the evening didn't go well but not in the way you filthy mind
On 17/03/2019 17:19, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:get to fuck you sick bastard.....
On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark >>>>>
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."very lucky
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."They were lucky ...
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:cant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with >>>>>>>>>>> overheating engines .....
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer <headstone255@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote:
The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather than
detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual bugs.
In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's software,
and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author in the
first place and to study with equal determination the specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding layouts.
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related to
systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system
failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs (one
being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the the problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its airworhtiness
certificate, so that could be a problem.
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines". >>>>>>>>>>
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either. >>>>>>>>
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines" >>>>>> that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?
Talking of dark, did you give Geraldine that Cleveland Steamer you promised
her, Jim?
Did it not go well, Jim?
works..she ended up in hospital and is about to get her inflamed
gallbladder removed ...so again I say to you fuck off you rancid filthy disgusting little excuse for a man......
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 18:21, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:no the evening didn't go well but not in the way you filthy mind
On 17/03/2019 17:19, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:get to fuck you sick bastard.....
On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark >>>>>>
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."very lucky
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."They were lucky ...
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:cant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with >>>>>>>>>>>> overheating engines .....
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer <headstone255@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather than
detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual bugs.
In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's software,
and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author in the
first place and to study with equal determination the specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding layouts.
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related to
systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system
failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs (one
being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the the problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its airworhtiness
certificate, so that could be a problem.
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines". >>>>>>>>>>>
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either. >>>>>>>>>
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines" >>>>>>> that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?
Talking of dark, did you give Geraldine that Cleveland Steamer you promised
her, Jim?
Did it not go well, Jim?
works..she ended up in hospital and is about to get her inflamed
gallbladder removed ...so again I say to you fuck off you rancid filthy
disgusting little excuse for a man......
I don’t even know what a gallbladder does but it probably sucks to have it inflamed. Give her a high five from me, Jim. Hope she’s on the mend.
On 18/03/2019 05:43, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:Stuff your good wishes up your arse scumbag .......
On 17/03/2019 18:21, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:no the evening didn't go well but not in the way you filthy mind
On 17/03/2019 17:19, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:get to fuck you sick bastard.....
On 17/03/2019 16:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:12:13 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."common knowledge for those in the know ......sorry you are in the dark >>>>>>>
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 15:22, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:40:16 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."very lucky
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 13:32, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:42:08 +0000, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."They were lucky ...
<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16/03/2019 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:cant be as bad as letting the 747 go into service in 1970 with >>>>>>>>>>>>> overheating engines .....
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer <headstone255@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:42, David Woolley wrote:
On 16/03/2019 12:05, Custos Custodum wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same applies for software projects. Never heard of code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections?
Whilst in theory, safety critical should be much better validated, in
the non-safety critical world, my experience is that code inspection
often comes down to reporting house style violations rather than
detecting actual logic flaws. It is much easier to find violations of
indentation rules, or variable naming, than to find actual bugs.
In order to be able to debug upon reading someone else's software,
and to gain an in-depth understanding of it, it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to spend almost as much time on it as did the author in the
first place and to study with equal determination the specifications
against which the software was written. This never happens, so what does
happen is what you have described; nit picking over coding layouts.
No doubt it was the code inspections jeered at by the PP which
caused Boeing's problem in the first place?
Boeing's problem, if there is one agreed in the end, is related to
systems design, not coding. There is no evidence that the system
failed to do exactly what it was designed to do with the inputs (one
being from a broken transducer) provided.
I suppose that's design - someone should have thought of it. If that does
turn out to be the problem it should be possible to just turn off the stall
prevention feature and get the planes back in the air until the the problem
gets fixed.
The feature was apparently an essential condition for its airworhtiness
certificate, so that could be a problem.
I don't recall any 747 crashes due to "overheating engines". >>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't recally any close calls due to "overheating engines" either. >>>>>>>>>>
So, how did you become aware of these alleged "overheating engines" >>>>>>>> that in your opinion were causing such vast difficulties?
Talking of dark, did you give Geraldine that Cleveland Steamer you promised
her, Jim?
Did it not go well, Jim?
works..she ended up in hospital and is about to get her inflamed
gallbladder removed ...so again I say to you fuck off you rancid filthy
disgusting little excuse for a man......
I don’t even know what a gallbladder does but it probably sucks to have it >> inflamed. Give her a high five from me, Jim. Hope she’s on the mend.
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 17/03/2019 18:17, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 17 Mar 2019, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote
(in
article<263522202.574535903.295306.usenet-
stephenthomascole.com@news.individual.net>):
Jim GM4DHJ ...<jim.gm4dhj@ntlworld.com> wrote:
snip
wonder how they conned the FAA to let passengers fly on an overheating
The Yanks have always played dirty and been bad losers when it comes to
aviation.
Remember the childish way they kicked off over Concorde? Wouldn't allow
it to fly to the USA initially, and then refused to allow it to land in
New York. Meanwhile they were desperately trying to buy time in order
that their rival version could be completed and brought into service and >>> (so they thought) wipe the floor with the European version.
Of course it never happened, so in a fit of revenge their shitty
airlines never ordered any, and put pressure on worldwide airlines to do >>> likewise.
And these are the twats who want to sell us their shit covered chicken
washed in chlorine.
jet? ..... suppose money talks
Apparently many people retire from their FAA jobs and join the aircraft industry as consultants or employees.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 233:32:37 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Files: | 12,172 |
| Messages: | 5,319,629 |