Re: Are you saying ....
Mainly the architects for us. And what they say generally goes.
92 publicly visible posts • joined 15 Jul 2016
Not IT-related (other than us all working together in IT at the time) but myself and a bunch of colleagues went on an offroad driving day at Mallory Park years ago. On taking our places in some offroad gokarts, we were told to "be careful but have fun and go for it - these are perfectly safe and nobody has ever rolled one of these that we're aware of". One of our lot promptly did so within 5 years of the start...
"Despite everything, Teams is popular because it integrates with Microsoft 365 and brings together virtual meetings and video calls, instant messaging and document collaboration."
I suspect it's "popular" only because companies take the approach of "we've already got it in O365" and then force everyone to use it.
Don't know who reads this so will need to be sketchy, but myself and a colleague wrote a report which - despite the scoring criteria, evidence and comments within it supporting the conclusion we came to - was certainly not what had been expected that we would write.
Another group were asked to do it, resulting (eventually) in a pretty half arsed report that fully supported doing what management wanted because it was going to be simple.
Over a year later and the simple things hadn't been so simple after all, and much of our original comments had borne true, but we were still tarred by that original report.
That test (and the protective jacket) only applies to the large fan at the very front. The compressor and turbine disks witihin the actual engine core are very difficult to contain in the event of a failure due to their much higher rotational velocities and the forces involved - there have been several examples of a turbine disk exiting the engine casing upon failure and causing substantial damage to the aircraft, eg. Quantas A380 QF32 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32
and United Airlines DC-10 UA232 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
Was part of a project where I needed about a day's input from another team so I could finish my tasks, but their guy on the project had been grabbed for something else. I started emailing him and his team lead (and .cc-ing my manager and the project manager) about 6 weeks before the pilot was due to start, saying I either needed their resource back, or somone else asap. I did this at least twice a week, as well as speaking to the team lead whenever I saw him, until a fortnight before the pilot, when I started doing it daily.
Three days before the pilot, I was working away and got a call from my manager, the project manager, the other team lead, and a couple of the others involved in the pilot, angrily asking why I hadn't delivered yet. I politely pointed-out that I'd been asking/emailing for 6 weeks without getting anywhere so they needed for somewhere else to point the finger. I also forwarded them all of those emails whilst we were "discussing it". They allocated someone to work on it that day, and I did what I needed remotely the following day. Sorted.
When my manager called me 15 minutes later to apologise "for putting me on the spot, but they'd come to his office on the warpath", I told him in no uncertain terms that he should be eternally thankful I was 250 miles away, otherwise I'd be taking him outside and punching him in the fucking mouth - career-ending or not - and that went for any future occasions also. Never had that problem again...
After I told one guy that "my wife deals with technical calls, I'll go and get her" and put the handset down, I had one guy on the line for ages. Every now and again we'd creep up to the handset and he'd be saying "Hello? Are you there?". Last time we heard him it had been 17 minutes then the nerxt time he'd hung up.
Had a user testing some new kit alongside his existing device. Called to say he was trying out the main app they used and was trying to load something but "only half the files are showing compared to the old kit" (they opened one file, but the software opened an additional 6 or 7 files). Checked several times that he was doing things exactly the same way on both kits, so when the answer was in the affirmative, I spoke with my boss, arranged a hire car then drove the 140-odd miles to his office.
On the walk from the lift he said he'd left both kits side-by-side and not touched them since we spoke, and as we walked through the door of his office, there they were and I immediately pointed-out that one was looking at the files in File Explorer whilst the other was looking at them via the File/Open dialog of the app...
2.5 hour drive for literally three minurtes to get from the car to his desk and then 5 seconds actual work. Followed by another 2.5 hour drive back in a worse mood than on the way up.
Or this one:
Three engineers were gathered together discussing the possible designers of the human body. One said, "It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints."
Another said, "No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous system has many thousands of electrical connections."
The last said, "Actually it was a civil engineer. Who else would put a toxic waste pipeline right next to a playground?"
Can't remember if they were Compaq, IBM or Toshiba laptops we rolled out years ago where the sliding power switch was in just the right spot on the side so that anyone moving the laptop closer to them or going to pick it up from the desk slid the switch and shut it down.
Years back, our IT building (and the rest of the Regional HQ it was tacked-onto) was backed by a couple of fairly substatial diesel generators, which could apparently power everything "almost indefinitely" should the need arise.One day everything in the office suddenly went dark and very quiet, then before anyone could say anything, bright & noisy again. Yay. About 5 minutes later, we're dark and quiet again but this time it stayed like that. I looked-up to say something to a colleague and noticed the thick plume of smoke from the generator house... We were sent home later when it was clear the power wasn't coming back!!
Talking to the maintenance guys next day, I was told that workmen had killed a local transformer up the road, which had triggered the first gennie to start. When it wasn't fully delivering power a few minutes later (although it was running), that triggered the second gennie to start which promptly started spewing fuel over everything in sight, including the exhaust of the first, which was now quite hot causing lots of smoke (they never said if it started a fire but the general consensus was it had),
Totally agree, however when the powers that be have their strategy to move to the cloud, it's hard convincing them otherwise. They've read the whitepapers, swallowed the marketing and donned the free rose-coloured specs and come back with the usual "Ah, but it costs money to have a datacentre, power it, cool it, fire-protect it, secure it..." and my favourite "and it's OPEX not CAPEX so Financel love it...".
If someone was to point-out to Finance just how much we spend on cloud, to run a fraction of our services there, and then added how much more we'd be paying if we moved everything out and closed the datacentre, I suspect they may not be loving it quite so much.
Guy I worked with had his VCR trashed by his 2yo son pushing toast/marmalade & biscuits in the slot. The lad had asked how it worked and he'd answered there was a little man inside the machine who read what was on the tape and made the actors on the screen do and say the right things. The lad thought the little man might be hungry so had been pushing food in for the last few days!!
Was AF296 caused by Airbus? The pilots flew their aircraft on a low flypast at high-alpha (ie. nose up) with the engines at flight idle, gear/flaps down, and then selected TO/GA too late for them to spool-up to full power and start to climb away from the trees they were heading towards and therefore hit.
Sully landed in the Hudson in an Airbus A320 complete with standard Airbus automation. If I recall, the only criticism Sully had was that they system imposed limits on his flare before touchdown (probably because the system wasn't in landing mode) meaning touchdown was harder than it could have been.
"The pilot cannot bypass the technology, that capability no longer exists, and that has to be explicitly part of the design"
That's not strictly true for Airbus. Simply put, the systems operate in various "Laws" or modes whereby the systems will attempt to protect the aircraft from being flown outside its envelope. They range from Normal Law attempting to protect the aircraft in pitch, roll, speed, load factor and angle-of-attack, through Alternate Law 1 or 2, down to Direct Law which allows the pilot to completely hand-fly the aeroplane in the event of systems failures.
I don't think Lion Air ended as it did because the pilots "did not do the right thing" - MCAS was happily trimming the nose nose down to the point it couldn't go further whilst the pilots were unable to apply enough force to pull the yokes back and stop the dive.
Agreed. Same goes when visiting a friend/family member and they say "you know about computers - can you just take a look at..." which usually results in 3 hours of un-fun in the spare room disinfecting, reinstalling and updating a PC so rabid it should have been taken behind the shed and shot, whilst everyone else is downstairs merrily drinking tea & scoffing biscuits.
@AC "Once the decision has been made that deadly force is required..."
Well if deadly force is "required" - which implies it is going to happen anyway - why bother shouting orders for hands up or lie face down? Surely they'd may as well kill him as soon as he's out of the house.
And who decided that "deadly force was required" without knowing any actual facts about the situation, other than an unverified phone call from an unverified source with no verified evidence of any wrongdoing having taken place? I'd be hauling their arse up in court for murder as well.
I'd have thought that taking someone down with non-lethal force was just common sense. Maybe I'm just getting old.
And if I take option A) and shoot, I can:
1) Shoot to kill
2) Shoot to injure, because it doesn't look like he's armed, he seems confused as to why we're here, there have been those headlines about cops shooting the wrong person and maybe this guy is innocent.so injuring him is better than killing him.