Re: Bloody awful
Unless they're roll spoilers used to assist/replace the ailerons for banking.
72 posts • joined 15 Jul 2016
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.
Ha!! I knew I wasn't making it up!!
Back in 6th form Computer Science, my teacher used to refer to the exclamation mark (!) on the BBC Micro as "pling", and it stuck with me. If I need to say it - say spelling out a command or something - I still say pling today (it's quicker than saying "exclamation mark"). People just look at me blankly...
Well no, I don't think "ICT means programming", but I did think some programming would be involved. Scratch is something I suppose...
As for your analogy, I also wouldn't expect "driving" to need an understanding of "automotive engineering", but I would expect someone to have a grasp of the basics like "going too fast in rain might mean that the tyres can't clear the water away quick enough, so theyrcan't grip the road and you may skid" rather than just telling them "go more slowly in the rain". It's not engineering (and it might not save you anyway...) , but if you know the reason why you're skidding in a downpour, then you have at least some inkling of what to do next (ie. slow down).
Lee D - I get where you're coming from. When my daughter first did ICT at school, I asked what sort of things she did and she said "Word and Excel and stuff". They did some Scratch, but not much.
At her age (possibly younger) I remember "playing" with the ZX81 in WH Smiths, spending my Saturday afternoons laboriously typing-in programs from one of the few books and magazines alongside it, and it really sparked my interest. I subsequently taught myself BASIC and Assembler/machine code from my Sinclair Spectrum manual and reading magazines like Your Computer, Sinclair User and Crash. It was tough running into something that didn't work as expected - especially with assembler - but that meant I had to work things out, learning so much along the way. It set me up well for learning new languages when I became a programmer.
Whilst I've spent much of the last 30 years in PC tech support roles, that same logical "work it out" attitude has meant that, from digging down into an issue and identifying exactly why and how something happens, I could better devise and implement a solution. I know others (usually younger) who'll have a Google, find a solution and implement it, but don't really understand the hows and whys, etc, and so are surprised when the same issue keeps cropping-up or the solution affects causes other issues.
"...or for naval aviation the Rafale?"
As the carriers don't have catapults or arrestor gear, we may get Rafales off the carriers (they've got plenty of thrust), but we've no way of stopping them going off the front when they land...
And before you suggest we just install cats and traps (the carriers were after all "designed for but not equipped with..."), the cost of retrofitting was about the same as building another carrier!!
"However this may be because modern engines are a lot more reliable."
I don't think they've fully resolved the issues where the engine casing flexed under manoeuvering causing the fan blades to rub (they did implement a workaround and added *some* stiffening to the casing).
They've also had a couple of engine fires...
My boss regularly used to comment on how it took me longer to package software ready for deployment than the other team members. So I asked him whether he'd prefer me to take longer so everything worked properly at every stage, or whether he'd prefer me to be as fast as them, but then also repeatedly spend the extra time they did afterwards sorting out the issues they had cos they'd not done a proper job.
And then I did it my way anyway cos... well... personal pride in a job well done.
Not exactly a fail like some of the others here, but still IT...
I once asked a building contractor to cut a hole in a comms room floor tile, as there was an additional rack going in the next day. He marked it out and was about to drill a corner hole when I asked if it wouldn't be better to take the tile out. He opened the last cab in the line, put his arm through the hole under it, and proceeded to have a grope around. "Nope, there's nothing under that tile". After several further failed (increasingly heated) attempts at trying to convince him to take the tile out, he said I should stick to IT and he didn't have time to discuss it and drilled the hole.
Nothing bad happened, but before he got his jigsaw blade through the hole, I tried again. He again had a feel under the tile through the other cabinet... "Nope, no need to take the tile out". He got about half way around the hole with the jigsaw before there was a loud bang, a bright flash, and the comms room (and an awful lot of the building) went very quiet... followed by the office manager knocking on the door... followed by the contractor's boss... followed by the electrical contractor... the supply cable he'd cut through was just out of his reach under the tile.
Murphy's law in action.
"Wonderful but what does that have to do with the UK? "
We need an air defence aircraft to intercept Russian aircraft heading for our airspace. The only thing we have to do that role since we retired the Tornado F3 is Typhoon, and it does it very well.
"The UK while selling out to the EU pumped them more money for an aircraft that didnt do what we wanted"
We were a partner in the Typhoon program, we knew what we were building, we had the same requirement and we knew we'd need to add additional capabilities. We did the same with the Tornado - the requirement was for a strike aircraft, but we modified the design to produce the F2/F3 interceptor which the other nations (apaprt from Italy) didn't need.
"I believe the F-35 is more useful."
At what? The original claims were for a low cost multirole aircraft that could replace most other types in most other customers' arsenal. At the moment, it costs more than double its original price, the performance figures have been chopped, the final version of the hardware/software still isn't ready, there are issues with the logistics system... You'll constantly hear statements from pilots saying "oh the situational awareness and sensor fusion is fantastic...", but situational awareness and sensor fusion at the moment are only useful for knowing which direction to run the f*#k away because it isn't able to fight and win.
I didn't think I was being nasty, I was simply pointing out flaws in what the F111 guy said.
In all of the books/articles I've read about the F111 in Vietnam, I've only ever seen statements saying it "was fitted but never used".
The comment from the Mossie pilot is fair enough, but it again highlights one of our Topgun-type's innaccuracies... if the Mossie was in a shallow dive, then is isn't maintaining altitude.
I'm not having a pop at you, (as you say, you're passing-on the words of someone else), but I'd argue that the guy was *completely* wrong.
The F-111 in Vietnam did not use its gun.
Even if it did, it wouldn't have been able to point its nose at the ground whilst "blasting to smithereens selected targets".
Linebacker/Linebacker 2 totalled over 42,000 missions and dropping over 175,000 tonnes of bombs. The F111 certainly played its part, (and after its initial problems during Combat Lancer it became an excellent platform) but it certainly wasn't the miracle this guy is making it out to be.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020