3 ms·
To clarify, the malware was running on the system that the mechanics use to log incidents. The plane had had three recent incidents that would have grounded the
by paulgb 16y ago
To clarify, the malware was running on the system that the mechanics use to log incidents. The plane had had three recent incidents that would have grounded the plane had they been known, but they weren't. The reason they weren't was a combination of the mechanic's neglect and possibly that the system was crippled by malware.
Here is a better article (Spanish to English translation): http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/ordenador/Spanair/anotaba/fallos/aviones/tenia/virus/elpepiesp/20100820elpepinac_11/Tes&sl=es&tl=en&act=url http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&h...
- ams6110 16y agoGood clarification --- a quick read of the MSNBC piece leads you to believe that an on-board system was infected.
- paulgb 16y agoThat's how I read it at first too. I think it's partly the result of a gramatical ambiguity: "(a central computer system used to monitor technical problems) in the aircraft was infected with malware" vs. "a central computer system used to monitor (technical problems in the aircraft) was infected with malware"
- DeusExMachina 16y agoInteresting, I read it with the second meaning and not the first. I'm italian and in my language sentences are less structured, allowing you to move parts around "almost freely". So for me it's natural to bond "complements" to the nearest "object" in the sentence (sorry, I don't know the right words for this). Is it different in English?
- StavrosK 16y agoIt's ambiguous, so the behaviour is undefined. The author should change the sentence to make it conform to the standards.