4 ms·

You missed this date-- Feb 21--notice goes out to users to avoid "very long run times". Users do not know what that means, and ignore warning. https://www.gao

by phonon 9y ago

You missed this date-- Feb 21--notice goes out to users to avoid "very long run times". Users do not know what that means, and ignore warning. https://www.gao.gov/assets/220/215614.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/220/215614.pdf (page 9) "On February 21, 1991, the Patriot Project Office sent a message to Patriot users stating that very long run times could cause a shift in the range gate, resulting in the target being offset. The message also said a software change was being sent that would improve the system’s targeting. However, the message did not specify what constitutes very long run times. According to Army officials, they presumed that the users would not continuously run the batteries for such extended periods of time that the Patriot would fail to track targets. Therefore, they did not think that more detailed guidance was required."

macintux 9y ago
That's terrible. Competent technical writing is criminally undervalued.
- zeeZ 9y ago
  But there's also "presumed" and "did not think" in there. When there's a problem with your killing device you probably shouldn't use it until you've clarified what the problem is and don't just assume your end users will use it correctly. That's like saying "It's fine, the critical vulnerability patch will be applied on reboot", while in reality all your users just suspend to disk and move that annoying reboot nag window behind the task bar where it's out of sight.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    “You probably shouldn’t use it until you’ve clarified...” doesn’t work so well for a defensive system.
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      How long was the off/on cycle? If it was short it would be reasonable to do it periodically. I don't think one can pin the blame on the vendor alone.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        Clearly the vendor thought it would be reasonable. They failed at communicating it, though. Putting a number on it would have made things clear: “The system must be rebooted after at most 12 hours [or whatever the appropriate value would be] of operation.”
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > When there's a problem with your killing device Patriot, in the role deployed in that Gulf War, is a “not being killed” device, but not really a killing device.

by phonon 9y ago

macintux 9y ago

That's terrible. Competent technical writing is criminally undervalued.

zeeZ 9y ago
But there's also "presumed" and "did not think" in there. When there's a problem with your killing device you probably shouldn't use it until you've clarified what the problem is and don't just assume your end users will use it correctly. That's like saying "It's fine, the critical vulnerability patch will be applied on reboot", while in reality all your users just suspend to disk and move that annoying reboot nag window behind the task bar where it's out of sight.
- mikeash 9y ago
  “You probably shouldn’t use it until you’ve clarified...” doesn’t work so well for a defensive system.
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    How long was the off/on cycle? If it was short it would be reasonable to do it periodically. I don't think one can pin the blame on the vendor alone.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Clearly the vendor thought it would be reasonable. They failed at communicating it, though. Putting a number on it would have made things clear: “The system must be rebooted after at most 12 hours [or whatever the appropriate value would be] of operation.”
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > When there's a problem with your killing device Patriot, in the role deployed in that Gulf War, is a “not being killed” device, but not really a killing device.