4 ms·

Error detection and correction codes have existed for decades, about as long as digital computers have. Do you have any evidence that this hypothetical flaw ha

Error detection and correction codes have existed for decades, about as long as digital computers have. Do you have any evidence that this hypothetical flaw has ever actually caused trouble for a Boeing airplane? > capable of hashing Using a modern fancy hash? Maybe not, I'm not sure. But you can bet your ass they can at least work with hamming codes. They're probably doing a lot more validation than you seem to believe possible.

linuxftw 6y ago
I'm sure the CPUs are capable, physically, of running a checksum or hash, but that doesn't mean they are capable in the sense that it's capability exposed to the maintenance operator or generally part of the update system. Those systems probably have ECC memory, but who knows how many bits? And none of that helps you if the software you're loading into the system is corrupted in the first place. Any procedure that relies on a human to verify the data integrity is broken. Based on what we know today, the FAA is completely incompetent and Boeing does the absolute minimum required to get a plane off the ground. Why should I expect them to do literally anything? They need a top to bottom audit.
- liability 6y ago
  These systems aren't new, they've been around for years. Much longer than the MAX. You have no citations for any of your fears; no examples of floppies causing problems for planes, no source to suggest there is no automated validation of data read off the disks, nothing. > Those systems probably have ECC memory, but who knows how many bits? And none of that helps you if the software you're loading into the system is corrupted in the first place My above comment had nothing to do with ECC memory. I am talking about using error correction codes with the data read off the disk, not merely to protect against corruption in RAM. That would catch the scenario where data is corrupted on the floppy before it ever touched the plane. If you have a source that suggests nothing of the sort is being done, then present it. Otherwise all you have is dumb speculation. And even if where the case that no verification is being done, that would be more a failure of the software than the floppy hardware. There's really nothing concerning about the use of floppies at all; if they were using modern flash instead I'd still expect them to be automatically verifying the integrity of all updates. Trusting flash is hardly less stupid than trusting a floppy. There is one big difference between using floppies and flash though; the floppy system has proven itself in the field and was created in past years hopefully before the FCC's recent dysfunction, while a flash system would not be proven in the field and would be created under an FCC known to be dysfunctional. This alone should be a great reason to not fix shit that isn't broken.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    > There is one big difference between using floppies and flash though; the floppy system has proven itself in the field and was created in past years hopefully before the FCC's recent dysfunction FAA has always been dysfunctional. It's just that nowadays with the internet, Boeing and the FAA can no longer control the narrative to the same degree. Just look how how they handled the crashes in the 90s [1]. The FAA and Boeing basically dismissed the crashes entirely with shoulder shrugs. Their mouth pieces repeated the refrain 'safest form of travel' over an over. They were asleep at the wheel then, just like now. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues
    - liability 6y ago
      This is complete nonsense. Mistakes have always happened but the FAA was highly instrumental during the 20th century in driving down accident rates. And even if that weren't the case, you're ignoring all of my other points, particularly the one about the floppy system being proven in the field for years, and your failure to provide examples of accidents attributable to the use of floppies. Come up with some sources specific to your concern about floppies if you can, or this conversation has run its course. > Their mouth pieces repeated the refrain 'safest form of travel' over an over Unless they're covering up thousands of fatalities (they aren't), the statistics are pretty clear.
      - linuxftw 6y ago
        > And even if that weren't the case, you're ignoring all of my other points, particularly the one about the floppy system being proven in the field for years, and your failure to provide examples of accidents attributable to the use of floppies. I don't think the FAA could satisfactorily prove to me that corrupted data has never made it onto a plane and that plane wasn't thereafter flown with passengers. Software has been getting a free pass, I doubt they have ever competently audited any flight control software.

linuxftw 6y ago

I'm sure the CPUs are capable, physically, of running a checksum or hash, but that doesn't mean they are capable in the sense that it's capability exposed to the maintenance operator or generally part of the update system. Those systems probably have ECC memory, but who knows how many bits? And none of that helps you if the software you're loading into the system is corrupted in the first place. Any procedure that relies on a human to verify the data integrity is broken. Based on what we know today, the FAA is completely incompetent and Boeing does the absolute minimum required to get a plane off the ground. Why should I expect them to do literally anything? They need a top to bottom audit.

liability 6y ago
These systems aren't new, they've been around for years. Much longer than the MAX. You have no citations for any of your fears; no examples of floppies causing problems for planes, no source to suggest there is no automated validation of data read off the disks, nothing. > Those systems probably have ECC memory, but who knows how many bits? And none of that helps you if the software you're loading into the system is corrupted in the first place My above comment had nothing to do with ECC memory. I am talking about using error correction codes with the data read off the disk, not merely to protect against corruption in RAM. That would catch the scenario where data is corrupted on the floppy before it ever touched the plane. If you have a source that suggests nothing of the sort is being done, then present it. Otherwise all you have is dumb speculation. And even if where the case that no verification is being done, that would be more a failure of the software than the floppy hardware. There's really nothing concerning about the use of floppies at all; if they were using modern flash instead I'd still expect them to be automatically verifying the integrity of all updates. Trusting flash is hardly less stupid than trusting a floppy. There is one big difference between using floppies and flash though; the floppy system has proven itself in the field and was created in past years hopefully before the FCC's recent dysfunction, while a flash system would not be proven in the field and would be created under an FCC known to be dysfunctional. This alone should be a great reason to not fix shit that isn't broken.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  > There is one big difference between using floppies and flash though; the floppy system has proven itself in the field and was created in past years hopefully before the FCC's recent dysfunction FAA has always been dysfunctional. It's just that nowadays with the internet, Boeing and the FAA can no longer control the narrative to the same degree. Just look how how they handled the crashes in the 90s [1]. The FAA and Boeing basically dismissed the crashes entirely with shoulder shrugs. Their mouth pieces repeated the refrain 'safest form of travel' over an over. They were asleep at the wheel then, just like now. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues
  - liability 6y ago
    This is complete nonsense. Mistakes have always happened but the FAA was highly instrumental during the 20th century in driving down accident rates. And even if that weren't the case, you're ignoring all of my other points, particularly the one about the floppy system being proven in the field for years, and your failure to provide examples of accidents attributable to the use of floppies. Come up with some sources specific to your concern about floppies if you can, or this conversation has run its course. > Their mouth pieces repeated the refrain 'safest form of travel' over an over Unless they're covering up thousands of fatalities (they aren't), the statistics are pretty clear.
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      > And even if that weren't the case, you're ignoring all of my other points, particularly the one about the floppy system being proven in the field for years, and your failure to provide examples of accidents attributable to the use of floppies. I don't think the FAA could satisfactorily prove to me that corrupted data has never made it onto a plane and that plane wasn't thereafter flown with passengers. Software has been getting a free pass, I doubt they have ever competently audited any flight control software.