4 ms·
>>it has to be a 100% rock solid in a deeply hostile environment, it is tightly integrated into other systems, and it builds on many years of practical war figh
by bigd 13y ago
>>it has to be a 100% rock solid in a deeply hostile environment, it is tightly integrated into other systems, and it builds on many years of practical war fighting experience.
This sounds too good to be true. In a perfect world maybe, but we are speaking of people who love to cut corners to save few bucks, and who price very little the life of a person/soldier. If federal contractors can't do a website right ( healtcare.gov anyone?) what are the chances things are as rock-solid as you say? I honestly can't say from the outside, but I am skeptical.
- polemic 13y agoIt's not just the human cost: in a billion dollar nuclear bomber you have powerful economic and political motivations on making sure it doesn't fail at an inopportune time.
- malandrew 13y agoBut if it does, you will always be able to blame things on user error so long as a user is in the loop. I'm sure the crash diagnostics output from a billion dollar bomber is only available to the manufacturer and if it is available to an independent third party investigating a crash, it's probably only parseable/understandable by the engineers who wrote the code in the first place. If there is only place where corners definitely get cut, it's on returning diagnostic for functions/processes that didn't need to be debugged/logged in order for the product to make it not just out of the lab but into production. Production bugs are the hardest to diagnose, because they are the least likely to have their causes instrumented/measured/logged.