5 ms·
You have to, because there's no alternative. And even if it were possible to assure 100% safety from 100% of the code that runs on your computer, how do you kn
by Mikeb85 12y ago
You have to, because there's no alternative. And even if it were possible to assure 100% safety from 100% of the code that runs on your computer, how do you know you can trust your hardware?
- arethuza 12y agoI guess one approach would be to dramatically simplify required functionality so that it doesn't require a general purpose computer to implement. You could even take things back to the point of having mechanical systems rather than electronic... [NB I can remember in 1990s being on a project where someone was telling us about the safety shutdown equipment on a UK AGR nuclear power station - it was mechanical logic as when the plants were designed in the 1960s they wanted to use really well tried and tested technology.]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- glibgil 12y agoLet's down-vote these types of comments that answer, vaguely, the question proposed in the headline and reveal that they did not even skim the topics in the OP. Totally worthless.
- Mikeb85 12y agoMaybe the title shouldn't propose a question that is controversial (and obviously click-bait), and then have the bulk of the article be about something completely different. You're right, I should have read more of the article to realize that it's basically about nothing (someone looking for, and fixing bugs in a library he uses, which everyone who cares does).