Nuking the Yanks
Discussion
JawKnee said:
jsf said:
JawKnee said:
Undecided.
Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to f
king work. It doesn't look like it does.
Do you use any form of engineered product or service that relies on engineered products?Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to f
king work. It doesn't look like it does.Do software companies have support teams in place to rectify issues that arise post release?
I know the answer is of course, yes they do, as I worked as an engineer who used to apply patches and updates to the worlds leading IT platforms.
jsf said:
Does software ever receive a patch to rectify a function issue post release?
Do software companies have support teams in place to rectify issues that arise post release?
I know the answer is of course, yes they do, as I worked as an engineer who used to apply patches and updates to the worlds leading IT platforms.
Yes, though you only generally "fix forward" if the defect's severity isn't critical. If it is, then you fall back to a working version. If that defect has been there all along then you've failed in delivering a minimum viable product.Do software companies have support teams in place to rectify issues that arise post release?
I know the answer is of course, yes they do, as I worked as an engineer who used to apply patches and updates to the worlds leading IT platforms.
Test Driven Development helps reduce these sort of cock ups.
JawKnee said:
jsf said:
Does software ever receive a patch to rectify a function issue post release?
Do software companies have support teams in place to rectify issues that arise post release?
I know the answer is of course, yes they do, as I worked as an engineer who used to apply patches and updates to the worlds leading IT platforms.
Yes, though you only generally "fix forward" if the defect's severity isn't critical. If it is, then you fall back to a working version. If that defect has been there all along then you've failed in delivering a minimum viable product.Do software companies have support teams in place to rectify issues that arise post release?
I know the answer is of course, yes they do, as I worked as an engineer who used to apply patches and updates to the worlds leading IT platforms.
Test Driven Development helps reduce these sort of cock ups.
JawKnee said:
jsf said:
JawKnee said:
Undecided.
Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to fking work. It doesn't look like it does.
Do you use any form of engineered product or service that relies on engineered products?Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to f
king work. It doesn't look like it does.This event was not even a test of the missile, it was a crew readiness test.
They passed it so the inference would be that they followed all the guidance protocols and launch protocols to the standard we expect of them.
I doubt they removed a warhead from a currently in use nuclear delivery device for this test, I wouldn't be surprised to find they used a carrier which had failed in testing and been withdrawn.
Non story.
Go to bed.
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
Tests sometimes go wrong...that's why they're called tests.
Non story hyped by left wing media.
It wasn't the test which went wrong, more the missile. We learnt from it our very expensive nukes can hit the wrong country. More than a non story if you think about it.Non story hyped by left wing media.
JawKnee said:
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
Tests sometimes go wrong...that's why they're called tests.
Non story hyped by left wing media.
It wasn't the test which went wrong, more the missile.Non story hyped by left wing media.
JawKnee said:
We learnt from it our very expensive nukes can hit the wrong country. More than a non story if you think about it.
Don't quite understand what you're getting at. Do you think any other country's missiles are fault free?Ayahuasca said:
An interesting point for me was that they were able to make it self-destruct.
Is that capability only installed on test missiles? If so, its circuitry is not the same as an armed missile. If it is installed on armed missiles too, it means that a nuclear launch can be overridden, which I always believed was not possible. If it can be self-destructed by a radio signal, how hard would it be for an enemy power to so do?
It'll be on all of them. Its not that hard to make a missile explode.. And its always good to have an abort.Is that capability only installed on test missiles? If so, its circuitry is not the same as an armed missile. If it is installed on armed missiles too, it means that a nuclear launch can be overridden, which I always believed was not possible. If it can be self-destructed by a radio signal, how hard would it be for an enemy power to so do?
Every western rocket has this feature. Russian rockets (at least the space program ones) dont.
JawKnee said:
Yes, I engineer software for a large bank. If our code has a major defect in testing, it simply doesn't go to production until that test passes. Scary to think the nukes deployed at the moment are capable of failing so catastrophically.
I'm guessing that you work for Lloyds/NatWest.Their software seems to have been written by incompenents.
JawKnee said:
Undecided.
Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to fking work. It doesn't look like it does.
From a quick search, seems there has been 137 successful test flights up to 2012. This test failure was the first test for four years.Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to f
king work. It doesn't look like it does.I wonder how many tests overall, and how many performed by the UK subs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_nuclear_prog...
JawKnee said:
Undecided.
Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to fking work. It doesn't look like it does.
Yeah but no but yeah but.....Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to f
king work. It doesn't look like it does.This leads back to the questions you cannot answer
Though from your tone I think your are against, but now I know what you are against, it is the tories? They are paying for this and Corbyn warnts to ditch it. Or do I need another cake hat?
Anyhow, banking software. OK.
RobDickinson said:
Ayahuasca said:
An interesting point for me was that they were able to make it self-destruct.
Is that capability only installed on test missiles? If so, its circuitry is not the same as an armed missile. If it is installed on armed missiles too, it means that a nuclear launch can be overridden, which I always believed was not possible. If it can be self-destructed by a radio signal, how hard would it be for an enemy power to so do?
It'll be on all of them. Its not that hard to make a missile explode.. And its always good to have an abort.Is that capability only installed on test missiles? If so, its circuitry is not the same as an armed missile. If it is installed on armed missiles too, it means that a nuclear launch can be overridden, which I always believed was not possible. If it can be self-destructed by a radio signal, how hard would it be for an enemy power to so do?
Every western rocket has this feature. Russian rockets (at least the space program ones) dont.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff