Nuking the Yanks
Discussion
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.
Software is 100% reliable. 1's and 0's dont wear out... they dont get cold or hot, they arent affected by extreeme vibrations, they dont age.. If there's a fault in software its because it never worked correctly in the first place.
Software engineers first call is to blame the hardware engineers, who have to deal with tech that changes speed and performance on a daily basis.
Then they blame the Systems engineers, you didnt give us the right requirements, you never said these cases would exist.
Its never the softies fault. They baffle you with terms to cover up the inadequacies, but half the time they're too busy thinking about levelling up on some online role playing game.
If there's a reason for a development programme to go wrong, always look at the softies... Theyll double the budget to develop anything, which needs triple the budget to fix the major defects, and another huge chunk to cater for the latent defects. Project Management 101 - Never trust a softie when he says he's done.
Ceeejay said:
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.
Software is 100% reliable. 1's and 0's dont wear out... they dont get cold or hot, they arent affected by extreeme vibrations, they dont age.. If there's a fault in software its because it never worked correctly in the first place.
Software engineers first call is to blame the hardware engineers, who have to deal with tech that changes speed and performance on a daily basis.
Then they blame the Systems engineers, you didnt give us the right requirements, you never said these cases would exist.
Its never the softies fault. They baffle you with terms to cover up the inadequacies, but half the time they're too busy thinking about levelling up on some online role playing game.
If there's a reason for a development programme to go wrong, always look at the softies... Theyll double the budget to develop anything, which needs triple the budget to fix the major defects, and another huge chunk to cater for the latent defects. Project Management 101 - Never trust a softie when he says he's done.
Most recent one was looking at why an acid wash sometimes held for an hour with acid in the line, vastly reducing the lifetime of seals etc.
Took me two days to find a totally unrelated bit of kit referenced.
Two weeks to convince site.
Problem resolved after 12 years of tech support claiming the code had been fully checked.
///ajd said:
This is just such a non story
The story might just have had some tiny significance if it was the 80s when the missile was in development.
But the missile has been in service and has had a very very high success rate for 20+ years.
The media have made themselves look like prime plums on this - totally clueless about the realities of engineering.
The media don't give a sThe story might just have had some tiny significance if it was the 80s when the missile was in development.
But the missile has been in service and has had a very very high success rate for 20+ years.
The media have made themselves look like prime plums on this - totally clueless about the realities of engineering.
t and as witnessed on here it's worked. stoking up a fuss about nothing without even the most basic of research or explanations as to why and how these things happen.Nobody is questioning the media they think the missiles don't work and we could have nuked america
Ceeejay said:
Software is 100% reliable. 1's and 0's dont wear out... they dont get cold or hot, they arent affected by extreeme vibrations, they dont age..
If there's a fault in software its because it never worked correctly in the first place.
Software engineers first call is to blame the hardware engineers, who have to deal with tech that changes speed and performance on a daily basis.
Then they blame the Systems engineers, you didnt give us the right requirements, you never said these cases would exist.
Its never the softies fault. They baffle you with terms to cover up the inadequacies, but half the time they're too busy thinking about levelling up on some online role playing game.
If there's a reason for a development programme to go wrong, always look at the softies... Theyll double the budget to develop anything, which needs triple the budget to fix the major defects, and another huge chunk to cater for the latent defects. Project Management 101 - Never trust a softie when he says he's done.
Ha. Sounds like you have some project management issues. The devs don't set the budget, nor do they necessarily gather the requirements or test the product. They are pressured to cut corners to get the job done by people who don't have a clue about the technical challenges involved and are then blamed for those corners.If there's a fault in software its because it never worked correctly in the first place.
Software engineers first call is to blame the hardware engineers, who have to deal with tech that changes speed and performance on a daily basis.
Then they blame the Systems engineers, you didnt give us the right requirements, you never said these cases would exist.
Its never the softies fault. They baffle you with terms to cover up the inadequacies, but half the time they're too busy thinking about levelling up on some online role playing game.
If there's a reason for a development programme to go wrong, always look at the softies... Theyll double the budget to develop anything, which needs triple the budget to fix the major defects, and another huge chunk to cater for the latent defects. Project Management 101 - Never trust a softie when he says he's done.
JawKnee said:
Ha. Sounds like you have some project management issues. The devs don't set the budget, nor do they necessarily gather the requirements or test the product. They are pressured to cut corners to get the job done by people who don't have a clue about the technical challenges involved and are then blamed for those corners.
Absolutely.... its amazing how 10 sprints can turn into 20 just like that... its annoying that they dont tell you till right near the end its going to take twice as long though ! But thats the way it always goes.. the development will be estimated.. the estimate will be cut in half because its too much, and the actualls will be double what was originally asked for ! 
ninja-lewis said:
Poster on Arrse:
"Trident is astonishingly reliable by ICBM standards. There have been 161 consecutive tests of this missile without incident by the UK and US (only the first one ever failed due to water getting in the motors). By contrast the French equivalent missile, the M51 managed 5 tests before it had an incident. The Russians, with their Bulava missile have so far racked up 24 tests of which 12 have been failures (that’s a 50% failure rate). No one seems to think either of those nations is less of a credible nuclear power as a result. So before we start deciding that the UK is a laughing stock, its worth remembering that actually its an astonishingly reliable missile and chances are that it will work as intended on the day. The reliability rate of Trident is astounding compared to just about any other missile out there."
I don't disagree, but I'm amused that the argument presented is that the M51 failed on it's 6th test, whereas Trident failed on it's first."Trident is astonishingly reliable by ICBM standards. There have been 161 consecutive tests of this missile without incident by the UK and US (only the first one ever failed due to water getting in the motors). By contrast the French equivalent missile, the M51 managed 5 tests before it had an incident. The Russians, with their Bulava missile have so far racked up 24 tests of which 12 have been failures (that’s a 50% failure rate). No one seems to think either of those nations is less of a credible nuclear power as a result. So before we start deciding that the UK is a laughing stock, its worth remembering that actually its an astonishingly reliable missile and chances are that it will work as intended on the day. The reliability rate of Trident is astounding compared to just about any other missile out there."
Tryke3 said:
Why do politicians think we cant handle the truth, stupid cow
I think it's perfectly obvious that a considerable number of people not only cannot handle the truth, but also ( and perhaps more importantly) have absolutely no interest in what constitutes the truth when it contradicts their own political agenda. Bravo to Mrs May for not being drawn into gossiping about something as important as our independent nuclear deterrent.
Garvin said:
There are two possibilities for this failure:
- The wrong guidance information was fed into the missile prior to launch i.e. an RN failure. Seeing as the sub and crew were deemed successful this does not seem to be the case.
- The US designed and built missile failed in flight leading to it going off course towards the country of its birth. This appears to be the case. It is, then, the US that should be stting it over this failure!
Third possibility.- The wrong guidance information was fed into the missile prior to launch i.e. an RN failure. Seeing as the sub and crew were deemed successful this does not seem to be the case.
- The US designed and built missile failed in flight leading to it going off course towards the country of its birth. This appears to be the case. It is, then, the US that should be s
tting it over this failure!Our SSBNs have become self aware and heard about Trump.
///ajd said:
This is just such a non story
The story might just have had some tiny significance if it was the 80s when the missile was in development.
But the missile has been in service and has had a very very high success rate for 20+ years.
The media have made themselves look like prime plums on this - totally clueless about the realities of engineering.
Agree with this. Trident is shockingly reliable IMO.The story might just have had some tiny significance if it was the 80s when the missile was in development.
But the missile has been in service and has had a very very high success rate for 20+ years.
The media have made themselves look like prime plums on this - totally clueless about the realities of engineering.
andymadmak said:
Tryke3 said:
Why do politicians think we cant handle the truth, stupid cow
I think it's perfectly obvious that a considerable number of people not only cannot handle the truth, but also ( and perhaps more importantly) have absolutely no interest in what constitutes the truth when it contradicts their own political agenda. Bravo to Mrs May for not being drawn into gossiping about something as important as our independent nuclear deterrent.
jmorgan said:
andymadmak said:
Tryke3 said:
Why do politicians think we cant handle the truth, stupid cow
I think it's perfectly obvious that a considerable number of people not only cannot handle the truth, but also ( and perhaps more importantly) have absolutely no interest in what constitutes the truth when it contradicts their own political agenda. Bravo to Mrs May for not being drawn into gossiping about something as important as our independent nuclear deterrent.
Ayahuasca said:
jmorgan said:
andymadmak said:
Tryke3 said:
Why do politicians think we cant handle the truth, stupid cow
I think it's perfectly obvious that a considerable number of people not only cannot handle the truth, but also ( and perhaps more importantly) have absolutely no interest in what constitutes the truth when it contradicts their own political agenda. Bravo to Mrs May for not being drawn into gossiping about something as important as our independent nuclear deterrent.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff