Development in the Landis case
Tony Raven
wrong sample number down on Floyd Landis' test reports and then
corrected it later. The closeness of the two numbers was used to
justify the correction. It has now emerged that the "wrong" sample
number actually belonged to another TdeF competitor whose sample was
being tested in the same lab on the same day. So there is now a serious
question over whether the "positive" sample was a Landis sample
misrecorded and subsequently corrected or was in fact correctly recorded
and belonging to someone else.
Full details on BikeBiz: http://www.bikebiz.com/news/26138/Whose-wee-was-it
--
Tony
"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Tony B
> So there is now a serious question over whether the "positive" sample was a Landis sample
> misrecorded and subsequently corrected or was in fact correctly recorded
> and belonging to someone else.
What a balls up. One would think the powers that be would be on top of
this sort of thing by now, all that arse we've had about doping and
no-one charged. So who HAS won the 06 TdF???
Wonder who the other rider was?
Tony B
Tony Raven
Apparently not. The more that has been coming out (some of it forced
legally by the Landis team and not voluntarily released) the more it
seems to be a complete shambles. Leaked documents reveal that the lab
has made multiple testing mistakes and had to withdraw positive data
against riders on a number of occasions previously. Their
instrumentation was running on obsolete software (Windows OS2 which
pre-dates Windows 3.1) and obsolete firmware that was six generations
behind the current version. They had no operators manual for the
instrumentation (despite them being available on the web) and in the
absence of the manual were operating the instruments outside the
manufacturer's specifications. It even seems now that different labs
have different definitions of "positive" so that the positive Landis
results from LNDD would not have been classed as positive by some other
WADA labs.
> Wonder who the other rider was?
>
It appears it can be narrowed down to Landis, Honchar or a rider picked
at random (being the yellow jersey, stage winner and random rider
required to be tested for Stage 19)
Sir Jeremy
> >
> What a balls up. One would think the powers that be would be on top of
> this sort of thing by now, all that arse we've had about doping and
> no-one charged. So who HAS won the 06 TdF???
>
>
The team with the best pharmacist
Simon Brooke
('ju...@raven-family.com') wrote:
> Much has been made of the fact that the LNDD testing lab had written the
> wrong sample number down on Floyd Landis' test reports and then
> corrected it later. The closeness of the two numbers was used to
> justify the correction. It has now emerged that the "wrong" sample
> number actually belonged to another TdeF competitor whose sample was
> being tested in the same lab on the same day. So there is now a serious
> question over whether the "positive" sample was a Landis sample
> misrecorded and subsequently corrected or was in fact correctly recorded
> and belonging to someone else.
>
> Full details on BikeBiz:
> http://www.bikebiz.com/news/26138/Whose-wee-was-it
And I hear the case against Ullrich has been dropped, while the case
against Ivan Basso imploded. Without wishing to claim that all
professional cyclists are pure as driven snow, it looks like last year's
feeding frenzy of anti-doping hysteria was somewhat exaggerated, to say
the least.
In which case, *I* was cheated. I wanted to see Basso win the Tour. And
everyone interested in road racing was cheated, too - to say nothing of
Ullrich (who had what could have been a great end to his career wrecked),
Basso (who had a good chance at the Tour), and Landis (who rode out of his
skin).
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
See one nuclear war, you've seen them all.
jcjordan
lab soon I am going to get really pissed. They seem to be breaking
every rule in the book with still no actions against them, the fact
that they dont seem to be putting up much of a defence in the media
leads me to believe that they dont have a defence in this case. Whats
going to make this worse for Landis is if he gets off on a
'technicality' there are those who will still believe him guilty, when
it is quite possible that he should never tested positive in the first
place.
--
jcjordan
Tony Raven
>
> If the World Doping Authority does not pull the accreditation on this
> lab soon I am going to get really pissed.
They can't and they won't. Dick Pound has stuck his neck so far out on
this case that any sanction of the lab by WADA would be impossible while
he is in charge.
Rob Morley
ju...@raven-family.com says...
> Their
> instrumentation was running on obsolete software (Windows OS2 which
> pre-dates Windows 3.1)
OS/2 was OS/2, nothing to do with Windows. It was developed jointly by
Microsoft and IBM starting in 1985. During development of OS/2 3.0
Microsoft wanted to give it a version of the Windows API, which upset
IBM and collaboration ceased in 1990. Microsoft switched its
workstation development efforts to Windows NT, and IBM continued
developing OS/2. The final version of OS/2 (Warp 4.52) was released in
2001, and support was only recently discontinued.
Nick
Nick
>> "...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at
>> least
>> wildly inaccurate..."
>> Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
> If the World Doping Authority does not pull the accreditation on this
> lab soon I am going to get really pissed. They seem to be breaking
> every rule in the book with still no actions against them, the fact
> that they dont seem to be putting up much of a defence in the media
> leads me to believe that they dont have a defence in this case. Whats
> going to make this worse for Landis is if he gets off on a
> 'technicality' there are those who will still believe him guilty, when
> it is quite possible that he should never tested positive in the first
> place.
>
>
Landis' guilt, nothing against Landis personally just a suspicion that
they are all at it.
However if the lab procedures are found to be so lax that they can't
stand up to an attack it will be a disgrace and obviously alternative
testers should be found.
You are right I will personally always suspect Landis unless the Lab is
proven to be more than incompetent. However this is just a case of the
Toothpaste not going back in the tube. In public I would fully support
the restoration of his reputation.
Tony Raven
>
> Sorry about the blank reply. I was one of the people minded to accept
> Landis' guilt, nothing against Landis personally just a suspicion that
> they are all at it.
>
> However if the lab procedures are found to be so lax that they can't
> stand up to an attack it will be a disgrace and obviously alternative
> testers should be found.
>
> You are right I will personally always suspect Landis unless the Lab is
> proven to be more than incompetent. However this is just a case of the
> Toothpaste not going back in the tube. In public I would fully support
> the restoration of his reputation.
The bit that convinces me most now, aside from all the lab blunders, is
he was on authorised daily cortisone injections for his hip and yet the
samples attributed to him on Stage 17 show no cortisone traces. The
probability is therefore high that it was someone else's sample that
tested "positive".
Moreover medical evidence is that a testosterone shot would not only
have not done him any good in the timescale of the next day, it would
actually have depressed his performance by diverting ATP (energy) into
muscle protein synthesis. So as a way to win Stage 17 it would have
been a totally dumb drug to take.
--
Tony
Clive George
news:MPG.2066adaae...@news.individual.net...
And of course there's nothing wrong with running instrumentation on
"obsolete" software. If the machine was supplied with a computer and
software, there's no need to update it to get the latest shiny software - in
fact, it's a good idea to not do this, as that sort of thing typically
requires hardware upgrades at the same time.
See eg traffic lights - nobody's complaining these aren't being upgraded to
Windows Vista rather than the quite old computers which control some of
them...
cheers,
clive
Pete Whelan
Tony Raven wrote:
> The bit that convinces me most now, aside from all the lab blunders, is
> he was on authorised daily cortisone injections for his hip and yet the
> samples attributed to him on Stage 17 show no cortisone traces. The
> probability is therefore high that it was someone else's sample that
> tested "positive".
>
> Moreover medical evidence is that a testosterone shot would not only
> have not done him any good in the timescale of the next day, it would
> actually have depressed his performance by diverting ATP (energy) into
> muscle protein synthesis. So as a way to win Stage 17 it would have
> been a totally dumb drug to take.
>
The other bit toadd is that we never hear anything about the tests on
subsequent days. Surely there would still be traces in those as well.
Tony Raven
>
> The other bit toadd is that we never hear anything about the tests on
> subsequent days. Surely there would still be traces in those as well.
>
That was because the USADA at first refused to release the information
about tests on the other days at all and then refused unless Landis
allowed them to test his B samples for all the other days in the LNDD
lab. But I gather the USADA have now been ordered by the arbitrators to
release the information.
TerryJ
> And of course there's nothing wrong with running instrumentation on
> "obsolete" software. If the machine was supplied with a computer and
> software, there's no need to update it to get the latest shiny software - in
> fact, it's a good idea to not do this, as that sort of thing typically
> requires hardware upgrades at the same time.
We were running medical notes software on a pre-windows based
system( I called it MS-DOS, but don't listen to me)
and it worked, which is more than you could say for the posh new TPP
system they dumped on us last year.
TerryJ
Chris Malcolm
> Nick wrote on 18/03/2007 11:26 +0100:
>>
>> Sorry about the blank reply. I was one of the people minded to accept
>> Landis' guilt, nothing against Landis personally just a suspicion that
>> they are all at it.
>>
>> However if the lab procedures are found to be so lax that they can't
>> stand up to an attack it will be a disgrace and obviously alternative
>> testers should be found.
>>
>> You are right I will personally always suspect Landis unless the Lab is
>> proven to be more than incompetent. However this is just a case of the
>> Toothpaste not going back in the tube. In public I would fully support
>> the restoration of his reputation.
> The bit that convinces me most now, aside from all the lab blunders, is
> he was on authorised daily cortisone injections for his hip and yet the
> samples attributed to him on Stage 17 show no cortisone traces. The
> probability is therefore high that it was someone else's sample that
> tested "positive".
> Moreover medical evidence is that a testosterone shot would not only
> have not done him any good in the timescale of the next day, it would
> actually have depressed his performance by diverting ATP (energy) into
> muscle protein synthesis. So as a way to win Stage 17 it would have
> been a totally dumb drug to take.
Authorised cortisone injections? But those *do* increase performance,
regardless of whatever medical reason there may be for prescribing
them! If they allow that, I suspect the whole legal thing is a farce,
like most drugs legislation.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
M-gineering
> Authorised cortisone injections? But those *do* increase performance,
> regardless of whatever medical reason there may be for prescribing
> them! If they allow that, I suspect the whole legal thing is a farce,
> like most drugs legislation.
>
given that athletes are banned for minute traces of prohibited
substances which can have no performance enhancing effect whatsoever, it
is safe to assume that the original reasons are lost in the legal
shenanigans
--
---
Marten Gerritsen
INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
Rob Morley
George
cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk says...
> And of course there's nothing wrong with running instrumentation on
> "obsolete" software. If the machine was supplied with a computer and
> software, there's no need to update it to get the latest shiny software - in
> fact, it's a good idea to not do this, as that sort of thing typically
> requires hardware upgrades at the same time.
Lots of specialist kit uses ISA cards and RS232 serial ports - does
Vista even support ISA?
>
> See eg traffic lights - nobody's complaining these aren't being upgraded to
> Windows Vista rather than the quite old computers which control some of
> them...
>
OS/2 used to be very popular with banks. ISTR reading that some banks
started running ATMs on Windows last year - people noticed because they
were crashing.
Tony Raven
>
> And of course there's nothing wrong with running instrumentation on
> "obsolete" software. If the machine was supplied with a computer and
> software, there's no need to update it to get the latest shiny software
> - in fact, it's a good idea to not do this, as that sort of thing
> typically requires hardware upgrades at the same time.
>
There is if you are an accredited lab and the upgrades are to fix
deficiencies in the original software (as opposed to adding new features).
Simon Brooke
('ju...@raven-family.com') wrote:
> Clive George wrote on 18/03/2007 15:24 +0100:
>>
>> And of course there's nothing wrong with running instrumentation on
>> "obsolete" software. If the machine was supplied with a computer and
>> software, there's no need to update it to get the latest shiny software
>> - in fact, it's a good idea to not do this, as that sort of thing
>> typically requires hardware upgrades at the same time.
>
> There is if you are an accredited lab and the upgrades are to fix
> deficiencies in the original software (as opposed to adding new
> features).
But is this the case?
I'm not particularly defending the lab. It's clear that Dick Pound in
particular, and WADA in general, went completely over the top last year
and that most if not all of last year's 'doping' accusations were without
any solid evidential basis. However, Landis' defence team have not been
entirely free of hyperbole, either.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.
Rob Morley
ju...@raven-family.com says...
> Clive George wrote on 18/03/2007 15:24 +0100:
> >
> > And of course there's nothing wrong with running instrumentation on
> > "obsolete" software. If the machine was supplied with a computer and
> > software, there's no need to update it to get the latest shiny software
> > - in fact, it's a good idea to not do this, as that sort of thing
> > typically requires hardware upgrades at the same time.
> >
>
> There is if you are an accredited lab and the upgrades are to fix
> deficiencies in the original software (as opposed to adding new features).
>
Tony Raven
>
> But is this the case?
>
It's not 100% clear because the lab is not releasing data on the
instrumentation and methodology which is the subject of a discovery
request by the legal team. However there is circumstantial evidence
that the equipment they have was a pre-production unit and possibly the
first of its type. If that is correct, and we won't know until and
unless it is forced to be disclosed, then there is at least a
requirement to bring it up to the commercial instrument standard.
Regardless the fact that they don't even have an operator's manual for
it despite the manual being downloadable from the web, is indicative
that the software has not been updated because of laziness/sloppiness
rather than a positive decision not to update based on a considered
assessment of the update changes.
dkahn400
> OS/2 used to be very popular with banks. ISTR reading that some
> banks started running ATMs on Windows last year - people noticed
> because they were crashing.
Nice example here. <http://daimyo.org/node/25>
Lot's more, including a number of blue screens of death, at <http://
daimyo.org/bsod>
--
Dave...
Peter Clinch
Much, much scarier is the move to Windows on medical scanners. My head
of dept. has been given the reason from Philips Medical that they're
farmed out all their software to India, and the programmers there know
Windows much better than UNIX, so all the scanner consoles are coming
off UNIX and onto Windows.
Windows /is/ capable enough to run a scanner console, easily so. More
worrying, however, is scanners have to be connected to networks to be of
any use, and if you change the basic software from what is supplied
(including adding patches, virus scanners etc.) then the suppliers are
Not Happy and won't support it...
So sensationally stooopid you couldn't make it up :-(
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Tony Raven
>
> Much, much scarier is the move to Windows on medical scanners. My head
> of dept. has been given the reason from Philips Medical that they're
> farmed out all their software to India, and the programmers there know
> Windows much better than UNIX, so all the scanner consoles are coming
> off UNIX and onto Windows.
> Windows /is/ capable enough to run a scanner console, easily so. More
> worrying, however, is scanners have to be connected to networks to be of
> any use, and if you change the basic software from what is supplied
> (including adding patches, virus scanners etc.) then the suppliers are
> Not Happy and won't support it...
>
> So sensationally stooopid you couldn't make it up :-(
>
I can understand where they are coming from having been there myself on
the supplier side. One of the big nightmares of software based medical
systems is validation and verification of the software, especially as
the operating system almost certainly cannot be either verified or
validated. As a supplier you will be in deep regulatory poo, especially
with the FDA is the US if they allow users to make unauthorised changes
to that software. The only way to protect yourself and discourage
unauthorised changes is to disown them and say you are on your own if
you do.
Clive George
news:56a7krF...@mid.individual.net...
> Peter Clinch wrote on 20/03/2007 13:38 +0100:
>>
>> Much, much scarier is the move to Windows on medical scanners. My head
>> of dept. has been given the reason from Philips Medical that they're
>> farmed out all their software to India, and the programmers there know
>> Windows much better than UNIX, so all the scanner consoles are coming off
>> UNIX and onto Windows.
>> Windows /is/ capable enough to run a scanner console, easily so. More
>> worrying, however, is scanners have to be connected to networks to be of
>> any use, and if you change the basic software from what is supplied
>> (including adding patches, virus scanners etc.) then the suppliers are
>> Not Happy and won't support it...
>>
>> So sensationally stooopid you couldn't make it up :-(
>>
>
>
> I can understand where they are coming from having been there myself on
> the supplier side. One of the big nightmares of software based medical
> systems is validation and verification of the software, especially as the
> operating system almost certainly cannot be either verified or validated.
> As a supplier you will be in deep regulatory poo, especially with the FDA
> is the US if they allow users to make unauthorised changes to that
> software. The only way to protect yourself and discourage unauthorised
> changes is to disown them and say you are on your own if you do.
Which means the suppliers need to issue the patches, etc. As long as they do
that on a timely basis, then all is fine. (shouldn't really need a virus
scanner though - the machine should be sufficiently locked down that the
routes in shouldn't be open).
cheers,
clive
Tony Raven
>
> Which means the suppliers need to issue the patches, etc. As long as
> they do that on a timely basis, then all is fine. (shouldn't really need
> a virus scanner though - the machine should be sufficiently locked down
> that the routes in shouldn't be open).
>
The issue being timely. Verifying and validating a change in software,
even a trivial change, for a medical device can be a massive job of
work. I know of several medical devices that are locked in time warps
because the regulatory burden of making changes is simply untenable.
Clive George
> Clive George wrote on 20/03/2007 14:04 +0100:
>>
>> Which means the suppliers need to issue the patches, etc. As long as they
>> do that on a timely basis, then all is fine. (shouldn't really need a
>> virus scanner though - the machine should be sufficiently locked down
>> that the routes in shouldn't be open).
>>
>
> The issue being timely. Verifying and validating a change in software,
> even a trivial change, for a medical device can be a massive job of work.
> I know of several medical devices that are locked in time warps because
> the regulatory burden of making changes is simply untenable.
TBH I'd be tempted to have a separate firewall device between the scanner
box and the network - that way the scanner box doesn't need to be kept up to
date, only the firewall. Which isn't part of the machine, so doesn't need
the same level of validation etc.
cheers,
clive
Peter Clinch
> I can understand where they are coming from having been there myself on
> the supplier side. One of the big nightmares of software based medical
> systems is validation and verification of the software, especially as
> the operating system almost certainly cannot be either verified or
> validated. As a supplier you will be in deep regulatory poo, especially
> with the FDA is the US if they allow users to make unauthorised changes
> to that software. The only way to protect yourself and discourage
> unauthorised changes is to disown them and say you are on your own if
> you do.
Quite right, it's not *that* that's dumb, but moving from a more to a
less secure and stable platform to run your software from simply to let
you pay lower wages to the developers.
Peter Clinch
> Which means the suppliers need to issue the patches, etc. As long as
> they do that on a timely basis, then all is fine. (shouldn't really need
> a virus scanner though - the machine should be sufficiently locked down
> that the routes in shouldn't be open).
In NHS Tayside we're using external CISCO firewalling boxes immediately
between the scanner and the network, and yes, that's a Good Thing, but
it would be a much /better/ thing if the scanner was based on an OS
that's far less prone to malware and attacks in the first place!
One point about locking them down is that the suppliers need remote
access to them... not impossible, certainly, but it is another hole to
guard, and another hole over a more fragile than necessary system
underneath.
Peter Amey
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Quite right, it's not *that* that's dumb, but moving from a more to a
> less secure and stable platform to run your software from simply to let
> you pay lower wages to the developers.
>
Same decision has been made for all future Royal Navy ship systems.
"Windows for Warships".
Peter
Tony Raven
OTOH I have seen plenty of organisations spend a lot of money writing
their own software only to discover the hard way it is non-standard,
poorly supported and needs constant effort to maintain it.
Rob Morley
pna...@amey.org.uk says...
> Same decision has been made for all future Royal Navy ship systems.
> "Windows for Warships".
>
I was so concerned about that I emailed my MP about it a year or two
back (for all the good it did).
Rob Morley
ju...@raven-family.com says...
> Peter Amey wrote on 20/03/2007 16:34 +0100:
> > Peter Clinch wrote:
> >> Tony Raven wrote:
> >>
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> Quite right, it's not *that* that's dumb, but moving from a more to a
> >> less secure and stable platform to run your software from simply to
> >> let you pay lower wages to the developers.
> >>
> >
> > Same decision has been made for all future Royal Navy ship systems.
> > "Windows for Warships".
> >
>
> OTOH I have seen plenty of organisations spend a lot of money writing
> their own software only to discover the hard way it is non-standard,
> poorly supported and needs constant effort to maintain it.
>
Simon Brooke
('ju...@raven-family.com') wrote:
> Peter Amey wrote on 20/03/2007 16:34 +0100:
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Quite right, it's not *that* that's dumb, but moving from a more to a
>>> less secure and stable platform to run your software from simply to
>>> let you pay lower wages to the developers.
>>
>> Same decision has been made for all future Royal Navy ship systems.
>> "Windows for Warships".
>
> OTOH I have seen plenty of organisations spend a lot of money writing
> their own software only to discover the hard way it is non-standard,
> poorly supported and needs constant effort to maintain it.
The software which runs the systems of a warship are by definition non
standard. All warships use highly specialised equipment; different types
of warship have different types of specialised equipment; and there are
very few warships of each type. So whether the basic platform is Windows,
OS/2, UN*X, VME or bloody George III, all the software to run the ships
systems has to be written from scratch.
Given that, it's a bit of a no-brainer to choose the most stable and
reliable platform available. I mean, we wouldn't like to be like the Yanks
who have to have their warships towed back into port whenever the
operating system crashes....
Oh, whoops.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
to err is human, to lisp divine
;; attributed to Kim Philby, oddly enough.
Tony Raven
I hope it was to support the move. The less chance there is of weapons
working the happier I am. If Skynet had been based on Windows the whole
Terminator thing would never have happened. As it was they built it on
my favourite operating system, Hollywood OS* ;-)
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_os
Tony Raven
>
> The software which runs the systems of a warship are by definition non
> standard. All warships use highly specialised equipment; different types
> of warship have different types of specialised equipment; and there are
> very few warships of each type. So whether the basic platform is Windows,
> OS/2, UN*X, VME or bloody George III, all the software to run the ships
> systems has to be written from scratch.
>
And most of it is but as The Register said:
"However, the sad fact is that Windows will probably be a big step
forward for the Royal Navy (RN). Anyone who has spent time in an RN
warship is entirely accustomed to seeing equipment on which he may
depend for his life occasionally throw a double six for no good reason.
Windows may be unreliable, but it's hard to imagine it being as
failure-prone as the kit which is out there already."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/26/windows_boxes_at_sea/
In fact IIRC one of the major losses in the Falklands occurred because
they were having to reboot the computer for inbound tracking at a
critical time
But I have seen organisations write their own e-mail clients, their own
AV software, their own firewalls etc etc. None of which needed to be
done with all the choices out there and none of which performed better
than the worst of what is out there but was done because their techies
though they could do it better.
Ziggy
>Simon Brooke wrote on 20/03/2007 17:26 +0100:
>>
>> The software which runs the systems of a warship are by definition non
>> standard. All warships use highly specialised equipment; different types
>> of warship have different types of specialised equipment; and there are
>> very few warships of each type. So whether the basic platform is Windows,
>> OS/2, UN*X, VME or bloody George III, all the software to run the ships
>> systems has to be written from scratch.
>>
>
>And most of it is but as The Register said:
>
>"However, the sad fact is that Windows will probably be a big step
>forward for the Royal Navy (RN). Anyone who has spent time in an RN
>warship is entirely accustomed to seeing equipment on which he may
>depend for his life occasionally throw a double six for no good reason.
>Windows may be unreliable, but it's hard to imagine it being as
>failure-prone as the kit which is out there already."
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/26/windows_boxes_at_sea/
If you strip an NT class version of 'doze down to it's bare escentials it's
actually a pretty solid piece of work.
If we assume that you are not going to connect your warship's main control
computer to the internet, nor load it up with media-players and other consumer
gew-gaws, it should be fine.
Alistair Gunn
> I hope it was to support the move. The less chance there is of weapons
> working the happier I am.
The problem with that is, what if your opponent's military is running on
a (more) stable OS?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Paul Rudin
> I hope it was to support the move. The less chance there is of
> weapons working the happier I am.
It rather depends on the mode of failure, Shirley?
Ekul Namsob
> In fact IIRC one of the major losses in the Falklands occurred because
> they were having to reboot the computer for inbound tracking at a
> critical time
I might suggest that it's a little odd to introduce the Falklands to the
argument. Unless, as is scarily possible, the Navy hasn't significantly
updated its systems in the last 25 years.
Cheers,
Luke
--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush
Peter Clinch
> OTOH I have seen plenty of organisations spend a lot of money writing
> their own software only to discover the hard way it is non-standard,
> poorly supported and needs constant effort to maintain it.
Not really applicable here: the UNIX platforms the medical scanner used
to sit on are standard and supported, /and/ more robust and less
inclined to malware than Windows.
Dave Larrington
Ziggy <zigg...@nospam.ntl.com> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> If you strip an NT class version of 'doze down to it's bare
> escentials it's actually a pretty solid piece of work.
Thass coz it's essentially VMS-lite :-)
One of our OpenVMS Alpha clusters had to be rebooted at the weekend due to a
hardware failure. First time in two years.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
und keine Eie.
Chris Malcolm
> dkahn400 wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 1:25 am, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OS/2 used to be very popular with banks. ISTR reading that some
>>> banks started running ATMs on Windows last year - people noticed
>>> because they were crashing.
>>
>> Nice example here. <http://daimyo.org/node/25>
>>
>> Lot's more, including a number of blue screens of death, at <http://
>> daimyo.org/bsod>
> Much, much scarier is the move to Windows on medical scanners. My head
> of dept. has been given the reason from Philips Medical that they're
> farmed out all their software to India, and the programmers there know
> Windows much better than UNIX, so all the scanner consoles are coming
> off UNIX and onto Windows.
> Windows /is/ capable enough to run a scanner console, easily so. More
> worrying, however, is scanners have to be connected to networks to be of
> any use, and if you change the basic software from what is supplied
> (including adding patches, virus scanners etc.) then the suppliers are
> Not Happy and won't support it...
> So sensationally stooopid you couldn't make it up :-(
How about automating democracy and improving voting registration and
security by giving up on ballot papers and installing networks of
Micros**t-based voting computers?
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Chris Malcolm
It seems to be the case that in any new armed conflict the first thing
the generals and soldiers have to do is to find out which of their
latest toys to junk and where they can lay their hands on supplies of
the obsolete stuff that still actually works.
Chris Malcolm
>> In fact IIRC one of the major losses in the Falklands occurred because
>> they were having to reboot the computer for inbound tracking at a
>> critical time
> I might suggest that it's a little odd to introduce the Falklands to the
> argument. Unless, as is scarily possible, the Navy hasn't significantly
> updated its systems in the last 25 years.
I think you will find that part of the problem is that they have, and
that for what they call "good sound reasons" Micros**t is involved.
M-gineering
>
> How about automating democracy and improving voting registration and
> security by giving up on ballot papers and installing networks of
> Micros**t-based voting computers?
>
How many do you want. I'm sure SDU Newvote will cut you a special deal ;)
--
---
Marten Gerritsen
INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
Tony Raven
>
> How about automating democracy and improving voting registration and
> security by giving up on ballot papers and installing networks of
> Micros**t-based voting computers?
>
Gates for President anyone?
Tony Raven
>
> It seems to be the case that in any new armed conflict the first thing
> the generals and soldiers have to do is to find out which of their
> latest toys to junk and where they can lay their hands on supplies of
> the obsolete stuff that still actually works.
>
And the big advantage of being a major arms trading nation is you know
that if yours doesn't work, theirs doesn't either.
Simon Brooke
('ju...@raven-family.com') wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote on 21/03/2007 11:40 +0100:
>>
>> It seems to be the case that in any new armed conflict the first thing
>> the generals and soldiers have to do is to find out which of their
>> latest toys to junk and where they can lay their hands on supplies of
>> the obsolete stuff that still actually works.
>>
>
> And the big advantage of being a major arms trading nation is you know
> that if yours doesn't work, theirs doesn't either.
Only if 'they' are using your latest, all singing, all dancing, all failing
kind, and not your old and awkward but solidly reliable stuff.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ring of great evil
Small one casts it into flame
Bringing rise of Men ;; gonzoron
Tony Raven
> in message <56ctj1F...@mid.individual.net>, Tony Raven
> ('ju...@raven-family.com') wrote:
>
>> Chris Malcolm wrote on 21/03/2007 11:40 +0100:
>>> It seems to be the case that in any new armed conflict the first thing
>>> the generals and soldiers have to do is to find out which of their
>>> latest toys to junk and where they can lay their hands on supplies of
>>> the obsolete stuff that still actually works.
>>>
>> And the big advantage of being a major arms trading nation is you know
>> that if yours doesn't work, theirs doesn't either.
>
> Only if 'they' are using your latest, all singing, all dancing, all failing
> kind, and not your old and awkward but solidly reliable stuff.
>
As someone in the military once said to me "I'd much rather they were
using stuff we sold them so we know their capabilities and weaknesses
than stuff someone else sold them where we would have to guess"
Chris Malcolm
> Chris Malcolm wrote on 21/03/2007 11:40 +0100:
>>
>> It seems to be the case that in any new armed conflict the first thing
>> the generals and soldiers have to do is to find out which of their
>> latest toys to junk and where they can lay their hands on supplies of
>> the obsolete stuff that still actually works.
> And the big advantage of being a major arms trading nation is you know
> that if yours doesn't work, theirs doesn't either.
Sometimes the problem is that it does work, such as the Friend or Foe
missile identification systems which can be such a nuisance when
someone you've sold missiles to starts firing them at you and your
defence systems recognise them as "ours" :-)
Chris Malcolm
> Chris Malcolm wrote on 21/03/2007 11:36 +0100:
>>
>> How about automating democracy and improving voting registration and
>> security by giving up on ballot papers and installing networks of
>> Micros**t-based voting computers?
> Gates for President anyone?
The beauty of modern democracies is that you don't actually have to
elect a leader, all you have to do is to elect someone who is prepared
to pretend to be the leader. That way you can distract people's
attention from the identity of those who are actually running the
show.
Tom
> The beauty of modern democracies is that you don't actually have to
> elect a leader, all you have to do is to elect someone who is prepared
> to pretend to be the leader. That way you can distract people's
> attention from the identity of those who are actually running the
> show.
As seen in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams 1978.
Tom
--
Return address is dead. Real address is at
http://www.happy-penguin.info/address.jpg