737 Replacement

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
before saying something you can't back up.

As I said, Boeing is conservative. I consider safety much more
important than fuel economy.

Safety can not be weighed against fuel economy. Apples to
oranges. Weigh the fuel economy of the B737 without the winglets and
vortices to the A319/A320 with the winglets, then see how Boeing was
behind, and finally caught up.

Then I suggest you learn a bit more about computers, because
they run a lot more things than you realize.

I already know too much about them, which is why I worry. The people
who recklessly put them into everything need to learn a lot more about
how and why they fail.


People who put them in already understand the pros and cons for
what they are doing, and know when and when not to put them where they
are. Until you decide to use them to your advantage instead of letting
your fear and paranoia of them rule you, you will always look, feel,
and appear to be ignorant. But if that is how you want to run your
life, so be it. No bother to me. Oh, btw.. be sure to use the crank
next time you start your car, and to take out the computer modules that
help you start your engine.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFOHejyBkZmuMZ8L8RAl/9AKDMjZ3EVkRP9u7p4FaG9Hi7MlxO3gCgzcgW
t9X6w9HmZ2DJ0fVPrI4KtlQ=
=vE0l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article . net,
"Mike Schumann" wrote:

The Boeing winglets aren't even a Boeing product. They are designed and
made by a 3rd party. Boeing is now installing them as a factory option on
new aircraft.

A lot of stuff on Boeing aircraft aren't Boeing products.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel wrote:

A lot of stuff on Boeing aircraft aren't Boeing products.


A lot of stuff on a lot aircraft of any brand name aren't the same brand
name as the aircraft. G

Skywise writes:

Computers are infallible.

But software is not--because software is written by human beings, who
are fallible.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

Safety can not be weighed against fuel economy.

They can be assigned priorities. I assign a higher priority to
safety, and I'm not alone.

People who put them in already understand the pros and cons for
what they are doing, and know when and when not to put them where they
are.

No, they do not, as Airbus has regularly illustrated, beginning way
back in Habsheim. Airbus cares more about fancy press than safety.
They care more about glitter than substance.

Oh, btw.. be sure to use the crank
next time you start your car, and to take out the computer modules that
help you start your engine.

No need for the first, but the second isn't such a bad idea.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

But software is not--because software is written by human beings, who
are fallible.

oh, and whence do you reckon hardware comes? handed over to
us by angels or something? I have worked on low level embedded
stuff, and believe me, there are bugs in hardware -- even
though it is not always possible to get these @#%!! hardware
engineers to admit it. But I digress :-)

--Sylvain

Sylvain writes:

oh, and whence do you reckon hardware comes?

Hardware testing is much more straightforward, because it is much more
difficult to design and build complex hardware, and because hardware
does not have many catastrophic failure modes. Additionally, hardware
is expensive and cannot easily be modified, so there is a much greater
incentive to get it right.

I have worked on low level embedded
stuff, and believe me, there are bugs in hardware ...

I don't doubt that, but it hardly excuses bugs in software.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Sylvain" wrote in message
t...
Mxsmanic wrote:

But software is not--because software is written by human beings, who
are fallible.

oh, and whence do you reckon hardware comes? handed over to
us by angels or something? I have worked on low level embedded
stuff, and believe me, there are bugs in hardware -- even
though it is not always possible to get these @#%!! hardware
engineers to admit it. But I digress :-)

You are playing into his hands. That is how trolls work, remember?
--
Jim in NC

Hardware testing is much more straightforward, because it is much more
difficult to design and build complex hardware, and because hardware
does not have many catastrophic failure modes. Additionally, hardware
is expensive and cannot easily be modified, so there is a much greater
incentive to get it right.


Oh really? How many circuit boards have you designed? I have designed
quite a few, and have done the embedded firmware for them as well.
Hardware designs can have bugs just as can software, they are just of a
different nature. Hardware bugs can be much harder to find and fix
than software becasue they are often the results of multiple variables
(circuit/environment/input conditions/power quality etc.). By
comparison, software is at least constrained to a specific set of
instructions and syntax. Plenty of hardware designs have bugs that
slip past initial testing and don't get found until the right corner
condition is hit...

Dean

writes:

Oh really? How many circuit boards have you designed? I have designed
quite a few, and have done the embedded firmware for them as well.

Embedded firmware is software.

Vacuum-powered artificial horizons don't require much in the way of
circuits or firmware.

Hardware designs can have bugs just as can software, they are just of a
different nature. Hardware bugs can be much harder to find and fix
than software becasue they are often the results of multiple variables
(circuit/environment/input conditions/power quality etc.). By
comparison, software is at least constrained to a specific set of
instructions and syntax. Plenty of hardware designs have bugs that
slip past initial testing and don't get found until the right corner
condition is hit...

So add the hardware risks to the software risks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.