munck@community-chest.mitre.org (Bob Munck) (02/01/90)
From Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 59 and Risks Digest: 9.63 > Here's AT&T's _official_ report on the Martin Luther King day network > problems, courtesy of the AT&T Consultant Liason Program. > ... > While the software had been rigorously tested in laboratory > environments before it was introduced, the unique combination of > events that led to this problem couldn't be predicted. ^^^^^^^^ ^^ Don't they mean "wasn't"? The rest of the report seems (to me) to be reasonably detailed, well explained, and apparently honest, but this one little dissemblance ruins the whole thing. Is there any justification for the assertion that the prediction was (and is) _impossible_ in these circumstances? -- Bob Munck, MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) (02/03/90)
In article <3440@accuvax.nwu.edu> munck@mwunix.mitre.org writes: > > While the software had been rigorously tested in laboratory > > environments before it was introduced, the unique combination of > > events that led to this problem couldn't be predicted. ^^^^^^^^ ^^ > Is there any justification for the assertion that the prediction was > (and is) _impossible_ in these circumstances? Yes. At least it is impossible in the same sense that it is impossible for a computer to play a perfect game of chess. There's just too many possible combinations of subsystems to delineate (let alone test) them rigorously. Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@serene.uu.net ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757