From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7e8cebf09cf80560
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: KK6GM <mjsilva@scriptoriumdesigns.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How would Ariane 5 have behaved if overflow checking were
 notturned off?
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <05ec46e3-cc9c-406e-b4c9-3c1392726436@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <a8387564-0835-467d-a461-60a093c38133@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com><4d80b13f$0$43832$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <m239mnhzmb.fsf@pushface.org>
 <4d8200ce$0$43837$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4d820f84$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <4d835402$0$43840$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4d8356e0$0$5764$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.35.64.226
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1300466957 16083 127.0.0.1 (18 Mar 2011 16:49:17
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:49:17 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com; posting-host=12.35.64.226;
 posting-account=qZVz2QoAAAAN9WxYp-9jYb7jORc4Zqwt
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 barracudaweb.tritool.rancho:8080 (http_scan/4.0.2.6.19)
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1;
 Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30;
 .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; MDDR; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E;
 InfoPath.1),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18303
Date: 2011-03-18T09:49:17-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mar 18, 5:57=A0am, Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/2011 7:34 PM, robin wrote:
>
> > Provided that the two SRI computers remained switched on, the mission w=
as safe.
> > Switching off "two still healthy critical units of equipment" guarantee=
d failure.

I realize now that we have been having two separate discussions, and
I'd say that we're _all_ right.  That is, it makes much more sense,
when encountering a value that has been proven to be impossible to
encounter, that the encountering system should fall back to the
redundant hardware than to try and "fake it".  However, (and this is
the case you and robin have been arguing, while ignoring the existence
of the redundant hardware in the first place), the last control system
in the chain (the 2nd one in this case) should obviously never shut
down, but should fall back to a limp-along mode, which of course may
or may not be good enough for the mission to succeed.