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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,11e38e162c16b469
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.224.71 with SMTP id ra7mr95081pbc.3.1344720351889;
        Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 c10ni104099pbw.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: jpwoodruff@gmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: A new name for software failure : the glitch
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <166a37db-aa31-424a-9509-291b359b106d@googlegroups.com>
References: <2bd4ae1c-c8c7-4553-9f7f-9b6915b30c33@googlegroups.com>
 <k02vjh$sd6$1@speranza.aioe.org> <87sjbt5j4o.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.229.206.178
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1344720351 10210 127.0.0.1 (11 Aug 2012 21:25:51
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:25:51 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <87sjbt5j4o.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=71.229.206.178;
 posting-account=eLk0BgoAAAA-yA75xm1L7heSizMaESVg
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-08-11T14:25:51-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Saturday, August 11, 2012 1:22:15 PM UTC-6, Florian Weimer wrote:

<...>

> There are now reports that it wasn't a software error, that is, the
> 
> software worked as specified.
> 
> 

Let me advance an hypothesis about the "glitch".  

We are told that the trading software executed numerous "buy" orders,
and the losses accrued when the company needed to unwind those positions.

Suppose that the database representing the software's state had become
corrupted, conceivably showing zero holdings, at the start of business
on the day.

The logic of the program might credibly buy lots of securities in
order to create the positions that the logic *correctly* determined
were required.

Then when the database is corrected to show the true positions, the
logic would demand quick dumping of the redundant purchases.

By this hypothesis the code logic is not flawed; a configuration
error cost 0.4e9 dollars.

John