24 Apr 2010
It's been a week of mistakes, kicking off first thing on Monday morning with the news of an Apple prototype iPhone being left in a Bay Area bar, and ending with McAfee admitting to a major mistake.
Mistakes are part and parcel of human nature. It's a story as old as time. But this is not something to be scorned. There have been many glorious mistakes that have advanced human knowledge immensely.
Research into one topic has led to accidental discoveries that have changed history. Penicillin, X-Rays, the electron and the Bakewell Pudding were all discoveries that came about through mistakes.
But the mistakes we're dealing with on this list aren't so much the glorious mistakes of times past, but more recent errors that had a concrete result. We've kept this as technical as possible, but business, as ever, intrudes. Have a look and see what you think.
Honourable
Mention: Mars Climate Orbiter
Shaun Nichols: As any computer programmer will tell you, some
of the most confusing and complex issues can stem from the simplest of errors.
If you're writing any kind of code for a game or application, this can be quite annoying. If you're writing the code for a Nasa space probe, it can be a catastrophe that costs hundreds of millions of dollars. This was the case with the Mars Climate Orbiter.
A simple error in the development process caused the destruction of a $327m space system. It turned out that, while most of the programming and mission planning had been done in units of measurement from the Imperial system used in the US, the software to control the orbiter's thrusters had been written with units from the metric system.
The result was the space equivalent to jumping off of a 100ft bridge with a 50m long bungee cord. The orbiter went far too deep into the Martian atmosphere and was promptly torn apart by the atmospheric forces.
Iain Thomson: The Mars Climate Orbiter failed due to a simple engineering error, converting Imperial measurements into metric. Imperial measurements are a curious thing for a British person to consider. We invented the damn things and it keeps coming back to bite us on the backside.
Despite efforts to keep Imperial measurements in the UK, the far more rational metric system has prevailed, as it has pretty much everywhere else in the world.
To complicate matters the US still keeps to the Imperial measurements that were in place when the original colonies were founded, meaning that I have to drink more pints over here to consume the same amount of alcohol as I would with fewer pints in London. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.
The Mars Climate Orbiter, and the Mars Polar Lander it contained, would have advanced our knowledge of the Red Planet immensely. The two probes would have monitored the Martian climate and the composition of its soil to determine the presence of usable water for possible manned missions. The timing was also less than ideal, pre-millennial angst being what it was.
Honourable
Mention: CIA pipeline bug
Iain Thomson: OK, this one has never been officially confirmed
but it's an interesting tale that has some relevance today.
In the early 1980s French intelligence persuaded a disaffected Soviet colonel to hand over something called the Farewell Dossier. In it were the names of Soviet spies who had infiltrated Western companies with the aim of stealing technology.
This was shared with the Americans and it was discovered that the Soviets had infiltrated a Canadian company to steal control software for gas pipelines, something that was needed if the Siberian gas pipeline intended to supply western European markets was to be completed.
According to National Security Council staffer Thomas C. Reed, the CIA, keen to disrupt trade between Europe and the Soviet Union, introduced malware into the software before it was stolen. Once activated the software would have catastrophic results, beyond what had been originally envisaged.
"The pipeline software that was to run the pumps, turbines and valves was programmed to go haywire, to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to the pipeline joints and welds," Reed recounted.
"The result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space."
Commercial spying has always been with us, I suspect right back to some distant ancestor being tortured to reveal the secret of fire. But it has never been more rampant than it is today. Technology has aided this process immensely.
When Mossad stole the blueprints for the Mirage 5 they needed to transport nearly three tons of blueprints. The same information would now fit on a couple of hard drives, and there are plenty of countries, and companies, that are actively seeking to steal such data.
Shaun Nichols: Whether real or not, it behoves the CIA to remain silent on the issue. By not confirming, they avoid the ire of the US public and world community, and by not denying they keep other governments thinking that they just might be able to make pipelines explode with the push of a button.
Iain brings up a very good point in relating the alleged incident to current events. We all know that securing power and fuel infrastructure has become a major worry for all governments, and if something like this could have been done in the early 1980s, imagine what sort of havoc could be wreaked these days.
It just underlies the importance of securing infrastructure. The code that would have caused such an explosion is likely to have been small and simple, yet capable of causing absolute chaos when properly deployed.
Latest stories from Management
Related jobs
Poll
Are you confident that the UK's IT infrastructure is secure from attack in the wake of the Flame malware revelations?
Orange and Intel talk us through the ins and outs of their San Diego smartphone
Connect with V3.co.uk
The wrong printers, for the wrong tasks on the wrong contracts
Who leads the BI pack and who should we be watching out for?
Helpdesk/Service Analyst x 3 3 Month Contract...
French Technical support Specialist (2/3rd Line) CCNA...
ECM Project Manager - CMS, "Document Management", Web...
Skills - Presales, Consultant / Consultancy, Technical...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
the imperial system is a crock
how many chains in a rod? how many links in a rod? is a furlong longer than a chain? what's a statute mile vs a nautical mile vs a mile? 1728 cu in in a cu ft? multiply cu yds by 27 to get cubic ft? how many jiggers in a gil? what's bigger? a hogshead or a barrel? how many gallons in barrel? why is a liquid barrel smaller than an oil barrel, and different than a dry barrel? dry volumes use bushels and pecks but liquid volumes use quarts and pints? seriously the metric system is light years ahead of the imperial in terms of simplicity
Posted by: Jamie 24 Dec 2010
Meausurement Units
The article only scratches the surface of the problem. Even the metric system has its foibles, CGS system superseded by MKS and now a pesky system using Newtons (whatever they are - joke!) For the average Joe the chief worry might be aircraft refuelling as allegedly there has been great confusion over how much fuel to load into the plane. Pounds, tons, litres, US gallons and Imperial gallons have all been used and allegedly one plane fell out of the sky because the fuellers thought a litre was a metric pint. Incidentally Imperial measurements were used to put man on the moon so don't knock this "obsolete" system derived from the size of an English kings foot. Before royal measurements were introduced each town had its own measurement system, no big deal for foodstuffs but roof tiles were all different sizes which caused great annoyance. English tiles were standardised hundreds of years ago but just when things seemed OK, along comes the metric system. No problems if you can do simple maths.
Posted by: Davey 02 May 2010
Empire strikes back
"far more rational metric system" There's nothing irrational about Imperial measurements, unless you somehow believe that people in the past were somehow stupider than a bunch of psychotic French revolutionaries. Imperial measurements deal in units on a human scale. Metric measures are unmemorable abstractions. How anyone involved in IT can object to a system that gets people thinking in base 12, base 14, base 16 and base 20 is beyond me.
Posted by: Mick James 02 May 2010
Balance and values are important -
"Techies may not like to work with, and under, the career suit types but for a company to succeed in the long term, it's vital that true business men and women take the reins." Balance is key here. Intel at the time was not driven by engineers but by marketers short on values and with a short time horizon. Their clock rate marketing resulted in good adverts but lower performance and ran into a power/heat barrier that was certainly known to the physics and engineering people. Cover-ups are marketing. The company's marketing has been censured by governments in Japan, Korea, the EU, and judges in the US. A different sort of imbalance was Microsoft's triumph originally driven by shrewd business and marketing people but inferior technology that cost business in general dearly. Today too many companies in Silicon Valley consider their knowledge base to be in disk files and engineers to be just overhead in a context of the US undeveloping in many ways. Many of the best US students won't touch tech any more as there is no career path for them.
Posted by: maguro_01 01 May 2010
Itanic sank years ago
You should have mentioned in 2006, the Itanium Alliance announced a mind-numbing $10,000,000,000 new commitment to the product. It's one thing to make a mistake, it's quite another to pump that kind of money into it after it had become the laughing stock of the industry.
Posted by: Commentator 01 May 2010
Was the Pentium debacle really the fault of the engineers?
The original design fault was obviously an engineering error. However, once it was found, it would have been the "real business people" who made the call not to recall the Pentium - and probably not a few marketing folk. The sort of people for whom a lack of precision in calculations is no big deal rather than (as with engineers) a serious threat to their livelihood. The fact is that engineers have no say in such matters. They would have been asked about the impact and would have told the truth ("Certain division operations will, under certain rare circumstances, have an error of about one part in ten thousand") and the PR/marketing people will have spoken to the accountants, found that a recall would cost a fortune, and played down the fault. An engineer's response would have been, firstly "we have to do a recall", but it's dead certain they would be overridden by the finance people. In many circumstances the accounting people would have been right, but they failed to allow for the existence of many, many people who depend on accurate calculation to make a living.
Posted by: Ronny Cook 30 Apr 2010
Umm...
"... If you were to tell people that there was a 1 in 10,000 chance of something happening to their computer, most all of them would worry about it even though they know the odds of a failure are extremely low..." If it was 1/10,000 per cycle, then there would be a near certainty that I would have around 1000 failures per second.....
Posted by: Dodgy Geezer 28 Apr 2010
Itanium
Initially, Itanium was a novell idea: The purpose was to get rid of the old rusty x86 architecture, which is essentially a primitive 16bit instruction set with 32 bit extensions on it, and make something entirely new."What's the purpose of adding 64bit support to such an old instruction set, when we have the big chance to make something really new?" intel thought The problem is that the Itanium somehow ended up being MORE difficult to programm than x86, and the compilers for it were nearly impossible to make. The compiler even had to "guide" the processor on how to paralellize code and take branches, which is typically stuff handled by the processor itself. Only GNU and Microsoft managed to produce any working compilers (and code) for Itanium, plus a handfull of other companies. All other independent software houses saw the Itanium as too complicated and simply stayed on x86. The fact it was a proprietary standard held by one company (Intel), and it's launch happened amongst a crisis didn't help either. And when AMD added 64bit to x86, Itanium became essentially superflous.
Posted by: Dimitris K 28 Apr 2010
Good list but how about RDRAM?
This was another example of why it's not a good idea to ram something down people's throats even if you are Goliath.
Posted by: Jon Mercado 28 Apr 2010
Intel push for RDRAM and recall of a million motherboard because of faulty chipset
just another one of Intel
Posted by: Patrick Regan 28 Apr 2010
Iridium
I still remember my electrical engineering lecturer at university, circa 2000, explaining Iridium. Paraphrasing: "A little while ago I was working for a company setting up a global network of communicaiton satellites. I stood at [one of the poles] and called my grandmother. They've gone bust now. Nobody wants to stand at [one of the poles] and call their grandmother." Happy days.
Posted by: Geoff Martin 26 Apr 2010