Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Keeping up.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by OM USer View Post

    Click on either "New Topics" or "Today's Posts" and you will notice that the breadcrumb line (the line just under the menu line(s)) displays "Home (picture of house) > Advanced Search > Search Results".
    Click on "Advanced Search"
    Or just use the drop down from the search bar top right.
    Select a "From" date (how many days back you wish to start from) and a "To" date (use today's date) and click "Search Now"
    Voila... you have the show last N days of posts, albeit not quite as easy as the old software.
    Things with posts you haven't read are in bold blue (light style) with the little blue circle with 2 down arrows to take you to the first unread post; things you have read are in light blue with no little circle.
    Thanks! I think! I preferred the old ‘two clicks’ method, seemed easier than that looks!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Beagletorque View Post

      It's all in the header once you find the "A" for advanced button top right.
      Sorry - I do not understand your comment - Which header, what A in the top right. Please show a screen grab with the actual fields highlighted - Thanks
      This space for rent

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by DerekW View Post

        Sorry - I do not understand your comment - Which header, what A in the top right. Please show a screen grab with the actual fields highlighted - Thanks
        I honestly can't be bothered, just open your eyes, The bar is about 1" up from where you are typing. Look to the far right and see three icons. Middle is "A". Click that and another bar will open just below it with all the adjustments.
        Stuff from Cuba
        More stuff from Cuba
        It all started here

        Comment


        • #19
          We are misunderstanding each other. I would like to be able to control the size of the fonts in the titles, existing text not just the text I type, but especially the applications text. Some of the key text I look at to navigate the page is much to small. Other forum platforms do not have such small text..
          This space for rent

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DerekW View Post
            We are misunderstanding each other. I would like to be able to control the size of the fonts in the titles, existing text not just the text I type, but especially the applications text. Some of the key text I look at to navigate the page is much to small. Other forum platforms do not have such small text..
            All I do to read the text easier is hold down "Ctrl" and scroll the mouse wheel to enlarge the entire page. You can also control text size from within Windows Settings but that changes all programs text. I doubt if you can change individual headings sizes etc. as they are set by the forum design.

            Jax

            Comment


            • #21
              Thanks that works for me.
              This space for rent

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Jax View Post

                I suppose when you consider some highly qualified clever software developers wrote a program that caused 2 horrendous aircraft disasters and every Boeing 737 MAX 8 on the planet to be grounded, Windows 10 updates moving files around seems quite insignificant. I share your concern though and do agree things like that shouldn't happen. Bugs like that should be identified and corrected during the process of product testing.


                Jax
                Before I retired, my job for the previous 20 years was functional analysis of automotive control systems. Looking at why the Boeing 737 MAX crashes occurred, in something so mundane as a mere car, having a system safety critical function dependent on just one sensor was an almost total 'no-no'! Sometimes you don't have a choice, but then you have to look very hard at reliability specs for e.g. single paths to failure. I can only assume that Boeing's systems engineers didn't do that. Having said this, the most common cause of failures is still the requirements specification: people are happy to define what a system should do, and forget abut what it must not do. Software is dumb, it just reacts logically to whatever it's presented with. Get the logic wrong, and you have a catastrophe waiting to happen. One big problem now, IMHO, is that software engineering students aren't required to get hands on experience on systems before they are let loose on designing them; they come into industry firmly convinced that software can do everything. That gives two results (1) systems with poor ergonomics and reliability and (2) inbuilt routes to failure that haven't been analyzed and mitigated at any stage - and you can't test them out of existence. Some years ago, I participated in a programme by the RAE to identify why graduates from British universities were not considered good enough by much of industry (my employer often went for foreign graduates in preference to British ones, for example, for this reason); but I doubt that the recommendations were really acted upon. Faults, errors and failures can be managed, if systems are properly designed and developed; take engine management on trucks, as an example. The fault management unit is at least as big as, and is rather more complex than, the engine management box itself. It monitors critical parameters, and ensures safe action in the event that a parameter goes outside a safe, acceptable envelope. One would have thought aircraft control systems would be similarly designed, but given the prescriptive nature of the aircraft standards that I have been, I doubt it.
                I was involved in the development of automotive standards under the auspices of the Motor Industry Software Reliability Association, and participated in, among others, the development of ISO26262.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I was always under the impression that safety-critical control systems in aircraft were triplicated, with the overall decision being made on a "best of three" basis. If you only have two and they give you opposing results, which one do you know is telling the true story? The 737 MAX is a prime example of bad design in that regards.

                  When I was a hardware design engineer back in the 70s we were designing some ticketing machinery which was quite advanced for its time and relied heavily on microprocessor controls. Invariably when things didn't work as expected, the software engineers blamed the hardware and vice-versa. Needless to say 99 times out of 100 it was a software bug! It used to be said (maybe it still is) that there are three rules of software design:
                  • 1. The time required to finish the project is equal to the time already spent on it
                  • 2. The number of bugs remaining is equal to the number already found
                  • 3. When all the bugs have been found, the one remaining will force a complete system redesign
                  I appreciate that some of those are contradictory but hey, it's only a bit of fun
                  Regards
                  Richard

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The new look is a minimalist approach.

                    Minimalist: my def. Nothing is everything and everything is nothing.
                    My Flickr

                    * mark * Wangaratta, Victoria, Australia **
                    The OM-D E-M1 Mark II * OM-D M5 MkII * XZ2 * XZ1 * E3
                    On post-processing: The camera kneads the dough, PP bakes the bread - Greenhill

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X