News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:MH370 Debris Storm by hackuser on Friday March 11, 2016 @01:21AM (#11264969)
What's more likely:

1) Missing pieces of a plane that disapeared and probably crashed in an unknown location in the Indian Ocean suddenly turn up near each other, lacking barnacles, etc.

2) Someone is sick enough to perpetrate a fraud to get attention or for other reasons.

In the case of very unlikely events, #2 is unfortunately always a serious alternative hypothesis.

Re:MH370 Debris Storm by anexprogrammer on Friday March 11, 2016 @02:13AM (#11265148)
Going on what we know (sod all), it seems just as likely that the lack of barnacles is down to different materials between the pieces.

Maybe some pieces are too smooth or the wrong flavour? The photo with barnacles attached seems to show them aggregating on the framework and edges only, so maybe they just don't like the paint.

I'd expect a lot of parts to show up together due to the action of tides and currents.

Re:MH370 Debris Storm by hanoz on Friday March 11, 2016 @10:12AM (#11267024)
I'm no expert, but I've seen plenty of flotsam and jetsam on beaches in my time, and I can't recall seeing a barnacle on any of it.
Re:MH370 Debris Storm by madaxe_again on Friday March 11, 2016 @07:36AM (#11266222)
Barnacles tend to aggregate on pretty much anything - smooth or no. Talk to any boat owner.

The only reason they'd be barnacle free is if the paint is in some way ablative, and comes off in layers - which is how marine anti-barnacle paint works - it's very unlikely they'd lack them otherwise.

Re:MH370 Debris Storm by dhimes on Friday March 11, 2016 @08:48AM (#11266548)
There is also paint that is poisonous to the barnacles- that's how anti-barnacle paint used to work in the marine industry. But having all of that poison (for example, lead was famously used back in the day) was determined to not be good for the our environmental health.

Since planes are in a different environment, it's possible that they use paint that is toxic to barnacles (but perhaps is otherwise unsuitable as marine bottom paint).

Re:MH370 Debris Storm by inanutshellus on Friday March 11, 2016 @11:59AM (#11267771)
I always put anti-barnacle paint on my airplanes. Those things are terrible for aerodynamic flow and seriously increase drag. ;-)
Re:MH370 Debris Storm by madaxe_again on Friday March 11, 2016 @10:15AM (#11267036)
That's true - fair point.
Re:MH370 Debris Storm by huuu on Friday March 11, 2016 @02:49AM (#11265284)
My first thought was that maybe breaker waves cleaned up the found parts just like in tumble cleaners.
Re:MH370 Debris Storm by dzhiurgis on Friday March 11, 2016 @05:31AM (#11265780)
By the same logic, if you are faking these, why not fake the barnacles then?
Re:MH370 Debris Storm by colejohnson66 on Friday March 11, 2016 @08:48AM (#11266546)
Fraudsters can be lazy
Re:MH370 Debris Storm by wfunction on Friday March 11, 2016 @01:29AM (#11264990)
Not that I know anything about the matter, but the photos look pretty convincing to me.
Re:MH370 Debris Storm by lololomg on Friday March 11, 2016 @04:00AM (#11265523)
I'm no expert but I really don't think those photos looks like debris that's been floating in the ocean for 2 years.
Re:MH370 Debris Storm by aaron695 on Friday March 11, 2016 @02:15AM (#11265161)
> Someone is sick enough to perpetrate a fraud to get attention or for other reasons.

The entire interest in the 370 is purely entertainment.

Missing planes, who's occupants are dead and we can learn nothing from are much more interesting than poor African kids, who are yet to, but will die of simple stoppable issues.

If someone faked this picture it's no more sick than this original interest. (And also unlikely, it's a boring punk)

Re:MH370 Debris Storm by Arnt on Friday March 11, 2016 @06:55AM (#11266047)
As a software developer, I really appreciate the work the airlines and authorities put in after each accident.

I've read a couple of reports. Quite apart from the issue of saving people's lives, it's good to see the work of someone who someone takes bugs seriously. They never seem to say "let's see if it happens again", "maybe it was a one-off, let's reboot" or "let's upgrade, maybe it's fixed in the latest version".

The report I read most recently described a chain of seven mistakes and other problems, described which ones combined and how, discussed how each of the seven could be prevented and/or made less likely, whether each of the actions was likely to be a net improvement, and finally made recommendations.

IMO, those of us who work with bugs should read one of those reports every so often, just to see/remind us how an unlimited-resources, all-dials-at-11 incident post mortem looks.

Re:MH370 Debris Storm by diskcat on Friday March 11, 2016 @09:04AM (#11266628)
My question is why is it that this level of diligence is applied to the civil aviation industry, and not to something like cars and buses which kill way more people per distance travelled.

My guess would be it's because people like to blame somebody else. If it's a plane then there are large organisations to blame i.e. the airline and the manufacturer. While with cars almost always the blame is with the driver i.e. the people. When it's a manufacturer's fault however nobody bats an eye if they have to recall 500,000 cars to install something that would decrease the risk by 1/10th the amount if everybody uses seatbelts.

Re:MH370 Debris Storm by cstross on Friday March 11, 2016 @09:46AM (#11266865)
Aviation industry accident investigation practices were adopted from the railway industry. Back in the mid-to-late 19th century, train accidents killed about as many travellers per capita as road traffic accidents in the 1950s. So the industry adopted a set of principles: no-blame impartial accident enquiries managed by an independent board who would deliver a report on the causes of the accident along with recommendations for best practice to avoid it recurring. Upshot: rail passenger travel is now by far the safest form of land travel.

Bear in mind that a Boeing 777 like the one that went missing on flight MH370 costs on the order of $200M. You then have potential liability for the passengers (if the airline made culpable/criminal mistakes) of maybe $2-4M per head, for up to 400 pax on a 777 -- they're big (MH370 had only 239 people on board) and you're looking at a billion dollar accident. The airlines and manufacturers thus have a huge incentive not to let this happen again.

(Compare to a car accident: 90% or thereabouts are down to human error, and the vast majority of fatal ones "only" involve a couple of deaths, capping the potential liability two orders of magnitude lower.)

Re:MH370 Debris Storm by tn13 on Friday March 11, 2016 @04:39PM (#11269740)
In journalism we use the phrase "deaths per mile" to rank importance of a story. A story with death within 1 mile of you is equally important to you than story of 100 deaths 100miles away from you.

In that sense a large number of people are "affected" (as in likely to click/read the story) if 300 people on a plane die 1000 miles away than 1000 people dying in different accidents over longer period in my home state.

When there is public perception the government and politicians want to step in and want show that they are doing something. That something is more regulations and more checks. That makes air travel expensive and more safe.

Re:MH370 Debris Storm by NamTaf on Friday March 11, 2016 @11:55AM (#11267741)
They can be if they're serious enough. Planes and trains carry enough people/other stuff to usually warrant the independent investigator to step in. Buses are sort of there. Cars aren't.

You can either have a good team of people drill down into the root causes of a particular mass-transit failure, or you can have them suffer the death of a thousand cuts by investigating every nose-to-tail collision on a highway because people get distracted. One's worth far more to society.

Re:MH370 Debris Storm by PeterHorne on Friday March 11, 2016 @09:15AM (#11266694)
Could you provide a link to the report you're referring to please?
Re:MH370 Debris Storm by Arnt on Friday March 11, 2016 @09:34AM (#11266800)
Most likely it was http://www.aibn.no/rapport-07-1996-pdf but don't bother: It's in Norwegian. The Wikipedia article for most/all aircraft accidents link to the relevant report, as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wider%C3%B8e_Flight_744 links to that PDF, so finding one you can read isn't too difficult.
Re:MH370 Debris Storm by PhasmaFelis on Friday March 11, 2016 @08:55AM (#11266582)
Heh. People take post-mortems seriously when they become literal...
Re:MH370 Debris Storm by BillinghamJ on Friday March 11, 2016 @03:41AM (#11265463)
Actually the main reason that we're striving to find this plane is so that we can find out what exactly happened, in order to ensure it won't happen again to the other planes.

FAA regulations are written in blood.

Re:MH370 Debris Storm by melling on Friday March 11, 2016 @09:39AM (#11266830)
You are understating the need so solve the mystery. The black box is out there somewhere. If enough debris is found maybe it will help investigators calculate the origin of the crash.

That thing where you're trying to shame people because they have interest in one thing while there's some horrible problem in the world needs to be solved, is a bit of an old troll. "We're curing erectile dysfunction while people are dying of other diseases. What's wrong with you people?"

We should give this troll a name.

Re:MH370 Debris Storm by reitanqild on Friday March 11, 2016 @09:55AM (#11266913)
My first idea is a variation of all-or-nothing: if you cannot get rid of all X now - tjen you shouldn't even start thinking about it.
Re:MH370 Debris Storm by dzhiurgis on Friday March 11, 2016 @05:27AM (#11265764)
> much more interesting than poor African kids

But that applies to anything that is not directly related to poor African kids, doesn't it?

You are not going to solve hunger by pouring ship fuel and airplane engineers into the pastures of Africa anyways.

I agree that MH370 story is entertaining though.

Re:MH370 Debris Storm by ekianjo on Friday March 11, 2016 @06:21AM (#11265937)
So when you eat breakfast lunch and dinner do you spend 1 hour feeling sick to your stomach about all poor people suffering on Earth or do you have peace of mind like most of us do?
Re:MH370 Debris Storm by reitanqild on Friday March 11, 2016 @04:50AM (#11265669)
While I see your point I guess I should refer you to the guidelines:

"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

A lot of us find plane crashes are interesting for the same reasons that we read or watched detective stories etc at some point, only plane crashes and other real world events are far more interesting to me at least.

That doesn't mean we don't care about Africa. Some of us do and it might be helpful for you to know that to mea at least you come off as judging and not as someone I'd like to work with on those matters.