May 052011
 

For my own future reference …

Today I encountered an interesting little issue where I could not send an ABORT signal to a running process to kill it with a core dump because the process had a limit of 0 for the core dump size. Try as I might, I could not find a way to change that process’s core dump limit.

Turns out there is another way of tackling the problem, which is to use gdb to generate a core image :-

gdb
>attach PID
>gcore /var/tmp/core.PID

There is of course the gcore shell script wrapper for this, but that may not work if the working directory of the process no longer exists.

May 022011
 

This is a companion blog entry to the one where I merely published the table of fatality statistics. That article was the raw facts; this one is where I can whitter on about anything I please – ideally backed up with some analysis of the raw statistics.

One of the things that became apparent to me as I worked on the table, was that the Grand National of old was not anywhere near as fatal as one would assume. Over the years, all sorts of things have been tried to make the Grand National safer – removing stone fences (!), removing the ploughed fields, reducing the heights of fences, etc. Yet it doesn’t seem to have made that much difference.

Over the last 20 years, there have been just 7 years without fatalities. In the 35 races for which I have details ran before 1900, “just” 10 had fatalities in. So we have gone from a majority of races (in the earliest supposedly most dangerous era of the Grand National) being fatality free, to a state where the majority of races do have fatalities. So much for making things safer.

Looking more closely, we can average out the fatality rate over time. The average fatality rate over the whole period for which I have figures comes to 1.70%. This compares to an average rate of 2.05% over the last 10 years (2001-2011), and 3.2% for the 10 years before that. So I guess the rate is falling, but it is still well above the average over time. If we go back earlier in time, we have a rate of 2.8% for the years 1950-59 (including the infamous 1954), or a rate of 1.4% for the years 1930-1939.

There is a great deal more that could be done with the figures … not least of which is to chase down the figures for the missing years. However what seems to be the case is that what has happened over time is that the race has been made easier and not safer.

So How Can We Make The Grand National Safer ?

I am totally unqualified to make any sensible suggestions, but someone who just criticised without trying to be helpful is nothing but a whinger, so I will try …

Let me repeat that overall statement – the Grand National has been made easier and not safer over the years. That is of course subject to debate, but let us assume it is true. How does making a race easier, make it less safe ? Well, simply if you make a race easier you make it possible for horses to run faster. When horses have accidents they are more likely to have fatal accidents the faster they are going. By making the race easier, we have let the horses run faster and so make it more likely they will have fatal accidents.

So make the race harder – higher fences, plough some of the track, etc.

Make it easier for horses to give up and disqualify themselves – a horse who has had enough should be given the opportunity to say “No, thanks. I’ll pass on this one”.

May 022011
 

We have all heard today about the death of Osama bin Laden. This of course is good news – whilst Al-Queda will carry on, removing their founder is certainly a blow. And who needs terrorists? But I’ve had a few thoughts from the ongoing discussions :-

  1. The celebrations of Americans at the announcement was understandable, but a touch distasteful … it may well have been necessary to kill Osama rather than bring him to justice, but celebrating any death no matter how unpleasant the man himself, is less than dignified.
  2. It is unfortunate that he wasn’t brought to justice to face an international court for crimes against humanity. Killing him was almost certainly unavoidable given his declaration he would rather be killed than captured, but he wasn’t ‘brought to justice’ – that would involve a court and being sentenced to some form of punishment.
  3. It is worth pointing out that Osama got at least part of what he wanted. Given the choice of being killed immediately or being brought to face a court and a lengthy trial, Osama wanted to be killed. Of course he would prefer to be free to create more trouble than he has already.
  4. I rather hope that the US authorities obtained some sort of permission to go into Pakistan – whether it was a blanket permission to “extract Obama” at some point, or whether it was specific authorisation for this mission.
  5. There are those who are saying that as Osama was found “hiding in plain site” as it were, then it is certain that he was being helped out by the Pakistani authorities. This is ridiculous. First of all he was hiding in a walled compound out of plain site. He was probably never in a position to be observed except by those closest to him. Secondly, whilst he may have received assistance from some individuals within the authorities in the past, that is not the same as receiving assistance from the authorities themselves … and the fact he was caught this time is an indication that his support is disappearing.
May 022011
 

More photographs from the sleepy valley :-

1: Sheepy Valley

Sheepy Valley

Apologies for the pun, but it was just hard to resist 🙂

2: Climbing To The Shade

Climbing To The Shade

Getting up this hill was hot work!

3: Hilltop Argument

Hilltop Argument

Which way to go ?

Apr 282011
 

The funniest thing about David Cameron using the phrase “Calm down dear” in Prime Minister’s question time yesterday is that everyone seems to think there are just two possibilities – that he was being sexist, or he was trying to be funny. What everyone seems to have ignored was that he was being a complete idiot too.

Whether he was being sexist or being funny – and I’m on the side that thinks he was trying to be funny – he was being an idiot trying to use a phrase that could be interpreted as condescension to women (i.e. being sexist). Ok, perhaps everyone is allowed the occasional slip up – even the Prime Minister is human after all.

But if he keeps being idiotic, we need to worry – an idiotic Prime Minister is not a good thing!