Safety-Critical Mailing List Archive 2001
By Author

• acoombes(at)realogy.com
  • [sc] Automotive safety-critical systems Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:16:31 +0100
  • Reliability of fault-tolerance/error handling Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:35:53 +0000
• Alan Burns
  • Use of the mailing list Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:33:20 +0000
• Andrew Brydon
  • Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification , please.]] Wed, 21 Nov 2001 18:25:54 +0000
  • Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.] Tue, 20 Nov 2001 05:53:53 +0000
• Andrew Hussey
  • SV: Policies concerning Phones and Forecourts Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:16:56 +0100
  • VB: IEC61508 interpretation? Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:53:06 +0100
• Andrew Ireland
  • RA Position: High Integrity Software Verification/Theorem Proving Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:59:57 +0000 (GMT)
• Andy Ashworth
  • RE: [sc] safety critical laser printers Thu, 31 May 2001 11:23:17 +0100
  • RE: Use of OO technologies in safety critical software Thu, 24 May 2001 08:28:09 +0100
  • RE: Discussion of Definitions Wed, 2 May 2001 09:04:08 +0100
  • RE: Software functions and CENELEC SIL 0 Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:34:44 -0000
  • RE: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:18:39 -0000
• Andy Farnsworth
  • Re: FW: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Fri, 23 Nov 2001 14:11:38 -0000
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:43:43 -0000
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:33:58 -0000
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:27:06 -0000
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:40:07 -0000
  • RE: [sc] Caches in safety-critical-systems Thu, 11 Oct 2001 12:48:46 +0100
• Armstrong, Jim
  • RE: Re[2]: Reliability claims in telecomms Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:27:56 -0000
  • Reliability claims in telecomms Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:32:41 -0000
• Axel Poign
  • Re: [sc] Use of controllability or observability properties in safety arguments Tue, 11 Sep 2001 08:44:30 +0200
• Baal, Joep van
  • [sc] Definitions in ARP4761 Thu, 7 Jun 2001 08:51:47 +0100
  • AW: [sc] Definitions in ARP4761 Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:31:18 +0100
  • AW: [sc] Automotive safety-critical systems Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:40:06 +0100
  • AW: PC + Windows NT/2000 Mon, 21 May 2001 11:16:35 +0100
  • AW: PC + Windows NT/2000 Fri, 18 May 2001 09:03:08 +0100
• Bahadur Sihota
  • RE: Use of Automatically generated code in SCS Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:20:02 -0500
• Bertrand Ricque
  • RE: [sc] Technical Security Analysis Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:13:58 +0200
  • RE: [sc] Technical Security Analysis Fri, 14 Sep 2001 22:57:50 +0200
• Bev Littlewood
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:41:50 +0000
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:18:56 +0000
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:31:14 +0000
  • Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.] Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:18:12 +0000
  • Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.] Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:51:18 +0000
  • Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please. Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:34:23 +0000
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:22:47 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:46:54 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Bayesian belief network Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:45:15 +0100
• bill black
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Fri, 7 Sep 2001 19:02:27 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Proof Testing Prior to Use Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:42:09 +0100
  • RE: Independent Safety Auditor (System & Software) Thu, 17 May 2001 18:37:23 +0100
  • RE: Software functions and CENELEC SIL 0 Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:22:29 -0000
  • RE: IEC61508 interpretation? Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:41:10 -0000
• Bob Noel
  • Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification , please.]] Wed, 21 Nov 2001 08:27:33 -0500
• Braband Jens
  • [sc] Risk Analysis in Standards, was :Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Fri, 14 Sep 2001 08:39:41 +0200
  • [sc] Re: report on accident models and causes (safety) Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:03:36 +0200
  • [sc] Impact of new European Railway Standards Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:49:22 +0200
  • [sc] Safety-related communication (EN 50159-2), was: PC + Windows NT/2 000 Tue, 29 May 2001 12:11:06 +0200
• brian wichmann
  • Re: [sc] What is language? Tue, 04 Dec 2001 22:46:56 +0000
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Mon, 03 Dec 2001 22:03:11 +0000
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Sun, 02 Dec 2001 19:22:56 +0000
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About C Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:30:55 +0000
  • Language Formal Definitions Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:43:55 +0000
  • Re: <no subject> Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:19:04 +0000
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:01:20 +0000
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:58:19 +0000
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:37:29 +0100
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:33:57 +0100
  • An IEC 61508 instrument Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:45:37 +0000
  • Standards writing. Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:52:10 +0000
  • Single Event Effects: a warning Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:54:30 +0000
  • Re: Re[2]: IEC61508 interpretation? Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:31:41 +0000
• by way of Jonathan Moffett
  • RE: Discussion of Definitions Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:48:35 +0100
• Cant, Tony
  • . DOVE Announcement Tue, 11 Sep 2001 14:32:24 +0930
• Charles Waite
  • Re: [sc] sc Rhetoric Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:02:24 -0500
• Chris Harper
  • [sc] Use of controllability or observability properties in safety arguments Mon, 10 Sep 2001 21:30:54 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Man-rated? Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:24:38 +0100
  • [sc] Re: PC + Windows NT/2000 Tue, 29 May 2001 22:03:07 +0100
  • Re: Use of OO technologies in safety critical software Fri, 25 May 2001 13:04:19 +0100
  • Intelligent Systems Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:47:08 -0000
• Chris Hote
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:11:27 +0100
• Christian Hoppe
  • Caches in safety-critical-systems Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:50:55 +0100
• CKWONG(at)ctrl.co.uk
  • RE: [sc] SILs - the return Thu, 20 Dec 2001 16:39:56 -0000
  • [sc] Software Verification Project Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:56:50 +0100
• Courtois Pierre-Jacques
  • RE: FW: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.] Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:37:12 +0100
  • Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.] Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:49:55 +0100
• D, Joseph G
  • Re: [sc] Automotive safety-critical systems Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:22:20 -0400
• Dambacher, Christoph, VME23
  • Typical Example Thu, 8 Mar 2001 17:42:53 +0100
  • newbie: concrete experiences on safety-critical software Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:32:03 +0100
• Daniel Moulding
  • RE: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please. Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:32:33 -0000
• David Crocker
  • RE: [sc] Ada 'withing' problem (was: JSF software to be written in C++) Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:43:17 -0000
  • ANN: New release of FM tool Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:47:48 -0000
  • RE: [sc] JSF software to be written in C++ Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:43:01 -0000
  • RE: [sc] JSF software to be written in C++ Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:30:33 -0000
  • JSF software to be written in C++ Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:43:01 -0000
  • RE: [sc] Caches in safety-critical-systems Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:25:48 +0100
• David Smith
  • Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.] Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:05:58 +0000
  • Typo in Interim Defence Standard 00-54 Issue 1 Part 1 Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:57:54 +0000
  • Re: [sc] New Web-Based Archive of the Safety-Critical Mailing List 1995-2001 Mon, 10 Sep 2001 15:13:00 +0100
• David Tombs
  • Re: [sc] SIL ranges in ENV50129, prEN50129 and Yellow Book 3 Wed, 05 Dec 2001 18:48:43 +1000
  • Re: [sc] JSF software to be written in C++ Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:07:27 +1000
• david.biddulph(at)baesystems.com
  • Re: [sc] New moderator of the safety-critical list Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:37:46 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: oops, forgot one Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:01:18 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: Windows NT and SILs Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:14:54 +0100 (BST)
• Derek Mannering
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:16:28 -0000
  • RE: [sc] safety critical laser printers Thu, 31 May 2001 10:04:41 +0100
• Des Nutt
  • Re: Re[2]: IEC61508 interpretation? Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:37:25 -0800 (PST)
• Dock Allen
  • Re: R: R: R: [sc] Rhetoric Mon, 19 Nov 2001 02:06:01 +0000
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:19:17 -0400
  • Re: Cost of independant safety monitor Sat, 03 Feb 2001 01:06:07 -0500
• Dr Tim Kelly
  • CALL FOR PAPERS (IPDS) 2002 Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:59:30 -0000
  • Call for Contributions - DSN 2002 Tue, 23 Oct 2001 0:18:00 -0500
• Dr. William Goble
  • Re: [sc] Request for information Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:36:00 -0500
  • Re: An IEC 61508 instrument Tue, 06 Mar 2001 12:37:53 -0500
• Dr. Wolfgang Ehrenberger
  • RE: [sc] SIL ranges in ENV50129, prEN50129 and Yellow Book 3 Wed, 5 Dec 2001 17:20:26 GMT+2
  • Problems with IEC 61511, CDV, please help Fri, 7 Sep 2001 15:29:08 GMT+2
• Edward M. Marszal, P.E.
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:45:05 -0400
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:02:29 -0400
  • RE: A comment on overall effectiveness Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:33:17 -0400
• escharpf(at)exida.com
  • RE: A comment on overall effectiveness Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:30:52 +1200
  • RE: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:51:19 +1300
• Felix Redmill
  • Re: PC + Windows NT/2000 Wed, 30 May 2001 16:56:38 +0000
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 21:19:13 +0000
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:51:43 +0000
  • RE: Software functions and CENELEC SIL 0 Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:01:54 +0000
  • Re: Reliability of fault-tolerance/error handling Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:57:59 +0000
  • Submarine failure Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:57:31 +0000
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:22:12 +0000
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:49:09 +0000
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:34:20 +0000
  • Re: Reliability claims in telecomms Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:48:43 +0000
• Fotis Fotopoulos
  • SIL ranges in ENV50129, prEN50129 and Yellow Book 3 Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:53:29 -0000
  • RE: [sc] Handling engineering design process that intended to be compliance with IEC 61508. Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:55:12 -0000
• Francois Taiani
  • Re: [sc] Caches in safety-critical-systems Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:06:22 +0200
  • Re: [sc] Caches in safety-critical-systems Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:53:27 +0200
• Frank Renpenning
  • Re: Software functions and CENELEC SIL 0 Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:37:10 +0100
• frank.renpenning(at)gmx.de
  • (no subject) Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:37:50 +0100 (MET)
• G.F.
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:07:01 -0500
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 07:48:59 -0500
  • RE: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:56:08 -0500
• Ganter, John H
  • A comment on overall effectiveness Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:36:57 -0600
  • RE: Osprey woes: Cultural root causes Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:17:29 -0600
  • "System Stress" test for Windows NT/2000 Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:39:34 -0700
  • Cell phones and gas stations considered urban legends Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:30:28 -0700
  • "The sense of security more frequently springs from habit than fr om conviction..." Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:14:47 -0700
• Garlington, Kennie E
  • RE: [sc] Technical Security Analysis Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:56:00 -0500
  • RE: More on Osprey Thu, 17 May 2001 10:37:11 -0500
  • RE: Osprey Fri, 04 May 2001 14:02:55 -0500
  • RE: Osprey Fri, 04 May 2001 13:14:38 -0500
  • V-22 PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS Tue, 01 May 2001 12:28:41 -0500
  • RE: A comment on overall effectiveness Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:37:40 -0500
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:15:49 -0500
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:49:29 -0500
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:05:51 -0500
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:13:30 -0500
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Sun, 22 Apr 2001 16:36:39 -0500
  • RE: SW Direct Cause of December Osprey Crash Mon, 09 Apr 2001 18:23:52 -0500
  • RE: SW Direct Cause of December Osprey Crash Mon, 09 Apr 2001 09:50:46 -0500
  • RE: Single Event Effects: a warning Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:04:07 -0600
  • RE: MIL-STD-882B software hazard analysis tasks Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:04:23 -0600
  • RE: Use of Automatically generated code in SCS Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:09:39 -0600
• Gary T. Leavens
  • Re: [sc] Current Topic of Discussion Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:04:25 -0500
  • Re: [sc] Technical Security Analysis Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:40:28 -0500
  • Re: [sc] Technical Security Analysis Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:37:47 -0500
• gary.mcguire(at)westsig.co.uk
  • Re: Windows NT and SILs Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:02:53 +0000
• George Cleland
  • HSE publish Adelard research on Software of Unknown Pedigreee Thu, 17 May 2001 12:47:03 +0100
  • HSE publish Adelard research on Software of Unknown Pedigreee Wed, 16 May 2001 19:45:31 +0100
• Gerard Le Lann
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Wed, 05 Dec 2001 18:28:52 +0100
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:32:49 +0100
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:45:30 +0100
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:20:35 +0100
  • Re: More on Osprey Thu, 17 May 2001 15:26:39 +0200
  • Re: More on Osprey Thu, 17 May 2001 14:00:06 +0200
  • Re: More on Osprey Wed, 16 May 2001 17:08:33 +0200
• Graham Tebby
  • RE: [sc] landing gear Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:46:28 -0000
• Haskins, Tom
  • RE: [sc] SAFETY AND SECURITY CRITICAL SYSTEMS Course, 3rd Septemb er--7th September Wed, 15 Aug 2001 05:25:54 -0400
  • [sc] Peter Ladkins wba Tue, 31 Jul 2001 08:57:45 +0100
  • [sc] Hazop Guidewords Wed, 20 Jun 2001 09:25:46 -0400
• Hutchison Peter B Flt. Lt.
  • RE: [sc] Use of CSP Mon, 10 Sep 2001 09:48:35 +0100
  • Use of CSP Thu, 6 Sep 2001 11:22:30 +0100
• Høgberg, Frode
  • Software Sneak Analysis Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:00:54 +0100
• Iain Bate
  • Workshop on Worst-Case Execution Time Analysis Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:16:04 +0100
• Ian B Pirie
  • Re: [sc] Bayesian belief network Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:10:30 -0400
  • Bayesian belief network Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:01:40 -0400
• Ian Toyn
  • Re: IEC61508 forum Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:31:40 +0000
• Ian.Gibson(at)Fluor.com
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:26:47 +1100
  • [re:Fwd: Non-linear Sensitivity of Electrochemical Oxygen Sensors to Helium] Thu, 24 May 2001 11:12:35 +1100
• info(at)fnc.co.uk
  • Re: Windows NT and SILs Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:36:09 +0000
• J. Harauz
  • UPDATED CFP: Workshop on Inspection in Software Engineering Tue, 22 May 2001 16:03:27 -0400
• Jackson, William
  • VISOR Hazard Tracking System Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:11:05 -0500
  • [sc] MOD For 911 Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:05:57 -0400
• jacqui.newbegin(at)invensys.com
  • Jacqui Newbegin/AU/WSA/Rail is out of the office. Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:49:11 +1100
  • [sc]-Compliance to CENELEC 50128 Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:23:39 +1000
• Jeremy Reed
  • Use of standard PLC's for safety applications Tue, 27 Mar 2001 14:41:52 +0100
• Joaquim Marco
  • R: [sc] Rhetoric Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:44:32 +0100
  • R: R: R: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:33:49 +0100
  • R: [sc] landing gear Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:02:29 +0100
  • R: R: [sc] Rhetoric Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:32:41 +0100
  • R: R: [sc] Rhetoric Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:05:28 +0100
  • R: [sc] Rhetoric Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:00:09 +0100
  • R: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please. Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:55:45 +0100
• John C. Grebe Jr.
  • RE: [sc] SIL ranges in ENV50129, prEN50129 and Yellow Book 3 Wed, 5 Dec 2001 12:39:25 -0500
• John Calvert
  • Re: [sc] IEE Railway Professional Network Seminar 12th July - SILs Fact, Fiction and Filibuster Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:00:53 -0400
• John Dalton
  • Re: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:06:06 +0000
  • Re: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:34:44 +0000
• John Fox
  • RE: Typical Example Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:30:41 -0000
  • Re: Typical Example Thu, 08 Mar 2001 17:48:35 -0000
• John McDermid
  • Sneak, supplementary Tue, 4 Dec 2001 18:17:24 -0000
  • Re: [sc] SIL ranges in ENV50129, prEN50129 and Yellow Book 3 Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:54:38 -0000
  • Re: [sc] Software Sneak Analysis Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:38:58 -0000
  • Re: [sc] What is language? was: Rhetoric About Rhetoric Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:33:25 -0000
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:25:32 -0000
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:40:14 -0000
  • Re: [sc] SIL ranges in ENV50129, prEN50129 and Yellow Book 3 Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:13:34 -0000
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:33:58 -0000
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:18:20 -0000
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:57:48 -0000
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 16:48:14 -0000
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:29:40 -0000
  • [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:08:09 -0000
  • Re: [sc] Bayesian belief network Mon, 27 Aug 2001 07:21:40 +0100
  • Re: [sc] SAFETY AND SECURITY CRITICAL SYSTEMS Course, 3rd September--7th September Wed, 15 Aug 2001 08:24:02 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Hazop Guidewords Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:43:40 +0100
  • Re: [sc] IEE Railway Professional Network Seminar 12th July - SILs Fact, Fiction and Filibuster Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:42:32 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Definitions in ARP4761 Wed, 6 Jun 2001 19:22:05 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Man-rated? Sat, 2 Jun 2001 19:17:57 +0100
  • Re: Use of OO technologies in safety critical software Thu, 24 May 2001 06:22:02 +0100
  • Re: PC + Windows NT/2000 Sun, 20 May 2001 09:54:22 +0100
  • Re: Independent Safety Auditor (System & Software) Thu, 17 May 2001 21:13:28 +0100
  • Re: PC + Windows NT/2000 Thu, 17 May 2001 21:01:57 +0100
  • Re: Independent Safety Auditor (System & Software) Thu, 17 May 2001 20:49:53 +0100
  • Re: A comment on overall effectiveness Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:47:59 +0100
  • Re: oops, forgot one Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:13:07 +0100
  • Re: oops, forgot one Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:19:13 +0100
  • Re: Reliability of fault-tolerance/error handling Mon, 5 Feb 2001 16:22:52 -0000
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:05:30 -0000
  • Re: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:05:11 -0000
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:09:39 -0000
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:44:32 -0000
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:48:45 -0000
• johnson(at)dcs.gla.ac.uk
  • IRIA (Incident and Accident Workshop) CfP Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:13:02 GMT
  • EAM 2002 CfP Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:08:09 GMT
  • Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.]] Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:10:06 GMT
  • Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.] Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:09:19 GMT
  • Rhetoric Mon, 19 Nov 2001 09:35:19 GMT
  • sc Rhetoric Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:38:17 GMT
  • Re: [sc] Accident investigation Thu, 8 Nov 2001 08:46:08 GMT
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:09:45 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: [sc] Bayesian belief network Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:34:41 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: [sc] Bayesian belief network Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:12:40 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: [sc] Bayesian belief network Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:40:19 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: [sc] FTA,RBD for maintainability Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:32:06 +0100 (BST)
  • Medical informatics [sc] Fri, 24 Aug 2001 08:45:56 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: [sc] request information about medical software failure Fri, 24 Aug 2001 08:25:14 +0100 (BST)
  • [sc] accidents and incidents... Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:44:05 +0100 (BST)
  • [sc] accidents and incidents... Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:21:13 +0100 (BST)
  • RE: Discussion of Definitions Wed, 2 May 2001 09:38:52 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:12:01 GMT
• Jon Davies
  • Re: [sc] landing gear Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:10:32 -0000
  • Re: [sc] safety critical laser printers Thu, 31 May 2001 09:56:24 +0100
  • Re: [sc] safety critical laser printers Thu, 31 May 2001 09:43:52 +0100
  • Re: [sc] safety critical laser printers Mon, 28 May 2001 20:40:22 +0100
  • Re: An IEC 61508 instrument Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:46:37 -0000
• jon hind
  • RE: [sc] sc Rhetoric Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:59:08 -0000
• Jonathan Moffett
  • Re: [sc] New Web-Based Archive of the Safety-Critical Mailing List 1995-2001 Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:38:15 +0100
  • New moderator of the safety-critical list Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:37:05 +0100
  • New members of the safety-critical mailing list. Wed, 15 Aug 2001 14:06:23 +0100
  • [sc] Critical Systems Conference, October 2001, Birmingham UK Tue, 14 Aug 2001 14:55:55 +0100
  • [sc] Fwd: FAO: Jonathan Moffett - Safety-critical mailing list Thu, 14 Jun 2001 08:51:08 +0100
  • [sc] Literature searching Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:54:11 +0100
  • Re: Discussion of Definitions Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:50:28 +0100
  • Fwd: AI and safety critical applications Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:42:52 +0000
  • New members of the safety-critical mailing list. Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:16:32 +0000
  • Re: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:22:27 +0000
• JSCOTT900(at)aol.com
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:21:49 EST
  • Re: [sc] Point of information, not intended to start a new discussion Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:18:08 EST
  • Re: [sc] VISOR Hazard Tracking System Sat, 24 Nov 2001 02:16:23 EST
• Kelly Mahoney
  • [Fwd: Non-linear Sensitivity of Electrochemical Oxygen Sensors to Helium] Sun, 20 May 2001 14:42:35 -0400
• Ken Frith
  • Re: Mobile phones, forecourt fires etc Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:15:38 -0000
  • Re: Mobile phones, forecourt fires etc Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:54:17 -0000
• Kevin Charles Lano
  • [sc] SAFETY AND SECURITY CRITICAL SYSTEMS Course, 3rd September--7th September Wed, 15 Aug 2001 08:15:29 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: [sc] Software Verification Project Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:08:25 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: Use of OO technologies in safety critical software Thu, 24 May 2001 10:24:18 +0100 (BST)
• Kevin Rose
  • Request for information Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:00:04 -0000
• King, Michael B
  • [sc] Man-rated? Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:45:15 -0500
• L.Beus-Dukic
  • 2nd European COTS User Working Group Workshop Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:17:12 +0000 (GMT)
• Larry Cheung
  • Handling engineering design process that intended to be compliance with IEC 61508. Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:05:40 -0000
• Lars Grunske
  • FTA,RBD for maintainability Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:22:32 +0200
• Laurie Blackmore
  • Registration Wed, 5 Dec 2001 07:18:40 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Wed, 12 Sep 2001 07:04:38 +0200
  • Re: [sc] Proof Testing Prior to Use Thu, 5 Jul 2001 07:54:48 +0200
  • [sc] ISA Conference Tue, 12 Jun 2001 07:13:46 +0200
  • Re: Use of standard PLC's for safety applications Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:31:52 +0200
  • IEC61508 forum Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:33:42 -0000
• leveson(at)sunnyday.mit.edu
  • Re: [sc] JSF software to be written in C++ Wed, 28 Nov 2001 08:00:03 -0500
  • Re: [sc] JSF software to be written in C++ Wed, 28 Nov 2001 06:46:58 -0500
  • Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification , please.]] Wed, 21 Nov 2001 07:56:18 -0500
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Wed, 21 Nov 2001 07:25:54 -0500
  • Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.] Tue, 20 Nov 2001 05:59:56 -0500
  • Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.] Tue, 20 Nov 2001 04:56:03 -0500
  • Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.] Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:52:32 -0500
  • Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please. Thu, 15 Nov 2001 07:05:38 -0500
  • Call for abstracts -- U.S. Software System Safety Working Group Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:59:11 -0500
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 26 Oct 2001 07:34:28 -0400
  • changes in CFP for next meeting of US Software Safety Working Group Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:52:14 -0400
  • Call for Papers -- U.S. Software System Safety Working Group Thu, 27 Sep 2001 07:20:57 -0400
  • Re: [sc] Use of controllability or observability properties in safety arguments Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:25:24 -0400
  • news about recent fuel leak incident Thu, 06 Sep 2001 12:00:24 -0400
  • Re: [sc] request information about medical software failure Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:13:31 -0400
  • Re: Not Re:ally accident models and causes Sat, 04 Aug 2001 18:29:01 -0400
  • Re: [sc] Re: report on accident models and causes (safety) Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:30:58 -0400
  • [ata-watchers] Re: [sc] report on accident models and causes (safety) Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:12:17 -0400
  • Re: [sc] report on accident models and causes (safety) Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:12:17 -0400
  • [sc] report on accident models and causes (safety) Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:20:43 -0400
  • Post doc or visiting research position in software safety Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:45:31 -0400
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 06:20:31 -0400
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Sun, 22 Apr 2001 19:31:56 -0400
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:09:11 -0400
  • Re: oops, forgot one Sat, 07 Apr 2001 11:41:25 -0400
  • Re: SW Direct Cause of December Osprey Crash Sat, 07 Apr 2001 11:19:04 -0400
  • Re: Cost of independant safety monitor Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:30:25 -0500
  • Workshop on Human Error, Safety, and System Development Fri, 02 Feb 2001 06:40:56 -0500
  • Re: Cost of independant safety monitor Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:42:49 -0500
  • Re: Use of Automatically generated code in SCS Tue, 23 Jan 2001 06:19:20 -0500
  • Re: Re[4]: IEC61508 interpretation? Wed, 17 Jan 2001 07:50:49 -0500
  • Re: Re[2]: IEC61508 interpretation? Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:13:57 -0500
• Ljerka Beus
  • 1st European COTS User Working Group Workshop Thu, 10 May 2001 20:08:53 +0100
• M.Lewis(at)rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk
  • Use of OO technologies in safety critical software Wed, 9 May 2001 09:13:45 +0100
• Marc Pijnenburg
  • Re: [sc] Proof Testing Prior to Use Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:48:51 +0200
  • Re: IEC 61 508 Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:16:19 +0100
  • SN29500 Wed, 7 Mar 2001 16:21:02 +0100
• Margy Aerts
  • Re: [sc] Registration Wed, 5 Dec 2001 09:27:59 +0100
• Mark Werenowski
  • Re: [sc] SAFETY AND SECURITY CRITICAL SYSTEMS Course, 3rd September--7th September Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:35:42 +0100
  • Definitions in ARP4761 Fri, 08 Jun 2001 11:40:45 +0100
  • [sc] Definitions in ARP4761 Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:16:57 +0100
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:02:57 +0000
• mark.bowell(at)hse.gsi.gov.uk
  • Re: [sc] Automotive safety-critical systems Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:06:46 +0100
• mark.coates(at)baesystems.com
  • RE: Windows NT and SILs Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:29:12 +0000
  • Car safety issues... Mobile Phones Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:46:18 +0000
• Martyn Thomas
  • RE: [sc] Statistical Inference (was Rhetoric) Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:55:27 -0000
  • clarity of thought and expression [sc] Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:52:20 -0000
  • clarity of thought and expression [sc] Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:33:19 -0000
  • Re:[sc] perilous C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:31:40 -0000
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:11:50 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:29:02 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:13:47 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:26:51 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:19:33 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Wed, 12 Sep 2001 15:31:03 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Wed, 12 Sep 2001 08:12:41 +0100
  • RE: [sc] report on accident models and causes (safety) Tue, 26 Jun 2001 14:24:28 +0100
  • RE: [sc] report on accident models and causes (safety) Sat, 23 Jun 2001 09:16:12 +0100
  • RE: PC + Windows NT/2000 Thu, 17 May 2001 15:03:45 +0100
  • RE: Discussion of Definitions Sat, 5 May 2001 16:18:56 +0100
  • RE: A comment on overall effectiveness Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:52:11 +0100
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:58:20 +0100
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:33:31 +0100
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:12:26 +0100
  • RE: SW Direct Cause of December Osprey Crash Sun, 8 Apr 2001 10:58:46 +0100
  • RE: SW Direct Cause of December Osprey Crash Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:08:14 +0100
  • RE: An IEC 61508 instrument Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:20:30 -0000
  • RE: Software functions and CENELEC SIL 0 Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:22:08 -0000
• Massimo Felici
  • CFP: SAFECOMP 2002 & ECCE-11 Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:48:50 +0000
• Mathai Joseph
  • Re:[sc] perilous C Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:36:16 +0530
  • Re: [sc] Caches in safety-critical-systems Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:08:30 +0530
  • Re: [sc] Caches in safety-critical-systems Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:17:07 +0530
  • [sc] Real-time Book Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:06:14 +0530
• Mats Heimdahl
  • Re: [sc] Current Topic of Discussion Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:20:04 -0500
• MCLELLAN Alexander
  • RE: Cell phones and gas stations considered urban legends Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:22:37 +0100
• Meine van der Meulen
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:16:39 +0100
• Michael A Eccles
  • Re: SEC: Unclassified Use of Linux in a Safety Critical System Fri, 06 Apr 2001 10:46:24 +0000
• Michael Harrison
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Tue, 04 Dec 2001 08:59:01 +0000
• michael.eccles(at)baesystems.com
  • Safety Critical Mailing List application Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:29:19 GMT
• Michael.Schmidt(at)industrialrisk.com
  • RE: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification , please.]] Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:53:47 -0600
  • RE: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.] Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:12:37 -0600
  • RE: [sc] Technical Security Analysis Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:27:59 -0500
  • RE: [sc] Technical Security Analysis Mon, 17 Sep 2001 08:36:49 -0500
  • RE: Technical Security Analysis Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:42:59 -0500
  • RE: Technical Security Analysis Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:53:17 -0500
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:04:57 -0500
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Fri, 7 Sep 2001 07:31:44 -0500
  • RE: [sc] Bayesian belief network Mon, 27 Aug 2001 07:55:48 -0500
  • RE: [sc] safety critical laser printers Thu, 31 May 2001 09:11:57 -0500
  • RE: [sc] safety critical laser printers Mon, 28 May 2001 15:57:59 -0500
  • RE: More on Osprey Thu, 17 May 2001 09:48:06 -0500
  • RE: Discussion of Definitions Tue, 1 May 2001 17:37:54 -0500
  • RE: Help - Is there a digest version? Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:27:32 -0500
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:08:09 -0500
  • RE: SW Direct Cause of December Osprey Crash Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:29:48 -0500
  • RE: oops, forgot one Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:29:47 -0500
  • RE: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:26:40 -0600
  • RE: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:50:01 -0600
• Mike Ellims
  • RE: [sc] JSF software to be written in C++ Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:11:38 -0000
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:34:12 -0000
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:51:07 -0000
  • landing gear Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:35:11 -0000
  • RE: [sc] Automotive safety-critical systems Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:51:21 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Automotive safety-critical systems Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:22:29 +0100
  • RE: Windows NT and SILs Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:34:45 -0000
  • RE: Use of Automatically generated code in SCS Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:48:32 -0000
  • RE: Use of Automatically generated code in SCS Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:30:47 -0000
  • RE: Use of Automatically generated code in SCS Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:06:02 -0000
  • RE: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:25:34 -0000
  • RE: IEC61508 interpretation? Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:40:08 -0000
• Mike.Falla
  • Re: [sc] safety critical laser printers Fri, 01 Jun 2001 09:44:13 +0100
• nadia qureshi
  • RE: [sc] request information about medical software failure Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:21:53 +0000
  • Re: [sc] request information about medical software failure Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:18:51 +0000
  • request information about medical software failure Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:54:57 +0000
• Neale Fulton
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 26 Oct 2001 20:16:53 +1000
  • Re: [sc] A320 Incident Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:44:44 +1000
  • RE: SW Direct Cause of December Osprey Crash Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:41:28 +1000
  • RE: SW Direct Cause of December Osprey Crash Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:06:19 +1000
  • Re: Reliability of fault-tolerance/error handling Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:19:04 +1100
• Neil J. Robinson
  • RE: IEC61508 interpretation? Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:46:37 +1000
• nigel.tracey(at)livedevices.com
  • CfP: International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:36:12 +0100
• nikola.kanuritch(at)baesystems.com
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:11:49 +0100
  • Cost of independant safety monitor Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:54:49 +0000
• OLIVER Mervyn
  • RE: [sc] Definitions in ARP4761 Thu, 7 Jun 2001 08:59:36 +0200
• Olle Bridal
  • IEC61508 interpretation? Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:24:02 +0100
• Palmer, Steve
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:42:51 +0100
  • RE: Standards writing. Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:38:15 -0000
• Partha
  • Re: [sc] I am sorry Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:55:06 +0530
  • I am sorry Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:19:08 +0530
  • Re: [sc] Employment Opportunity: GUI Testers Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:55:16 +0530
• Paul Gruhn
  • Re: [sc] request information about medical software failure Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:45:02 -0700
  • Re: [sc] Proof Testing Prior to Use Sat, 07 Jul 2001 10:32:53 -0700
  • Re: [sc] Proof Testing Prior to Use Thu, 05 Jul 2001 22:05:43 -0700
• Paul Gruhn, P.E.
  • RE: [sc] SIL ranges in ENV50129, prEN50129 and Yellow Book 3 Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:27:51 -0600
  • Re: [sc] Request for information Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:26:45 -0600
  • Re: Use of standard PLC's for safety applications Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:47:37 -0600
  • Re: Windows NT and SILs Tue, 30 Jan 2001 22:49:47 -0600
  • Re: Process Safety Time Requirment Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:09:51 -0600
• Pavey Deryk
  • RE: Use of Automatically generated code in SCS Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:48:22 -0000
  • RE: Message Delivery: email message stopped at MAILsweeper Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:43:57 -0000
• Penny John
  • RE: [sc] Automation Gotcha Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:19:39 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Automation Gotcha Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:58:31 +0100
• Per-Tore Aasestrand
  • Re: [sc] Re: PC + Windows NT/2000 Wed, 30 May 2001 15:27:04 +0200
  • Re: PC + Windows NT/2000 Sun, 20 May 2001 11:15:25 +0200
  • PC + Windows NT/2000 Thu, 17 May 2001 15:27:27 +0200
• Pete Fenelon
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Sun, 2 Dec 2001 01:08:22 +0000 (GMT)
  • Re: [sc] JSF software to be written in C++ Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:58:01 +0000 (GMT)
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:49:01 +0000
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:19:48 +0000
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:12:46 +0000
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:47:14 +0000
  • Re: [sc] Caches in safety-critical-systems Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:17:15 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Caches in safety-critical-systems Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:10:15 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Technical Security Analysis Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:36:24 +0100
  • Re: [sc] New Web-Based Archive of the Safety-Critical Mailing List 1995-2001 Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:12:04 +0100
  • Re: [sc] I am sorry Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:48:46 +0100
  • Re: Reliability of fault-tolerance/error handling Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:26:20 +0000
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:15:26 +0000
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:59:26 +0000
• Pete Mellor
  • Re: [sc] Technical Security Analysis Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:42:28 +0100 (BST)
  • Y2K bug hits pregnant women [sc] Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:47:32 +0100 (BST)
  • More about Star Wars 2: "Letter from America" [sc] Sun, 2 Sep 2001 21:15:18 +0100 (BST)
  • More about Star Wars 2: "Letter from America" [sc] Sun, 2 Sep 2001 22:26:12 +0100 (BST)
  • [sc] The Heavens at War: NMD assessed Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:44:20 +0100 (BST)
  • [sc] The Heavens at War : BBC Radio 4 programme (fwd) Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:03:26 +0100 (BST)
  • The Heavens at War : BBC Radio 4 programme Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:44:19 +0100 (BST)
  • RE: [sc] Bayesian belief network Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:02:26 +0100 (BST)
  • Temelin nuclear plant software problem Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:15:35 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: [sc] Bayesian belief network Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:19:34 +0100 (BST)
  • Brain surgery by robot (could perhaps be safety-critical? :-) Mon, 27 Aug 2001 01:28:48 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: [sc] request information about medical software failure Mon, 27 Aug 2001 01:00:52 +0100 (BST)
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:35:48 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: oops, forgot one Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:01:02 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: More information on the SW Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:46:36 +0100 (BST)
• Peter Amey
  • RE: [sc] What is language? was: Rhetoric About Rhetoric Wed, 5 Dec 2001 09:00:32 -0000
  • What is language? was: Rhetoric About Rhetoric Tue, 4 Dec 2001 15:20:09 -0000
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:33:09 -0000
  • RE: A comment on overall effectiveness Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:21:42 +0100
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:44:32 +0100
• Peter B. Ladkin
  • Re: [sc] Statistical Inference (was Rhetoric) Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:08:51 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Statistical Inference (was Rhetoric) Wed, 05 Dec 2001 11:45:39 +0100
  • Rhetoric Wed, 05 Dec 2001 11:21:42 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Statistical Inference (was Rhetoric) Tue, 04 Dec 2001 23:27:11 +0100
  • Re: [sc] DO-178B Tue, 04 Dec 2001 15:23:24 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Tue, 04 Dec 2001 14:26:05 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Mon, 03 Dec 2001 23:45:50 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Mon, 03 Dec 2001 21:30:47 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Mon, 03 Dec 2001 21:22:53 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About C Mon, 03 Dec 2001 10:28:17 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Sun, 02 Dec 2001 22:16:34 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:21:32 +0100
  • Rhetoric About Rhetoric Sun, 02 Dec 2001 01:23:23 +0100
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:12:28 +0100
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:33:00 +0100
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:28:00 +0100
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:14:34 +0100
  • Re: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:26:27 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:48:36 +0100
  • Re: FW: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.] Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:16:02 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:20:50 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Mon, 19 Nov 2001 23:45:14 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:27:20 +0100
  • Re: [sc] sc Rhetoric Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:22:10 +0100
  • Re: R: R: R: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:26:08 +0100
  • Re: R: R: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:01:56 +0100
  • Re: R: [sc] Rhetoric Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:32:24 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please. Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:06:46 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please. Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:45:10 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please. Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:46:30 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:40:22 +0200
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Thu, 25 Oct 2001 07:16:43 +0200
  • Rhetoric Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:33:39 +0200
  • Re: [sc] Caches in safety-critical-systems Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:04:47 +0200
  • Technical Security Analysis Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:08:14 +0200
  • Re: Technical Security Analysis Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:08:40 +0200
  • Re: Technical Security Analysis Fri, 14 Sep 2001 12:29:27 +0200
  • RE: Technical Security Analysis: Reply from Frank Taylor Fri, 14 Sep 2001 12:16:46 +0200
  • Technical Security Analysis Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:50:59 +0200
  • Re: Risk Analysis in Standards, Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:18:31 +0200
  • Re: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Wed, 12 Sep 2001 16:20:07 +0200
  • Re: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Wed, 12 Sep 2001 11:40:36 +0200
  • Re: [sc] Use of controllability or observability properties in safety arguments Tue, 11 Sep 2001 10:27:48 +0200
  • Re: [sc] Automation Gotcha Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:52:24 +0200
  • Automation Gotcha Sun, 09 Sep 2001 13:04:59 +0200
  • Re: more about fuel leak incident Thu, 06 Sep 2001 21:12:17 +0200
  • Re: More about Star Wars 2: "Letter from America" [sc] Mon, 03 Sep 2001 11:03:49 +0200
  • Re: [sc] Bayesian belief network Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:54:46 +0200
  • Re: [sc] Bayesian belief network Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:56:52 +0200
  • Re: [sc] Bayesian belief network Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:11:23 +0200
  • Re: Not Re:ally accident models and causes Mon, 06 Aug 2001 19:12:23 +0200
  • Re: [sc] Re: report on accident models and causes (safety) Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:39:15 +0200
  • Re: [sc] Re: report on accident models and causes (safety) Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:05:18 +0200
  • Re: [sc] Peter Ladkins wba Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:53:15 +0200
  • Re: [sc] A320 Incident Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:36:16 +0200
  • Re: [sc] A320 Incident Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:21:13 +0200
  • [sc] A320 Incident Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:07:19 +0200
  • Re: [sc] safety critical laser printers Thu, 31 May 2001 12:24:26 +0200
  • Re: More on Osprey Thu, 17 May 2001 16:14:39 +0200
  • Re: More on Osprey Thu, 17 May 2001 14:40:55 +0200
  • Re: More on Osprey Wed, 16 May 2001 19:42:10 +0200
  • More on Osprey Wed, 16 May 2001 16:45:53 +0200
  • Re: Osprey Fri, 04 May 2001 20:47:40 +0200
  • Osprey Fri, 04 May 2001 19:27:28 +0200
  • Osprey Fri, 04 May 2001 18:16:11 +0100
  • Re: Discussion of Definitions Wed, 02 May 2001 12:37:37 +0200
  • Osprey Tue, 01 May 2001 12:36:29 +0200
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Thu, 26 Apr 2001 19:47:43 +0200
  • Re: A comment on overall effectiveness Thu, 26 Apr 2001 19:16:32 +0200
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:22:03 +0200
  • Re: Discussion of Definitions Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:39:38 +0200
  • Discussion of Definitions Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:18:55 +0200
  • Re: Discussion of Definitions Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:09:36 +0200
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:14:25 +0200
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:37:43 +0200
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:17:08 +0200
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:38:34 +0200
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:52:55 +0200
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:46:00 +0200
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:40:09 +0200
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:08:53 +0200
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:19:10 +0200
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:23:06 +0200
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 01:11:56 +0200
  • Definition of "Latent Fault" Sat, 21 Apr 2001 09:46:00 +0200
  • More information on the SW Sun, 08 Apr 2001 08:58:11 +0200
  • Re: SW Direct Cause of December Osprey Crash Sun, 08 Apr 2001 08:42:09 +0200
  • SW Direct Cause of December Osprey Crash Sat, 07 Apr 2001 10:25:28 +0200
  • Re: Standards writing. Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:14:21 +0100
  • Re: Single Event Effects: a warning Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:31:22 +0100
  • Re: Flight Computer Anomalies Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:19:06 +0100
  • Flight Computer Anomalies Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:02:55 +0100
  • Re: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:40:45 +0100
  • Neutron Irradiation and Computer Memory: original experiments [longish] Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:07:24 +0100
  • More on Elementary Particles and Computer Memory [longish] Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:13:50 +0100
  • Elementary Particles and Computer Memory [longish] Fri, 09 Feb 2001 17:07:12 +0100
  • Re: Reliability of fault-tolerance/error handling Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:55:44 +0100
  • Re: Reliability of fault-tolerance/error handling Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:50:15 +0100
  • Re: UML in Safety Related Software. Thu, 01 Feb 2001 14:08:29 +0100
  • Re: Phones and Forecourts.. PREFERRED VERSION!! Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:26:07 +0100
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:05:52 +0100
  • Re: Mobile phones, forecourt fires etc Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:16:58 +0100
  • Re: SV: Policies..... Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:26:36 +0100
  • Policies concerning Phones and Forecourts Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:15:04 +0100
  • Re: Phones and Forecourts.. PREFERRED VERSION!! Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:50:52 +0100
  • Re: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:41:22 +0100
  • Re: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:37:47 +0100
  • Re: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:48:17 +0100
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:42:50 +0100
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:43:36 +0100
  • Re: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:33:11 +0100
  • Re: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:41:07 +0100
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:30:10 +0100
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:24:19 +0100
  • Re: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:14:52 +0100
  • Re: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:46:20 +0100
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:13:33 +0100
  • Re: Reliability claims in telecomms Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:59:01 +0100
• Peter Bishop
  • RE: [sc] Statistical Inference (was Rhetoric) Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:57:05 -0000
  • Re: [sc] Statistical Inference (was Rhetoric) Wed, 5 Dec 2001 09:21:59 -0000
  • RE: [sc] SIL ranges in ENV50129, prEN50129 and Yellow Book 3 Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:56:16 -0000
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Tue, 4 Dec 2001 15:33:06 -0000
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:04:43 -0000
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:34:38 -0000
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Mon, 3 Dec 2001 20:03:03 -0000
  • Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please. Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:44:45 -0000
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:55:44 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:25:32 +0100
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:33:18 +0100
• Peter Sheppard
  • RE: [sc] SILs - the return Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:52:35 -0000
  • SILs - the return Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:36:37 -0000
  • RE: SILs - Fact, Fiction or Filibuster? Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:51:27 +0100
  • RE: [sc] IEE Railway Professional Network Seminar 12th July - SIL s Fact, Fiction and Filibuster Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:18:23 +0100
  • [sc] IEE Railway Professional Network Seminar 12th July - SILs Fact, F iction and Filibuster Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:35:28 +0100
  • IEE Railway Professional Network, Launch Lecture 10th May 2001 - POSTPONED to 12th June 2001 Thu, 10 May 2001 09:09:52 +0100
  • SILs - Fact, Fiction or Filibuster? Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:46:32 +0100
  • IEC61508 interpretation - debate at a conference? Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:07:29 -0000
• pgb(at)adelard.co.uk
  • RE: [sc] safety critical laser printers Thu, 31 May 2001 14:16:23 +0100
  • RE: [sc] safety critical laser printers Thu, 31 May 2001 13:59:50 +0100
  • RE: Discussion of Definitions Sat, 5 May 2001 21:58:13 +0100
  • Re: Help - Is there a digest version? Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:38:09 +0100
  • Re: Single Event Effects: a warning Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:51:04 -0000
  • Re: Flight Computer Anomalies Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:57:07 -0000
  • RE: IEC61508 interpretation? Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:14:12 -0000
• Phil Williams
  • RE: [sc] safety critical laser printers Wed, 30 May 2001 09:33:46 +0100
• Philippa Conmy
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Mon, 03 Dec 2001 10:41:52 +0000
• Pierluigi Guida
  • [sc] safety critical laser printers Sun, 27 May 2001 15:34:35 +0200
• Poigné
  • Call for Participation: Formal Design of Safety-Critical Embedded Systems Thu, 01 Mar 2001 09:21:41 +0100
• Prof. Chris Johnson
  • [sc] Cell-phone safety... Thu, 31 May 2001 08:34:00 +0100
• R.S.
  • RE: Use of Automatically generated code in SCS Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:46:27 -0500
• Rachid BELHAJ
  • ATEX Directive ( 94/9/CE ) Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:20:08 +0100
  • RE: An IEC 61508 instrument Wed, 7 Mar 2001 08:40:41 +0100
• ricardo.gonzalez(at)dimetronic.es
  • Software functions and CENELEC SIL 0 Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:36:41 +0100
• Robin Cook
  • RE: [sc] SIL ranges in ENV50129, prEN50129 and Yellow Book 3 Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:48:25 -0000
  • RE: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please. Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:44:02 -0000
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:01:36 +0100
  • RE: [sc]-Compliance to CENELEC 50128 Mon, 23 Jul 2001 10:29:13 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Proof Testing Prior to Use Fri, 6 Jul 2001 12:41:21 +0100
  • [sc] Definitions in ARP4761 Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:53:35 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Automotive safety-critical systems Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:22:36 +0100
  • RE: PC + Windows NT/2000 Fri, 18 May 2001 09:45:39 +0100
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:13:31 +0100
  • Re: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 18:33:47 +0100
• Robinson, Paul
  • RE: Not Re:ally accident models and causes Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:49:47 +0100
  • RE: [sc]-Compliance to CENELEC 50128 Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:43:04 +0100
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:50:47 +0100
  • RE: unsubscribe Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:35:34 +0100
• Rod Chapman
  • RE: [sc] DO-178B Wed, 5 Dec 2001 09:37:58 -0000
  • RE: [sc] DO-178B Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:58:26 -0000
  • RE: [sc] DO-178B Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:16:49 -0000
  • ANN: SPARK Tools Release 6.0 Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:06:55 -0000
  • RE: optimization, compilers, safety, etc. Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:49:35 -0000
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:12:43 -0000
  • RE: (MISRA-C) [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:16:20 -0000
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:04:27 -0000
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:58:54 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:33:27 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Use of CSP Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:49:57 +0100
• ronald.weir(at)baesystems.com
  • Re: Phones and Forecourts.. PREFERRED VERSION!! Mon, 22 Jan 2001 07:31:59 +0100 (BST)
• ross_hannan
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:54:03 -0000
  • Re: IEC61508 interpretation? Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:12:00 -0000
• Rune Winther
  • Re: [sc] Research position in Norway Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:41:40 +0200
  • [sc] Research position in Norway Sun, 15 Jul 2001 01:12:57 +0200
  • References to COTS/SOUP research? Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:36:56 +0100
• Scharbach, Peter N
  • Overabundance of Riches Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:31:17 -0000
• Simon Carter
  • Re: [sc] Peter Ladkins wba Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:44:19 +1000
• Simon Hughes
  • RE: [sc] SIL ranges in ENV50129, prEN50129 and Yellow Book 3 Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:57:20 -0000
  • DO-178B Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:33:42 -0000
  • RE: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please. Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:00:25 -0000
  • RE: [sc] request information about medical software failure Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:20:37 +0100
  • RE: PC + Windows NT/2000 Mon, 21 May 2001 09:41:15 +0100
  • RE: Discussion of Definitions Tue, 15 May 2001 15:50:55 +0100
  • RE: Discussion of Definitions Wed, 2 May 2001 17:53:41 +0100
  • RE: Windows NT and SILs Wed, 2 May 2001 15:51:18 +0100
  • RE: Discussion of Definitions Tue, 1 May 2001 15:40:03 +0100
  • RE: Windows NT and SILs Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:44:33 -0000
  • MIL-STD-882B software hazard analysis tasks Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:40:54 -0000
• Simon.Brown(at)hse.gsi.gov.uk
  • Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please. Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:24:58 +0000
  • RE: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please. Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:06:51 +0000
  • Accident investigation Tue, 6 Nov 2001 13:33:53 +0000
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:52:31 +0000
  • Re[2]: Windows NT and SILs Tue, 1 May 2001 10:29:32 +0100
  • Re[2]: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:37:19 +0100
  • Re[2]: IEC61508 interpretation? Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:42:43 +0000
  • Re[6]: IEC61508 interpretation? Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:35:22 +0000
  • Re[2]: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:01:26 +0000
  • Re[4]: IEC61508 interpretation? Wed, 17 Jan 2001 9:47:30 +0000
  • Re: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:56:52 +0000
  • Re[2]: IEC61508 interpretation? Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:08:19 +0000
• Smith Mark
  • UML in Safety Related Software. Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:14:18 -0000
• Smyth, Thomas
  • RE: Windows NT and SILs Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:40:36 -0000
• Spiker, Rolf
  • RE: Windows NT and SILs Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:58:23 +0100
• Spriggs, John
  • RE: [sc] What is language? was: Rhetoric About Rhetoric Wed, 5 Dec 2001 09:09:31 -0000
  • Point of information, not intended to start a new discussion Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:12:57 -0000
  • RE: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please. Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:10:30 -0000
  • Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please. Wed, 14 Nov 2001 07:28:14 -0000
  • RE: [sc] Typo in Interim Defence Standard 00-54 Issue 1 Part 1 Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:29:21 -0000
  • RE: [sc] request information about medical software failure Fri, 24 Aug 2001 07:34:03 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Peter Ladkins wba Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:31:06 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Proof Testing Prior to Use Thu, 5 Jul 2001 07:39:47 +0100
  • RE: [sc] A320 Incident Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:21:24 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Definitions in ARP4761 Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:41:27 +0100
  • RE: [sc] safety critical laser printers Thu, 31 May 2001 15:12:26 +0100
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:13:23 +0100
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Mon, 23 Apr 2001 07:55:33 +0100
  • RE: An IEC 61508 instrument Wed, 7 Mar 2001 07:44:21 -0000
  • RE: Standards writing. Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:18:41 -0000
  • RE: Reliability of fault-tolerance/error handling Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:49:18 -0000
  • RE: Submarine failure Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:03:36 -0000
  • RE: UML in Safety Related Software. Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:49:43 -0000
  • RE: MIL-STD-882B software hazard analysis tasks Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:30:03 -0000
  • RE: Phones and Forecourts.. PREFERRED VERSION!! Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:06:27 -0000
  • RE: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:26:22 -0000
  • RE: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:09:51 -0000
  • RE: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:57:31 -0000
  • Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:51:25 -0000
  • RE: IEC61508 interpretation? Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:08:01 -0000
• Stefan Leue
  • Re: Reliability of fault-tolerance/error handling Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:44:17 +0100
• Stephen Bull
  • Re:[sc] perilous C Wed, 21 Nov 2001 08:50:57 +0000 (GMT)
  • RE: [sc] safety critical laser printers Wed, 30 May 2001 13:21:40 +0100 (BST)
• Stephen Parker
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:06:30 -0000
  • RE: [sc] For those in Peril on the C Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:39:24 -0000
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:01:47 +0100
• Steve White
  • Re: [sc] DO-178B Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:09:21 +0000
  • Re: [sc] DO-178B Wed, 5 Dec 2001 08:57:45 +0000
  • Re: [sc] DO-178B Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:46:31 +0000
  • Re: [sc] DO-178B Tue, 4 Dec 2001 14:36:33 +0000
  • Re: [sc] Caches in safety-critical-systems Thu, 11 Oct 2001 12:08:02 +0100
  • Re: Use of Automatically generated code in SCS Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:55:50 +0000
• Steven Crook-Dawkins
  • RE: [sc] landing gear Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:24:17 -0000
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:13:25 -0000
  • RE: Use of Automatically generated code in SCS Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:11:13 -0000
  • Use of Automatically generated code in SCS Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:01:31 -0000
• stuart.palin(at)baesystems.com
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:12:00 +0100
• Tim Kelly
  • The Safety Critical Mailing List is now back in operation Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:44:53 +0000
  • Safety-Critical Mailing List will be out of action until the end of next week Wed, 05 Dec 2001 18:01:43 +0000
  • [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.]] Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:02:35 +0000
  • [Fwd: Re: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.] Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:42:31 +0000
  • Re: R: [sc] Rhetoric Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:31:41 +0000
  • Reminder concerning submissions to this safety critical list being 'bounced' Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:26:07 +0000
  • New members of the safety-critical mailing list. Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:38:30 +0100
  • New members of the safety-critical mailing list. Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:23:30 +0100
  • Current Topic of Discussion Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:48:15 +0100
  • Re: [sc] New Web-Based Archive of the Safety-Critical Mailing List 1995-2001 Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:50:06 +0100
  • Forwarded Message from Chris Johnson: Medical Informatics Fri, 24 Aug 2001 08:49:41 +0100
  • New Web-Based Archive of the Safety-Critical Mailing List 1995-2001 Fri, 24 Aug 2001 08:21:08 +0100
  • Forwarded Message: Re: New Moderator of the Safety-Critical Mailing List Fri, 24 Aug 2001 08:16:54 +0100
• timothy.fry(at)baesystems.com
  • Windows NT and SILs Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:36:18 +0000
• tom(at)faaconsulting.com
  • Re: Re: [sc] Rhetoric About Rhetoric Mon, 3 Dec 2001 18:04:04 -0500
• Tony Cox
  • Re: Process Safety Time Requirment Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:36:26 -0000
• Tony Foord
  • RE: [sc]-Compliance to CENELEC 50128 Mon, 23 Jul 2001 10:58:58 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Automotive safety-critical systems Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:06:34 +0100
  • RE: [sc] safety critical laser printers Sun, 27 May 2001 17:11:24 +0100
  • RE: Definition of "Latent Fault" Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:55:32 +0100
  • RE: UML in Safety Related Software. Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:35:34 -0000
  • RE: UML in Safety Related Software. Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:36:44 -0000
  • RE: IEC61508 interpretation? Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:01:32 -0000
• Trevor.Cockram
  • Re: [sc] Bayesian belief network Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:04:57 +0100
• UK72
  • [sc] IEC 61508-Frequently asked questions on IEC Website Tue, 18 Dec 2001 16:04:33 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:57:51 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:00:18 +0100
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:51:35 +0200
  • RE: [sc] Rhetoric Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:55:21 +0200
  • RE: [sc] Automotive safety-critical systems Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:16:11 -0500
  • Re: [sc] safety critical laser printers Thu, 31 May 2001 09:41:10 -0500
  • RE: [sc] safety critical laser printers Thu, 31 May 2001 08:53:43 -0500
  • RE: [sc] safety critical laser printers Thu, 31 May 2001 07:33:19 -0500
  • RE: Windows NT and SILs Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:34:20 -0500
  • RE: An IEC 61508 instrument Tue, 6 Mar 2001 06:59:47 -0600
  • RE: Whilst we are talking about car safety issues... Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:32:07 -0600
  • UK Health & Safety Executive Database - Prosecutions Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:17:59 -0600
• Victoria Stavridou
  • [Fwd: [sc] Another DEF.STAN.00-56 clarification, please.] Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:10:45 -0800
• WellerCS(at)aol.com
  • address change please Sun, 7 Oct 2001 22:22:52 EDT
• william.mcgillivray(at)ukaea.org.uk
  • Please release me, let me go Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:11:31 +0100
  • [sc] I am sorry Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:15:04 +0100
• Wise Technics Limited
  • Re: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Wed, 12 Sep 2001 14:38:27 +0100 (BST)
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Wed, 12 Sep 2001 14:33:31 +0100 (BST)
  • RE: [sc] Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Fri, 7 Sep 2001 15:23:43 +0100 (BST)
  • Risk Assessment Of Hazards Present For a Short Time Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:15:07 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: [sc] New Web-Based Archive of the Safety-Critical Mailing List 1995-2001 Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:59:47 +0100 (BST)
  • Employment Opportunity: GUI Testers Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:45:28 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: [sc] Proof Testing Prior to Use Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:48:13 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: [sc] Proof Testing Prior to Use Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:44:45 +0100 (BST)
  • [sc] Proof Testing Prior to Use Wed, 4 Jul 2001 18:01:58 +0100 (BST)
  • Re: Cost of independant safety monitor Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:17:09 -0800 (PST)
  • Process Safety Time Requirment Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:04:11 -0800 (PST)
• wlmostia
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:44:14 -0600
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:19:11 -0600
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Mon, 19 Nov 2001 15:51:09 -0600
  • Re: [sc] Rhetoric Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:50:27 -0600
• Wong, Chi
  • Independent Safety Auditor (System & Software) Wed, 16 May 2001 11:39:55 +0100

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri 21 Dec 2001 - 08:49:56 GMT