Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #151661 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-21 09:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-27 16:43 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 130 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-21 09:38 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-21 14:00 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-21 20:20 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-21 21:37 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-09-21 17:59 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-09-22 18:13 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Bill Marcum <bill.marcum57@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 02:04 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-05 07:51 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-05 10:31 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-05 12:39 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-05 13:57 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-05 12:00 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-05 21:59 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-05 17:56 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-05 15:57 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-05 14:04 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-05 16:05 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-06 13:14 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-06 08:28 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> - 2015-10-06 07:23 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-06 15:04 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:49 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-06 17:38 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-06 22:49 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-07 08:12 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 19:37 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-10-07 14:45 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 23:41 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-08 05:14 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-08 09:12 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 12:26 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-08 16:46 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-08 16:22 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-08 20:40 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-09 16:47 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:13 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 10:40 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? terry+googleblog@tmk.com - 2015-10-06 12:38 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:33 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:19 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 17:24 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-07 10:24 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-06 23:09 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-06 18:27 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 10:32 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-06 22:59 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:34 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 13:06 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 23:50 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:00 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-07 07:55 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-07 10:39 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 19:43 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-07 19:40 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-06 18:21 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-07 00:56 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-10-08 16:55 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-06 14:29 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:44 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:22 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-06 17:49 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-07 10:26 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 07:49 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:00 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 10:46 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:51 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-07 08:29 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 07:40 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 15:02 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-07 11:57 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 17:02 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-07 13:43 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 09:44 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-07 16:55 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 17:07 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-07 21:18 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-07 13:49 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 19:19 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-07 10:30 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-07 12:41 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-07 05:34 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-07 07:13 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-07 09:54 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-06 11:39 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-06 16:04 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-06 13:15 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 10:36 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-06 18:53 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:58 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-06 16:25 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-08 16:30 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-08 20:53 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID> - 2015-10-09 19:10 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-09 15:03 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-09 15:56 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-09 16:51 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:17 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-06 23:14 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 07:35 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-07 11:57 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-07 17:11 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-07 13:35 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-08 07:00 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-08 13:08 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-08 13:29 +0100
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-08 15:21 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-10-08 07:55 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-08 12:27 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2015-10-06 12:04 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 16:02 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-06 22:55 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-07 00:15 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-06 15:54 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-06 14:26 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 17:26 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-06 17:30 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-07 07:24 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-07 07:50 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-10-08 16:30 +0200
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-08 12:22 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-05 15:48 -0400
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-05 20:24 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-05 19:37 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-06 17:00 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-05 13:38 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-05 18:48 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-21 20:31 -0700
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-22 17:09 -0500
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-23 11:24 +0000
Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-09-27 16:43 -0600
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 09:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? |
| Message-ID | <4518cedc-f59a-42b8-bbd1-9883daffdf82@googlegroups.com> |
Separately I posted about a Univac military computer brochure from 1960. http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/univac/military/Univac_St_Paul_1960.pdf [46 meg] While the brochure was mostly oriented toward military and special purchasers, it was obviously also a chance for Univac to tout its horn for potential commercial customers as well. It seems that these days companies rarely put out those kinds of brochures, even as documents on their web page. They may have a technical spec document, but not as much general public relations touting their engineering and manufacturing capabilities in detail. They usually don't show pictures of their manufacturing plants. (If know of exceptions for domestic companies, please share them.) As a document showing military gear, presumably it was vetted first by the military to ensure photos and writeups didn't disclose any classified material. (To my surprise, they had photos of missiles, I thought they would be secret). I suspect that back then, the military was happy to tout its advanced weapon systems and would encourage publication up tot he limit of security. Anyway, today I think companies and the military are much more security conscious, and it seems to me that web pages don't contain anywhere near the detail that the Univac brochure had. Part of that may be legal concerns; companies have been sued over long past historical activities. Anyone with thoughts? [public replies, please]
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 14:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mtpjvv$ad2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #151661 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:4518cedc-f59a-42b8-bbd1-9883daffdf82@googlegroups.com... > Separately I posted about a Univac military computer brochure from 1960. > http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/univac/military/Univac_St_Paul_1960.pdf > [46 meg] > > While the brochure was mostly oriented toward military and special > purchasers, it was obviously also a > chance for Univac to tout its horn for potential commercial customers as > well. Typically you "toot" your horn, *not* "tout" it... -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 20:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtpoq601dsn@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #151668 |
On 2015-09-21, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message > news:4518cedc-f59a-42b8-bbd1-9883daffdf82@googlegroups.com... > >> Separately I posted about a Univac military computer brochure from 1960. >> http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/univac/military/Univac_St_Paul_1960.pdf >> [46 meg] >> >> While the brochure was mostly oriented toward military and special >> purchasers, it was obviously also a >> chance for Univac to tout its horn for potential commercial customers as >> well. > > Typically you "toot" your horn, *not* "tout" it... But it's a very good horn... -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 21:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Modern computer brochures; military security; then and now ? |
| Message-ID | <1437272121464564271.344391peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #151668 |
"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message > news:4518cedc-f59a-42b8-bbd1-9883daffdf82@googlegroups.com... >> Separately I posted about a Univac military computer brochure from 1960. >> http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/univac/military/Univac_St_Paul_1960.pdf > >> [46 meg] >> >> While the brochure was mostly oriented toward military and special > >> purchasers, it was obviously also a >> chance for Univac to tout its horn for potential commercial customers as > well. > > Typically you "toot" your horn, *not* "tout" it... Unless you're trying to sell it... -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 17:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ZoadnZ6UBpgFFp3LnZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #151661 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: (To my surprise, they had photos of missiles, I thought they > would be secret). No, there was PLENTY of that sort of stuff floating around, in newspapers and tech journals. Yes, I'm sure they did get somebody to vet the photos before publication. And, I'm sure there WERE photos that could NOT be printed. But, a lot of that stuff at the most basic level were not classified. LOTS of missiles blew up, over and over again. (Some of them STILL blow up from time to time.) Some of those got on the evening TV news. > I suspect that back then, the military was happy to > tout its advanced weapon systems and would encourage publication up tot he > limit of security. > > Anyway, today I think companies and the military are much more security > conscious, and it seems to me that web pages don't contain anywhere near > the detail that the Univac brochure had. Part of that may be legal > concerns; companies have been sued over long past historical activities. Every once in a while you find stuff that amazes you that it is available online. One time about a decade ago I read the tech manual on the Hellfire missile. it had extremely detailed info on the arming sequence, which revealed the distance at which a target was too close to be fired upon. Clearly stuff that shouldn't be available to hostile nations. I'm pretty sure that info is no longer online. There is also a LOT of tech info on atomic bomb development, the chemical implosion technology, tampers and dampers, and on and on. Most of it is likely to be decades old, some of it could even be disinformation. Did you know that there is no such thing as the "Hydrogen bomb"? There are boosted or two-stage fission devices that use tritium to get more yield out of the fission reaction, but the only real H-bomb was set off in 1952, and proved that you could get liquid Tritium to fuse. But, it was a monster device, not a deliverable weapon. Everything since then that was called an H-bomb has been actually a two-stage fission device. I don't think the Univac brochure really had much technical info, just a glossy handout that showed off their capabilities, and gave the most general idea what sort of projects they were involved in. Actually, while the US Government certainly had real secrets, a LOT of this sort of stuff was not completely secret. For instance, the computer may not have been classified at all, but a program you ran on it, or a printout from that program, could have been HIGHLY secret. Major parts of the NSA's crypto gear was not secret, just the part of the machines that produced or held the cipher keys. Part of the reason for only having the necessary parts classified had to do with spare parts inventory, repair shops and transport of these items. The secret parts had to be handled with insane protocols, with signed and sealed black bags logged from one handler to the next, from crypto vault to the repair shop and back to the crypto vault. So, limiting what needed these onerous procedures made life a lot easier for those who kept this stuff running. A couple years ago I could have gotten the entire radar seeker head from a Harpoon missile at the local scrap yard. They had dumpsters full of them! Very tempting, but my wife would have killed me! I guess they were obsoleted by some upgrade project. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 18:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <t4v30blplkpri3me0kkuunm5rtofltq4vf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #151686 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:59:21 -0500, Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu>
wrote:
[snip]
>A couple years ago I could have gotten the entire radar seeker head from a
>Harpoon missile at the local scrap yard. They had dumpsters full of them!
>Very tempting, but my wife would have killed me! I guess they were
>obsoleted by some upgrade project.
Yes, but wouldn't you have been able to see her coming?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Marcum <bill.marcum57@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 02:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <muq1f2$2rc$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #151686 |
On 2015-09-21, Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > (To my surprise, they had photos of missiles, I thought they >> would be secret). > No, there was PLENTY of that sort of stuff floating around, in newspapers > and tech journals. Yes, I'm sure they did get somebody to vet the photos > before publication. And, I'm sure there WERE photos that could NOT be > printed. But, a lot of that stuff at the most basic level were not > classified. LOTS of missiles blew up, over and over again. (Some of them > STILL blow up from time to time.) Some of those got on the evening TV news. > Just the other day I heard on a podcast that Google and other search engines could be used to find documents, often from government agencies, with keywords like "Not for public distribution".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 07:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <969bdcb5-5ef8-4f96-af68-4af1c04cb901@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152236 |
On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 8:04:21 PM UTC-6, Bill Marcum wrote: > Just the other day I heard on a podcast that Google and other search engines > could be used to find documents, often from government agencies, with keywords > like "Not for public distribution". And when I first read that sentence, I thought you had said that a government document which noted "that Google and other search engines could be used to find documents" was itself marked "Not for public distribution", because we wouldn't want to let America's enemies know this/that the NSA knew this. Unfortunately, ridiculous excesses of security and insufficiencies of security are both common. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 10:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8583f22d-8711-4ada-82ab-8a11206c880d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152236 |
On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 10:04:21 PM UTC-4, Bill Marcum wrote: > Just the other day I heard on a podcast that Google and other search engines > could be used to find documents, often from government agencies, with keywords > like "Not for public distribution". There's a ton of stuff on bitsavers so marked. Some of it was classified on account of government mandate, but much of it was only classified for competitive reasons*. In any event, the material so marked is usually at least 50 years old, sometimes much older, and apparently any competitive or security protections are moot by now. *It always seemed strange to me that RCA was able to come out with a S/360 clone so quickly after S/360 was introduced. Amazing job of copying the architecture and building the circuits so quickly. Further, I would've thought such a copying job would be either a patent or copyright violation, but apparently not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 12:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d7fqvgFcrtnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #152253 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >*It always seemed strange to me that RCA was able to come out with a S/360 >clone so quickly after S/360 was introduced. Amazing job of copying the >architecture and building the circuits so quickly. Further, I would've >thought such a copying job would be either a patent or copyright violation, >but apparently not. Cross licensing arrangements were common in the main-frame industry. Univac and IBM had such an agreement for example.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 13:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510051355530.4228@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #152255 |
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015, Osmium wrote: > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> *It always seemed strange to me that RCA was able to come out with a S/360 >> clone so quickly after S/360 was introduced. Amazing job of copying the >> architecture and building the circuits so quickly. Further, I would've >> thought such a copying job would be either a patent or copyright violation, >> but apparently not. > > Cross licensing arrangements were common in the main-frame industry. Univac > and IBM had such an agreement for example. > For some things, the military and/or governments expect multiple sources. They don't want to rely on a single source. So there's that. A lot of semiconductors were second sourced, including microprocessors. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 12:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87pp0t87jn.fsf@lhwserver.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #152257 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes: > For some things, the military and/or governments expect multiple > sources. They don't want to rely on a single source. So there's that. > A lot of semiconductors were second sourced, including > microprocessors. major uptic of outsorcing and no-bid contracts last decade ... not just military industrial complex ... but also other agencies. How Private Contractors Have Created a Shadow NSA; A new cybersecurity elite moves between government and private practice, taking state secrets with them (also references oil rig company that was transformed into one of the largest defense contractors after former SECDEF and future VP becomes CEO, including no-bid contracts in Iraq) http://www.thenation.com/article/how-private-contractors-have-created-shadow-nsa/ along with spreading "success of failure" culture ... immediate success is far less revenue compared to re-occuring revenue for repeated failures (sometimes serves up blank page on 1st click and may have to reload/reclick) http://www.govexec.com/excellence/management-matters/2007/04/the-success-of-failure/24107/ Head of IBM in the 90s, had been involved in the privaty-equity industry, and after leaving IBM goes to head up one of the largest private equity companies ... which then does LBO (private equity) take-over of company that employs Snowden http://www.investingdaily.com/17693/spies-like-us/ Private contractors like Booz Allen now reportedly garner 70 percent of the annual $80 billion intelligence budget and supply more than half of the available manpower. They're not going away any time soon unless the CIA and NSA want to start over and with some off-the-shelf laptops, networked by the Geek Squad from Best Buy. Security clearances used to be a government function too, but are now a profit center for various private-equity subsidiaries. ... snip ... private-equity victim companies are frequently under heavy pressure to turn revenue every way possible ... the private-equity, for-profit companies doing outsourced security clearances ... were just filling out the paperwork ... not bothering to do the (expensive) background checks. MIC also has for a long time, convention of egregiously low-balling contracts ... and then when true costs become known ... they claim it would drastically affect national security to start over. Corrupt From Top to Bottom http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/03/books/corrupt-from-top-to-bottom.html?pagewanted=1 ... review of Burton's book http://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-Wars-Reformers-Challenge-Guard/dp/B00HXY969W/ HBO movie was based on burton's book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars current weapon program examples are that DOD acquisition is still corrupt from top to bottom. Burton one of Boyd acolytes ... Boyd posts & refs (I use to sponsor Boyr's briefings at IBM) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html posts mentioning military-industrial(-congressional) complex http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#military-industrial-complex This goes into locking in congressional votes for DOD weapons program (in this case F22) ... which includes parceling out bits & pieces to every congressional district ... significantly impacting manufacturing quality http://nypost.com/2009/07/17/cant-fly-wont-die/ but then they allowed the F22 "to die" when they managed to replace it with the much more expensive F35 weapons program (using the same methodology). and from the navy http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20151001-mccain.html Reference to private-equity operations (also) having major Iraq contractor ... as well as the OPM contractor https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/24/opm-contractor-veritas/ -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 21:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <muurrc$2jiu$1@miucha.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #152255 |
>>*It always seemed strange to me that RCA was able to come out with a S/360 >>clone so quickly after S/360 was introduced. Amazing job of copying the >>architecture and building the circuits so quickly. Further, I would've >>thought such a copying job would be either a patent or copyright violation, >>but apparently not. All the big manufacturers cross licensed their patent portfolios. I don't think anyone could have built anything otherwise. As to why they didn't copyright the instruction set, they couldn't and it probably never occurred to them to try. The first copyright on software of any sort was issued in 1964 (to a law student to did it to see if he could), and the idea that you could copyright something as abstract as an instruction set didn't come up until Lotus v. Borland in 1996.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 17:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <muudl602jhl@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #152253 |
On 2015-10-05, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> *It always seemed strange to me that RCA was able to come out with
> a S/360 clone so quickly after S/360 was introduced. Amazing job
> of copying the architecture and building the circuits so quickly.
> Further, I would've thought such a copying job would be either a
> patent or copyright violation, but apparently not.
Ditto for Univac. I first played with a 9300 (much like a 360/20)
in 1966. However, quoting Wikipedia:
This didn't violate IBM patents or copyrights; Sperry got the
rights to "clone" the 360 as settlement of a lawsuit concerning
IBM's infringement of Remington Rand's core memory patents.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 15:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <muuo4l$k8m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152258 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:muudl602jhl@news4.newsguy.com... > On 2015-10-05, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> *It always seemed strange to me that RCA was able to come out with >> a S/360 clone so quickly after S/360 was introduced. Amazing job >> of copying the architecture and building the circuits so quickly. >> Further, I would've thought such a copying job would be either a >> patent or copyright violation, but apparently not. > > Ditto for Univac. I first played with a 9300 (much like a 360/20) > in 1966. However, quoting Wikipedia: > > This didn't violate IBM patents or copyrights; Sperry got the > rights to "clone" the 360 as settlement of a lawsuit concerning > IBM's infringement of Remington Rand's core memory patents. > RCA and National Semiconductor, as well as Amdahl, built IBM 360 "clones", reverse-engineered computers that were instruction set compatible with the 360. These companies did *not* share in the lawsuit. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 14:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510051357510.4228@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #152253 |
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 10:04:21 PM UTC-4, Bill Marcum wrote: > > >> Just the other day I heard on a podcast that Google and other search >> engines could be used to find documents, often from government >> agencies, with keywords like "Not for public distribution". > > There's a ton of stuff on bitsavers so marked. Some of it was > classified on account of government mandate, but much of it was only > classified for competitive reasons*. > But there are varying levels of "security", each having some meaning. "Not for public distribution" sounds like something that doesn't matter decades later. On the other hand, it took many decades before much was known about the process used to decode Enigma during WWII. When I first read the previous comment, I thought it was some special feature at google (they have, or did have, certain things so you could invoke Linux and other things, to narrow searches). But now I see it's just a set of words that would appear on such documents, so it might be a set of keywords that made the documents distinctive. > In any event, the material so marked is usually at least 50 years old, > sometimes much older, and apparently any competitive or security > protections are moot by now. > > > *It always seemed strange to me that RCA was able to come out with a > S/360 clone so quickly after S/360 was introduced. Amazing job of > copying the architecture and building the circuits so quickly. > Further, I would've thought such a copying job would be either a patent > or copyright violation, but apparently not. > > SOme places might not have wanted to buy a computer or something else without there being a second source. It's unreliable to invest in something that may falter if the company fails. SO lots of semiconductors, besides microprocessors, have second source, a negotiation between companies to make the same devices. I assume the same thing happened in the days of tubes, other than in the very early days, there was a standardization of numbering them. So lots of companies made 12AU7 double triodes. Even if they created something new, they generally fit into the numbering scheme. In WWII, somebody would come up with a design for some piece of equipment, maybe a government department, maybe some company, but multiple companies might actually build the equipment. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 16:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <muuojq$ma0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152259 |
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510051357510.4228@darkstar.example.org... > > [snip...] [snip...] > [snip...] > > I assume the same thing happened in the days of tubes, other than in the > very early days, there was a standardization of numbering them. So lots > of companies made 12AU7 double triodes. Even if they created something > new, they generally fit into the numbering scheme. > In some ways, we are still in "the days of tubes". The Fender company makes tube guitar amplifiers and all of the pre-amp stages use 12AX7 dual triodes. The 12AU7, the 12AT7, and the 12AX7 are all dual triodes. The 12AX7 potentially has the highest gain; the 12AU7, the lowest. http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/626807.html Many professional guitarists prefer tube-based amplifiers. Fender is *not* the only company producing such amplifiers with tubes. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 13:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nPPQx.160996$uU6.89852@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #152266 |
"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes: >"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message >news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510051357510.4228@darkstar.example.org... >> >> [snip...] [snip...] >> [snip...] >> >> I assume the same thing happened in the days of tubes, other than in the >> very early days, there was a standardization of numbering them. So lots >> of companies made 12AU7 double triodes. Even if they created something >> new, they generally fit into the numbering scheme. >> > >In some ways, we are still in "the days of tubes". The Fender company makes >tube guitar amplifiers and all of the pre-amp stages use 12AX7 dual triodes. >The 12AU7, the 12AT7, and the 12AX7 are all dual triodes. The 12AX7 >potentially has the highest gain; the 12AU7, the lowest. > >http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/626807.html > > >Many professional guitarists prefer tube-based amplifiers. Fender is *not* >the only company producing such amplifiers with tubes. As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes eventually.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 08:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d7i0jtFtiglU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #152292 |
"Scott Lurndal" wrote: > "Charles Richmond" wrote: >>In some ways, we are still in "the days of tubes". The Fender company >>makes >>tube guitar amplifiers and all of the pre-amp stages use 12AX7 dual >>triodes. >>The 12AU7, the 12AT7, and the 12AX7 are all dual triodes. The 12AX7 >>potentially has the highest gain; the 12AU7, the lowest. >>Many professional guitarists prefer tube-based amplifiers. Fender is >>*not* >>the only company producing such amplifiers with tubes. > > As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or > Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes > eventually. I wonder how hard it would be to develop a cult lusting for a steam powered car? Perhaps basing it on "It smells so much better"? I'll let someone else work out the details.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael LeVine <mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 07:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <201510060723239687-mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com> |
| In reply to | #152293 |
On 2015-10-06 13:28:28 +0000, Osmium said: > "Scott Lurndal" wrote: > >> "Charles Richmond" wrote: > >>> In some ways, we are still in "the days of tubes". The Fender company makes >>> tube guitar amplifiers and all of the pre-amp stages use 12AX7 dual triodes. >>> The 12AU7, the 12AT7, and the 12AX7 are all dual triodes. The 12AX7 >>> potentially has the highest gain; the 12AU7, the lowest. >>> Many professional guitarists prefer tube-based amplifiers. Fender is *not* >>> the only company producing such amplifiers with tubes. >> >> As I understand it, all the available tubes are either diminishing NOS or >> Russian. I suspect that even the russians will stop manufacturing tubes >> eventually. > > I wonder how hard it would be to develop a cult lusting for a steam > powered car? > > Perhaps basing it on "It smells so much better"? I'll let someone > else work out the details. Actually it has been around for quite a while http://www.steamautomobile.com/lcc/index.htm -- Michael LeVine mlevinespmfltr@redshift.com Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies. Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web