Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160721 > unrolled thread

Computers anyone?

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Computers anyone? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-03-09 08:22 +0000
    Re: Computers anyone? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 19:25 +1100
    Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-09 13:41 +0000
      Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 06:48 -0700
      Re: Computers anyone? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-09 14:00 +0000
        Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:46 +1100
      Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:40 +1100
      Re: Computers anyone? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-09 13:50 -0600
      Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 17:32 -0500
        Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-10 13:24 +0000
          Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:56 -0500
          Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 07:29 -0700
            Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 20:19 -0500
            Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-11 13:08 +0000
              Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 04:02 +1100
                Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-12 13:34 +0000
                  Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 04:35 +1100
                  Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 15:54 -0500
                  Re: Computers anyone? pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-03-12 20:51 +0000
                    Re: Computers anyone? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-13 07:44 +0000
                      Re: Computers anyone? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-11 17:00 -0400
                        Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 19:07 -0400
            Re: Computers anyone? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-03-12 15:10 -0800
            Re: Computers anyone? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:03 -0800
              Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 18:34 -0800
              Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 15:28 +1100
    Re: Computers anyone? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-09 14:08 +0000
    Re: Computers anyone? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-09 14:41 +0000
    Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 07:27 -0800
      Re: Computers anyone? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-09 13:44 -0600
        Re: Computers anyone? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-09 20:15 +0000
        Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 17:38 -0500
          Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 17:14 -0800
            Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 17:35 -0800
              Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 21:31 -0500
                Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 20:25 -0800
                  Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 01:55 -0700
                    Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-10 11:47 +0000
                      Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:54 -0500
                      Re: Computers anyone? Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2016-03-30 12:47 -0400
                    Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 04:01 +1100
                  Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-10 09:04 -0800
                  Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 04:28 +1100
                  Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-10 13:44 -0800
                  Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-10 19:28 -0800
                    Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:16 -0500
                      Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 10:37 -0800
                        Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 12:37 -0800
                          Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-17 09:25 -0700
          Re: Computers anyone? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-09 21:35 -0600
            Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-10 11:52 +0000
              Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:55 -0500
          Re: Computers anyone? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-10 13:53 +0000
            Re: Computers anyone? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-10 14:21 -0600
              Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-10 13:17 -0800
              Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 20:29 -0500
            Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 20:17 -0500
        Re: Computers anyone? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-09 16:42 -0800
          Re: Computers anyone? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 20:19 -0500
    Re: Computers anyone? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-09 12:13 -0500
      Re: Computers anyone? "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:58 +1100
        Re: Computers anyone? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-10 06:37 -0500
    Re: Computers anyone? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-09 13:39 -0600
      Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 01:55 -0700
        Re: Computers anyone? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-10 09:43 -0600
        Re: Computers anyone? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-10 14:06 -0600
          Re: Computers anyone? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-11 13:08 +0000
          Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-11 14:10 +0000
            Re: Computers anyone? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-11 16:21 +0000
            Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 17:04 -0700
              Re: Computers anyone? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:04 +0000
                Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-12 19:32 +0000
                  Re: Computers anyone? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-21 20:17 -0400
              Re: Computers anyone? mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-12 19:30 +0000
    Re: Computers anyone? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-09 12:14 -0800
    Re: Computers anyone? hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org (Hank) - 2016-03-12 07:34 +0000
      Re: Computers anyone? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 07:30 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#162268

In article <20160313074409.c2184b683627b5b9d8a67aaa@eircom.net>,
 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:51:54 -0000 (UTC)
> pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) wrote:
> 
> > Probably easier to split the gui out of OS/x and get it to boot to 
> > a command line than to have Windows XP or newer stripped of the GUI and
> > all those million DLLs...
> 
> 	Much easier, OS/X without the GUI is called Darwin and is available
> as open source.

There is a lot in OS(e)X that is not in Darwin that is non GUI, math 
libs, for example.

-- 
 To terrify children with the image of hell,
 to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?  
  Christopher Hitchens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162288

In article <proto-B11A3F.17003311042016@news.panix.com>, proto@panix.com 
says...
> 
> In article <20160313074409.c2184b683627b5b9d8a67aaa@eircom.net>,
>  Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:51:54 -0000 (UTC)
> > pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) wrote:
> > 
> > > Probably easier to split the gui out of OS/x and get it to boot to 
> > > a command line than to have Windows XP or newer stripped of the GUI and
> > > all those million DLLs...
> > 
> > 	Much easier, OS/X without the GUI is called Darwin and is available
> > as open source.
> 
> There is a lot in OS(e)X that is not in Darwin that is non GUI, math 
> libs, for example.

In any case, Windows server defaults to a command line.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160912

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:29:15 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

>jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:

[snip]

>>> And an even more different one if non-security is a goal.
>> 
>> <grin>  True.  Do you know of one?  I can't recall any.
>
>This would actually fit windows.  The idea of attachments in email running
>automatically was a _choice_ made in favor of "ease of use".  I think
>Cutler tried to get better security in NT, but was overruled because it
>added overhead.

     Which means that ease-of-use was a goal, not that non-security
was necessarily one.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160915

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:29:16 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:


> This would actually fit windows.  The idea of attachments in email running
> automatically was a _choice_ made in favor of "ease of use".  I think
> Cutler tried to get better security in NT, but was overruled because it
> added overhead.

The whole idea of 'automated' personal computers was flawed.  Remember,
we had computer viruses even in DOS days.

Hardware and software designers should've learned from that, but 
they made things much worse.

Just like the Internet was designed 'too open', so were PCs.  (Did they
have viruses on CPM machines?  CICS or TSO?)  The computer industry was 
so hell bent on making machines super easy to use that they allowed 
too many vulnerabilities.  They really should've known better.

Amazingly, now cell phones are at risk.

When I got Windows XP, which wasn't cheap, they said it was a secure
system.  But now they said its security is terrible.  Go figure.

Today, when we add a new application to our PC, we don't have to do
anything, it is totally automated.  Perhaps it wouldn't kill us to have
to follow some instructions and issue some DOS commands to allow a new
application.  Those commands could only be issued at the PC from the
keyboard.  Is this a bad idea?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160917

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> The whole idea of 'automated' personal computers was flawed.  Remember,
> we had computer viruses even in DOS days.
>
> Hardware and software designers should've learned from that, but 
> they made things much worse.
>
> Just like the Internet was designed 'too open', so were PCs.  (Did they
> have viruses on CPM machines?  CICS or TSO?)  The computer industry was 
> so hell bent on making machines super easy to use that they allowed 
> too many vulnerabilities.  They really should've known better.
>
> Amazingly, now cell phones are at risk.
>
> When I got Windows XP, which wasn't cheap, they said it was a secure
> system.  But now they said its security is terrible.  Go figure.
>
> Today, when we add a new application to our PC, we don't have to do
> anything, it is totally automated.  Perhaps it wouldn't kill us to have
> to follow some instructions and issue some DOS commands to allow a new
> application.  Those commands could only be issued at the PC from the
> keyboard.  Is this a bad idea?

PCs were stand-alone ("air-gapped") and small (safe) private business
LANs. Lots of business applications with automated execution evolved in
the small/safe private business LANs.

1996 MSDC at Moscone had banners saying "Internet" all over the place,
but the slogon in all the sessions was "protect your investment" ....
this was all the automated (basic) applications developed for the
small/safe business environment carried over to the internet ...
basically the same network support for local small/safe business network
... was expanded to support tcp/ip (and the anarchy of the internet)
... w/o any additional safeguards or countermeasures.

up until mid-90s, the major internet threat/vulnerabilities was buffer
length exploits in c-language implemented softare. Going into the
late 90s, the MS "automated execution" exploits grew until they
were as common as the buffer length exploits.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subintegrity.html#buffer

old 2004 post with some analyses did on CVE database, at the time I
talked to the Mitre people about requiring classification keywords
in the CVE reports, but they said that they were lucky to get the
details they do get, if they started asking for better detail, some
people might not bother with generating CVE at all
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004e.html#43 security taxonomy and CVE

past '96 MSDC posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#49 Virus propagation risks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003e.html#45 Computer programming was all about:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003h.html#22 Why did TCP become popular ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004b.html#34 Next generation processor architecture?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004l.html#51 Specifying all biz rules in relational data
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#50 DOS C prompt in "Vista"?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007s.html#18 Oddly good news week: Google announces a Caps library for Javascript
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007u.html#87 CompUSA to Close after Jan. 1st 2008
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008r.html#26 realtors (and GM, too!)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009q.html#43 The 50th Anniversary of the Legendary IBM 1401
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010c.html#63 who pioneered the WEB
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#66 What is the protocal for GMT offset in SMTP (e-mail) header
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#37 (slightly OT - Linux) Did IBM bet on the wrong OS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010j.html#36 Favourite computer history books?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010p.html#9 The IETF is probably the single element in the global equation of technology competition than has resulted in the INTERNET
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010p.html#40 The Great Cyberheist
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011c.html#50 IBM and the Computer Revolution
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011d.html#58 IBM and the Computer Revolution
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011f.html#15 Identifying Latest zOS Fixes
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011f.html#57 Are Tablets a Passing Fad?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011o.html#18 John R. Opel, RIP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011o.html#59 The lost art of real programming
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#141 With cloud computing back to old problems as DDos attacks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#81 The PC industry is heading for collapse
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#93 Where are all the old tech workers?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#18 Zeus/SpyEye 'Automatic Transfer' Module Masks Online Banking Theft
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#32 Zeus/SpyEye 'Automatic Transfer' Module Masks Online Banking Theft
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#37 Simulated PDP-11 Blinkenlight front panel for SimH
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012j.html#93 Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012j.html#97 Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013.html#45 New HD
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013k.html#68 Steve B sees what investors think
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#10 It's all K&R's fault
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#11 Before the Internet: The golden age of online services
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014h.html#23 weird trivia
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015c.html#87 On a lighter note, even the Holograms are demonstrating
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#35 The real story of how the Internet became so vulnerable
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#90 These hackers warned the Internet would become a security disaster. Nobody listened
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015g.html#35 [Poll] Computing favorities
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015g.html#39 [Poll] Computing favorities

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160923

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
news:c801ff6f-f143-4a68-8846-53f3e05a9f56@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:29:16 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>
>> This would actually fit windows.  The idea of attachments in email 
>> running
>> automatically was a _choice_ made in favor of "ease of use".  I think
>> Cutler tried to get better security in NT, but was overruled because it
>> added overhead.
>
> The whole idea of 'automated' personal computers was flawed.

Nope, plenty like backups should be automated.

> Remember, we had computer viruses even in DOS days.

Separate matter entirely.

> Hardware and software designers should've learned from that, but
> they made things much worse.

No they did not.

> Just like the Internet was designed 'too open', so were PCs.

But that is one of the things that produced a tremendously
useful result, just like it did with the internet.

> (Did they have viruses on CPM machines?

Yep.

> CICS or TSO?)  The computer industry was
> so hell bent on making machines super easy to use that they allowed
> too many vulnerabilities.

And yet while iOS is the result of making machines super
easy to use, it isn't vulnerable to viruses and malware at all.
Perfectly possible to do.

> They really should've known better.

They did.

> Amazingly, now cell phones are at risk.

Hardly surprising given they are just very small and portable computers.

And only the poorly designed ones are at risk.

> When I got Windows XP, which wasn't
> cheap, they said it was a secure system.

It never was.

> But now they said its security is terrible.  Go figure.

Nothing to figure, you didn't bother to check the claim that was made.

> Today, when we add a new application to our PC,
> we don't have to do anything, it is totally automated.

And that works fine with iOS, doesn't affect security at all.

> Perhaps it wouldn't kill us to have to follow some instructions
> and issue some DOS commands to allow a new application.

No point when you have to agree to it being installed.

> Those commands could only be issued at the PC from the keyboard.

Just as true of agreeing to allow it to be installed.

> Is this a bad idea?

Yep, you don't have a clue about the basics. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160731

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 08:22:01 GMT
Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:

> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?

	It's been endemic in here for years.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160733

Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> writes:
>
>When did this become the US politics newsgroup?

Everyone secretly wants to watch a trainwreck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160734

Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> writes:
> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?

The Outrageous Adolescence of the F-16; The Viper was small, fast, and
in your face
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/outrageous-adolescence-f-16-180949491/?no-ist

9yrs ago, John Boyd, January 23, 1927 - March 9, 1997, tribute in USNI
Procedings, for those w/o membership ... it is here at wayback machine
http://web.archive.org/web/20011224132049/http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cspinney/c199.txt

He used it to re-design the F-15, changing it from an 80,000-pound,
swing-wing, sluggish behemoth, to a 40,000-pound fixed-wing,
high-performance, maneuvering fighter. His crowning glory was his use of
the theory to evolve the lightweight fighters that eventually became the
YF-16 and YF-17 prototypes--and then to insist that the winner be chosen
in the competitive market of a free-play flyoff.  The YF-16, which won,
is still the most maneuverable fighter ever designed. The production
successors, the not-so-lightweight F-16 (Air Force) and the F/A-18 (the
Navy-Marine Corps aircraft that evolved from the YF-17), together with
the F-15, dominate the skies today.

... snip ...

by the time John passes, the air force has pretty much disowned him, it
was the Marines that were at Arlington. Boyd had story how the F15
forces knew he was working on YF-16 design and tried to get the Air
Force to charge him with theft of several million in gov. property; aka
supercomputer time used for YF-16 design, however an audit of
gov. computers failed to turn up the evidence. Hugh Laurie (TV House)
wrote a novel about military-industrial-complex and how egregious MICC
can be (and references Boyd).

disclaimer: I sponsored Boyd's briefings at IBM

Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War; pg9/loc205-11: The
grass was wet and the air was clean and sweet. The crowd gathered at
Section Sixty, grave site number 3,660. The Marine colonel took from his
pocket a Marine Corps insignia, the eagle globe and anchor. He marched
out of the crowd, kneeled, and placed the insignia near the urn
containing Boyd's ashes. Someone took a picture. In that frozen moment
the light of the flash sparkled on the eagle globe and anchor, causing
it to stand out sharply against the bronze urn and green grass. The
black insignia drew every eye. As one, and without a command to do so,
the young lieutenants snapped to attention. Placing the symbol of the
U.S. Marine Corps on a grave is the highest honor a Marine can
bestow. It is rarely seen, even at the funeral of decorated combat
Marines, and it may have been the first time in history an Air Force
pilot received the honor.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160748

Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:

> Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> writes:
>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
> 
> The Outrageous Adolescence of the F-16; The Viper was small, fast, and
> in your face
> http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/outrageous-adolescence-
f-16-180949491/?no-ist
> 
> 9yrs ago, John Boyd, January 23, 1927 - March 9, 1997, tribute in USNI
> Procedings, for those w/o membership ... it is here at wayback machine
> 
http://web.archive.org/web/20011224132049/http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cspinney/c199.txt
> 
> He used it to re-design the F-15, changing it from an 80,000-pound,
> swing-wing, sluggish behemoth, to a 40,000-pound fixed-wing,
> high-performance, maneuvering fighter.
Uhh, the Navy's F-14 was swing wing, the F-15 is fixed.

Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160751

Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> writes:
>Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
>> Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> writes:
>>> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
>> 
>> The Outrageous Adolescence of the F-16; The Viper was small, fast, and
>> in your face
>> http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/outrageous-adolescence-
>f-16-180949491/?no-ist
>> 
>> 9yrs ago, John Boyd, January 23, 1927 - March 9, 1997, tribute in USNI
>> Procedings, for those w/o membership ... it is here at wayback machine
>> 
>http://web.archive.org/web/20011224132049/http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cspinney/c199.txt
>> 
>> He used it to re-design the F-15, changing it from an 80,000-pound,
>> swing-wing, sluggish behemoth, to a 40,000-pound fixed-wing,
>> high-performance, maneuvering fighter.
>Uhh, the Navy's F-14 was swing wing, the F-15 is fixed.
>

Uhh, that's what he said.  Read it again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160759

In article <4qidnScPE9p74X3LnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, 
jmelson@wustl.edu says...
> 
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> 
> > Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> writes:
> >> When did this become the US politics newsgroup?
> > 
> > The Outrageous Adolescence of the F-16; The Viper was small, fast, and
> > in your face
> > http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/outrageous-adolescence-
> f-16-180949491/?no-ist
> > 
> > 9yrs ago, John Boyd, January 23, 1927 - March 9, 1997, tribute in USNI
> > Procedings, for those w/o membership ... it is here at wayback machine
> > 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20011224132049/http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cspinney/c199.txt
> > 
> > He used it to re-design the F-15, changing it from an 80,000-pound,
> > swing-wing, sluggish behemoth, to a 40,000-pound fixed-wing,
> > high-performance, maneuvering fighter.
> Uhh, the Navy's F-14 was swing wing, the F-15 is fixed.

Note that that particular "sluggish behemoth" is so fearsome that one 
lighting off its radar will ground whole third-world air forces and when 
it was removed from service every single aircraft in the inventory was 
destroyed lest the one third-world air force that had a few of them get 
spare parts and thus do untold damage to the supposedly vastly superior 
lightweight fighters that can't force it to engage, can't run away from 
it, and can't shoot at it until long after it has killed them.

Oh, and I've seen a classified demo of the sluggish behemoth making 
maximum-performance maneuvers.  I pity the fool . . .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160763

"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> Note that that particular "sluggish behemoth" is so fearsome that one 
> lighting off its radar will ground whole third-world air forces and when 
> it was removed from service every single aircraft in the inventory was 
> destroyed lest the one third-world air force that had a few of them get 
> spare parts and thus do untold damage to the supposedly vastly superior 
> lightweight fighters that can't force it to engage, can't run away from 
> it, and can't shoot at it until long after it has killed them.
>
> Oh, and I've seen a classified demo of the sluggish behemoth making 
> maximum-performance maneuvers.  I pity the fool . . .

random other bits

Edwards prepares for F-16 radar upgrade testing
http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123457520

F22 AESA radar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-77

As yet unconfirmed sources suggest that APG-77 has a 'typical' operating
range of 193 km (120 mi) and is specified to achieve an 86% probability
of intercept against a 1 m2 target at its maximum detection range using
a single radar paint

... snip ...

Note last spring, DOD put advanced processing chips on export control
list. Last fall, at supercomputer conference, china demonstrated that
they were starting to make their own chips (besides used in advanced
radar, enormous numbers are also used in large supercomputers).

There is estimate that latest generation of chips, the number of
transmit/receiver pairs in the F-22 AESA radar could be reduced by
nearly two orders of magnitude w/o loss of capability.

this is primary analysis of JSF (F-35) ... but towards the bottom shows
some graphs for f-22, f-16, mig29, f-18, f-35 & f-15
http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
another JSF analysis
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html

F-35 from monday
http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/the-f-35-still-failing-to-impress.html

Straus Military Reform Project at POGO was Boyd inspired
http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/military-reform/

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160767

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> F-35 from monday
> http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/the-f-35-still-failing-to-impress.html

a little more topic drift (one of the most critical has to do software)
,,, original plan was that f-35 would be ready for combat in 2010
... now it might now be until 2022:

The report's candor about the airplane's problems is unique among the
DoD's other reports about the performance of the F-35. It only exists
because Congress created an independent operational testing office in
1983 to report only to the Secretary of Defense and Congress. Without
this office, significant F-35 problems might never be revealed until
failure in actual combat.

As damning as this report is, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program
Office quickly issued a statement disagreeing with the report's emphasis
-- but acknowledging that every word of it is "factually accurate."

... snip ...

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160768

In article <878u1rw1w6.fsf@garlic.com>, lynn@garlic.com says...
> 
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> > F-35 from monday
> > http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/the-f-35-still-failing-to-impress.html
> 
> a little more topic drift (one of the most critical has to do software)
> ,,, original plan was that f-35 would be ready for combat in 2010
> ... now it might now be until 2022:
> 
> The report's candor about the airplane's problems is unique among the
> DoD's other reports about the performance of the F-35. It only exists
> because Congress created an independent operational testing office in
> 1983 to report only to the Secretary of Defense and Congress. Without
> this office, significant F-35 problems might never be revealed until
> failure in actual combat.
> 
> As damning as this report is, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program
> Office quickly issued a statement disagreeing with the report's emphasis
> -- but acknowledging that every word of it is "factually accurate."
> 
> ... snip ...

The F-35 is a fine example of why a committee should not be allowed to 
design airplanes, and more importantly why a committee containing 
representatives of the Air Force should not be allowed to participate in 
the design of naval aircraft.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160773

"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> The F-35 is a fine example of why a committee should not be allowed to
> design airplanes, and more importantly why a committee containing
> representatives of the Air Force should not be allowed to participate
> in the design of naval aircraft.

This is F-22: Can't Fly Won't Die
http://nypost.com/2009/07/17/cant-fly-wont-die/

Pilots call high-maintenance aircraft "hangar queens."  Well, the F-22's
a hangar empress. After three expensive decades in development, the
plane meets fewer than one-third of its specified requirements.

...

Anyway, an enemy wouldn't have to down a single F-22 to defeat it. Just
strike the hi-tech maintenance sites, and it's game over. (In WWII, we
didn't shoot down every Japanese Zero; we just sank their carriers.) The
F-22 isn't going to operate off a dirt strip with a repair tent.

But this is all about lobbying, not about lobbing bombs. Cynically,
Lockheed Martin distributed the F-22 workload to nearly every state,
employing under-qualified sub-contractors to create local financial
stakes in the program. Great politics -- but the result has been a
quality collapse.

... snip ...

finally ended F-22 ... but used same tactics with F-35 process.
http://www.dailytech.com/Defense+Secretary+Gates+Proposes+Ending+F22+Fighter+VH71+Helicopter+Production/article14776.htm

Originally F-35 design did cost(?) reduced compromise as bomb truck
assuming F-22 flying cover and provide air superiority role.

this has long detailed discussion changes from original prototype and
"true" stealth (analysis done before F-22 was terminated)
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html

diagram 4 has F-35 radar signature at different wavelengths.  VHF/L can
find/track but difficult for targeting. latest processing chips with
multi-band radar ... for tracking&targeting.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html#mozTocId269596

This is separate from design/weight penalty for enabling (F-35B) Marine
corp version (short take-off-land).

besides "cyberdumb" in problems with the F-35 program
http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/the-f-35-still-failing-to-impress.html

there is lots of "cyberdumb" with adversaries dancing
through our networks taking detailed designs of advanced
weapons
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2013/05/28/us-weapons-compromised-chinese-cyberspies/

The designs included those for the advanced Patriot missile system,
known as PAC-3; an Army system for shooting down ballistic missiles,
known as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD; and the
Navy's Aegis ballistic-missile defense system.Also identified in the
report are vital combat aircraft and ships, including the F/A-18 fighter
jet, the V-22 Osprey, the Black Hawk helicopter and the Navy's new
Littoral Combat Ship, which is designed to patrol waters close to
shore. Also on the list is the most expensive weapons system ever built
-- the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is on track to cost about $1.4
trillion.

... snip ...

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160780

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:

> (In WWII, we
> didn't shoot down every Japanese Zero; we just sank their carriers.) 

We must have been pretty close.  By the end of the war they were left with
trainers and some slapped-together  pieces of junk made out of plywood,
IIRC.  Of course, they didn't have trained pilots left to fly them, either.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160784

On 2016-03-10, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
>
>> (In WWII, we
>> didn't shoot down every Japanese Zero; we just sank their carriers.) 
>
> We must have been pretty close.  By the end of the war they were left with
> trainers and some slapped-together  pieces of junk made out of plywood,
> IIRC.  Of course, they didn't have trained pilots left to fly them, either.
>
The Mosquito, a light-bomber, various task aircraft that the RAF used,
 was made out of plywood. Probably, pound--for-pound, much better than
the heavy bombers.


-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160792

In article <slrnne2nmv.199.mausg@smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says...
> 
> On 2016-03-10, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
> >
> >> (In WWII, we
> >> didn't shoot down every Japanese Zero; we just sank their carriers.) 
> >
> > We must have been pretty close.  By the end of the war they were left with
> > trainers and some slapped-together  pieces of junk made out of plywood,
> > IIRC.  Of course, they didn't have trained pilots left to fly them, either.
> >
> The Mosquito, a light-bomber, various task aircraft that the RAF used,
>  was made out of plywood. Probably, pound--for-pound, much better than
> the heavy bombers.

The Mosquito was a classic example of a multirole combat aircraft, it 
could do just about anything superbly well.  But unlike the F-35, it did 
it because it was designed to excel in a single task but turned out to 
be easily adapable to many others--the F-35 was designed to be all 
things to all men and so it's half-assed at everything.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161658

On 2016-03-10 6:47 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2016-03-10, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> (In WWII, we
>>> didn't shoot down every Japanese Zero; we just sank their carriers.)
>>
>> We must have been pretty close.  By the end of the war they were left with
>> trainers and some slapped-together  pieces of junk made out of plywood,
>> IIRC.  Of course, they didn't have trained pilots left to fly them, either.
>>
> The Mosquito, a light-bomber, various task aircraft that the RAF used,
>   was made out of plywood. Probably, pound--for-pound, much better than
> the heavy bombers.

It was a fighter-bomber, and could out-fly many of the fighters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web