Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #218654 > unrolled thread

What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work?

Started by	Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com>
First post	2021-09-05 09:55 +0000
Last post	2021-10-08 07:27 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 224 — 41 participants

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

Page 6 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 Next page →

#218934

From	J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-22 23:28 -0400
Message-ID	<o1tnkglvs8c3vp0ol5tuh7g0gjj5uqs9h6@4ax.com>
In reply to	#218933

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 02:51:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
<cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

>On 2021-09-23, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>
>>> In article <20210918155210.02c1c46cfbb0456d26a4ee94@eircom.net>,
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot  <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 00:49:00 -0600
>>>> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/18/21 12:27 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 	I suppose the real question is why not recompile them to take
>>>>>> advantage of the newer hardware. I know during Y2K work that a lot of
>>>>>> instances of lost source code came to light, are people still running
>>>>>> binaries for which there is no source ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why recompile something just for the sake of recompiling it?
>>>>> 
>>>>> If it's working just fine and is exhibiting no symptoms, why mess with it?
>>>>
>>>>	Yeah I get it, you might be depending on an old undocumented
>>>> compiler bug or you might fall foul of a new one so why risk the
>>>> new shiny compiler that might get 10% better performance and might
>>>> break the application.
>>>
>>> By that logic, one should never upgrade anything if it can
>>> be avoided.  An operating system upgrade in particular would
>>> be terribly fraught.
>
>s/would be/is/
>
>Especially if you have no mechanism for parallel testing
>prior to the cutover.
>
>>> It strikes me how much process we've built predicated on the
>>> presumed difficulty of testing and qualifying software for
>>> production use.
>>
>> You only update software when the benefit justifies the cost.
>
>Sadly, people now update software whenever the vendor tells them to
>(or does it behind their back).
>
>Last year I heard that a number of 911 sites went down (i.e. no
>dial tone) for at least half an hour thanks to a buggy Windows
>update that was pushed out to them.

Push updates should be a criminal offense.

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

#218937

From	scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date	2021-09-23 14:00 +0000
Message-ID	<IL%2J.2839$fZ.2458@fx06.iad>
In reply to	#218934

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 02:51:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
><cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

>>
>>Last year I heard that a number of 911 sites went down (i.e. no
>>dial tone) for at least half an hour thanks to a buggy Windows
>>update that was pushed out to them.
>
>Push updates should be a criminal offense.

Running critical infrastructure on windows should be a criminal offense.

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

#218948

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2021-09-23 18:31 +0000
Message-ID	<aK33J.43936$md6.12693@fx36.iad>
In reply to	#218937

On 2021-09-23, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 02:51:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Last year I heard that a number of 911 sites went down (i.e. no
>>> dial tone) for at least half an hour thanks to a buggy Windows
>>> update that was pushed out to them.
>>
>> Push updates should be a criminal offense.

I'm amazed that it doesn't seem to occur to anyone what a
huge security hole this represents.

> Running critical infrastructure on windows should be a criminal offense.

Hear, hear!

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Life is perverse.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  It can be beautiful -
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  but it won't.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lily Tomlin

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

#218955

From	J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-23 20:47 -0400
Message-ID	<es7qkg530it74qm346fkb7s6jkhmrmkoqf@4ax.com>
In reply to	#218948

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 18:31:34 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
<cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

>On 2021-09-23, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 02:51:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last year I heard that a number of 911 sites went down (i.e. no
>>>> dial tone) for at least half an hour thanks to a buggy Windows
>>>> update that was pushed out to them.
>>>
>>> Push updates should be a criminal offense.
>
>I'm amazed that it doesn't seem to occur to anyone what a
>huge security hole this represents.

The story is that those updates are essential to close security holes.
It's amazing the bullshit that people believe about security.

>> Running critical infrastructure on windows should be a criminal offense.
>
>Hear, hear!

That ship, however, has sailed.

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

#218961

From	Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
Date	2021-09-24 03:10 -0300
Message-ID	<87h7eapkq2.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
In reply to	#218955

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 18:31:34 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2021-09-23, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>
>>> Running critical infrastructure on windows should be a criminal offense.
>>
>> Hear, hear!
> 
> That ship, however, has sailed.

AIUI, the US Navy now navigates with Windoes, has for many years.  And
in addition has dropped astral navigation skills as a requirement for
officers.  Furrfu.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

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

#218963

From	Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net>
Date	2021-09-24 05:41 -0400
Message-ID	<877df68g4s.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>
In reply to	#218961

On 24 Sep 2021 03:10:29 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> That ship, however, has sailed.
>
> AIUI, the US Navy now navigates with Windoes, has for many years.  And
> in addition has dropped astral navigation skills as a requirement for
> officers.  Furrfu.

The world is way too computerized when it comes to security. If (or may
be just a question if "when") China goes to war against NATO, first thing
they do is to take out GPS (shooting some satellites down) or somehow
jamming the signal to deny access. Suppose the Navy and Army are blind
then. And without astral navigation skills ships might not even find the
way home.
-- 
Andreas

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

#218981

From	maus <maus@dmaus.org>
Date	2021-09-24 22:25 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnsksk2r.fpo.maus@dmaus.org>
In reply to	#218963

On 2021-09-24, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2021 03:10:29 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> That ship, however, has sailed.
>>
>> AIUI, the US Navy now navigates with Windoes, has for many years.  And
>> in addition has dropped astral navigation skills as a requirement for
>> officers.  Furrfu.
>
> The world is way too computerized when it comes to security. If (or may
> be just a question if "when") China goes to war against NATO, first thing
> they do is to take out GPS (shooting some satellites down) or somehow
> jamming the signal to deny access. Suppose the Navy and Army are blind
> then. And without astral navigation skills ships might not even find the
> way home.

After an atomic war, there will be no homes to go to.
-- 
greymausg@mail.com
Down the wrong mousehole.

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

#218994

From	Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-25 00:36 +0000
Message-ID	<8au3J.41688$6U3.39495@fx43.iad>
In reply to	#218981

No electronics, only light bulbs will survive that is why Russians
have lamps in their PLANES.

-- 
7-77-777
\|/
---
/|\

On 2021-09-24, maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
> On 2021-09-24, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On 24 Sep 2021 03:10:29 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> That ship, however, has sailed.
>>>
>>> AIUI, the US Navy now navigates with Windoes, has for many years.  And
>>> in addition has dropped astral navigation skills as a requirement for
>>> officers.  Furrfu.
>>
>> The world is way too computerized when it comes to security. If (or may
>> be just a question if "when") China goes to war against NATO, first thing
>> they do is to take out GPS (shooting some satellites down) or somehow
>> jamming the signal to deny access. Suppose the Navy and Army are blind
>> then. And without astral navigation skills ships might not even find the
>> way home.
>
> After an atomic war, there will be no homes to go to.


-- 
Evil Sinner!

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

#218984

From	J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-24 18:50 -0400
Message-ID	<qglskgp59l17f0jo3eb6i016iq68har3ul@4ax.com>
In reply to	#218961

On 24 Sep 2021 03:10:29 -0300, Mike Spencer
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

>
>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 18:31:34 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2021-09-23, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Running critical infrastructure on windows should be a criminal offense.
>>>
>>> Hear, hear!
>> 
>> That ship, however, has sailed.
>
>AIUI, the US Navy now navigates with Windoes, has for many years.  And
>in addition has dropped astral navigation skills as a requirement for
>officers.  Furrfu.

You do know that a handheld GPS can provide the same information as
celestial nav, with vastly greater precision, do you not?  And likely
has accurate charts these days.

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

#218997

From	Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
Date	2021-09-24 20:23 -0500
Message-ID	<siltmn$kmo$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#218984

On 9/24/2021 5:50 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2021 03:10:29 -0300, Mike Spencer
> <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> 
>>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 18:31:34 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-09-23, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Running critical infrastructure on windows should be a criminal offense.
>>>>
>>>> Hear, hear!
>>>
>>> That ship, however, has sailed.
>>
>> AIUI, the US Navy now navigates with Windoes, has for many years.  And
>> in addition has dropped astral navigation skills as a requirement for
>> officers.  Furrfu.
> 
> You do know that a handheld GPS can provide the same information as
> celestial nav, with vastly greater precision, do you not?  And likely
> has accurate charts these days.
> 
Works so long as the satellites are still functioning, not turned off, 
not jammed, not spoofed. Remember a few years ago Iran fooled a US 
drone into landing at one of their airfields? Or google "China GPS 
spoofing" for fun and games with ships near to China. Or the 20 ships 
in the Black Sea in 2017 whose location returned as an airport 32km 
inland. I would expect every competent military has tools to deal with 
satnav these days. (You can buy a jammer off AliBaba for as little as 
$200, spoofing probably costs a lot more.)

It's way harder to spoof the stars.

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

#219008

From	Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net>
Date	2021-09-25 02:57 -0400
Message-ID	<87y27l5ehk.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>
In reply to	#218997

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:23:33 -0500, Dave Garland wrote:
>
> On 9/24/2021 5:50 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> AIUI, the US Navy now navigates with Windoes, has for many years.  And
>>> in addition has dropped astral navigation skills as a requirement for
>>> officers.  Furrfu.
>> You do know that a handheld GPS can provide the same information as
>> celestial nav, with vastly greater precision, do you not?  And likely
>> has accurate charts these days.
>> 
> Works so long as the satellites are still functioning, not turned off,
> not jammed, not spoofed. Remember a few years ago Iran fooled a US 
> drone into landing at one of their airfields? Or google "China GPS
> spoofing" for fun and games with ships near to China. Or the 20 ships 
> in the Black Sea in 2017 whose location returned as an airport 32km
> inland. I would expect every competent military has tools to deal with 
> satnav these days. (You can buy a jammer off AliBaba for as little as
> $200, spoofing probably costs a lot more.)

That goes already back to World War II. In the Battle Of The Beams
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beams> the British tempered
with German location findings for "blind landings". They fooled some
German air planes to land in Britain, believing they landed in Nazi
Germany.

|    Thus the beam was seemingly "bent" away from the target. Eventually,
|    the beams could be inclined by a controlled amount which enabled the
|    British to fool the Germans into dropping their bombs where they
|    wanted them. A side effect was that as the German crews had been
|    trained to navigate solely by the beams, many crews failed to find
|    either the true equi-signal or Germany again. Some Luftwaffe bombers
|    even landed at RAF bases, believing they were back in the Reich.

> It's way harder to spoof the stars.

:-)
-- 
Andreas

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

#219085

From	usenet@only.tnx (Questor)
Date	2021-09-28 13:10 +0000
Message-ID	<6153142a.14559976@news.dslextreme.com>
In reply to	#218997

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:23:33 -0500, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
wrote:
>On 9/24/2021 5:50 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>You do know that a handheld GPS can provide the same information as
>>celestial nav, with vastly greater precision, do you not?  And likely
>>has accurate charts these days.
>>
>Works so long as the satellites are still functioning, not turned off, 
>not jammed, not spoofed. Remember a few years ago Iran fooled a US 
>drone into landing at one of their airfields? Or google "China GPS 
>spoofing" for fun and games with ships near to China. Or the 20 ships 
>in the Black Sea in 2017 whose location returned as an airport 32km 
>inland. I would expect every competent military has tools to deal with 
>satnav these days. (You can buy a jammer off AliBaba for as little as 
>$200, spoofing probably costs a lot more.)
>
>It's way harder to spoof the stars.

If you can see them.  Warship operations can't be dependent on a lack of fog or
an overcast sky.

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

#219095

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2021-09-28 19:03 +0000
Message-ID	<uGJ4J.92555$g81.41647@fx33.iad>
In reply to	#219085

On 2021-09-28, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:23:33 -0500, Dave Garland
> <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/2021 5:50 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> You do know that a handheld GPS can provide the same information as
>>> celestial nav, with vastly greater precision, do you not?  And likely
>>> has accurate charts these days.
>>
>> Works so long as the satellites are still functioning, not turned
>> off, not jammed, not spoofed. Remember a few years ago Iran fooled
>> a US drone into landing at one of their airfields? Or google "China
>> GPS spoofing" for fun and games with ships near to China. Or the 20
>> ships in the Black Sea in 2017 whose location returned as an airport
>> 32km inland. I would expect every competent military has tools to
>> deal with satnav these days. (You can buy a jammer off AliBaba for
>> as little as $200, spoofing probably costs a lot more.)
>>
>> It's way harder to spoof the stars.
>
> If you can see them.  Warship operations can't be dependent on a lack
> of fog or an overcast sky.

True, but it's one more option in your toolkit when conditions permit.
There's an old saying about not putting all your eggs in one basket,
but that seems to have fallen into disfavour these days...

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Life is perverse.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  It can be beautiful -
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  but it won't.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lily Tomlin

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

#219152

From	Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com>
Date	2021-09-30 09:46 -0500
Message-ID	<sj4ij9$9q6$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#219095

On 9/28/2021 2:03 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-09-28, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:23:33 -0500, Dave Garland
>> <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/24/2021 5:50 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> You do know that a handheld GPS can provide the same information as
>>>> celestial nav, with vastly greater precision, do you not?  And likely
>>>> has accurate charts these days.
>>>
>>> Works so long as the satellites are still functioning, not turned
>>> off, not jammed, not spoofed. Remember a few years ago Iran fooled
>>> a US drone into landing at one of their airfields? Or google "China
>>> GPS spoofing" for fun and games with ships near to China. Or the 20
>>> ships in the Black Sea in 2017 whose location returned as an airport
>>> 32km inland. I would expect every competent military has tools to
>>> deal with satnav these days. (You can buy a jammer off AliBaba for
>>> as little as $200, spoofing probably costs a lot more.)
>>>
>>> It's way harder to spoof the stars.
>>
>> If you can see them.  Warship operations can't be dependent on a lack
>> of fog or an overcast sky.
> 
> True, but it's one more option in your toolkit when conditions permit.
> There's an old saying about not putting all your eggs in one basket,
> but that seems to have fallen into disfavour these days...
> 

All true!  Now-a-days the one basket for "all your eggs" is called the 
smart cell phone.  Now when a person loses their smart cell phone, that 
person is put back to counting rocks at the opening of the cave where 
they live.   ;-)

-- 

Charles Richmond

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#219159

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2021-09-30 17:44 +0000
Message-ID	<GHm5J.68985$2Q_3.37650@fx35.iad>
In reply to	#219152

On 2021-09-30, Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> On 9/28/2021 2:03 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2021-09-28, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:23:33 -0500, Dave Garland
>>> <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/24/2021 5:50 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You do know that a handheld GPS can provide the same information as
>>>>> celestial nav, with vastly greater precision, do you not?  And likely
>>>>> has accurate charts these days.
>>>>
>>>> Works so long as the satellites are still functioning, not turned
>>>> off, not jammed, not spoofed. Remember a few years ago Iran fooled
>>>> a US drone into landing at one of their airfields? Or google "China
>>>> GPS spoofing" for fun and games with ships near to China. Or the 20
>>>> ships in the Black Sea in 2017 whose location returned as an airport
>>>> 32km inland. I would expect every competent military has tools to
>>>> deal with satnav these days. (You can buy a jammer off AliBaba for
>>>> as little as $200, spoofing probably costs a lot more.)
>>>>
>>>> It's way harder to spoof the stars.
>>>
>>> If you can see them.  Warship operations can't be dependent on a lack
>>> of fog or an overcast sky.
>> 
>> True, but it's one more option in your toolkit when conditions permit.
>> There's an old saying about not putting all your eggs in one basket,
>> but that seems to have fallen into disfavour these days...
>
> All true!  Now-a-days the one basket for "all your eggs" is called the 
> smart cell phone.  Now when a person loses their smart cell phone, that 
> person is put back to counting rocks at the opening of the cave where 
> they live.   ;-)

Yup.  The other example of one basket for all your eggs is the Cloud.
And it's not even your own basket.

"All your data are belong to us."

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Life is perverse.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  It can be beautiful -
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  but it won't.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lily Tomlin

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

#219161

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2021-09-30 19:10 +0100
Message-ID	<20210930191056.a5903e561ba4bb9a027e347e@eircom.net>
In reply to	#219159

On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:44:06 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2021-09-30, Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> 
> > All true!  Now-a-days the one basket for "all your eggs" is called the 
> > smart cell phone.  Now when a person loses their smart cell phone, that 
> > person is put back to counting rocks at the opening of the cave where 
> > they live.   ;-)

	Nah it's fine they have it all backed up in the cloud, they just
get a new one and the nice man at the shop helps them to get it all back.

> Yup.  The other example of one basket for all your eggs is the Cloud.
> And it's not even your own basket.

	Yes well there is that. However you can do what I do and run your
own 'cloud services' and then persuade the phone to use them instead of the
default ones. Not that there's much on the phone outside of the contact
list which rather has to be there.

> "All your data are belong to us."

	Keep your data close.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

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

#219010

From	Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
Date	2021-09-25 04:22 -0300
Message-ID	<874ka9p19x.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
In reply to	#218984

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:

> On 24 Sep 2021 03:10:29 -0300, Mike Spencer
> <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> 
>> AIUI, the US Navy now navigates with Windoes, has for many years.  And
>> in addition has dropped astral navigation skills as a requirement for
>> officers.  Furrfu.
> 
> You do know that a handheld GPS can provide the same information as
> celestial nav, with vastly greater precision, do you not?  And likely
> has accurate charts these days.

Yes, I do know that.  But the US Navy operates *war*ships.  If the
Navy is ever again confronted with an actual war -- something beyond
sending helicopter gunships or drones after "insurgents" or showing
the flag in the South China Sea -- against a capable opponent,
GPS/satnav is going to be the opponent's early target.  Naval mariners
have long had the attitude that they should be prepared to cope when X
fails for almost all values of X.

I once toured a Canadian naval ship and asked about a hand-crank
bolted to a bulkhead in a hold near the bilges.  The answer:  If you
have a cold ship -- boilers cold, no shore power, nothing operating --
you unbolt the crank, use it to hand-start an antique single-banger
diesel.  That generates enough power to start the big 8-cyl diesel
which in turn compresses enough air to start the two really  big
16-cyl diesels which then generate enough power to fire up and run
everything else.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

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

#219014

From	J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2021-09-25 07:19 -0400
Message-ID	<fo0ukg96n3fdftq0rf0v8nriinlu8c18md@4ax.com>
In reply to	#219010

On 25 Sep 2021 04:22:50 -0300, Mike Spencer
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

>
>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 24 Sep 2021 03:10:29 -0300, Mike Spencer
>> <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>> 
>>> AIUI, the US Navy now navigates with Windoes, has for many years.  And
>>> in addition has dropped astral navigation skills as a requirement for
>>> officers.  Furrfu.
>> 
>> You do know that a handheld GPS can provide the same information as
>> celestial nav, with vastly greater precision, do you not?  And likely
>> has accurate charts these days.
>
>Yes, I do know that.  But the US Navy operates *war*ships.  If the
>Navy is ever again confronted with an actual war -- something beyond
>sending helicopter gunships or drones after "insurgents" or showing
>the flag in the South China Sea -- against a capable opponent,
>GPS/satnav is going to be the opponent's early target.  Naval mariners
>have long had the attitude that they should be prepared to cope when X
>fails for almost all values of X.

Satnav isn't that easy to kill you know.  It's not like you can shoot
one down with a MiG 21.  Besides, there are 4 different systems.  To
render satnav unusable would require destroying upwards of 100
different satellites.

In addition, google SINS.  Have you asked yourself how a submarine
could sail around the world submerged in 1960?  The answer is inertial
navigation.  It's not as precise as GPS--you can't use it to enter a
harbor in a fog after 25,000 miles--but it works well enough if you
are aware of its limitations.

>I once toured a Canadian naval ship and asked about a hand-crank
>bolted to a bulkhead in a hold near the bilges.  The answer:  If you
>have a cold ship -- boilers cold, no shore power, nothing operating --
>you unbolt the crank, use it to hand-start an antique single-banger
>diesel.  That generates enough power to start the big 8-cyl diesel
>which in turn compresses enough air to start the two really  big
>16-cyl diesels which then generate enough power to fire up and run
>everything else.

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

#219028

From	Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net>
Date	2021-09-25 11:08 -0400
Message-ID	<87a6k066bf.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>
In reply to	#219014

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 07:19:54 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> On 25 Sep 2021 04:22:50 -0300, Mike Spencer
> <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>>Yes, I do know that.  But the US Navy operates *war*ships.  If the
>>Navy is ever again confronted with an actual war -- something beyond
>>sending helicopter gunships or drones after "insurgents" or showing
>>the flag in the South China Sea -- against a capable opponent,
>>GPS/satnav is going to be the opponent's early target.  Naval mariners
>>have long had the attitude that they should be prepared to cope when X
>>fails for almost all values of X.
>
> Satnav isn't that easy to kill you know.  It's not like you can shoot
> one down with a MiG 21.  Besides, there are 4 different systems.  To
> render satnav unusable would require destroying upwards of 100
> different satellites.

From what I read there are 31 (US) GPS satellites in orbit. Cannot find
out the distance to one to another. Might be less than 1000
kilometers. If one nuke is fired at a distance of 500 kilometers between
two satellites it might take out both of them. So you (China, or who ever
is the enemy in a future war) need 15 nukes to take out the whole
system. Shouldn't be a problem. Should be even enough to take down only a
few of them to make the system useless.
-- 
Andreas

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

#219042

From	Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
Date	2021-09-25 22:22 -0500
Message-ID	<siop29$frb$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#219028

On 9/25/2021 10:08 AM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 07:19:54 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Satnav isn't that easy to kill you know.  It's not like you can shoot
>> one down with a MiG 21.  Besides, there are 4 different systems.  To
>> render satnav unusable would require destroying upwards of 100
>> different satellites.
> 
>  From what I read there are 31 (US) GPS satellites in orbit. Cannot find
> out the distance to one to another. Might be less than 1000
> kilometers. If one nuke is fired at a distance of 500 kilometers between
> two satellites it might take out both of them. So you (China, or who ever
> is the enemy in a future war) need 15 nukes to take out the whole
> system. Shouldn't be a problem. Should be even enough to take down only a
> few of them to make the system useless.

I'm not sure that strategy would work. There's at least 4 independent 
satellite systems (US, China, Russia, EU, maybe India, maybe Japan). 
Even consumer (automobile) gear may use multiple systems, military 
grade gear certainly will. Gonna be a lot of collateral damage, you'll 
take out a lot of satellites, not just GPS. If a nation-state can't 
hack them (I'm not going to bet against that), jamming or spoofing 
isn't going to damage your (or allied) satellites, and doesn't require 
nukes.
>

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

Page 6 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 Next page →

csiph-web

What is the oldest computer that could be used today for real work?

Contents

#218934

#218937

#218948

#218955

#218961

#218963

#218981

#218994

#218984

#218997

#219008

#219085

#219095

#219152

#219159

#219161

#219010

#219014

#219028

#219042