Slashdot Mirror
Insider's Look at High-Tech High-Speed Navy Vessel
Xidus writes "Computerworld is running an article on the technology behind the US Navy's newest HSV (High Speed Vessel), focusing on interfaces designed to reduce the number of personnel needed on the bridge. Lots of pretty pictures. No word on OSes, although Mozilla is mentioned, and UNIX-ish desktops are visible, along with some nifty virtual-reality tactical displays. Would you like to play a game?"
"Nearly every function of the ship, from navigation and steering to engine and damage control, is conducted and monitored using commercial, off-the-shelf hardware and software."
hmm I guess I've been shopping on the wrong shelves
Does it know how to play tic tac toe?
Here's a close-up look at the ship's cutting-edge IT ...followed by a picture of a strange-looking bald man. At first I thought he was the IT.
Some impressive IT, that, if that's the state of the AI / cyborgs on board.
I bet SCO aren't going to turn up and demand money.
Mod parent up!
The Fire Scout will be flown by a computer operator using a joystick controller in the Combat Information Center
Finally!!!!! A military carreer for the overweight masses of X-box, Nintendo and PlayStation owning couch-potatos.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
["Currently, the USS La Salle has a 3Mbit connection. We think we can get a 6Mbit connection and up to 24Mbit using accelerators," said Dick Pearson, a systems engineering consultant at Dataline Inc.] :p
Yea, i think netzero tried to sell me on that crap about six months ago
You can see the ship from the outside here and here
The ~HSV portage tree!
Hope they have lots of armor around the servers, and a backup bridge.
"uses paperless charts"
It worries me that China is working on an anti-satellite warfare, and the military keeps marching down the GPS for everything road. WWIII could see a lot of pretty hardware sitting at the docks while the navigator runs down to supply to see if they have any "old fashioned" compasses and charts.
Oh well. The military knows what they are doing, right?
I'm sorry Dave I cannot do that...
Given the previous story on increasing virus/worm activity, whether the DOD has any rules concerning the use of Windows in military settings.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
All of that technology, to serve what end? Killing people.
...
If only there were a reason for America to apply its talents to making the world a better place, instead of making it 'safer for Americans'.
I'm a techno-geek, but its very, very hard for me to get excited about such advanced use of technology for the purpose of putting killing machines on the ocean. Lets see the remote helicopter be used for drought control, or crop maintenance, or airlifting badly needed parts for the local U.N. pump in a village, or something
As long as there are men making weapons, there will be war.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Where?
this looks liks windows to me. This even has the windows default titlebar fade action going on.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
The Chinese won't blind US satellites as we'd likely interpret that as preperations for a first strike. Which means they are 45 seconds from Cerenkov radiation themselves. Not even the North Koreans are squirrle enough to pull that rabbit outta the hat.
That said inertial guidence. And the first target of anti-satellite weapons would be the spy satellites and not the GPS constellation(s).
If you've got a country out there that is crazy enough to pull a stunt like that on the US, the charts paperless or not are of precious little consequence once that shit hits the fan. At least until they close the technology gap with our cruise missle payloads.
The article shows the "COMBATSS" system that has been used to remote control a whole ship 3000 miles off the coast of California... Via a Mozilla browser interface. Nice union of military (proprietary) and commodity software.
The Navy is renting this vessel for 11.4 million dollars a year (including operating costs).
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
I'm sure they have old-school backup plans and navigational equipment. The option not to would be total stupidity in an age of electronic warfare.
Also, I hope these servers are protected against EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) bombs.
Life is not for the lazy.
The next phase of development is for the Navy to control this ship from an iPod running Linux.
So, is it like other dual hulled speed boats, crap in big swells?
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
It's wawe *piercing* not breaking. These too are built by Incat (of Tasmania) who pioneered the concept.
Reducing the number of people required to man the ship is great and all, but, if memory serves, one of the debates about reducing the number of people required to man the ship is the subsequent reduction in number of people available for damage control. If the ship takes damage and there aren't enough (remaining) people able to control the damage, the ship is even more likely to be out of the fight or even lost completely.
i laughed out loud
I am a Nigerian Colonel,... just kidding. I am writing this in the hopes that I might spare you the horror of your own hypocrisy.
Please cease the use of any of the following: Computers, all frequency hopping radios such as a cellphone, any device making use of transistors of any sort, aluminum cans, modern four wheel drive vehicals, any civil project which might have involved explosives (most roads, power generated by dams, and possibly drinking water), weather forecasts produced with aid of any satellites/computers/radar (ie all of them), trauma medicine, some insecticides, nuclear medicine, nuclear power (which provides a major fraction of the worlds power needs), underwater and space exploration, and, of course, any political system that doesn't involve you being the wholly owned an insignificant subject of someone else.
If those pump parts were badly needed in a village important to the people outside of it, they'd have the resources to buy them. And since I don't see you putting your money where your mouth is, feel free to start leading by example we'll follow along at our earliest convienence. It says something that a 9 year old in the US has a great enough availability of resources that he can get a well built in Africa where the native africans can't.
FYI War pre-dates weapons. Weapons were invented to settle wars quicker. It turns out that while a person can beat another to death with their bare hands, it's exhausting, and time consuming.
Maybe the problem is there just aren't enough american nine yearolds. That must be it.
And so concludes this episode of Oversimplification Theater.
Wow, gives new meaning to wardriving. Or would it be warsailing in this case?
Wander into an A-10's kill box, bad times. They don't call it the "fog of war" because military service is the profession of last resort for frustrated writers.
If you check the manufacturer's (Incat) website, they are pretty actively pushing off-the-shelf passenger/freight catamarans to militaries. Only minor modifications (apart from the IT) were necessary to turn a perfectly normal ro-pax cat into the "Swift".
For sure the cheapest way to obtain a new fast vessel class for a navy! Common sense, really: use commodity hardware.
US Navys's HSV 1 "Joint Venture" is a similar arrangement (it's actually Incat's first 96-metre ship, in previous civil life served as "Devil Cat"). Compare to Royal Australian Navy's "Jervis Bay".
Also, I hope these servers are protected against EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) bomb
With everything being "off the shelf" hardware, how much emp it can take is a good question. There are test facilities.
I can understand mil-rad hardened transistors surviving, but all that stuff clearly has to use low voltage CMOS that can be blown if there is a nearby lightning strike.
I think most worrisome is a computer glitch (not to mention a bullet) hitting the right server at the right place to cause the ship to be dead in the water because engine/navigation controls don't work.
If it could bring down an Osprey helicopter, one has to wonder about ships also.
Being the military, they probably (or should) have taken such things into account when deploying the systems.
You also have to wonder how much time they spend patching all the software.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
You can see the AOL "Accelerator" in one of the screen shots I think.
Wow! You're AMAZING... I bet NOBODY in the ENTIRE US MILITARY considered that EVER. You may have just SAVED the WORLD for DEMOCRACY!
Insightful, +5? Fucking idiot moderators... a product of simplistic Tom Clancy plots, no doubt.
It looks like the work of Sun Microsystems with the GUI. You just can't forget those pastels.
where the Navy was able to remotely control a ship more than 3,000 miles from shore.
Now that's what I call war driving!
I was able to have a tour of the bridge of another Incat ferry (builder of this boat) which uses similar technology - they did have paper charts for backup (mandated by law actually) on that boat, as well as some more standard equipment, as well as the computerised bridge.
It's pretty cool how they steer this boat - it can move any direction as it powered by steerable water jets. The wheel on the bridge is 10cm across, which just seems weird compared to traditional bridges. One of the big selling points of the Incat ferries is that they dock quickly and in a small area, because they can come in sideways.
I was on it for some experiments in 02 and it was a real impressive boat. The vessel is a proof of concept for what a future command and control ship would be like. Basically the budget is large and they throw everything they can on it to see what good solutions come out.
Not to be outdone the Army also has it's on vessel aptly called the TSV (Theater Support Vessel).
On the HSV the exercise servers/work stations run Windows, if there were "UNIX-ish" systems there they must have been hiding.
The boat itself is sweet, actually very similar to the "Cat" in Maine. That's the ferry from Nova Scotia to Bar Harbor with a top speed of 55(?) knots or so.
The primary role of the US Navy in peacetime is to keep the sealanes open. The only reason you can get those Reeboks for $30 is because the US ensures safe shipping throught the world. Even so, piracy is on the rise since most European nations have killed their navies and the availability of small watercraft in third word countries is greater.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
:-)
I used to work in military research here in the UK, and worked on a project not *too* dissimilar to the COMBATSS/InfoScene bit mentioned in this article (I probably shouldn't divulge exactly how similar or not, for obvious reasons :) ). At least, from the brief mention in the article, it seems to be a similar kind of system, in principle at least.
Our stuff was written as a kind of proof of concept, with a fairly basic GUI (x/motif iirc), and most of the work being done on the data processing to ensure it was an accurate representation of reality.
we once had a meeting with a team from the US who were working on a similar system to our own, the plan being to see if we could benefit from each other's work. they gave us a demonstration of their product, which initially seemed much closer to completion than our own. it had a beautiful 3D interface (much like the screen shot in the article) and they demonstrated how a user could easily pan round in real time and see what was happening with a simple drag-and-click of the mouse.
then we asked them about how they actually processed the data, as this was the most important part of the system (obviously, no matter how good the interface it's a bit pointless if the stuff you're looking at is just plain wrong), which is where things fell apart a little. the actual backend of their system had hardly been started - the stuff we were seeing was all manufactured data created for demos, which kind of negated the entire point of the exercise from our point of view. they had a much larger team working with a much bigger budget than we did, but had effectively just come up with a nice GUI - and it didn't actually do anything that our basic motif GUI didn't, it just had more colours and more 3D stuff. we weren't really interested after that...
the point being that even in the military, even if something looks great on screen is no indication of whether it's actually any use or not. our system was actually deployed and used (on a testing basis) by the UK armed forces - what became of it since then i couldn't say as i got another job soon after, but it was clear that the US system was many months behind our own in terms of usefulness.
and on a slight tangent...
the whole thing reminds me of the well publicised FIST system that was featured on UK TV a few years back - basically trying to bring the infantry soldier into the 21st century using in-helmet HUDs and super smart targeting/comms systems etc... it was developed at the same place I worked but had so many problems i think it was shelved - after huge spending. but then, it did use windows as the underlying OS (don't ask me why), which for a mission-critical system always seemed a bit... stupid.
I often wonder for some of these things whether they were instigated by military ppl out of necessity or genuine improvement, or by politicians who just want things to look good
I don't think the Chinese are rational thinkers when it comes to Tiawan, and if they decide to take the island by military means (I think they will manage it using dirty island politics) I don't for an instant think they would hesitate to blind and damage the US military with a satellite strike.
Would we counter with a nuclear strike against the Chinese based on their satellite strike? Absolutely not - in the Western world if no life is lost you don't toss nukes.
The entire space based infrastructure needs to be throughly reviewed. Or, we can wait until the after strike "review board." Maybe we can get the national security advisor to testify?
Shit. Now the Yanks can accidentally kill their allies from the comfort of their PCs. Great.
I'd just like to point out that death by friendly fire as been around for as long as projectile weapons have been on the field. Yeah, the US military screws up and kills the wrong people, even in peaceful situations, but so does every other military with projectiles and vehicles. That's why they're called "accidents". :)
Like what I said? You might like my music
From the pictures it looks like that ship is running Windows 2000.
Unlike the story submitter who would obviously love it to be running Linux.
Hmmm...but in a world where everyone hates you, and some countries hate each other, what stops (for example) China from making it look like North Korea did it? Or is it just that if someone does it, the bombs that will be dropped will end the world anyway? Is it a good idea to end the world, even if there may be some nuclear missles coming for you?
It says the hull is made from aluminum.
We (UK) lost a ship in the Falklands war because it was made of aluminum and aluminum burns, if given enough heat. Whats to stop this becoming a giant piece of thermite if a missile hits it ??
Anyone with more of a clue than me care to comment on this ??
Armor? Are you kidding? The damned thing has aluminum hulls. I know it's supposed to be fast, but I'll bet it ain't as fast as an Exocet missle (or its 30-year-later descendent) or a Zodiac with a few hundred pounds of ANFO.
Perhaps you are thinking of a "Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull" kind of multihull, not a wawe-piercing catamaran?
SWATH vessels are slow though, so they are in (scientific and heavy-industrial) uses where speed doesn't matter but stability is paramount. Not too good for Navy use.
(a SWATH catamaran rolls less because in each hull the bulk of the hull is deep under, avoiding the impact of the surface wawes, and the hull is narrow at waterline. Sort of like two hourglasses side by side...)
In a bid to clear to my mind of the cobwebs, I took ~1 year off, and worked as a deck hand aboard a 656 foot shipping vessel (as a merchant marine).
At the time, I was mid-way through completion of a computer science degree, which I am currently finishing. I was completely shocked by the lack of pervasive computing on board the ship - a complex environment, where any and all silicon help could prove to be highly advantageous.
Two newly acquired computers, running NaviSailor were onboard, and provided (what most of my fellow mates/luddites took as) advanced information in a no-hassel manner.
There is a great deal of money to be made in the shipping business. It is a complex and intricate profession, and most of the people onboard shipping vessels exhibit a great degree of perfectionism. Afterall, wrecking a multi-million dollar ship with hundreds of thousands of dollars of onboard cargo would be quite disasterous to one's career.
The long and the short is that these people need attention. Here is a niche market ripe for the taking. Custom software geared towards making watches, navigation, and docking less error prone has yet to be made. All you who complain of a lack of work -- that fattest worms are found only by lifting the heavier stones.
-pararox-
"death by friendly fire"
This term always annoys me. What's so goddamn friendly about shooting your allies anyway?
It's just a way of avoiding saying "Sorry, but we screwed up and killed some of you when we're supposed to be on the same side."
And I know that I'll probably get modded to hell for saying it, but the Americans do cause most of the "friendly fire" incidents. Something to do with having bigger guns than everyone, less training on when NOT to fire, and a John Wayne attitude.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
As I understand it, these ships are basically a Faraday Cage to start with. Because of the possibility of NBC warfare, the ships are basically competely sealed. Note that the steering picture only shows computer screens, not windows. There are no portholes, and donly the minimum number of external walkways for mooring etc. All doors are RFI tight. So all you need to do is make all the (many) cable ports EMP proof (not easy, but feasible) asnd the ship is EMP tolerant. You need spares for all the bits outside the shell (CCTV cameras, Antenna amplifiers), but inside the shell, lofe (and war) continues as usual.
EMP is not now a new threat. You can bet the Navy have thought of it.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
You saw the military response. No one will mess with our satellites. OK. That works for me...
This term always annoys me. What's so goddamn friendly about shooting your allies anyway?
Friendly fire refers to some very distinct situations. For example, your flanks come in faster than expected, and since they're opposite each other, their bullets are likely to fire into each other. If they stop shooting, the enemy that's sandwiched between them will get the upper hand, but if they keep shooting some of their shots will hit the other flank, resulting in casualties by friendly fire. Also, you might find yourself standing next to a group of the enemy, firing away, and then your buddy with the grenade launcher sticks a grenade in the middle of them. Boom, some of the shrapnel hits you. Friendly fire.
Thanks to mass media not understanding jack and shit, Friendly Fire now also refers to a pilot losing control of his helicopter at the base and crashing into another helicopter. :( (I don't think the military use the term that way ever, but I don't really know)
And I know that I'll probably get modded to hell for saying it, but the Americans do cause most of the "friendly fire" incidents.
I wonder if you have statistics to back this up. It certainly appears that way, with the Brits coming in next for stupid accidents, but I'd be interested in seeing some real statistics, along with length of deployment, strength of deployment, and so forth.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Have a look at the photo showing the hand on the joystick. Correct me if I'm wrong but thats a left hand on the joystick ( we see the thumb on top ). Correct me again, but isn't that hand coming from the right of the flabby torso ( standard for the US military ). So whats the story, only people with two left hands can drive this thing ? Or do sailors have a third arm attached to allow them to manage the complexity of the controls ? Where were the other two hands in the photo ? What in Sam Hell is going on over there ????
Those seem to be hp/compaq keyboards/mouse .
Achiles Heel...http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282 ,58107,00.html
Isn't this the same military that wants the OICW? (Well, the senior officers seem to, anyway. The guys who are actually going to trust their lives to it don't seem so sure.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You don't have to shoot down a GPS satellite to confuse a GPS receiver. All you need are a couple well-synchronized transmitters with some forged signals. The algorithm used by xntpd/tickadj is sufficient for *introducing* imperceptible drift into the timecode.
Of course, you might have a problem deploying your transmitters near enough to a Navy vessel to be effective, unless you happen to have your own LEO satellites, carrying otherwise legitimate earthbound communication/TV/etc....
-- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
All military navigators know how to do it the old fashioned way.
A good part of my officer training was spent on navigating without GPS, a compass and a map you saw the other day is all a trained officer needs to get where he is going.
my expirience is not with the US army(IDF) but I have reason to believe the US army/navy does things quite the same way.
Me.
Looks cool. I always wondered why navies never seemed to use multi-hulled ships, given their speed and handling characteristics. I guess in the days when all that mattered was the size of your gun and the thickness of your armour, it was a bit irrelevent.
If the rules are changing and speed/tactical operations are the New Way, I wonder whether high manoeuvrability "tanks" will be back on the agenda as well, then? They were never much good in the old days, when the accuracy of your opponent's gun was so bad that even if you dodged you might take an unlucky hit anyway (when armour would still protect you, of course) but if we're all about agile units able to get in and out quickly and stealthily now...?
Incidentally, am I the only one who spotted loads of cool things about the ship in the original article... except for any offensive capability (other than via aircraft)? If it's a multi-role vessel, you'd have thought it would carry some sort of firepower, even if only for self-defence!
If you'd have to kill me, don't tell me. :o)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
but it loses its high-security status if you install any recent patches.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
and has an experimental wireless LAN that allows anybody who comes aboard to simply plug in their laptop
Hmm. Yep, radical new development in wireless right there...
"Wow! You're AMAZING... I bet NOBODY in the ENTIRE US MILITARY considered that EVER. You may have just SAVED the WORLD for DEMOCRACY!
Insightful, +5? Fucking idiot moderators... a product of simplistic Tom Clancy plots, no doubt."
Well you seem to be a pretty deep thinker, so if you're OK with it, what the hey...
"It certainly appears that way, with the Brits coming in next for stupid accidents,"
Would you care to give some examples of British 'friendly fire'? Almost every example of 'friendly fire' I can think of in recent years has been trigger-happy Americans in aircraft shooting British vehicles which were clearly marked as such (the majority of exceptions being trigger-happy Americans shooting other trigger-happy Americans on the ground).
Maybe if Americans thought a little more before shooting, the British military wouldn't take more casualties from our American 'allies' than our 'enemies'.
UK special forces have used these VSV's for high-speed insertion of troops, not data. Saw some film of one of these many years ago, it was dammed fast, not that bothered by high seas either as it just cut through the waves even if it meant being submerged for a few seconds.
You don't need a lab to make mud.
Would read the article if I could, evidentally slashdotted to heck and back...
... is not a US ship! In fact, it's leased from the Australian navy. Go figure. Of course, this could be covered in the article but see above disclaimer.
As a squid who has actually been on board...and whose command was thinking about claiming the ship as our flagship to replace our old one(Gogo Second Fleet!) One interesting fact: The HSV Swift
Between that, and the fact that there's essentially no armor or weapons, I'd personally prefer not to serve on that ship, but then again the final designs that the Navy would have built would presumably be able to take some kind of beating and dish a bit back out.
The U.S. Navy has a new ship in its fleet that officers say may be the most technologically advanced vessel produced to date, with IT capabilities that are revolutionizing naval warfare and may play a vital role in responding to potential terrorist attacks in the U.S.
Officers would say anything to promote their plans. But how such a fine military vessel can play a vital role in responding to potential terrorist attacks, is beyond me. Terrorists most usually attack by carrying explosives with them, into crouded places, or drive ground and air vehicles into their targets. The one exception of sea terrorism that comes to mind is USS Cole, but the vessel described above would be incapable of preventing the USS Cole bombing the way it happened.
When the military talks about terrorism, I run away. They usually talk in order to keep the money coming in. Otherwise, terrorism is something that secret and intelligent services deal with, not the military. The military is unable to defend against terrorism; it can only defend against visible enemies. Terrorism is invisible, especially if t is low tech.
By the way, does the new vessel use Microsoft Windows ? There was an incident, back then, about a US military ship that went dead because of a Windows network bug that propagated itself to all the ship's servers, causing the ship to be dead for over two hours.
There was a time when knowing how to read charts, use a sextant, and basicly know where the hell you are at in the world with the use of some very low tech tools was required serve onboard a ship but it seems even in the 1990s this true and proven system started to phase out in the civilian circut. I'm not familiar with the current military stance on the subject.
I percieve this technology as being really damned useful. Even back in 1983... I was the only person who could figure out how to use the LOMAR(sp) system to gadge our posisition, but never the less took readings with a sextant. For 10 days our readings were within minutes of each other, the new system proved it self, but was still a good practice in the event the electronics failed.
I'm all for technology. GPS is a wonderful thing! Digitaly displayed charts are much easier to deal with then protractor and compass. Electronic and remote controls I can see as being useful. But all these wonderful tools are dependent on electricity to operate. It's my hope they would see the wisdom of using humans, paper charts, compass and sextant in the event of a catastrophic failure. After all, being military and sea salt water and technology don't mix. When push comes to shove, you gotta fight for flee... not continue pushing the crosswalk button in the hopes it does something.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
a new ship that can take out the swift by the press of a button.... a canoe with an EMP :D
|/________
|\A|ALYS|
No crew except for the Filipino steward...
how is that off topic?
Hmmm - that could be worth investigating. ;>
However, I'd have to agree - the british record on accidents could be a whole lot better. But at least it's our own boys we kill in those...
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Anyone remember a movie where aliens used a video game to find people to pilot their advanced fighters? I am going to start my kid on the combat ace game today !
forgivness is easier to get than permission
...is the willingness and ability of the attacked side to defend itself.
Ask people from Bosnia.
The trouble is that the US is often perceived as a bully, even though this is not always fair, it is the truth. And perceptions are what people react to, not "reality".
What have Bill Gates and Ben Laden have in common? They both want the US Military to use Micosoft operating systems...
It allready has - this boat was HMAS Jervis Bay. It was used to transport 3RAR (parras) to East Timor for peace enforcement in Sept. 1999 . It was shaddowed all the way by at least one Indo Sub and I can tell you the diggers onboard were a bit nervous about it...
And yup, he's looking where the ship's going. These vessels dock stern first so that the ramp giving access to the vehicle deck can be lowered and cargo moved. That's the time when precise adjustments to the steering are needed.
I was aboard one of these vessels not long ago - the same basic design is used to provide a high speed ferry service between the North and South Islands of New Zealand. A very smooth, comfortable and fast ride. There's a small observation deck above the stern and it is exhilarating to stand there at speed watching the two enormous rooster tails of spray kicking up behind.
I know what you're saying, but the US has far, FAR more friendly-fire accidents than other nations. I mean, it's not often you can think many accidents off the top of your head that you can attribute to one nation: The Canadian observers blown up by USAF figters. The RAF Tornado shot down by patriot missiles. That Iranian passenger airliner shot down by that USN ship. Those US soldiers shooting each other when a missile landed in their compound in Iraq. The A10 attack on the US convoy that left british/iraqi journalists dead, and many injured.
Of course, this pales into insignificance against the actual ordered killing of what would be deemed "friendlies" by other countries - such as the systematic attack of Baghdad residential areas by US attack helicopters, etc. I guess once people are called "collateral damage" they stop being people, and 1 American == 20 Iraqis.
This is not an attack on you, but an attack on the US military, who seem to think that numbers == effectiveness, and weapons == good soldier. They've got a LOT to learn, and unfortunately it'll be innocent people who have to teach them that lesson.
and UNIX-ish desktops are visible, those look like HP keyboards to me.
Isn't it comforting to know that this guy's playing a small part to keep democracy safe?
Try to keep a sense of perspective when reading about "friendly fire".
How many troops in the field in the "coalition" forces? How many of those are American? How many British?
According to this link the U.S. has some 110,000 troops in Iraq, followed by Britain with 8,700. Overall there are only 22,000 soldiers of nationalities other than American total.
Now why were you surprised that most of the news of accidents and goof-ups seem to involve Americans?
It's actually kind of surprising that there are so many accidents involving soldiers of other nationalities than the U.S. in the news. And yes, quite a few of them involve the British.
Many of them without U.S. involvement, need I add.
Doo doo occurs. Accidents happen to the best of us and whining about "trigger-happy Americans" is insulting and shows a willful disregard of perspective in the matter, if not a lack of simple percentages. Regardless of your feelings of U.S. foreign policy remember that the soldiers whose performance you're so cavalierly insulting are not the ones making the decisions. They're just trying to serve their country and do a difficult job under some very nasty conditions.
"Accidents happen to the best of us"
But they happen far more to the worst of us. How exactly can you justify US aircraft blowing up British armored vehicles that are clearly marked as such in non-combat situations? Since they weren't being shot at they had plenty of time to check the markings and verify that they weren't allied troops, but they still went ahead and killed British soldiers.
"Now why were you surprised that most of the news of accidents and goof-ups seem to involve Americans"
Again, when have the British troops ever killed Americans 'by mistake'? It's not just numbers, it's training and policy... British troops are expected to be professionals, not Rambos who pull the trigger like they're playing an arcade game.
"whining about "trigger-happy Americans" is insulting"
But also accurate. Next, I guess, you'll be justiying the actions of US soldiers who machinegun innocent Iraqui families in taxis?
If the north koreans can sneek a missle with a nuke or giant laser into china to fire it, best of luck to them. No doubt the chinese will have a little something to say about it.
To gain surprise on the us satellites they'd have to have a nuke up there in a satellite waiting for just such a feather numbering emergency, and NORAD knows where everyone's lost screws are at and what flag they fly, so there's a pretty good chance they'd be able to figure out who sent us up the bomb.
But again, you're inventing new flavors of crazy that not even the North Koreans have dared to imagine with such a scenerio.
Maybe a Pakistan post islamic coup might rush so brazenly into the last midnight, but North Korea, and especially China aren't actually crazy.
The North Koreans are weird, I'll give you that, shortening the legs on chairs so they have some perceived advantage in negotiations, that's their thing. They don't want war, they want to look tough and get free presents from the US, South Korea and Japan. I mean when your soldier chow comes with made in the USA on the lable and there are reports of, I shit you not, cannibalism, the last thing you want is to duke it out with a battle tested USA. That ends in, at best, massive starvation.
But as an American, let me just speak for myself: A world where Americans can't be free is a world where humans have failed as a species and it's time to step back and give other small mammals their chance to evolve into the niches we once occupied. I'm not so noble a creature as to be beyond spite, or above vengance.
Not the warmest and cuddliest of thoughts to be sure. But considering there was a period where the West could have "won" WWIII, and it wasn't fought, there is something to be said for our track record of restraint. But it is mutually assured destruction. They could always call it GlAD for Globally Assured Destruction, which you know would put an up-beat spin on some decidedly down-beat what-ifs.
Wow! You're AMAZING... I bet NOBODY in the ENTIRE US MILITARY considered that EVER. You may have just SAVED the WORLD for DEMOCRACY!
Insightful, +5? Fucking idiot moderators... a product of simplistic Judy Blume plots, no doubt.
There's not much to disagree with, here, so I won't waste our time doing so. :)
Instead, I direct you to US history, where the last serious war we fought in was WWII. Sure, the rest were "serious" in the sense that they involved killing and so forth. Viet Nam was fought with conscript troops, and conscripts are the worst troops you can have. I forget about Korea. Other than that, we've had small engagements, and UN-supported engagements, and very little else. The US doesn't have a long history of war. Our first war was a revolution, and we lost the next couple of wars in a row, pretty much. Let's see, there was 1812, some fight with Canada (the French-Indian Wars?). Of course we had our Civil War in which the official US military had numerous problems.
So we don't have a long military tradition, and our military tradition is strangely deficient in discipline. I'd say that 99% of all incidents involving US troops can be attributed to a lack of discipline, and our military's peace-time affairs (Tailhook, anyone?) certainly don't lend themselves to a display of discipline.
Yes, it's a problem. No, throwing more technology at the problem isn't making it better. And it's a problem that needs to be solved, since most of our volunteer servicemen really want to do good things but wind up doing bad things. Kinda like 5-year-olds. ;) As far as maturity, I suppose you can probably liken the US military to, say, any military unit in Europe in the 17th century. Our standing military is very young as an organization, with several branched that didn't even appear until the latter part of the 20th century.
When you look at it like this, our military isn't that bad, and in a fight they're second to none, but that doesn't mean we can't use some improvement. Best thing you guys can do is show what a well-disciplined military is capable of accomplishing, set a solid example, and hope that we'll follow it somehow. But don't lose sight of the fact that the top officer of the military is an elected president, and those types of officers are notorious for a lack of discipline. So who else are they going to get their example from?
Like what I said? You might like my music
yep
>Learning to code in assembly is like learning to fight with a sword.
:)
Tedious & Pointless ?
no taxation without representation!
The Navy's track trecord with skelton crews and automation is not flawless.
The Yorktown didn't survive a divide by zero calculation.
I like automation and I love computers, but are they really going to have a technically savvy crew? A crew that could fix the onboard systems if they break, not just utilize them while they are working?
I like the idea of some manual controls to get them out of a pinch.
From the article (talking about the unmanned "Fire Scout"):
Here is one hoping, their encryption is up for it, and their SSL implementation is reliable. Otherwise, "man in the middle attack" may get a new meaning and that "another aircraft" may not be a friendly one...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
A highly efficient water pump, designed by rocket scientists, functioning in the middle of the Gobi desert, delivered by caring individuals under no moral pretext other than simply to -help- would be a far more defensive mechanism than that same pump, sitting in a bunker as part of a missile system, idle, waiting for the day that it has to be used against some other persons weapon.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
How we handle Taiwan is important for their internal stability. If we can push them around, are they really a peer? And I think they are. The Chinese are very American in a lot of ways, or the want to be. They just have a different world outlook. Did you know that USA in Chinese is mei guo, or brutally translated rose country? They revere the contributions of the American Volunteer Group, or Flying Tigers, during WWII. They're not as predisposed to venerate the individual, are less blunt, and mercurial in their approach to things, particularly national affairs. While they want to be the one and only China, a nation whole not divided, the leadership knows what an invasion of Taiwan would really mean, and they don't want that. Now, who can be certain if we'd hold to our obligation to defend Taiwan against a mainland invasion, in this political climate, I doubt it. Even on its own Taiwan would inflict horrendous casualties on an invading force, probably requireing months of prepatory bombing by the Chinese. And that's assuming Taiwan didn't restart another illegal nuclear weapons program. Faced with invasion, I've no doubt they'd use it, and the technology would certainly be within their means.
Even in that scenerio, the blinding of US satellites would be nearly useless. The taking of Taiwan would not be an afternoon out. We fly intelligence aircraft looking into china more or less routinely as it is, and there are still SR-71s. If they're not doing it as part of a first strike scenerio (which would just be insane), the only motive they'd have to do it is if expecting direct combat with US forces to deny us real-time imaging. But they couldn't sustain that, not like we could. They may have the boots and rifles, but we've got the force multiplyers. Besides, they'd never bite the hand that's spinning up their economy. It'd be suicide.
I don't have the "In case of WWIII" playbook. But if the Chinese blind a satellite they don't want us to see what they're doing in the next few hours, not days, weeks, months. I would imagin Norad would find few things more provokitive. And with a warheads flight time of under an hour, there isn't much time to decide what happened. Consider that even in the Cuban missle crisis while the Soviets could have taken out almost every US satellite, they didn't. And didn't plan to even as they were mulling over going foreward into WWIII. I doubt that was an oversight.
UNIX-ish desktops are visible
Look again.. if you really look close at the title bars of the open applications, it looks more like Windows. Of course I could be wrong, but that's what it looks like from here.
geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
There's a similar ship here for those who feel a strong Bond for these sort of ships.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
"As long as there are men making weapons, there will be war."
As long as there are MEN, there will be war. There was war when we had nothing but stone tools, and there will be war long after we're gone.
So in the meantime, I'd just as soon see that my country's military can WIN those wars, thanks.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
...Filipina?
Oh, wait, you did say Navy officer. Never mind.
Oh well. The military knows what they are doing, right?
Actually, in many cases they do.
Speaking as an ex-tanker, tank gunnery qualification involves numerous "degraded mode" exercises. Some engagements you have everything- computer, thermal sight, rangefinder, healthy gunner, etc. For others you only have parts of that, or perhaps just the backup optical telescope with an aiming reticule (M105D for my tank).
Very very smart. Then again, I knew a fair number of gunners who *only* used the M105D in every daylight exercise, no matter what they were allowed to use. (It's obviously useless at night) They generally got good scores- you can guesstimate the target distance pretty well and with a bit of windage correction you can get shots off a lot faster than with all the bells and whistles.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Stalin Stayed In Russia.
Twenty million Russians suffered his purges, while western europe was spared not only the purges but his war. The choice wasn't between a cold war and some magical Utopia where humans spontaniously evolved into Spathi and joined communes where they frolicked drank Coke and produced an economy based on endless Kumbaya remixes. It was between a cold war, and a hot war ending in the domination of western europe.
Interestingly, the US could have "won" WWIII and chose not to fight it. Something of a first in world history, no doubt because of, at least in part, the awful cost.
Look at the Germans, French, Japanese, and Koreans. You say these gifts bring gratitude? Where is it? It died. Of the countries involved in WWII the only ones that pretty much feel the same about each other are Japan and Russia. And while it isn't as nationalistic, it's still not much more friendly.
Those expensive battle lines provided a lasting peace and explosion of innovation. If you spent a little more time investigating just a small segment of engineering than crafting emotional feel good pleas maybe you'd have some appreciation for the world you're fortunate enough to live in as well as the tough choices and sacrifices those who came before you made to get it here. It's the worst kind of ungreatful. It's sunday, the game is on, and your host beers you, with out even being asked, and all you have to say is, "What, no Dom Perignon!?" Seriously, go out into the fucking jungle and magic your prissy ass a Utopia if you think it's so damn easy.
Assuming you meant Lockheed Martin, you can window shop here.
Unless, of course, the Chinese think that American leadership would be too weak-willed to respond.
You have to have more than the capability to deter an enemy. You have to have the will to use the capability.
You can lay money on the fact that the Chinese are watching how the psychological war against America regarding Iraq is currently being waged. You can also lay money on the fact that many of the generals in this war are Americans is not lost on them.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
It's much easier than that. All China has to do is demand a UN investigation into the whole affair (where China has veto power) and paint any nation who fails to agree to the UN resolutions on the matter as a rogue nation acting against the wishes of the international community.
Whether or not this strategy becomes viable depends in large part on how the current psychological civil war Americans are in over Iraq plays out.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
HMS Trinidad was the ship that torpedoed itself.
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
Hehe, The US military recognizes Windoze for what it is which is a memory leaking crash prone operating system not worthy of consideration for many mission critical system. The first Windoze OS weapons platform is being built buy BAE in England and will not be ready several years (2010 comes to mind). Should be fun to watch that train wreck. Almost all Navy software ran on UNIX, and probably still does.
I loved the C64 game PHM Pegasus base on real hardware; A.
Missle equiped hydrofoils
If the USN wants to bust terrorist/pirate bad guys in the costal shallows or the open seas this is a possible weapons system that met an untimely end.
For more info on the PHM program
The article calls it "the Navy's ship", but it's leased from an Australian shipbuilder for $21M. Per year? With the Navy, more like per mile, nautical or otherwise. And why does the US government not just buy it, rather than assume the cost of financing? Is it corporate welfare, or more Bollinger pork? Yet another tax cheat? Or just a worthwhile diversion of money to offshore allies in Iraq War Jr, while bankrupting American promises to "support our troops"? Maybe Halliburton's got an Australian shipyard to catch some of the bankrupt US Treasury money that somehow escapes the Iraqmire...
--
make install -not war
The part about being second-to-none struck me as slightly strange, as any coverage of Iraq would show that's not the case. I know the US soldiers want to do a good job, and various factors inhibit this, but they really aren't as effective as a combat force as most people make out. Good training means a 4-man team can do what 20 other guys can. When most countries will send 300 elite or top-notch troops, the US will send 30,000 guys screaming "hoo-yeah!" at each other. Big guys with guns != effective army. The fact they kill anyone is more down to statistics and collateral damage than training.
I know everyone out there who's fighting for what they believe deserves my utmost respect, but more of them would be coming home if the US military realised these horrible shortcomings and did something about them.
I hear ya about Bush et al - professional politicians never make good role models for troops, especially seeing as troops should be totally removed from politics. Take, for example, the British armed forces' top officer: an old lady from London... they still pack one of the fiercest punches out there, though ;) I guess a lot of it is down to tradition and rigorous training (The RM's training is the longest of any regular troops in the world). Once they have discipline, they're set.
China translates as Rice Country, not Rose Country. Because there's enough to eat here, and Rice is the most important food.
If the rules are changing and speed/tactical operations are the New Way, I wonder whether high manoeuvrability "tanks" will be back on the agenda as well, then?
Okay, so I watch the History Channel and I love Mail Call with R. Lee Ermey. The fact is that there ARE high speed "tanks" of a sort. The army and marines both have light attack vehicles which are fasted and armored, but not nearly as well fortified as a M1A1. The Marine's main assault vehicle is in fact amphibious, useful for beach landings and fording rivers. The Marine's vehicle is also wheeled and mounts a 30 mm gun, much smaller than the devastating gun mounted on the M1A1.
I wish I had links for you, but those types of tanks have been in existence for years. The navy may be behind a bit because with the size and cost of the craft, the development cycle of new naval tech is often a little longer.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
The ships are made by a New Zealand company which makes catamaran ferrys for use in that part of the world. Keeps cost down. I'm sure in the next year or so the navy will want to build one from scratch at 100 times the cost.
======= ~\_/~\_O Burmese
Of the vessel itself.
Here's One
That picture doesn't really do it justice though, truely an amazing ship design that's attractive to look at. (I think the Australians have a slightly smaller one of similar hull design in service.)
For great pictures, skim through back issues of "Proceedings" magazine. (Basically, Time magazine for old Navy brass.)
The swedish Visby class corvette is another neat piece of work, though one has to argue that taxpayers money could be better spent.
It's running Windows (looks like Windows 2000). I don't see anything UNIX-ish about the desktops, but I can sure as hell make out the blue gradient title bars in the pictures.
I think most worrisome is a computer glitch (not to mention a bullet) hitting the right server at the right place to cause the ship to be dead in the water because engine/navigation controls don't work.
You mean like the USS Yorktown in 1998?
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
>
> And this is different from wanting to see Muslims die, and the world-wide furtherment of a World American State, how exactly?
Well, someone else has pointed out that militant Islam is - by any objective measure - immeasurably more cruel than anything we've done to ourselves. Hack off your daughter's clit? No problem! Murder your wife because she got raped? Well, the bitch shouldn't have been showin' it off! Hey, it's their culture, and all cultures are equivalent, right? That's what your moral relativism implies -- fine by me. For one post, I'll accept your premise (even though I vehemently disagree with it) and argue from the basis of moral relativism.
If someone says their life's goal is my extermination, I have no ethical qualms about using everything in my arsenal against them. It's not a pleasant task, but it is a necessary one.
To the moral relativists who say that I'm no different than the enemy -- "so what?" If all moral systems are equivalent, please accept my arbitrary choice of the one that allows me to live as I choose (Evil Kapitalist Western Imperialism) over the one that requires me to submit or die (militant Islam).
And assuming you live in the industrialized West, why on earth would you choose to defend militant Islam? The religion is itself a political movement (as defined in its own holy writings), and moral relativists tend not to live very long in Islamic theocracies. If you're suicidal, fine - either seek professional help or just kill yourself - please, in the name of the very moral relativism you preach, keep your self-destructive tendencies from negatively impacting on the other 6 billion of us.
Yep. I used to write artillery control software. CONOPS (continuity of operations) and graceful degradation were important requirements.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
What about the little thing called
NMP (nuclear magnetic pulse)?
The ship looks like it would be a large paperweight if all it's electronics are fried xtra-crispy!
High-Tech = Breaks Easy?
You can lay money on the fact that the Chinese are watching how the psychological war against America regarding Iraq is currently being waged.
That is one of the most insightful things I've read on slashdot in months, and well-phrased at that -- and I blew the last of my mod points yesterday.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
If you look at the pictures that accompany this quote, you'll see that the instrument clusters are reversed, ie; the "STBD" cluster is on the left and "PORT" on the right. The Chief steers the boat with his hand behind his back?
How odd. Why would the helm be facing aft?
I don't think the Chinese are rational thinkers when it comes to Tiawan, and if they decide to take the island by military means (I think they will manage it using dirty island politics) I don't for an instant think they would hesitate to blind and damage the US military with a satellite strike.
I wouldn't put an outright attack on Taiwan past them. In fact, they've almost come right out and told everyone they're planning one. In the past few years, their annual reports which outline their military posture to the party have openly identified the United States in the section reserved for "enemies" (this began in the last few years of the 90's, roughly when their jet ran into that P3). Previously the US was identified with more neutral language. Recently they have made fairly ominous statements about their plans for Taiwan including blunt predictions of warfare in the region in 2005 or 2006 (I forget which). Simultaneously, there have been massive buildups in the regions of China near Taiwan. The little bit reported by the mainstream press makes it sound like nothing more than typical political bickering, but this is all a matter of public record (search sites like FAS.org for things like "Chinese defense posture" for some really interesting reading on the subject).
That said, I would not expect them to risk taking out American satellites mainly because we have so many other forms of effective espionage available to us -- particularly extremely high altitude fly-overs which they are unable to counter should we choose to use them (and we would). Killing our satellites would be annoying to us, but by no means would it be a crippling blow to our ability to monitor their activities.
What would be more troubling is somebody with actual power, such as France (the French Navy is wargaming with the Chinese Navy this week), siding with them. The French WOULD have the ability to interfere with our second-string recon options, and we'd be a lot more hesitant to treat them to a smackdown. They wouldn't have to side with the Chinese outright, they'd just have to run interference, like announce that they're trying to "contain the situation" and declare an exclusion zone. Granted, probably the French wouldn't risk pissing off the US that way, particularly if the Chinese did make a move against us, but who knows -- the French always seem to go off on a tangent when you least expect it.
(No offense intended to anybody from France or China, I love the place and all the people I've met. Like people are fond of saying about the US, it's the governments I have a problem with.)
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
In WW II, several U.S submarines are believed to have torpedoed themselves. One known to have had this happen was the Tang (there were some survivors).
The torepedoes were defective.
Modern torpedoes have interlocks to prevent circular runs; if the torpedo turns through too large an angle (say 300 degrees), the torpedo either shuts down or at least dis-arms itself.
Al Bonnyman
Community Broadband Networks
The Osprey (which is not really a helicopter) was designed 20 years ago. That comparison is like referring to an original IBM PC when somebody asks whether their quad-processor BSD server configuration can survive a slashdotting. :)
Also, the crash you refer to had two causes. A software failure contributed to the wreck, but there was already a hydraulic failure extant.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
One operates from Bar Harbor Maine to Nova Scotia from May to October, and others are scheduled to start operating across Great Lakes and in Alaska
Since there are something like 15X more American forces in action than Brits, statistically you'd need far more time to get a valid picture of how Brits actually compare. And Brits don't fly A-10s in Iraq at all- which present some unique challenges.
Of course, a factual approach is of no concern to you, since you're interested in bashing the US.
This is idea is old news. With the goal of reducing total personnel aboard ship, the USN did this same thing with a Tico class cruiser years ago, running a special version of Windows NT. ( Remember it made the news as a Windows joke once when the system crashed, leaving the ship dead in the water ) This idea has done nothing but grow over time. Not revolutionary, but evalutionary.
It only makes sense that they would put a mature system based on this idea in a new ship.
This article claims that this ship is supposed to be cutting edge.Well then Mr smarty pants Why are the buttons on the control panels 150% bigger than the buttons on the control panel in the Knightrider car? ...... Ha!!! You navy bastards!!! Your're trying to take us back fortran!!! Curse you captain Jeremy !!!! You'll never take me alive !!!
At least for Air Force aircraft, GPS is only used to calibrate the onboard inertial guidance system. You typically do this while you're on the ground warming up the engines or occasionally in flight just for good measure.
The inertial guidance systems are in place precisely because they realize that GPS could become inoperative at any time, due as much to equipment failure onboard the aircraft as to any kind of satellite problems.
i hated the lord of the rings because of things like this. Sure good and evil make great literary devices, (ie the bible) but its very very very far from the actual world (ie the bible).
heres a much better quote from someone who wasnt a meaningless fiction author:
-- Bob Marley (1945-81), Jamaican reggae musician. "War," on the album Rastaman Vibration (1976). The words of the song are based on a speech given to the United Nations by the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie in 1968
You know what's really freakin impressive at high speed? The newest aircraft carrier, the Ronald Reagan (bummer about the name, though). During sea trials, there was footage of this huge freakin ship doing 30 knots. 30 knots! And the top speed is classified. Just impressive as hell to see a bunch of sailors, standing on a metal island, leaning into the turn that the island is making.
I mean, damn.
J
Ok im surpried nobody has mentioned this.
But how much cred would a teen hacker get if he goes to his friends.
heres the password to a really cool ship lets go blow somthing up!!!
just a thought!
The publisher of the article you cite later backed away from it and labeled it early speculation. After printing this early speculation by shoreside Unix advocates someone eventually talked to the Chief Engineer on board at the time and the software developer who wrote the code. They said it was not WinNT. If the OS had been Linux the ship would have been just as dead in the water after having a server app corrupt it's database and client apps trying to use the incorrect data. In any case:
h tml
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198techbus2.
"Others insist that NT was not the culprit. According to Lieutenant Commander Roderick Fraser, who was the chief engineer on board the ship at the time of the incident, the fault was with certain applications that were developed by CAE Electronics in Leesburg, Va. As Harvey McKelvey, former director of navy programs for CAE, admits, "If you want to put a stick in anybody's eye, it should be in ours." But McKelvey adds that the crash would not have happened if the navy had been using a production version of the CAE software, which he asserts has safeguards to prevent the type of failure that occurred."
Yep, game on there fellow 19k!
What REALLY sucks is running the M1A2 tables with an old-as-the-hills M1A1...and using the 105D as the primary for the day is what saved my hide on those.
In case you were wondering, ALL of the tanks stationed in Europe and sent to Iraq are old-as-hell M1A1s. And the crews HATE them. But since there are no senators or congressmen who really represent "European U.S. Military", things aren't likely to change. We dragged those tanks to Bosnia, Kosovo, and now to Iraq. Some units with the BRAND NEW M1A2s only EVER saw action in Iraq.
Guess who the better gunners are? Those in the old-ass tanks, because they have to make do with pure crap compared to other tanks. Old-school tactics and all. My favorite round is the MPAD. Basically, a revision of the old Vietnam-era beehive round. Think big-ass shotgun shell loaded with pellets. Only, to get around the Geneva convetion ban on these weapons, it's primarily used against...ahem..."helicopters". It contains a proximity fuse that when switched to the "G" setting, causes it act like a mini-ballistic round (no shotgun effect), but when switched to "A" (air) it explodes BEFORE hitting the target, sending shrapnel all over the place.
Now, take that round and switch it to "A" and fire it at troops. The round "senses" the ground and explodes. BOOM! Beehive is back! I love that round. It's awesome. Okay, okay, so I'm a fanatic....
Yup. I have been looking for that link for ages. Thnx.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
gets modded down viciously
i agree with you
if our budget for helping fix our own and everyone elses problems exceeded our budget for killing eachother (ourselves) the world would be a much better place
isn't the gov't supposed to do what we want with our tax money? when was the last time they put it up for vote whether we need a whole new arsenal of bigger better planes/tanks/boats/guns instead of shelter/food/stability for our GROWING numbers of homeless and lower class as the jobs seap out of the country at a record rate...
thanks GWB i knew you had my best interest at heart. dying in a pointless foreign war for your personal vendetta and daddy's oil deals
You're welcome. I couldn't remember either, so I googled for Yorktown and Windows, I think.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Whoops! What I googled for was (including quotes): "smart ship".
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
The ship had to be towed into port because the crew couldn't solve a computer problem. That's a fact. Don't miss the point that a dead ship, that has to be towed into port is a catastrophe. The navy said all sorts of things about the Yorktown, including that it returned to port under it's own power. I read an article at the time of the incident (which I can no longer find... it was 6 years ago) which explained why ALL the computers crashed. It referenced some bad programming and a divide by zero error as well. If you think NT wasn't to blame that's fine by me. We all need to cling to the idea that our favorite OS is superior than others. I'm not one to start a religious war on the subject. Especially when the only point I'm making is that every ship needs some manual controls.
"...has an experimental wireless LAN that allows anybody who comes aboard to simply plug in their laptop."
IMHO, that's not an "experimental wireless LAN", it's just a LAN...
Don't miss the point that a dead ship, that has to be towed into port is a catastrophe.
The ship was a test platform. It was running test software that permitted the problem to propogate. As the software developer pointed out the production version of the software would not have corrupted the database.
I read an article at the time of the incident which explained why ALL the computers crashed.
Then you misread at the time or your recollection is faulty. This original article said that "LAN consoles" had crashed. This was largely misread and misquoted to be that WinNT or systems crashed when in reality all that happened was that client applications crashed. These client application were controlling the ship.
It referenced some bad programming and a divide by zero error as well. If you think NT wasn't to blame that's fine by me
A divide by zero does not take down WinNT. That myth was debunked within hours of the original article being published years ago. A server app had a divide by zero, the server app corrupted its own database.
We all need to cling to the idea that our favorite OS is superior than others.
Don't assume your motivations are shared by others. WinNT has enough genuine problems that you shouldn't need to use fabricated ones. My understanding is that a naive server app corrupted its own database and naive client apps (the infamous "LAN consoles" that crashed) needed that database to function properly and to operate equipment. Those failure are OS independent and could have just as easily happened under Linux, BSD, Mac OS X, etc.
you say, "You probably think the patriot act is bad... Look at what Senator Feinstein had to say about it. You are probably one of those people she is talking about who don't understand what it is and does."
from http://www.aclu-sc.org/Action/Newsletters/100599/
"Feinstein reported in a hearing on October 21 that her constituents have registered opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act by a margin of 21,434 to 6. Nonetheless, the Senator dismissed her constituents' concerns"
is that what she has to say about it? asshat.
Will you finally reveal your sources? I've been waiting for a while now and posted my own sources.
Uh, or maybe your "sources" are simply a) the US government PR office and b) right-wing nutcase websites?
-=- 4ntifa -=-
Heh, this is the same ship as the local passenger ferry here on the Isle of Man - the Seacat (There are actually two designs: the Seacat and the Seacat Rapide - see the photos here, here and here. To pull a quick excerpt from the above link:
"Built by InCat Australia for Sea Containers in Tasmania, SeaCat was the worlds' first vehicle-carrying catamaran. The original 74 metre craft have subsequently been joined by a new 81 metre length SeaCat design, also built by InCat."
Having travelled on the thing a few times I can confirm that it's fast (with a service speed of 35 knots), but in anything above a force five it "shudders/vibrates" and is rather uncomfortable - much more so than a monohull. Still, it gets you where you need to go and beats hitching on a trawler