 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Stefan Viljoen schrieb:
>
>> Isn't this the way it is going? According to what I read on
>> strategypage.com recently, F-16s, F-15s and F-18 are wearing out and are
>> not being replaced. Additionally, much funding is being "saved" by
>> decommissioning many (hundreds, apparently) of these aircraft early as
>> well, in order to spend money maintaining the F-22 and F-35?
>
> I'd guess that the number of F-35 to be bought will /not/ be as low as
> for the F-22. And it will not be anywhere as expensive.
Ok, I guess it'll much less expensive then too.
>>> (A) Besides being able to carry BVR AIM-120 AMRAAMs, the F-22 is
>>> designed to bear much cheaper AIM-9 Sidewinders into battle.
>>
>> Of which there'll be how many? As far as I know the AIM-9X is not in
>> production anymore, and funding is being cut for buying it - again to be
>> able to afford "enough" AIM-120's and to feed the budgetary monster that
>> the F-22 has become.
> Let's see... Wikipedia speaks of some 3.000 or 3.600 AIM-9X already in
> the arsenals (figures vary between language versions of the article),
> and some total of >10k to be purchased in total by American armed forces.
Ok, that blows my argument out of the water. You'll just have to hope all
those missiles, stored for all those years, will actually work when pulled
from a shelf and fired.
> However, the F-22 currently doesn't even support the AIM-9X yet, and
> instead is supposed to use the AIM-9M, which I guess is available in
> stock at even larger numbers already. Not to speak of the other members
> of the AIM-9 family, which I'd suppose the F-22 could fire as well if
> needs be.
... if the software works. Didn't it have trouble with some ground ordinance
a while ago? E. g. its on board computer(s) couldn't talk with a certain GPS
guided bomb. But then, that wouldn't hamper air-air combat capability.
>> That's damn impressive! No, I didn't know that. That could come in very
>> useful in a low and slow situation. Though I wonder what the price is in
>> fuel consumption? High-alpha maneuvers like that probably need a lot of
>> thrust to be applied to keep from stalling?
>
> Probably so, yes. But when was the last time the U.S. of A. bothered
> about fuel consumption in their armed forces?
Since it got a bit expensive - strategypage.com had an article about
increased use of simulators a while ago. Apparently they -are- trying to
save. And they're having problems (because the -22 is so expensive) with
training their pilots properly, in real aircraft while gaining real flight
experience - all because JP4 is so expensive.
>> True, but that is a mark against the F-22 in my book. I was thinking when
>> I said that of the situation where US ground forces are under attack from
>> the air, and need to be protected against MiG strikes. So, the USAF sends
>> the F-22. It -has- to go low and slow to get at the MiGs, assuming it is
>> out of missiles. Sure, it can outclimb and outrun the MIGs, but it has no
>> choice now - it has to tangle with them on their terms, low and slow, to
>> protect US ground forces. Wouldn't that obviate its enormous speed and
>> rate of climb? (Though the slow maneuver you pointed me to above would
>> obviously help I readily agree.)
>>
>> Also, that is if they have decommissioned all those F-16s and F-15s by
>> that time, of course - which seems to be the way they are going.
>
> ... and purchase F-35 instead, which by the way seems to be a totally
> different beast, and shouldn't be mistaken for a smaller copy of the
> F-22 concept.
I'd think I'd buy that if they can say that the F-35 is at least as good as
four F-15s (e. g. it can shoot down the same number of aircraft as four
"older" air-superiority fighters can) - since I'm guessing that roughly they
will be able to afford that much less units, due to higher price-per-unit.
> The F-22 is designed mainly as an air superiority fighter, the concept
> being to suppress any enemy air activity way before they can be a PITA
> to ground forces. Recent conflicts have shown that the US will not even
> think about sending in troops before this air superiority has in fact
> been achieved.
Good point. I guess the USA is the only country in the world that currently
can do that - establish air-superiority. Nobody else on Earth can certainly
challenge them on that currently. I still wonder though, how good it really
will be low and slow in a turning dog-fight. I guess time will tell - it
seems as soon as the US has invented a new weapon, they organize some action
or mission where it can be tested, either at first hand or by an ally.
(Widespread use of US combat aircraft by the Israeli Air Force comes to
mind - wouldn't be surprised if they are the first export customer for the
F-35.)
> Also, a MiG may be an adversary to reckon with in a dogfight (I have no
> idea whether that is anywhere close to true), but with F-22s out of
> reach of their guns but close enough to make a run any moment, a MiG
> pilot probably couldn't really afford to attack grund targets. I guess
> he'd be eating 20mm Vulcan rounds any moment.
That's the thing... what you might do is swamp a single F-22 with eight
bogies, or even twelve? Sure it could splash four, or even six, but two
might get through. The thing is, the Chinese for example, can -afford- this
loss rate, and its still a bonus to them if even one 1950's era MIG-19 or
-21 can get one napalm canister onto US troops. The Chinese were famous for
this type of tactics in Korea for example, as concerns ground-fighting - an
unstoppable human wave, with complete disregard for the lives of their
soldiers. If you have thousands of aircraft (and an apparently constantly
improving corps of pilots), why not try this from the air as well?
As regards how good an old crate of a MiG is, I'm not sure either. But they
sure made F-4's (which didn't even HAVE guns originally) eat nails when the
F-4 went up against them with missiles only. Admittedly older crap like the
AIM-120 Sparrow which apparently never was worth much.
> Plus, it's also a question of what you consider the primary threat: The
> world hasn't seen any all-out war between superpowers for >60 years, and
.
.
.
> survivability of only 90%. Not only for the sake of material costs, but
> even more so for the sake of morale at home.
Ok, I partially agree. But a factor in US thinking is always "morale at
home". I don't think the Chinese have this same respect for human life, or
will give a hoot about Chinese public opinion - look at their track record
of how they treat their own citizens, or anybody who opens his mouth or
protest the rule of the Chinese Communist party. E. g. a nation most often
fights true to national doctrine, and I think Chinese doctrine wouldn't mind
sacrificing many pilots to kill a few US personnel - of which each one will
contribute to blunting US war appetite. (Pretty much what the "war on
terror" has happening at the moment - support for any war the US is involved
in plummets as casualties rise. The Chinese will apparently keep going until
the Communist party decides IT has had enough, screw the citizens, public
opinion and dead soldiers.)
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> But consulting work does pay well; generally, it pays very well.
>
> Presumably because it's extremely high-stress work with no job security?
>
But at least we *know* that we don’t have job security ;)
And it is not as stressful as knowing that people could die or be
severely injured if you make a mistake.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Don't you have a "runas" command?
>
> I'm guessing this wasn't available in Windows NT server when I wrote the
> scripts. Nice to know this at least has been fixed.
"""
NT4 users should install and use the SU command from the NT Resource Kit
instead.
"""
Another 3 seconds of googling. You *do* have the resource kit for your OS,
right?
> But I also discovered that most things you might want to
> script cannot be scripted from DOS.
You *do* have the resource kit for your OS, right?
>>>>> or files being locked.
>>>> Make a VSS snapshot. That's what it's for.
>>> You can't do that from a DOS script.
>>
>> Bzzzt. I even offered you my scripts to do it.
>
> Let me guess: pixie dust?
You *do* have the resource kit for your OS, right?
http://blogs.msdn.com/adioltean/archive/2004/12/14/301868.aspx
That took about 8 seconds, because "VSS" means visual source safe, not
virtual shadow service. I had to spell it out on the second google.
> No, just impossible from a mere DOS script. Of course, a compiled C
> program can do it. (Let's face it, a compiled C program can do *anything*.)
Well, no, the number of things you can do from the command line without
invoking an executable is fairly low in pretty much every operating system.
The point is that you don't have to write these programs. You just download
them from Microsoft as part of the resource kit. You *do* have the resource
kit for your OS, right?
>> Damn, dude, you can even do it from Tcl.
>> http://twapi.magicsplat.com/eventlog.html
>> That took about 3 seconds on google.
>
> And how much do you want to bet it won't work with the standard Tcl
> interpretter?
Why wouldn't it? That's the whole point of Tcl stubs. Indeed, it's likely to
work with every version. Plus, TWAPI is well-maintained, which you would
know were you to follow comp.lang.tcl.
>> Create them from the command line:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/315410
>
> "Logevent.exe is included in the Windows 2000 Resource Kit."
>
> In other words, I can't get it.
Why can't you get it?
You're on NT4?
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3E972E9A-E08A-49A2-9D3A-C0519479E85A&displaylang=en
5 seconds.
What's in there, you say?
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc751139.aspx
Admittedly, that took almost 20 seconds to find.
> a while back I discovered an M$ tool that allows you to run stuff as a
> service, even though this is normally impossible.
Yes, because there aren't any services on Windows. :-)
> I could spend a few weeks surfing the net, finding all the utilities I
> need to make the job work, checking that they're all from reputable
> sources, working out their little quirks, getting them all to work
> together...
You should at least install the package of tools that MS gives away for
system administrators to use. Or at least know of its existence and what's
in it.
> ...or I could install the BackupExec Remote Agent for Windows and be
> done with it. Whilst I actually kinda enjoy the challenge of trying to
> make scripts work, I feel happier that our vital production systems are
> using a professional backup solution, rather than some probably-broken
> thing I cobbled together myself.
Sure. But what about the next problem, and the next problem, and the next?
And saying "it's impossible to back things up" and saying "I prefer a
professional solution so I don't have to spend time building one" are two
completely different things, you realize.
If every request from your boss is answered with "That's impossible", I'm
not surprised you're not earning a living wage.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> But consulting work does pay well; generally, it pays very well.
>>
>> Presumably because it's extremely high-stress work with no job security?
>
> But at least we *know* that we don’t have job security ;)
Heh, well, these days I think probably everybody knows there is no job
security...
> And it is not as stressful as knowing that people could die or be
> severely injured if you make a mistake.
True. I've always though being some kind of doctor must be the worst job
ever. Millions of people dead, their screams haunting your dreams. Every
waking second you walk the surface of the Earth, you know that you could
have saved them, if only you had tried harder. The look of hatred and
anger in their loved one's eys. The lawsuits and charges of incompetence
and negligence. The violence from enraged kin. It must be hell on Earth.
...or, maybe a fireman. Yeah, because that way, you have all of the
above, *and* there's a totally real possibility that _you_ will die
today as well. Or maybe just be horribly injured and maimed for life. If
you die, your body will probably never even be found. That must be great.
I guess compared to that, being screamed at for 8 hours by irate
customers isn't do bad.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You *do* have the resource kit for your OS, right?
No. I've tried multiple times to obtain it, but apparently it can't be
done. (Or rather, not without coughing up large sums of money anyway...)
It always makes my heart sink when I find the tool I want, only to
discover that it's in the resource kit and hence not available to me.
>>> Damn, dude, you can even do it from Tcl.
>>> http://twapi.magicsplat.com/eventlog.html
>>> That took about 3 seconds on google.
>>
>> And how much do you want to bet it won't work with the standard Tcl
>> interpretter?
>
> Why wouldn't it? That's the whole point of Tcl stubs.
What's a Tcl stub?
>>> Create them from the command line:
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/315410
>>
>> "Logevent.exe is included in the Windows 2000 Resource Kit."
>>
>> In other words, I can't get it.
>
> Why can't you get it?
>
> You're on NT4?
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3E972E9A-E08A-49A2-9D3A-C0519479E85A&displaylang=en
>
> 5 seconds.
I am staggered. I spent 5 years trying to get my hands on that. How on
earth did you manage it?!
>> a while back I discovered an M$ tool that allows you to run stuff as a
>> service, even though this is normally impossible.
>
> Yes, because there aren't any services on Windows. :-)
I meant that usually only programs specially written to be run as a
service can be run as a service. :-P
> And saying "it's impossible to back things up" and saying "I prefer a
> professional solution so I don't have to spend time building one" are
> two completely different things, you realize.
I believe what I actually said is that it's impossible to build a
reliable backup system out of DOS scripts. Of course, if you install
enough 3rd party tools maybe it is - hey, you could invoke BackupExec
from a DOS script and then claim to have implemented a reliable backup
solution as a DOS script. Right?
> If every request from your boss is answered with "That's impossible",
> I'm not surprised you're not earning a living wage.
I didn't say "it's impossible", I said "it's impossible with X".
Different thing.
(Also, my boss never, ever asks me things. He *tells* me things...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> You *do* have the resource kit for your OS, right?
>
> No. I've tried multiple times to obtain it, but apparently it can't be
> done. (Or rather, not without coughing up large sums of money anyway...)
I just pointed you at the free download.
>> Why wouldn't it? That's the whole point of Tcl stubs.
> What's a Tcl stub?
It's like a DLL export table, only for Tcl. It's so new versions of the
interpreter still work with old compiled extentions.
>> You're on NT4?
>>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3E972E9A-E08A-49A2-9D3A-C0519479E85A&displaylang=en
>>
>> 5 seconds.
>
> I am staggered. I spent 5 years trying to get my hands on that. How on
> earth did you manage it?!
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nt4+resource+kit+download
>> Yes, because there aren't any services on Windows. :-)
> I meant that usually only programs specially written to be run as a
> service can be run as a service. :-P
Usually, yes. But all you really need is the service event loop.
There's even an extention that lets you run any Tcl code as a windows service.
>> If every request from your boss is answered with "That's impossible",
>> I'm not surprised you're not earning a living wage.
>
> I didn't say "it's impossible", I said "it's impossible with X".
> Different thing.
You must admit, you often use the word "impossible" more broadly than is
applicable. :-)
> (Also, my boss never, ever asks me things. He *tells* me things...)
Those can be requests.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, the replacement enclosure arrived a few hours ago and I am
currently running a chkdisk on the drive to make sure it's fully
operational. The bit on the old enclosure I suspected was burned out
was a nearly-clear bit of stuff on the new one vs. chocolate-looking,
and the new enclosure works just fine. As far as I can tell.
So that's good.
Definitely can't wait to get desktop so can back this stuff up.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> You *do* have the resource kit for your OS, right?
>>
>> No. I've tried multiple times to obtain it, but apparently it can't be
>> done. (Or rather, not without coughing up large sums of money anyway...)
>
> I just pointed you at the free download.
And I'm just astonished that after years of searching, you managed to
find this in 10 seconds.
>>> Why wouldn't it? That's the whole point of Tcl stubs.
>> What's a Tcl stub?
>
> It's like a DLL export table, only for Tcl. It's so new versions of the
> interpreter still work with old compiled extentions.
Right. Last time I looked at Tcl extensions, I couldn't make any use of
them because you have to recompile the interpretter to run them. Are you
saying that's no longer the case?
>>> Yes, because there aren't any services on Windows. :-)
>
>> I meant that usually only programs specially written to be run as a
>> service can be run as a service. :-P
>
> Usually, yes. But all you really need is the service event loop.
Mmm. The fun thing about srvany.exe is that stopping the service
forcibly kills the wrapped program. But hey, what else can you do? ;-)
>> I didn't say "it's impossible", I said "it's impossible with X".
>> Different thing.
>
> You must admit, you often use the word "impossible" more broadly than is
> applicable. :-)
Sure, whatever.
>> (Also, my boss never, ever asks me things. He *tells* me things...)
>
> Those can be requests.
But usually they aren't.
"Hey Andrew, I've disabled roaming profiles. We don't need them."
That's not a request. That's not even "I think we _should_ do this".
That's "I just _did_ this".
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> But consulting work does pay well; generally, it pays very well.
>>>
>>> Presumably because it's extremely high-stress work with no job security?
>>
>> But at least we *know* that we don’t have job security ;)
>
> Heh, well, these days I think probably everybody knows there is no job
> security...
>
Then you don’t owe any loyalty to your employer.
>> And it is not as stressful as knowing that people could die or be
>> severely injured if you make a mistake.
>
> True. I've always though being some kind of doctor must be the worst job
> ever.
But the benefits, knowing that you have helped others, saved lives and
made lives more bearable. Not to mention the money :)
>Millions of people dead, their screams haunting your dreams. Every
> waking second you walk the surface of the Earth, you know that you could
> have saved them, if only you had tried harder.
That’s why doctors and nurses develop “graveside humour”. It distances
you from the human suffering. Sometimes it goes too far, though.
>The look of hatred and
> anger in their loved one's eys. The lawsuits and charges of incompetence
> and negligence. The violence from enraged kin. It must be hell on Earth.
>
I think that you overstate it ;)
> ....or, maybe a fireman. Yeah, because that way, you have all of the
> above, *and* there's a totally real possibility that _you_ will die
> today as well. Or maybe just be horribly injured and maimed for life. If
> you die, your body will probably never even be found. That must be great.
>
Well my father was a fireman and I grew up in a fire station, from the
age of 3 to 22. The job can be dangerous but they are trained for it so
it is not as dangerous as you would think. I did a few fire fighting
courses when I worked offshore; putting out hydrocarbon fires in burning
buildings, rescuing people (dummies) in the smoke and heat while wearing
breathing apparatus. Once you know what you are doing it’s not so
dangerous. As for your body not being found, that seldom happens. My
father told me that one of the worse things was the smell of burning
meat. But if it is not you then it is not that bad :P
> I guess compared to that, being screamed at for 8 hours by irate
> customers isn't do bad.
>
That has its own stresses. I believe the average burnout rate in
customer service factories is about two years. Although I have worked
for companies (Coca Cola UK in MK for one) where people worked for years.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> True. I've always though being some kind of doctor must be the worst
>> job ever.
>
> But the benefits, knowing that you have helped others, saved lives and
> made lives more bearable. Not to mention the money :)
I don't know, man. One failure is like a billion too many...
> That’s why doctors and nurses develop “graveside humour”. It distances
> you from the human suffering. Sometimes it goes too far, though.
http://www.xkcd.com/431/
>> The look of hatred and anger in their loved one's eys. The lawsuits
>> and charges of incompetence and negligence. The violence from enraged
>> kin. It must be hell on Earth.
>
> I think that you overstate it ;)
Like I say, if I knew that somebody had *died* because I didn't do
everything I could - nah, if I vaguely *suspected* I didn't do
everything I could - I don't think I could go on living in this world.
And the distraught relatives who will blame you whether it's your fault
or not surely don't help either...
> Well my father was a fireman and I grew up in a fire station, from the
> age of 3 to 22. The job can be dangerous but they are trained for it so
> it is not as dangerous as you would think.
Well, let's think about this. The building could randomly implode at any
second. So by "training" do you mean "if it might implode, they just
don't go in there"?
>> I guess compared to that, being screamed at for 8 hours by irate
>> customers isn't do bad.
>
> That has its own stresses. I believe the average burnout rate in
> customer service factories is about two years. Although I have worked
> for companies (Coca Cola UK in MK for one) where people worked for years.
I was thinking more of managemant consoltant or computer concultant or
something, but sure...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
