Faulty hardware found on shuttle

Derek Lyons wrote:


I'd be willing to bet that it was an analog system, and the star
tracker and INS were aligned and maintained as mated pairs.

Want proof of that? Behold Hound Dogs mounted on their pylons in
storage- they are apparently stored as mated pairs:
http://www.ammsalumni.com/stored-2_220x160.JPG (the red star tracker
protective cover is visible on the pylon's upper surface)
I saw one being worked on at Grand Forks AFB...it was also on its pylon.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


Want proof of that? Behold Hound Dogs mounted on their pylons in
storage- they are apparently stored as mated pairs:
http://www.ammsalumni.com/stored-2_220x160.JPG

That's from this website, by the way http://www.ammsalumni.com/index.html
.....as is this truly impressive example of bad taxiing technique by
either a Stratofortress or Stratotanker pilot:
http://www.ammsalumni.com/NosetoNose61-2121_400x320.jpg

Pat

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
news

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
OK, what word do you want to use for "instructed to use as a condition
of
further employment"?

2 words: free choice.

They're not "forced to use Windows" the way the Jews of
Spain were forced to convert (at least publicly)

Really? Are you saying your boss would physically harm you if you refused
to
use Windows software?

No I'm not. In fact I said the opposite. I said they were not forced to by
the thread of physical harm. They are fnorded to by the threat of being
fired. (I hesitate to use the word "coerce" or "preasured", in case they
mean something differently to you than they do to me. Having a gun to
your head still gives you a choice, and if you
feel strongly enough about it, you will decide to let your brains be
blown
out.

Which points right back to what I said. Please provide a verifiable name
and
contact information for *anyone* who can show that their life was directly
threatened as a result of their refusal to use MicroSoft software.

I never said that there was.
I think it is a valid moral position to object to using a particular
OS, to try and persuade others not to use it, and still to use it when
one
is instructed to.

Of course- but that means that *you choose* to use it. Talk is all well
and
good, but actions talk louder. No matter how loudly you protest, if you
use
it, it's your choice. The alternatives may be more painful- unemployment,
for example- but the matter is still entirely in your hands.

Correct. However, there is a difference between choosing where the cost of
not-choosing Microsoft is the inability to play certain games, and a case
where the cost is of being unemployed. For some, perhaps even many, people,
their dislike of Microsoft products is great enough that they won't buy them
for their personal use, but isn't sufficient for them to quit their jobs. I
think that these people can still complain about Microsoft, but it appears
you don't.

Derek Lyons wrote:

Ah. So since my mini-van won't perform as well as bus or semi, I should
complain? (Which means ignoring the fact that my mini-van wasn't designed
or intended for such usage.)

Perhaps you would better appreciate the situation if we took away whatever
you're driving now and replaced it with a 1970's era Ford Pinto.

--
Dave Michelson

"Chris Manteuffel" wrote in message
om...
I read it at the same time I was learning Linux, and it actually
served as a useful reference, I thought.

I'm about to dive into Linux. Any links to the UHH?

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
. au...

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
news

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
OK, what word do you want to use for "instructed to use as a condition
of
further employment"?

2 words: free choice.

They're not "forced to use Windows" the way the Jews of
Spain were forced to convert (at least publicly)

Really? Are you saying your boss would physically harm you if you
refused
to
use Windows software?

That's not the be-all and end-all of 'forced', you know.

Use it or lose your job isn't being forced to use it. It choosing to use it
or find an alternate job. There is no "forced" involved unless you are
threatened with physical harm for refusal. It's simply a matter of
*choosing* what is least unpleasant.

This is a case of where the only way you can be a victim of being forced to
do something you don't want to do is by abandoning personal responsibility
for your actions. Stop worshipping in the cult of victimhood.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Behold Hound Dogs mounted on their pylons in
storage- they are apparently stored as mated pairs:

Gee, wouldn't you need to expand the kennel after a short while?

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
They are fnorded to by the threat of being
fired. (I hesitate to use the word "coerce" or "preasured", in case they
mean something differently to you than they do to me.

How is that being "forced" to use Windows? I can see 'pressured' or
'coerced', in the same sense that peer pressure is used to convince someone
to try to smoke or drink when they wouldn't otherwise be inclined, but
without the threat of physical injury, it is *clearly* a matter of choice.
There is a real, viable alternative: find a job where you don't need to use
Windows. I realize that personal responsibility is politically incorrect
these days, but I choose not to worship the cult of victimhood.

Which points right back to what I said. Please provide a verifiable name
and
contact information for *anyone* who can show that their life was
directly
threatened as a result of their refusal to use MicroSoft software.

I never said that there was.

Thus, no evidence that even one person was *forced* to use Windows.

Of course- but that means that *you choose* to use it. Talk is all well
and
good, but actions talk louder. No matter how loudly you protest, if you
use
it, it's your choice. The alternatives may be more painful-
unemployment,
for example- but the matter is still entirely in your hands.

Correct. However, there is a difference between choosing where the cost of
not-choosing Microsoft is the inability to play certain games, and a case
where the cost is of being unemployed.

Why? Furthermore, you have improperly limited the number of choices. Finding
alternate employment is also a valid choice.

For some, perhaps even many, people,
their dislike of Microsoft products is great enough that they won't buy
them
for their personal use, but isn't sufficient for them to quit their jobs.

Thus, they choose to work in employment situations where they use MicroSoft
products.

I
think that these people can still complain about Microsoft

Of course they can- but they can't *truthfully* state that they are forced
to use MicroSoft products.

it appears
you don't.

I *have*, in this forum, complained about MicroSoft products. I think they
are lousy in a great many areas. There are a number of products I use where
MicroSoft has something similar, but I don't use MicroSoft products. There
are also many MicroSoft products I do use which have alternatives, but I
find those alternatives lacking. My use of MicroSoft products is my choice,
*just as it was when I worked for a company that used computers that
depended on Windows*. If I didn't want to use MicroSoft products in an
employment situation, I could choose to find other employment. There was no
"force" involved.

Scott Hedrick wrote:
How is that being "forced" to use Windows? I can see 'pressured' or
'coerced',


Many corporations have enacted "rules" that prevent non-windows hardware from
connecting to their corporate network. Even if you paid for your own
non-windows machine, they wouldn't let you connect to it.

HP is actually another example (combination of HP, Compaq, Digital, Tandem).
Engineers who work on Unix, NSK, VMS are forced to have a windows machine on
their desk because corporate communications are done using microosoft
proprietary software and file formats and HP refuses to deliver your email to
a "non standard" platform (aka: non microsoft).

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
. au...

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
news

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
OK, what word do you want to use for "instructed to use as a
condition
of
further employment"?

2 words: free choice.

They're not "forced to use Windows" the way the Jews of
Spain were forced to convert (at least publicly)

Really? Are you saying your boss would physically harm you if you
refused
to
use Windows software?

That's not the be-all and end-all of 'forced', you know.

Use it or lose your job isn't being forced to use it. It choosing to use
it
or find an alternate job. There is no "forced" involved unless you are
threatened with physical harm for refusal. It's simply a matter of
*choosing* what is least unpleasant.

This is a case of where the only way you can be a victim of being forced
to
do something you don't want to do is by abandoning personal responsibility
for your actions. Stop worshipping in the cult of victimhood.

I'm not saying that I'm a victim, and I'm not abandoning responsibility. I'm
just saying that in the real world, the choice of which OS to make is often
influenced by outside forces, and that one can still lament a choice one
decided to make, and suggest that under other circumstances others not make
that choice. If use Windows or lose your job is not being forced, it is
certainly being coerced. I understand that it may be trivializing sexual
harrasment to make this comparison, but being told "have carnal relations
with me or your fired" isn't actually "forcing someone", they still have a
"free choice". The courts have decided (rightly) that this is undue
coercion, and illegal. For most people, they would have to seriously
consider leaving their job when faced with sexual harrasment (in the absence
of legal remedies). For most people, they wouldn't consider leaving in the
face of being ordered to use Windows, or wear a tie.

You don't like the word "forced". OK, fine. What word would you suggest?
"Coerce"? I want to have a word that won't upset you like force, but
indicates that there are non-technical reasons influencing one into making a
choice. If the boss says "use either Windows or Linux, I don't care", he's
giving me an open choice. If I look at the environment I'm working in, and
some of our key software only is available for Windows, then I'm technically
constrained. If the boss says "use Windows or get fired", is he
a. coercing me?
b. giving me a free and open choice of which OS to use based on the
technical merits?
what?

If I dislike Windows and suggest that, for technical reasons, it not be
used, but am overruled (either on a project, or by executive fiat), am I a
hypocrite and wallowing in victimhood if I say "I really wish we weren't
using Windows, and would suggest that it not be used in similar projects"?
If one is a hypocrite for using Windows while claiming it is highly flawed,
rank the relative hypocrisy of
1. Using Windows because that is the only OS supported at your company.
2. Using Windows because there is software you are instructed to use that is
only available on Windows.
3. Using Windows because the best tools for a particular job are only
available on Windows. (The utility function of tool(A)+Windows is greater
than the utility function of tool(B)+other OS)
4. Using Windows because that OS has been chosen for a project by the
designers or clients.
5. Using Windows because you will get a dishonorable discharge for
disobeying orders if you refuse to use Windows. (Many military systems use
Windows.)
Does the hypocrasy change if you really believe in the job your company is
doing, or the project?

Do you ever complain about something your boss tells you to do? (Or, if you
are self-employed, your clients?) Isn't that wallowing in "victimhood"?
Afterall, you can always quit.

You know, personally I don't think that Windows is all that bad. I don't
trust any system I don't administer (and isn't behind a well-kept firewall)
with anything really important, and I wouldn't recommend using it for
certain applications, but I really think that the problems with Windows, and
Microsofts corporate behavior, weigh less for me than the ability to run
certain software.