Faulty hardware found on shuttle

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
Most people don't have problems
with the statement "my boss forced me to work late last night", or "my
boyfriend dragged me to a stupid tractor-pull", or "the cop made me show
him
my license", even though compliance was strictly speaking voluntary.

That's because most people know the word "force" is a *euphemism* and actual
force was not involved. Much more accurate would be "I chose to work late
last night because if I didn't my boss would have fired me", "I didn't want
to hear my boyfriend whine so I chose to go to the stupid tractor-pull" or
"I chose to show the cop my license because I didn't want to go to jail".

Using the word "force" in the above makes you a victim so you don't have to
admit responsibility.

Pat Flannery wrote:
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.

I always wondered why Hound Dog was the only weapon (of which I was
aware) that was handled as weapon+pylon. Seeing the configuration of
the star tracker and the INS it makes sense now.

Two analog units that are both nominal and in spec may or may not play
well together. The USN handled it's analog guidance systems the same
way, one you had a pair that did play well together aligned and
adjusted, you kept them a mated pair.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Ami Silberman wrote:


So, if I were a boss I could fire everyone who drove a foreign car say?


That would depend if those foreign cars were from countries that didn't
support our war on Iraq! You know, the ones that weren't part of the
Coalition Of The Willing! (that's a really strange turn of phrase;
rather like something used in court when you want to prove that the five
girls did the strange thing with you and the nine Boa Constrictors as
willing and consenting adults.) ;-)

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


That would depend if those foreign cars were from countries that didn't
support our war on Iraq! You know, the ones that weren't part of the
Coalition Of The Willing! (that's a really strange turn of phrase;
rather like something used in court when you want to prove that the five
girls did the strange thing with you and the nine Boa Constrictors as
willing and consenting adults.) ;-)

I'd only go to court to prove that if my mates didn't believe me the day
after.

Neil Gerace wrote:
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...


Perhaps, but it certainly isn't *force* as it's being used here. You're

free

to decide that the financial harm you might suffer by losing your job for
refusing to use Windows is greater than the harm you suffer by choosing to
follow an employer's policies and use Windows. At no time does it ever

cease

to be a valid, free choice.


It's NOT a free choice. It's loaded with financial harm, which is all on one
side.



The first time I read Hedrick's posts was in a massively cross-posted
thread "Virus Mascarading as Microsoft Security Patch". Scott was
arguing the merits of Microsoft with Randy Poe.

Randy Poe is a helpful and knowledgeable guy that frequents sci.math and
sci.physics. In the latter part of the thread Scott was calling Poe
"Stuffy" (not being a SSH regular, Poe'd have no idea who Stuffy is).
IIRC Hedrick was also quoting out of context so as to completely
misinterpret Poe's words.

Discussing the merits of Microsoft with Hedrick is a fruitless endeavor.


--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message . ..
"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?

http://research.microsoft.com/~daniel/unix-haters.html

And no, it's not a Microsoft conspiracy, as he says.

Chris Manteuffel

Chris Manteuffel wrote:

http://research.microsoft.com/~daniel/unix-haters.html

And no, it's not a Microsoft conspiracy, as he says.

Considering that it was written by a bunch of MIT-based LISP, TOPS-20, and ITS
hackers who felt cheated that their "perfect" computing environment had been
overtaken by an upstart OS from Bell Labs....

If they hate UNIX, it's hard to see how they would do anything but despise
Windows!

--
Dave Michelson

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:15:27 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

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

I think the date on this photo must be wrong, because that's a
KC-135A, 62-3541, and the funding wasn't appropriated until 1962. It
was later re-engined and upgraded, becoming a KC-135R.

Stratofortresses have lower numbers, in the hundreds, not the
thousands. That's maybe because they had priority in the purchasing
plan. Or maybe because it's a bomber, B, and they bought in
alphabetical order.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote:


I think the date on this photo must be wrong, because that's a
KC-135A, 62-3541, and the funding wasn't appropriated until 1962. It
was later re-engined and upgraded, becoming a KC-135R.

Stratofortresses have lower numbers, in the hundreds, not the
thousands. That's maybe because they had priority in the purchasing
plan. Or maybe because it's a bomber, B, and they bought in
alphabetical order.

Mary

Is it true that NASA has one of the oldest Stratofortresses with the
least flight time?


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 10:40:22 -0400, starman wrote:

Mary Shafer wrote:


I think the date on this photo must be wrong, because that's a
KC-135A, 62-3541, and the funding wasn't appropriated until 1962. It
was later re-engined and upgraded, becoming a KC-135R.

Stratofortresses have lower numbers, in the hundreds, not the
thousands. That's maybe because they had priority in the purchasing
plan. Or maybe because it's a bomber, B, and they bought in
alphabetical order.

Mary

Is it true that NASA has one of the oldest Stratofortresses with the
least flight time?


--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer