Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Ken Garlington]

"Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>

> > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>
> I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself that has had
> to make major modifications to your original statements to maintain any
kind
> of credibility.

a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth to ask for
justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a fart why it
smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)

b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that there's a
sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll give you a
double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random words in
this post.

> > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S refers to a
> > _software configuration_.  Although not all software configurations are
> > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one correspondence.
>
> So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
transportability.

Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common Integrated
Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are installed
in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can compensate
for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" function in
your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy person
(Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.

> Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram understand
> Software,

You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty using the
Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall Street Journal
website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about it. Glad
to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 (scheduled to
be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be delivered at
the end of October).

> > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference previously
provided:
>
> <snip of irrelevent information>
>
> > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates the sensor
> > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
> >
> > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion and weapons
> > integration for the F-22."
>
> John
>
> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
<snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the bridge>

(Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both seem to now
be relevant.)

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[David Castrodale]

Ken Garlington wrote:
> 
> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
> >
> 
> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
> >
> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself that has had
> > to make major modifications to your original statements to maintain any
> kind
> > of credibility.
> 
> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth to ask for
> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a fart why it
> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
> 
> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that there's a
> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll give you a
> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random words in
> this post.
> 
> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S refers to a
> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software configurations are
> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one correspondence.
> >
> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
> transportability.
> 
> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common Integrated
> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are installed
> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can compensate
> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" function in
> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy person
> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
> 
> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram understand
> > Software,
> 
> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty using the
> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall Street Journal
> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about it. Glad
> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 (scheduled to
> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be delivered at
> the end of October).
> 
> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference previously
> provided:
> >
> > <snip of irrelevent information>
> >
> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates the sensor
> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
> > >
> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion and weapons
> > > integration for the F-22."
> >
> > John
> >
> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the bridge>
> 
> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both seem to now
> be relevant.)

you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into

-- 
David
"this human form where i was born, i now repent."
	-pixies

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Tarver Engineering]

So what kind of doughnuts did you folks in comp.lang.ada have for breakfast?

John

alt.non.sequitur deleted from distribution.

David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> wrote in message
news:390768F4.9FCE513@home.com...
>
>
> Ken Garlington wrote:
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
> > news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
> > >
> >
> > > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
> > >
> > > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself that has
had
> > > to make major modifications to your original statements to maintain
any
> > kind
> > > of credibility.
> >
> > a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth to ask
for
> > justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a fart why
it
> > smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
> >
> > b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that there's
a
> > sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll give
you a
> > double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random words
in
> > this post.
> >
> > > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S refers to a
> > > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software configurations
are
> > > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one
correspondence.
> > >
> > > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
> > transportability.
> >
> > Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common Integrated
> > Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are
installed
> > in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can
compensate
> > for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" function
in
> > your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy
person
> > (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
> >
> > > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram understand
> > > Software,
> >
> > You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty using the
> > Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall Street
Journal
> > website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about it.
Glad
> > to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 (scheduled
to
> > be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be delivered
at
> > the end of October).
> >
> > > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference previously
> > provided:
> > >
> > > <snip of irrelevent information>
> > >
> > > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates the
sensor
> > > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
> > > >
> > > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion and
weapons
> > > > integration for the F-22."
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the
bridge>
> >
> > (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both seem to
now
> > be relevant.)
>
> you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>
> --
> David
> "this human form where i was born, i now repent."
> -pixies




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Stanley R. Allen]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> 
> So what kind of doughnuts did you folks in comp.lang.ada have for breakfast?
> 

I had four tarvers.

-- 
Stanley Allen
mailto:Stanley_R_Allen-NR@raytheon.com

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Axel]

David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:

>
>
>Ken Garlington wrote:
>> 
>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>> >
>> 
>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>> >
>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself that has had
>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to maintain any
>> kind
>> > of credibility.
>> 
>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth to ask for
>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a fart why it
>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>> 
>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that there's a
>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll give you a
>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random words in
>> this post.
>> 
>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S refers to a
>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software configurations are
>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one correspondence.
>> >
>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>> transportability.
>> 
>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common Integrated
>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are installed
>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can compensate
>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" function in
>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy person
>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>> 
>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram understand
>> > Software,
>> 
>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty using the
>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall Street Journal
>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about it. Glad
>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 (scheduled to
>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be delivered at
>> the end of October).
>> 
>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference previously
>> provided:
>> >
>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>> >
>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates the sensor
>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>> > >
>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion and weapons
>> > > integration for the F-22."
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the bridge>
>> 
>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both seem to now
>> be relevant.)
>
>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into

I'm just a truck-drivin' man.

--
|  This little nugget of wisdom brought to you by:  |
|  -------------------->Axel<---------------------  |
|                     mhm23x3                       |
|                        @                          |
|                    hotmail.com                    |
|                                                   |
|  "Meow.  Even if you have no place to do it but   |
|        your own newsgroup in alt.bonehead.*"      |
|            --Ayatollah Meow                       |
 ---------------------------------------------------

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[counterpoint: jim carleton]

This, from Axel:

>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>
>>
>>
>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>>> 
>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>>> >
>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself that has had
>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to maintain any
>>> kind
>>> > of credibility.
>>> 
>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth to ask for
>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a fart why it
>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>>> 
>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that there's a
>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll give you a
>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random words in
>>> this post.
>>> 
>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S refers to a
>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software configurations are
>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one correspondence.
>>> >
>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>>> transportability.
>>> 
>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common Integrated
>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are installed
>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can compensate
>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" function in
>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy person
>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>>> 
>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram understand
>>> > Software,
>>> 
>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty using the
>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall Street Journal
>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about it. Glad
>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 (scheduled to
>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be delivered at
>>> the end of October).
>>> 
>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference previously
>>> provided:
>>> >
>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>>> >
>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates the sensor
>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>>> > >
>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion and weapons
>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>>> >
>>> > John
>>> >
>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the bridge>
>>> 
>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both seem to now
>>> be relevant.)
>>
>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>
>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.

we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[David Kim]

"counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> finally
loses it:

>This, from Axel:
>
>>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>>>> >
>>>> 
>>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>>>> >
>>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself that has had
>>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to maintain any
>>>> kind
>>>> > of credibility.
>>>> 
>>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth to ask for
>>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a fart why it
>>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>>>> 
>>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that there's a
>>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll give you a
>>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random words in
>>>> this post.
>>>> 
>>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S refers to a
>>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software configurations are
>>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one correspondence.
>>>> >
>>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>>>> transportability.
>>>> 
>>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common Integrated
>>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are installed
>>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can compensate
>>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" function in
>>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy person
>>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>>>> 
>>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram understand
>>>> > Software,
>>>> 
>>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty using the
>>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall Street Journal
>>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about it. Glad
>>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 (scheduled to
>>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be delivered at
>>>> the end of October).
>>>> 
>>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference previously
>>>> provided:
>>>> >
>>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>>>> >
>>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates the sensor
>>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>>>> > >
>>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion and weapons
>>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>>>> >
>>>> > John
>>>> >
>>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the bridge>
>>>> 
>>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both seem to now
>>>> be relevant.)
>>>
>>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>>
>>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>
>we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean

I'm going to name my son Gargamel.

--
David Kim
Wisconsin Technological University
Hayward, WI
dlkim@wistech.edu

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[counterpoint: jim carleton]

This, from David Kim:

>"counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> finally
>loses it:
>
>>This, from Axel:
>>
>>>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>>>>> >
>>>>> 
>>>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself that has had
>>>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to maintain any
>>>>> kind
>>>>> > of credibility.
>>>>> 
>>>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth to ask for
>>>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a fart why it
>>>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>>>>> 
>>>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that there's a
>>>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll give you a
>>>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random words in
>>>>> this post.
>>>>> 
>>>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S refers to a
>>>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software configurations are
>>>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one correspondence.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>>>>> transportability.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common Integrated
>>>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are installed
>>>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can compensate
>>>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" function in
>>>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy person
>>>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>>>>> 
>>>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram understand
>>>>> > Software,
>>>>> 
>>>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty using the
>>>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall Street Journal
>>>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about it. Glad
>>>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 (scheduled to
>>>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be delivered at
>>>>> the end of October).
>>>>> 
>>>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference previously
>>>>> provided:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates the sensor
>>>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion and weapons
>>>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>>>>> >
>>>>> > John
>>>>> >
>>>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>>>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the bridge>
>>>>> 
>>>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both seem to now
>>>>> be relevant.)
>>>>
>>>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>>>
>>>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>>
>>we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
>
>I'm going to name my son Gargamel.

GOOD MORNING, MINIATURE SAXOPHONE

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Axel]

"counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
proves the law of fives:

>This, from David Kim:
>
>>"counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> finally
>>loses it:
>>
>>>This, from Axel:
>>>
>>>>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself that has had
>>>>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to maintain any
>>>>>> kind
>>>>>> > of credibility.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth to ask for
>>>>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a fart why it
>>>>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that there's a
>>>>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll give you a
>>>>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random words in
>>>>>> this post.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S refers to a
>>>>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software configurations are
>>>>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one correspondence.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>>>>>> transportability.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common Integrated
>>>>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are installed
>>>>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can compensate
>>>>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" function in
>>>>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy person
>>>>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram understand
>>>>>> > Software,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty using the
>>>>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall Street Journal
>>>>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about it. Glad
>>>>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 (scheduled to
>>>>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be delivered at
>>>>>> the end of October).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference previously
>>>>>> provided:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates the sensor
>>>>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion and weapons
>>>>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > John
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>>>>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the bridge>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both seem to now
>>>>>> be relevant.)
>>>>>
>>>>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>>>>
>>>>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>>>
>>>we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
>>
>>I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
>
>GOOD MORNING, MINIATURE SAXOPHONE

GOOD MORNING, BATHROOM FLOOR!

--
|  This little nugget of wisdom brought to you by:  |
|  -------------------->Axel<---------------------  |
|                     mhm23x3                       |
|                        @                          |
|                    hotmail.com                    |
|                                                   |
|  "Meow.  Even if you have no place to do it but   |
|        your own newsgroup in alt.bonehead.*"      |
|            --Ayatollah Meow                       |
 ---------------------------------------------------

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[hoKEy wOLf]

In article <8e9u09$411$1@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, Axel 
<axel@bungmunch.edu> wrote:

> "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
> proves the law of fives:
> 
> >This, from David Kim:
> >
> >>"counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> 
> >>finally
> >>loses it:
> >>
> >>>This, from Axel:
> >>>
> >>>>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Ken Garlington wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself 
> >>>>>> > that has had
> >>>>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to 
> >>>>>> > maintain any
> >>>>>> kind
> >>>>>> > of credibility.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth 
> >>>>>> to ask for
> >>>>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a 
> >>>>>> fart why it
> >>>>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that 
> >>>>>> there's a
> >>>>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll 
> >>>>>> give you a
> >>>>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random 
> >>>>>> words in
> >>>>>> this post.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S 
> >>>>>> > > refers to a
> >>>>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software 
> >>>>>> > > configurations are
> >>>>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one 
> >>>>>> > > correspondence.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
> >>>>>> transportability.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common 
> >>>>>> Integrated
> >>>>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are 
> >>>>>> installed
> >>>>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can 
> >>>>>> compensate
> >>>>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" 
> >>>>>> function in
> >>>>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a 
> >>>>>> crazy person
> >>>>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram 
> >>>>>> > understand
> >>>>>> > Software,
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty 
> >>>>>> using the
> >>>>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall 
> >>>>>> Street Journal
> >>>>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about 
> >>>>>> it. Glad
> >>>>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 
> >>>>>> (scheduled to
> >>>>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be 
> >>>>>> delivered at
> >>>>>> the end of October).
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference 
> >>>>>> > > previously
> >>>>>> provided:
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates 
> >>>>>> > > the sensor
> >>>>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
> >>>>>> > >
> >>>>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion 
> >>>>>> > > and weapons
> >>>>>> > > integration for the F-22."
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > John
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
> >>>>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the 
> >>>>>> bridge>
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both 
> >>>>>> seem to now
> >>>>>> be relevant.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
> >>>
> >>>we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
> >>
> >>I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
> >
> >GOOD MORNING, MINIATURE SAXOPHONE
> 
> GOOD MORNING, BATHROOM FLOOR!

GOOD MORNING, F-22 INTAKE!

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Beekeeper]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:26:20 -0400, hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net> wrote:

>In article <8e9u09$411$1@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, Axel 
><axel@bungmunch.edu> wrote:
>
>> "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
>> proves the law of fives:
>> 
>> >This, from David Kim:
>> >
>> >>"counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> 
>> >>finally
>> >>loses it:
>> >>
>> >>>This, from Axel:
>> >>>
>> >>>>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself 
>> >>>>>> > that has had
>> >>>>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to 
>> >>>>>> > maintain any
>> >>>>>> kind
>> >>>>>> > of credibility.
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth 
>> >>>>>> to ask for
>> >>>>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a 
>> >>>>>> fart why it
>> >>>>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that 
>> >>>>>> there's a
>> >>>>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll 
>> >>>>>> give you a
>> >>>>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random 
>> >>>>>> words in
>> >>>>>> this post.
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S 
>> >>>>>> > > refers to a
>> >>>>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software 
>> >>>>>> > > configurations are
>> >>>>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one 
>> >>>>>> > > correspondence.
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>> >>>>>> transportability.
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common 
>> >>>>>> Integrated
>> >>>>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are 
>> >>>>>> installed
>> >>>>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can 
>> >>>>>> compensate
>> >>>>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" 
>> >>>>>> function in
>> >>>>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a 
>> >>>>>> crazy person
>> >>>>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram 
>> >>>>>> > understand
>> >>>>>> > Software,
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty 
>> >>>>>> using the
>> >>>>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall 
>> >>>>>> Street Journal
>> >>>>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about 
>> >>>>>> it. Glad
>> >>>>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 
>> >>>>>> (scheduled to
>> >>>>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be 
>> >>>>>> delivered at
>> >>>>>> the end of October).
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference 
>> >>>>>> > > previously
>> >>>>>> provided:
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates 
>> >>>>>> > > the sensor
>> >>>>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>> >>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion 
>> >>>>>> > > and weapons
>> >>>>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > John
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>> >>>>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the 
>> >>>>>> bridge>
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both 
>> >>>>>> seem to now
>> >>>>>> be relevant.)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>> >>>
>> >>>we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
>> >>
>> >>I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
>> >
>> >GOOD MORNING, MINIATURE SAXOPHONE
>> 
>> GOOD MORNING, BATHROOM FLOOR!
>
>GOOD MORNING, F-22 INTAKE!

GOOD MORNING, I ALMOST LOST TO GO-BOTS!

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Axel]

Beekeeper <bkpr2000@fas.harvard.edu> proves the law of fives:

>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:26:20 -0400, hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <8e9u09$411$1@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, Axel 
>><axel@bungmunch.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
>>> proves the law of fives:
>>> 
>>> >This, from David Kim:
>>> >
>>> >>"counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> 
>>> >>finally
>>> >>loses it:
>>> >>
>>> >>>This, from Axel:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>>> >>>>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself 
>>> >>>>>> > that has had
>>> >>>>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to 
>>> >>>>>> > maintain any
>>> >>>>>> kind
>>> >>>>>> > of credibility.
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth 
>>> >>>>>> to ask for
>>> >>>>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a 
>>> >>>>>> fart why it
>>> >>>>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that 
>>> >>>>>> there's a
>>> >>>>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll 
>>> >>>>>> give you a
>>> >>>>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random 
>>> >>>>>> words in
>>> >>>>>> this post.
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S 
>>> >>>>>> > > refers to a
>>> >>>>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software 
>>> >>>>>> > > configurations are
>>> >>>>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one 
>>> >>>>>> > > correspondence.
>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>>> >>>>>> transportability.
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common 
>>> >>>>>> Integrated
>>> >>>>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are 
>>> >>>>>> installed
>>> >>>>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can 
>>> >>>>>> compensate
>>> >>>>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" 
>>> >>>>>> function in
>>> >>>>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a 
>>> >>>>>> crazy person
>>> >>>>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram 
>>> >>>>>> > understand
>>> >>>>>> > Software,
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty 
>>> >>>>>> using the
>>> >>>>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall 
>>> >>>>>> Street Journal
>>> >>>>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about 
>>> >>>>>> it. Glad
>>> >>>>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 
>>> >>>>>> (scheduled to
>>> >>>>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be 
>>> >>>>>> delivered at
>>> >>>>>> the end of October).
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference 
>>> >>>>>> > > previously
>>> >>>>>> provided:
>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates 
>>> >>>>>> > > the sensor
>>> >>>>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>>> >>>>>> > >
>>> >>>>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion 
>>> >>>>>> > > and weapons
>>> >>>>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>> > John
>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>>> >>>>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the 
>>> >>>>>> bridge>
>>> >>>>>> 
>>> >>>>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both 
>>> >>>>>> seem to now
>>> >>>>>> be relevant.)
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
>>> >>
>>> >>I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
>>> >
>>> >GOOD MORNING, MINIATURE SAXOPHONE
>>> 
>>> GOOD MORNING, BATHROOM FLOOR!
>>
>>GOOD MORNING, F-22 INTAKE!
>
>GOOD MORNING, I ALMOST LOST TO GO-BOTS!

GOOD MORNING, MY CLOSET CONTAINS JOAN COLLINS!

--
|  This little nugget of wisdom brought to you by:  |
|  -------------------->Axel<---------------------  |
|                     mhm23x3                       |
|                        @                          |
|                    hotmail.com                    |
|                                                   |
|  "Meow.  Even if you have no place to do it but   |
|        your own newsgroup in alt.bonehead.*"      |
|            --Ayatollah Meow                       |
 ---------------------------------------------------

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[hoKEy wOLf]

In article <8eemh8$jmh$8@shpxurnq.databasix.com>, Axel <axel@bungmunch.edu> wrote:

> Beekeeper <bkpr2000@fas.harvard.edu> proves the law of fives:
> 
> >On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:26:20 -0400, hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <8e9u09$411$1@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, Axel 
> >><axel@bungmunch.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
> >>> proves the law of fives:
> >>> 
> >>> >This, from David Kim:
> >>> >
> >>> >>"counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> 
> >>> >>finally
> >>> >>loses it:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>This, from Axel:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>Ken Garlington wrote:
> >>> >>>>>> 
> >>> >>>>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
> >>> >>>>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
> >>> >>>>>> >
> >>> >>>>>> 
> >>> >>>>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
> >>> >>>>>> >
> >>> >>>>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself 
> >>> >>>>>> > that has had
> >>> >>>>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to 
> >>> >>>>>> > maintain any
> >>> >>>>>> kind
> >>> >>>>>> > of credibility.
> >>> >>>>>> 
> >>> >>>>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of 
> >>> >>>>>> bandwidth 
> >>> >>>>>> to ask for
> >>> >>>>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a 
> >>> >>>>>> fart why it
> >>> >>>>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
> >>> >>>>>> 
> >>> >>>>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that 
> >>> >>>>>> there's a
> >>> >>>>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. 
> >>> >>>>>> I'll 
> >>> >>>>>> give you a
> >>> >>>>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some 
> >>> >>>>>> random 
> >>> >>>>>> words in
> >>> >>>>>> this post.
> >>> >>>>>> 
> >>> >>>>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S 
> >>> >>>>>> > > refers to a
> >>> >>>>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software 
> >>> >>>>>> > > configurations are
> >>> >>>>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one 
> >>> >>>>>> > > correspondence.
> >>> >>>>>> >
> >>> >>>>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
> >>> >>>>>> transportability.
> >>> >>>>>> 
> >>> >>>>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common 
> >>> >>>>>> Integrated
> >>> >>>>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that 
> >>> >>>>>> are 
> >>> >>>>>> installed
> >>> >>>>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can 
> >>> >>>>>> compensate
> >>> >>>>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" 
> >>> >>>>>> function in
> >>> >>>>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a 
> >>> >>>>>> crazy person
> >>> >>>>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
> >>> >>>>>> 
> >>> >>>>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram 
> >>> >>>>>> > understand
> >>> >>>>>> > Software,
> >>> >>>>>> 
> >>> >>>>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty 
> >>> >>>>>> using the
> >>> >>>>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall 
> >>> >>>>>> Street Journal
> >>> >>>>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed 
> >>> >>>>>> about 
> >>> >>>>>> it. Glad
> >>> >>>>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 
> >>> >>>>>> (scheduled to
> >>> >>>>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be 
> >>> >>>>>> delivered at
> >>> >>>>>> the end of October).
> >>> >>>>>> 
> >>> >>>>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference 
> >>> >>>>>> > > previously
> >>> >>>>>> provided:
> >>> >>>>>> >
> >>> >>>>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
> >>> >>>>>> >
> >>> >>>>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and 
> >>> >>>>>> > > initiates 
> >>> >>>>>> > > the sensor
> >>> >>>>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
> >>> >>>>>> > >
> >>> >>>>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion 
> >>> >>>>>> > > and weapons
> >>> >>>>>> > > integration for the F-22."
> >>> >>>>>> >
> >>> >>>>>> > John
> >>> >>>>>> >
> >>> >>>>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
> >>> >>>>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over 
> >>> >>>>>> the 
> >>> >>>>>> bridge>
> >>> >>>>>> 
> >>> >>>>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both 
> >>> >>>>>> seem to now
> >>> >>>>>> be relevant.)
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
> >>> >>
> >>> >>I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
> >>> >
> >>> >GOOD MORNING, MINIATURE SAXOPHONE
> >>> 
> >>> GOOD MORNING, BATHROOM FLOOR!
> >>
> >>GOOD MORNING, F-22 INTAKE!
> >
> >GOOD MORNING, I ALMOST LOST TO GO-BOTS!
> 
> GOOD MORNING, MY CLOSET CONTAINS JOAN COLLINS!

GOOD MORNING, COMBAT FIGURES OF STORKS

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Axel]

hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net> proves the law of fives:

>In article <8eemh8$jmh$8@shpxurnq.databasix.com>, Axel <axel@bungmunch.edu> wrote:
>
>> Beekeeper <bkpr2000@fas.harvard.edu> proves the law of fives:
>> 
>> >On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:26:20 -0400, hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <8e9u09$411$1@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, Axel 
>> >><axel@bungmunch.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
>> >>> proves the law of fives:
>> >>> 
>> >>> >This, from David Kim:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>"counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> 
>> >>> >>finally
>> >>> >>loses it:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>>This, from Axel:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>> >>> >>>>>> 
>> >>> >>>>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>> >>> >>>>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>> >>> >>>>>> >
>> >>> >>>>>> 
>> >>> >>>>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>> >>> >>>>>> >
>> >>> >>>>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself 
>> >>> >>>>>> > that has had
>> >>> >>>>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to 
>> >>> >>>>>> > maintain any
>> >>> >>>>>> kind
>> >>> >>>>>> > of credibility.
>> >>> >>>>>> 
>> >>> >>>>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of 
>> >>> >>>>>> bandwidth 
>> >>> >>>>>> to ask for
>> >>> >>>>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a 
>> >>> >>>>>> fart why it
>> >>> >>>>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>> >>> >>>>>> 
>> >>> >>>>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that 
>> >>> >>>>>> there's a
>> >>> >>>>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. 
>> >>> >>>>>> I'll 
>> >>> >>>>>> give you a
>> >>> >>>>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some 
>> >>> >>>>>> random 
>> >>> >>>>>> words in
>> >>> >>>>>> this post.
>> >>> >>>>>> 
>> >>> >>>>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S 
>> >>> >>>>>> > > refers to a
>> >>> >>>>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software 
>> >>> >>>>>> > > configurations are
>> >>> >>>>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one 
>> >>> >>>>>> > > correspondence.
>> >>> >>>>>> >
>> >>> >>>>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>> >>> >>>>>> transportability.
>> >>> >>>>>> 
>> >>> >>>>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common 
>> >>> >>>>>> Integrated
>> >>> >>>>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that 
>> >>> >>>>>> are 
>> >>> >>>>>> installed
>> >>> >>>>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can 
>> >>> >>>>>> compensate
>> >>> >>>>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" 
>> >>> >>>>>> function in
>> >>> >>>>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a 
>> >>> >>>>>> crazy person
>> >>> >>>>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>> >>> >>>>>> 
>> >>> >>>>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram 
>> >>> >>>>>> > understand
>> >>> >>>>>> > Software,
>> >>> >>>>>> 
>> >>> >>>>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty 
>> >>> >>>>>> using the
>> >>> >>>>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall 
>> >>> >>>>>> Street Journal
>> >>> >>>>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed 
>> >>> >>>>>> about 
>> >>> >>>>>> it. Glad
>> >>> >>>>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 
>> >>> >>>>>> (scheduled to
>> >>> >>>>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be 
>> >>> >>>>>> delivered at
>> >>> >>>>>> the end of October).
>> >>> >>>>>> 
>> >>> >>>>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference 
>> >>> >>>>>> > > previously
>> >>> >>>>>> provided:
>> >>> >>>>>> >
>> >>> >>>>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>> >>> >>>>>> >
>> >>> >>>>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and 
>> >>> >>>>>> > > initiates 
>> >>> >>>>>> > > the sensor
>> >>> >>>>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>> >>> >>>>>> > >
>> >>> >>>>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion 
>> >>> >>>>>> > > and weapons
>> >>> >>>>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>> >>> >>>>>> >
>> >>> >>>>>> > John
>> >>> >>>>>> >
>> >>> >>>>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>> >>> >>>>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over 
>> >>> >>>>>> the 
>> >>> >>>>>> bridge>
>> >>> >>>>>> 
>> >>> >>>>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both 
>> >>> >>>>>> seem to now
>> >>> >>>>>> be relevant.)
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >GOOD MORNING, MINIATURE SAXOPHONE
>> >>> 
>> >>> GOOD MORNING, BATHROOM FLOOR!
>> >>
>> >>GOOD MORNING, F-22 INTAKE!
>> >
>> >GOOD MORNING, I ALMOST LOST TO GO-BOTS!
>> 
>> GOOD MORNING, MY CLOSET CONTAINS JOAN COLLINS!
>
>GOOD MORNING, COMBAT FIGURES OF STORKS

GOOD MORNING, YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT IT BELONGS TO RUPERT

--
|  This little nugget of wisdom brought to you by:  |
|  -------------------->Axel<---------------------  |
|                     mhm23x3                       |
|                        @                          |
|                    hotmail.com                    |
|                                                   |
|  "Meow.  Even if you have no place to do it but   |
|        your own newsgroup in alt.bonehead.*"      |
|            --Ayatollah Meow                       |
 ---------------------------------------------------

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[hoKEy wOLf]

In article <8e9eh9$fsj$14@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, David Kim 
<dlkim@wistech.edu> wrote:

> "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> 
> finally
> loses it:
> 
> >This, from Axel:
> >
> >>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Ken Garlington wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
> >>>> >
> >>>> 
> >>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself that 
> >>>> > has had
> >>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to 
> >>>> > maintain any
> >>>> kind
> >>>> > of credibility.
> >>>> 
> >>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth to 
> >>>> ask for
> >>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a fart 
> >>>> why it
> >>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
> >>>> 
> >>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that 
> >>>> there's a
> >>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll 
> >>>> give you a
> >>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random 
> >>>> words in
> >>>> this post.
> >>>> 
> >>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S refers 
> >>>> > > to a
> >>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software 
> >>>> > > configurations are
> >>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one 
> >>>> > > correspondence.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
> >>>> transportability.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common 
> >>>> Integrated
> >>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are 
> >>>> installed
> >>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can 
> >>>> compensate
> >>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" 
> >>>> function in
> >>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a 
> >>>> crazy person
> >>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
> >>>> 
> >>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram 
> >>>> > understand
> >>>> > Software,
> >>>> 
> >>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty using 
> >>>> the
> >>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall Street 
> >>>> Journal
> >>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about 
> >>>> it. Glad
> >>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 
> >>>> (scheduled to
> >>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be 
> >>>> delivered at
> >>>> the end of October).
> >>>> 
> >>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference previously
> >>>> provided:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
> >>>> >
> >>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates 
> >>>> > > the sensor
> >>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion and 
> >>>> > > weapons
> >>>> > > integration for the F-22."
> >>>> >
> >>>> > John
> >>>> >
> >>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
> >>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the 
> >>>> bridge>
> >>>> 
> >>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both seem 
> >>>> to now
> >>>> be relevant.)
> >>>
> >>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
> >>
> >>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
> >
> >we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
> 
> I'm going to name my son Gargamel.

SEE?

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[hoKEy wOLf]

In article <9K4O4.919$wb7.88787@news.flash.net>, "Ken Garlington" 
<Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:

> "hoKEy wOLf" <yep@nope.net> wrote in message
> news:yep-7663B5.19194027042000@allnews.infi.net...
> > In article <8e9eh9$fsj$14@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, David Kim
> > <dlkim@wistech.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
> > > finally
> > > loses it:
> > >
> > > >This, from Axel:
> > > >
> > > >>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Ken Garlington wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself
> that
> > > >>>> > has had
> > > >>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to
> > > >>>> > maintain any
> > > >>>> kind
> > > >>>> > of credibility.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of 
> > > >>>> bandwidth
> to
> > > >>>> ask for
> > > >>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a 
> > > >>>> fart
> > > >>>> why it
> > > >>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that
> > > >>>> there's a
> > > >>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. 
> > > >>>> I'll
> > > >>>> give you a
> > > >>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some 
> > > >>>> random
> > > >>>> words in
> > > >>>> this post.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S 
> > > >>>> > > refers
> > > >>>> > > to a
> > > >>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software
> > > >>>> > > configurations are
> > > >>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one
> > > >>>> > > correspondence.
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
> > > >>>> transportability.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common
> > > >>>> Integrated
> > > >>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that 
> > > >>>> are
> > > >>>> installed
> > > >>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can
> > > >>>> compensate
> > > >>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print"
> > > >>>> function in
> > > >>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a
> > > >>>> crazy person
> > > >>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram
> > > >>>> > understand
> > > >>>> > Software,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty 
> > > >>>> using
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall
> Street
> > > >>>> Journal
> > > >>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed 
> > > >>>> about
> > > >>>> it. Glad
> > > >>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001
> > > >>>> (scheduled to
> > > >>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be
> > > >>>> delivered at
> > > >>>> the end of October).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference
> previously
> > > >>>> provided:
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and 
> > > >>>> > > initiates
> > > >>>> > > the sensor
> > > >>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion
> and
> > > >>>> > > weapons
> > > >>>> > > integration for the F-22."
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > John
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
> > > >>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over 
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>> bridge>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both
> seem
> > > >>>> to now
> > > >>>> be relevant.)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
> > > >>
> > > >>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
> > > >
> > > >we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
> > >
> > > I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
> >
> > SEE?
> 
> SAW!

Today, Bullwinkle stands nearly 300 feet above sea level.

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[counterpoint: jim carleton]

This, from hoKEy wOLf:

>In article <9K4O4.919$wb7.88787@news.flash.net>, "Ken Garlington" 
><Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
>
>> "hoKEy wOLf" <yep@nope.net> wrote in message
>> news:yep-7663B5.19194027042000@allnews.infi.net...
>> > In article <8e9eh9$fsj$14@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, David Kim
>> > <dlkim@wistech.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > > "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
>> > > finally
>> > > loses it:
>> > >
>> > > >This, from Axel:
>> > > >
>> > > >>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>> > > >>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself
>> that
>> > > >>>> > has had
>> > > >>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to
>> > > >>>> > maintain any
>> > > >>>> kind
>> > > >>>> > of credibility.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of 
>> > > >>>> bandwidth
>> to
>> > > >>>> ask for
>> > > >>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a 
>> > > >>>> fart
>> > > >>>> why it
>> > > >>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that
>> > > >>>> there's a
>> > > >>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. 
>> > > >>>> I'll
>> > > >>>> give you a
>> > > >>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some 
>> > > >>>> random
>> > > >>>> words in
>> > > >>>> this post.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S 
>> > > >>>> > > refers
>> > > >>>> > > to a
>> > > >>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software
>> > > >>>> > > configurations are
>> > > >>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one
>> > > >>>> > > correspondence.
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>> > > >>>> transportability.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common
>> > > >>>> Integrated
>> > > >>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that 
>> > > >>>> are
>> > > >>>> installed
>> > > >>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can
>> > > >>>> compensate
>> > > >>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print"
>> > > >>>> function in
>> > > >>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a
>> > > >>>> crazy person
>> > > >>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram
>> > > >>>> > understand
>> > > >>>> > Software,
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty 
>> > > >>>> using
>> > > >>>> the
>> > > >>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall
>> Street
>> > > >>>> Journal
>> > > >>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed 
>> > > >>>> about
>> > > >>>> it. Glad
>> > > >>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001
>> > > >>>> (scheduled to
>> > > >>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be
>> > > >>>> delivered at
>> > > >>>> the end of October).
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference
>> previously
>> > > >>>> provided:
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and 
>> > > >>>> > > initiates
>> > > >>>> > > the sensor
>> > > >>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>> > > >>>> > >
>> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion
>> and
>> > > >>>> > > weapons
>> > > >>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > John
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>> > > >>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over 
>> > > >>>> the
>> > > >>>> bridge>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both
>> seem
>> > > >>>> to now
>> > > >>>> be relevant.)
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>> > > >>
>> > > >>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>> > > >
>> > > >we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
>> > >
>> > > I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
>> >
>> > SEE?
>> 
>> SAW!
>
>Today, Bullwinkle stands nearly 300 feet above sea level.

it's remarkable when such a plastic masterpiece flies away.

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[hoKEy wOLf]

In article <8eauub$1g2$1@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, "counterpoint: jim carleton" 
<coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> wrote:

> This, from hoKEy wOLf:
> 
> >In article <9K4O4.919$wb7.88787@news.flash.net>, "Ken Garlington" 
> ><Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
> >
> >> "hoKEy wOLf" <yep@nope.net> wrote in message
> >> news:yep-7663B5.19194027042000@allnews.infi.net...
> >> > In article <8e9eh9$fsj$14@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, David Kim
> >> > <dlkim@wistech.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
> >> > > finally
> >> > > loses it:
> >> > >
> >> > > >This, from Axel:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>Ken Garlington wrote:
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
> >> > > >>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself
> >> that
> >> > > >>>> > has had
> >> > > >>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to
> >> > > >>>> > maintain any
> >> > > >>>> kind
> >> > > >>>> > of credibility.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of 
> >> > > >>>> bandwidth
> >> to
> >> > > >>>> ask for
> >> > > >>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a 
> >> > > >>>> fart
> >> > > >>>> why it
> >> > > >>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that
> >> > > >>>> there's a
> >> > > >>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. 
> >> > > >>>> I'll
> >> > > >>>> give you a
> >> > > >>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some 
> >> > > >>>> random
> >> > > >>>> words in
> >> > > >>>> this post.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S 
> >> > > >>>> > > refers
> >> > > >>>> > > to a
> >> > > >>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software
> >> > > >>>> > > configurations are
> >> > > >>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one
> >> > > >>>> > > correspondence.
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
> >> > > >>>> transportability.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common
> >> > > >>>> Integrated
> >> > > >>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that 
> >> > > >>>> are
> >> > > >>>> installed
> >> > > >>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can
> >> > > >>>> compensate
> >> > > >>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print"
> >> > > >>>> function in
> >> > > >>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a
> >> > > >>>> crazy person
> >> > > >>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram
> >> > > >>>> > understand
> >> > > >>>> > Software,
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty 
> >> > > >>>> using
> >> > > >>>> the
> >> > > >>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall
> >> Street
> >> > > >>>> Journal
> >> > > >>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed 
> >> > > >>>> about
> >> > > >>>> it. Glad
> >> > > >>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001
> >> > > >>>> (scheduled to
> >> > > >>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be
> >> > > >>>> delivered at
> >> > > >>>> the end of October).
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference
> >> previously
> >> > > >>>> provided:
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and 
> >> > > >>>> > > initiates
> >> > > >>>> > > the sensor
> >> > > >>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
> >> > > >>>> > >
> >> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion
> >> and
> >> > > >>>> > > weapons
> >> > > >>>> > > integration for the F-22."
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > John
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
> >> > > >>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over 
> >> > > >>>> the
> >> > > >>>> bridge>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both
> >> seem
> >> > > >>>> to now
> >> > > >>>> be relevant.)
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
> >> >
> >> > SEE?
> >> 
> >> SAW!
> >
> >Today, Bullwinkle stands nearly 300 feet above sea level.
> 
> it's remarkable when such a plastic masterpiece flies away.

is that why you remarked on it then?

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Keith Thompson]

Folks, please watch the followups.  Some of us prefer to be a bit more
sequitur.  Thanks.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center           <*>  <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Welcome to the last year of the 20th century.

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Beekeeper]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:32:33 -0400, hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net> wrote:

>In article <9K4O4.919$wb7.88787@news.flash.net>, "Ken Garlington" 
><Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
>
>> "hoKEy wOLf" <yep@nope.net> wrote in message
>> news:yep-7663B5.19194027042000@allnews.infi.net...
>> > In article <8e9eh9$fsj$14@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, David Kim
>> > <dlkim@wistech.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > > "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
>> > > finally
>> > > loses it:
>> > >
>> > > >This, from Axel:
>> > > >
>> > > >>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>> > > >>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself
>> that
>> > > >>>> > has had
>> > > >>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to
>> > > >>>> > maintain any
>> > > >>>> kind
>> > > >>>> > of credibility.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of 
>> > > >>>> bandwidth
>> to
>> > > >>>> ask for
>> > > >>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a 
>> > > >>>> fart
>> > > >>>> why it
>> > > >>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that
>> > > >>>> there's a
>> > > >>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. 
>> > > >>>> I'll
>> > > >>>> give you a
>> > > >>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some 
>> > > >>>> random
>> > > >>>> words in
>> > > >>>> this post.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S 
>> > > >>>> > > refers
>> > > >>>> > > to a
>> > > >>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software
>> > > >>>> > > configurations are
>> > > >>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one
>> > > >>>> > > correspondence.
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>> > > >>>> transportability.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common
>> > > >>>> Integrated
>> > > >>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that 
>> > > >>>> are
>> > > >>>> installed
>> > > >>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can
>> > > >>>> compensate
>> > > >>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print"
>> > > >>>> function in
>> > > >>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a
>> > > >>>> crazy person
>> > > >>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram
>> > > >>>> > understand
>> > > >>>> > Software,
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty 
>> > > >>>> using
>> > > >>>> the
>> > > >>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall
>> Street
>> > > >>>> Journal
>> > > >>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed 
>> > > >>>> about
>> > > >>>> it. Glad
>> > > >>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001
>> > > >>>> (scheduled to
>> > > >>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be
>> > > >>>> delivered at
>> > > >>>> the end of October).
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference
>> previously
>> > > >>>> provided:
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and 
>> > > >>>> > > initiates
>> > > >>>> > > the sensor
>> > > >>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>> > > >>>> > >
>> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion
>> and
>> > > >>>> > > weapons
>> > > >>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > John
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>> > > >>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over 
>> > > >>>> the
>> > > >>>> bridge>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both
>> seem
>> > > >>>> to now
>> > > >>>> be relevant.)
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>> > > >>
>> > > >>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>> > > >
>> > > >we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
>> > >
>> > > I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
>> >
>> > SEE?
>> 
>> SAW!
>
>Today, Bullwinkle stands nearly 300 feet above sea level.

yep, sounds like you've got kiddum cats.  better try moving the yellow pieces

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[David Castrodale]

Beekeeper wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:32:33 -0400, hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net> wrote:
> 
> >In article <9K4O4.919$wb7.88787@news.flash.net>, "Ken Garlington"
> ><Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
> >
> >> "hoKEy wOLf" <yep@nope.net> wrote in message
> >> news:yep-7663B5.19194027042000@allnews.infi.net...
> >> > In article <8e9eh9$fsj$14@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, David Kim
> >> > <dlkim@wistech.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
> >> > > finally
> >> > > loses it:
> >> > >
> >> > > >This, from Axel:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>Ken Garlington wrote:
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
> >> > > >>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself
> >> that
> >> > > >>>> > has had
> >> > > >>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to
> >> > > >>>> > maintain any
> >> > > >>>> kind
> >> > > >>>> > of credibility.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of
> >> > > >>>> bandwidth
> >> to
> >> > > >>>> ask for
> >> > > >>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a
> >> > > >>>> fart
> >> > > >>>> why it
> >> > > >>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that
> >> > > >>>> there's a
> >> > > >>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver.
> >> > > >>>> I'll
> >> > > >>>> give you a
> >> > > >>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some
> >> > > >>>> random
> >> > > >>>> words in
> >> > > >>>> this post.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S
> >> > > >>>> > > refers
> >> > > >>>> > > to a
> >> > > >>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software
> >> > > >>>> > > configurations are
> >> > > >>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one
> >> > > >>>> > > correspondence.
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
> >> > > >>>> transportability.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common
> >> > > >>>> Integrated
> >> > > >>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that
> >> > > >>>> are
> >> > > >>>> installed
> >> > > >>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can
> >> > > >>>> compensate
> >> > > >>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print"
> >> > > >>>> function in
> >> > > >>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a
> >> > > >>>> crazy person
> >> > > >>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram
> >> > > >>>> > understand
> >> > > >>>> > Software,
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty
> >> > > >>>> using
> >> > > >>>> the
> >> > > >>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall
> >> Street
> >> > > >>>> Journal
> >> > > >>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed
> >> > > >>>> about
> >> > > >>>> it. Glad
> >> > > >>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001
> >> > > >>>> (scheduled to
> >> > > >>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be
> >> > > >>>> delivered at
> >> > > >>>> the end of October).
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference
> >> previously
> >> > > >>>> provided:
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and
> >> > > >>>> > > initiates
> >> > > >>>> > > the sensor
> >> > > >>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
> >> > > >>>> > >
> >> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion
> >> and
> >> > > >>>> > > weapons
> >> > > >>>> > > integration for the F-22."
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > John
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
> >> > > >>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over
> >> > > >>>> the
> >> > > >>>> bridge>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both
> >> seem
> >> > > >>>> to now
> >> > > >>>> be relevant.)
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
> >> >
> >> > SEE?
> >>
> >> SAW!
> >
> >Today, Bullwinkle stands nearly 300 feet above sea level.
> 
> yep, sounds like you've got kiddum cats.  better try moving the yellow pieces

what are you, some sort of demographic?

-- 
David
"this human form where i was born, i now repent."
	-pixies

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Axel]

David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:

>
>
>Beekeeper wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:32:33 -0400, hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <9K4O4.919$wb7.88787@news.flash.net>, "Ken Garlington"
>> ><Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "hoKEy wOLf" <yep@nope.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:yep-7663B5.19194027042000@allnews.infi.net...
>> >> > In article <8e9eh9$fsj$14@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, David Kim
>> >> > <dlkim@wistech.edu> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
>> >> > > finally
>> >> > > loses it:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >This, from Axel:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>> >> > > >>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> > > >>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself
>> >> that
>> >> > > >>>> > has had
>> >> > > >>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to
>> >> > > >>>> > maintain any
>> >> > > >>>> kind
>> >> > > >>>> > of credibility.
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of
>> >> > > >>>> bandwidth
>> >> to
>> >> > > >>>> ask for
>> >> > > >>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a
>> >> > > >>>> fart
>> >> > > >>>> why it
>> >> > > >>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that
>> >> > > >>>> there's a
>> >> > > >>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver.
>> >> > > >>>> I'll
>> >> > > >>>> give you a
>> >> > > >>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some
>> >> > > >>>> random
>> >> > > >>>> words in
>> >> > > >>>> this post.
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S
>> >> > > >>>> > > refers
>> >> > > >>>> > > to a
>> >> > > >>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software
>> >> > > >>>> > > configurations are
>> >> > > >>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one
>> >> > > >>>> > > correspondence.
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> > > >>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>> >> > > >>>> transportability.
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common
>> >> > > >>>> Integrated
>> >> > > >>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that
>> >> > > >>>> are
>> >> > > >>>> installed
>> >> > > >>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can
>> >> > > >>>> compensate
>> >> > > >>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print"
>> >> > > >>>> function in
>> >> > > >>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a
>> >> > > >>>> crazy person
>> >> > > >>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram
>> >> > > >>>> > understand
>> >> > > >>>> > Software,
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty
>> >> > > >>>> using
>> >> > > >>>> the
>> >> > > >>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall
>> >> Street
>> >> > > >>>> Journal
>> >> > > >>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed
>> >> > > >>>> about
>> >> > > >>>> it. Glad
>> >> > > >>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001
>> >> > > >>>> (scheduled to
>> >> > > >>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be
>> >> > > >>>> delivered at
>> >> > > >>>> the end of October).
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference
>> >> previously
>> >> > > >>>> provided:
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> > > >>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and
>> >> > > >>>> > > initiates
>> >> > > >>>> > > the sensor
>> >> > > >>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>> >> > > >>>> > >
>> >> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion
>> >> and
>> >> > > >>>> > > weapons
>> >> > > >>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> > > >>>> > John
>> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> > > >>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>> >> > > >>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over
>> >> > > >>>> the
>> >> > > >>>> bridge>
>> >> > > >>>>
>> >> > > >>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both
>> >> seem
>> >> > > >>>> to now
>> >> > > >>>> be relevant.)
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
>> >> >
>> >> > SEE?
>> >>
>> >> SAW!
>> >
>> >Today, Bullwinkle stands nearly 300 feet above sea level.
>> 
>> yep, sounds like you've got kiddum cats.  better try moving the yellow pieces
>
>what are you, some sort of demographic?

Yes, and he reads Tom Clancy novels for a living.

--
|  This little nugget of wisdom brought to you by:  |
|  -------------------->Axel<---------------------  |
|                     mhm23x3                       |
|                        @                          |
|                    hotmail.com                    |
|                                                   |
|  "Meow.  Even if you have no place to do it but   |
|        your own newsgroup in alt.bonehead.*"      |
|            --Ayatollah Meow                       |
 ---------------------------------------------------

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[David Castrodale]

Axel wrote:
> 
> David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
> 
> >
> >
> >Beekeeper wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:32:33 -0400, hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <9K4O4.919$wb7.88787@news.flash.net>, "Ken Garlington"
> >> ><Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "hoKEy wOLf" <yep@nope.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:yep-7663B5.19194027042000@allnews.infi.net...
> >> >> > In article <8e9eh9$fsj$14@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, David Kim
> >> >> > <dlkim@wistech.edu> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
> >> >> > > finally
> >> >> > > loses it:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > >This, from Axel:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>>Ken Garlington wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > > >>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
> >> >> > > >>>> >
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
> >> >> > > >>>> >
> >> >> > > >>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself
> >> >> that
> >> >> > > >>>> > has had
> >> >> > > >>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to
> >> >> > > >>>> > maintain any
> >> >> > > >>>> kind
> >> >> > > >>>> > of credibility.
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of
> >> >> > > >>>> bandwidth
> >> >> to
> >> >> > > >>>> ask for
> >> >> > > >>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a
> >> >> > > >>>> fart
> >> >> > > >>>> why it
> >> >> > > >>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that
> >> >> > > >>>> there's a
> >> >> > > >>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver.
> >> >> > > >>>> I'll
> >> >> > > >>>> give you a
> >> >> > > >>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some
> >> >> > > >>>> random
> >> >> > > >>>> words in
> >> >> > > >>>> this post.
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S
> >> >> > > >>>> > > refers
> >> >> > > >>>> > > to a
> >> >> > > >>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software
> >> >> > > >>>> > > configurations are
> >> >> > > >>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one
> >> >> > > >>>> > > correspondence.
> >> >> > > >>>> >
> >> >> > > >>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
> >> >> > > >>>> transportability.
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common
> >> >> > > >>>> Integrated
> >> >> > > >>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that
> >> >> > > >>>> are
> >> >> > > >>>> installed
> >> >> > > >>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can
> >> >> > > >>>> compensate
> >> >> > > >>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print"
> >> >> > > >>>> function in
> >> >> > > >>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a
> >> >> > > >>>> crazy person
> >> >> > > >>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram
> >> >> > > >>>> > understand
> >> >> > > >>>> > Software,
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty
> >> >> > > >>>> using
> >> >> > > >>>> the
> >> >> > > >>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall
> >> >> Street
> >> >> > > >>>> Journal
> >> >> > > >>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed
> >> >> > > >>>> about
> >> >> > > >>>> it. Glad
> >> >> > > >>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001
> >> >> > > >>>> (scheduled to
> >> >> > > >>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be
> >> >> > > >>>> delivered at
> >> >> > > >>>> the end of October).
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference
> >> >> previously
> >> >> > > >>>> provided:
> >> >> > > >>>> >
> >> >> > > >>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
> >> >> > > >>>> >
> >> >> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and
> >> >> > > >>>> > > initiates
> >> >> > > >>>> > > the sensor
> >> >> > > >>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
> >> >> > > >>>> > >
> >> >> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion
> >> >> and
> >> >> > > >>>> > > weapons
> >> >> > > >>>> > > integration for the F-22."
> >> >> > > >>>> >
> >> >> > > >>>> > John
> >> >> > > >>>> >
> >> >> > > >>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
> >> >> > > >>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over
> >> >> > > >>>> the
> >> >> > > >>>> bridge>
> >> >> > > >>>>
> >> >> > > >>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both
> >> >> seem
> >> >> > > >>>> to now
> >> >> > > >>>> be relevant.)
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > SEE?
> >> >>
> >> >> SAW!
> >> >
> >> >Today, Bullwinkle stands nearly 300 feet above sea level.
> >>
> >> yep, sounds like you've got kiddum cats.  better try moving the yellow pieces
> >
> >what are you, some sort of demographic?
> 
> Yes, and he reads Tom Clancy novels for a living.

i know that guy, he always picks his own lobster at the supermarket and
then yells at the people when it's not the right one

-- 
David
"this human form where i was born, i now repent."
	-pixies

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Axel]

David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:

>
>
>Axel wrote:
>> 
>> David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> >Beekeeper wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:32:33 -0400, hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <9K4O4.919$wb7.88787@news.flash.net>, "Ken Garlington"
>> >> ><Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "hoKEy wOLf" <yep@nope.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:yep-7663B5.19194027042000@allnews.infi.net...
>> >> >> > In article <8e9eh9$fsj$14@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, David Kim
>> >> >> > <dlkim@wistech.edu> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
>> >> >> > > finally
>> >> >> > > loses it:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > >This, from Axel:
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > >>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > >>>
>> >> >> > > >>>
>> >> >> > > >>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>> >> >> > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > >>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > > >>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> >> > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> >> > > >>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> > > >>>> > has had
>> >> >> > > >>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to
>> >> >> > > >>>> > maintain any
>> >> >> > > >>>> kind
>> >> >> > > >>>> > of credibility.
>> >> >> > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > >>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of
>> >> >> > > >>>> bandwidth
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> > > >>>> ask for
>> >> >> > > >>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a
>> >> >> > > >>>> fart
>> >> >> > > >>>> why it
>> >> >> > > >>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>> >> >> > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > >>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that
>> >> >> > > >>>> there's a
>> >> >> > > >>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver.
>> >> >> > > >>>> I'll
>> >> >> > > >>>> give you a
>> >> >> > > >>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some
>> >> >> > > >>>> random
>> >> >> > > >>>> words in
>> >> >> > > >>>> this post.
>> >> >> > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > refers
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > to a
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > configurations are
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > correspondence.
>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> >> > > >>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>> >> >> > > >>>> transportability.
>> >> >> > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > >>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common
>> >> >> > > >>>> Integrated
>> >> >> > > >>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that
>> >> >> > > >>>> are
>> >> >> > > >>>> installed
>> >> >> > > >>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can
>> >> >> > > >>>> compensate
>> >> >> > > >>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print"
>> >> >> > > >>>> function in
>> >> >> > > >>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a
>> >> >> > > >>>> crazy person
>> >> >> > > >>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>> >> >> > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > >>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram
>> >> >> > > >>>> > understand
>> >> >> > > >>>> > Software,
>> >> >> > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > >>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty
>> >> >> > > >>>> using
>> >> >> > > >>>> the
>> >> >> > > >>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall
>> >> >> Street
>> >> >> > > >>>> Journal
>> >> >> > > >>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed
>> >> >> > > >>>> about
>> >> >> > > >>>> it. Glad
>> >> >> > > >>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001
>> >> >> > > >>>> (scheduled to
>> >> >> > > >>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be
>> >> >> > > >>>> delivered at
>> >> >> > > >>>> the end of October).
>> >> >> > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference
>> >> >> previously
>> >> >> > > >>>> provided:
>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> >> > > >>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > initiates
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > the sensor
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>> >> >> > > >>>> > >
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > weapons
>> >> >> > > >>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> >> > > >>>> > John
>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>> >> >> > > >>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>> >> >> > > >>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over
>> >> >> > > >>>> the
>> >> >> > > >>>> bridge>
>> >> >> > > >>>>
>> >> >> > > >>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both
>> >> >> seem
>> >> >> > > >>>> to now
>> >> >> > > >>>> be relevant.)
>> >> >> > > >>>
>> >> >> > > >>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > >>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > >we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > SEE?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> SAW!
>> >> >
>> >> >Today, Bullwinkle stands nearly 300 feet above sea level.
>> >>
>> >> yep, sounds like you've got kiddum cats.  better try moving the yellow pieces
>> >
>> >what are you, some sort of demographic?
>> 
>> Yes, and he reads Tom Clancy novels for a living.
>
>i know that guy, he always picks his own lobster at the supermarket and
>then yells at the people when it's not the right one

What is the lowest phylum you have ever consumed?

--
|  This little nugget of wisdom brought to you by:  |
|  -------------------->Axel<---------------------  |
|                     mhm23x3                       |
|                        @                          |
|                    hotmail.com                    |
|                                                   |
|  "Meow.  Even if you have no place to do it but   |
|        your own newsgroup in alt.bonehead.*"      |
|            --Ayatollah Meow                       |
 ---------------------------------------------------

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[jim carleton (new! improved!)]

Axel was trying desperately to communicate the following:

>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>
>>
>>
>>Axel wrote:
>>> 
>>> David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>>> 
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Beekeeper wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:32:33 -0400, hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >In article <9K4O4.919$wb7.88787@news.flash.net>, "Ken Garlington"
>>> >> ><Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> "hoKEy wOLf" <yep@nope.net> wrote in message
>>> >> >> news:yep-7663B5.19194027042000@allnews.infi.net...
>>> >> >> > In article <8e9eh9$fsj$14@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, David Kim
>>> >> >> > <dlkim@wistech.edu> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > > "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg>
>>> >> >> > > finally
>>> >> >> > > loses it:
>>> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> > > >This, from Axel:
>>> >> >> > > >
>>> >> >> > > >>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>>> >> >> > > >>
>>> >> >> > > >>>
>>> >> >> > > >>>
>>> >> >> > > >>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>>> >> >> > > >>>>
>>> >> >> > > >>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>>> >> >> > > >>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>>> >> >> > > >>>>
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself
>>> >> >> that
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > has had
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > maintain any
>>> >> >> > > >>>> kind
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > of credibility.
>>> >> >> > > >>>>
>>> >> >> > > >>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of
>>> >> >> > > >>>> bandwidth
>>> >> >> to
>>> >> >> > > >>>> ask for
>>> >> >> > > >>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a
>>> >> >> > > >>>> fart
>>> >> >> > > >>>> why it
>>> >> >> > > >>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>>> >> >> > > >>>>
>>> >> >> > > >>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that
>>> >> >> > > >>>> there's a
>>> >> >> > > >>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver.
>>> >> >> > > >>>> I'll
>>> >> >> > > >>>> give you a
>>> >> >> > > >>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some
>>> >> >> > > >>>> random
>>> >> >> > > >>>> words in
>>> >> >> > > >>>> this post.
>>> >> >> > > >>>>
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > refers
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > to a
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > configurations are
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > correspondence.
>>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>>> >> >> > > >>>> transportability.
>>> >> >> > > >>>>
>>> >> >> > > >>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common
>>> >> >> > > >>>> Integrated
>>> >> >> > > >>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that
>>> >> >> > > >>>> are
>>> >> >> > > >>>> installed
>>> >> >> > > >>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can
>>> >> >> > > >>>> compensate
>>> >> >> > > >>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print"
>>> >> >> > > >>>> function in
>>> >> >> > > >>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a
>>> >> >> > > >>>> crazy person
>>> >> >> > > >>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>>> >> >> > > >>>>
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > understand
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > Software,
>>> >> >> > > >>>>
>>> >> >> > > >>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty
>>> >> >> > > >>>> using
>>> >> >> > > >>>> the
>>> >> >> > > >>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall
>>> >> >> Street
>>> >> >> > > >>>> Journal
>>> >> >> > > >>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed
>>> >> >> > > >>>> about
>>> >> >> > > >>>> it. Glad
>>> >> >> > > >>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001
>>> >> >> > > >>>> (scheduled to
>>> >> >> > > >>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be
>>> >> >> > > >>>> delivered at
>>> >> >> > > >>>> the end of October).
>>> >> >> > > >>>>
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference
>>> >> >> previously
>>> >> >> > > >>>> provided:
>>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > initiates
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > the sensor
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > >
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion
>>> >> >> and
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > weapons
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > John
>>> >> >> > > >>>> >
>>> >> >> > > >>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>>> >> >> > > >>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over
>>> >> >> > > >>>> the
>>> >> >> > > >>>> bridge>
>>> >> >> > > >>>>
>>> >> >> > > >>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both
>>> >> >> seem
>>> >> >> > > >>>> to now
>>> >> >> > > >>>> be relevant.)
>>> >> >> > > >>>
>>> >> >> > > >>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>>> >> >> > > >>
>>> >> >> > > >>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>>> >> >> > > >
>>> >> >> > > >we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
>>> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> > > I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > SEE?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> SAW!
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Today, Bullwinkle stands nearly 300 feet above sea level.
>>> >>
>>> >> yep, sounds like you've got kiddum cats.  better try moving the yellow pieces
>>> >
>>> >what are you, some sort of demographic?
>>> 
>>> Yes, and he reads Tom Clancy novels for a living.
>>
>>i know that guy, he always picks his own lobster at the supermarket and
>>then yells at the people when it's not the right one
>
>What is the lowest phylum you have ever consumed?

JAMES TAYLOR

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Beekeeper]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:19:40 -0400, hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net> wrote:

>In article <8e9eh9$fsj$14@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, David Kim 
><dlkim@wistech.edu> wrote:
>
>> "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> 
>> finally
>> loses it:
>> 
>> >This, from Axel:
>> >
>> >>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself that 
>> >>>> > has had
>> >>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to 
>> >>>> > maintain any
>> >>>> kind
>> >>>> > of credibility.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth to 
>> >>>> ask for
>> >>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a fart 
>> >>>> why it
>> >>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that 
>> >>>> there's a
>> >>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll 
>> >>>> give you a
>> >>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random 
>> >>>> words in
>> >>>> this post.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S refers 
>> >>>> > > to a
>> >>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software 
>> >>>> > > configurations are
>> >>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one 
>> >>>> > > correspondence.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>> >>>> transportability.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common 
>> >>>> Integrated
>> >>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are 
>> >>>> installed
>> >>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can 
>> >>>> compensate
>> >>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" 
>> >>>> function in
>> >>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a 
>> >>>> crazy person
>> >>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram 
>> >>>> > understand
>> >>>> > Software,
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty using 
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall Street 
>> >>>> Journal
>> >>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about 
>> >>>> it. Glad
>> >>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 
>> >>>> (scheduled to
>> >>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be 
>> >>>> delivered at
>> >>>> the end of October).
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference previously
>> >>>> provided:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates 
>> >>>> > > the sensor
>> >>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion and 
>> >>>> > > weapons
>> >>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > John
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>> >>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the 
>> >>>> bridge>
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both seem 
>> >>>> to now
>> >>>> be relevant.)
>> >>>
>> >>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>> >>
>> >>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>> >
>> >we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
>> 
>> I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
>
>SEE?

sounds like hefty got her knees rearranged

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Axel]

Beekeeper <bkpr2000@fas.harvard.edu> proves the law of fives:

>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:19:40 -0400, hoKEy wOLf <yep@nope.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <8e9eh9$fsj$14@ljutefisk.databasix.com>, David Kim 
>><dlkim@wistech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> "counterpoint: jim carleton" <coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> 
>>> finally
>>> loses it:
>>> 
>>> >This, from Axel:
>>> >
>>> >>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>>> >>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself that 
>>> >>>> > has had
>>> >>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to 
>>> >>>> > maintain any
>>> >>>> kind
>>> >>>> > of credibility.
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth to 
>>> >>>> ask for
>>> >>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a fart 
>>> >>>> why it
>>> >>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that 
>>> >>>> there's a
>>> >>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll 
>>> >>>> give you a
>>> >>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random 
>>> >>>> words in
>>> >>>> this post.
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S refers 
>>> >>>> > > to a
>>> >>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software 
>>> >>>> > > configurations are
>>> >>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one 
>>> >>>> > > correspondence.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>>> >>>> transportability.
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common 
>>> >>>> Integrated
>>> >>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are 
>>> >>>> installed
>>> >>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can 
>>> >>>> compensate
>>> >>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" 
>>> >>>> function in
>>> >>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a 
>>> >>>> crazy person
>>> >>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram 
>>> >>>> > understand
>>> >>>> > Software,
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty using 
>>> >>>> the
>>> >>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall Street 
>>> >>>> Journal
>>> >>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about 
>>> >>>> it. Glad
>>> >>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 
>>> >>>> (scheduled to
>>> >>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be 
>>> >>>> delivered at
>>> >>>> the end of October).
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference previously
>>> >>>> provided:
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates 
>>> >>>> > > the sensor
>>> >>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>>> >>>> > >
>>> >>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion and 
>>> >>>> > > weapons
>>> >>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > John
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>>> >>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the 
>>> >>>> bridge>
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both seem 
>>> >>>> to now
>>> >>>> be relevant.)
>>> >>>
>>> >>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>>> >>
>>> >>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>>> >
>>> >we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
>>> 
>>> I'm going to name my son Gargamel.
>>
>>SEE?
>
>sounds like hefty got her knees rearranged

Not everyone keeps their genitals in the same place.

--
|  This little nugget of wisdom brought to you by:  |
|  -------------------->Axel<---------------------  |
|                     mhm23x3                       |
|                        @                          |
|                    hotmail.com                    |
|                                                   |
|  "Meow.  Even if you have no place to do it but   |
|        your own newsgroup in alt.bonehead.*"      |
|            --Ayatollah Meow                       |
 ---------------------------------------------------

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Beekeeper]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 23:26:50 -0400, "counterpoint: jim carleton"
<coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> wrote:

>This, from Axel:
>
>>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>>>> >
>>>> 
>>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>>>> >
>>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself that has had
>>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to maintain any
>>>> kind
>>>> > of credibility.
>>>> 
>>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth to ask for
>>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a fart why it
>>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>>>> 
>>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that there's a
>>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll give you a
>>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random words in
>>>> this post.
>>>> 
>>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S refers to a
>>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software configurations are
>>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one correspondence.
>>>> >
>>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>>>> transportability.
>>>> 
>>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common Integrated
>>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are installed
>>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can compensate
>>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" function in
>>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy person
>>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>>>> 
>>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram understand
>>>> > Software,
>>>> 
>>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty using the
>>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall Street Journal
>>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about it. Glad
>>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 (scheduled to
>>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be delivered at
>>>> the end of October).
>>>> 
>>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference previously
>>>> provided:
>>>> >
>>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>>>> >
>>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates the sensor
>>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>>>> > >
>>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion and weapons
>>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>>>> >
>>>> > John
>>>> >
>>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the bridge>
>>>> 
>>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both seem to now
>>>> be relevant.)
>>>
>>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>>
>>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>
>we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean

nope, still not mushroom in here

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Axel]

Beekeeper <bkpr2000@fas.harvard.edu> proves the law of fives:

>On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 23:26:50 -0400, "counterpoint: jim carleton"
><coleridge@usenet-performance-arto.rg> wrote:
>
>>This, from Axel:
>>
>>>David Castrodale <anagrama@home.com> proves the law of fives:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ken Garlington wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
>>>>> >
>>>>> 
>>>>> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself that has had
>>>>> > to make major modifications to your original statements to maintain any
>>>>> kind
>>>>> > of credibility.
>>>>> 
>>>>> a) Cite "major modifications"? (I know, it's a waste of bandwidth to ask for
>>>>> justification from a tarver generator -- sort of like asking a fart why it
>>>>> smells -- but I always feel obliged to make the point...)
>>>>> 
>>>>> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that there's a
>>>>> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22 schedule was just a tarver. I'll give you a
>>>>> double-tarver if you make it a 10+ month slip based on some random words in
>>>>> this post.
>>>>> 
>>>>> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S refers to a
>>>>> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software configurations are
>>>>> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one correspondence.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
>>>>> transportability.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common Integrated
>>>>> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are installed
>>>>> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can compensate
>>>>> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" function in
>>>>> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy person
>>>>> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
>>>>> 
>>>>> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram understand
>>>>> > Software,
>>>>> 
>>>>> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty using the
>>>>> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall Street Journal
>>>>> website), but there's certainly no reason to be embarrassed about it. Glad
>>>>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 (scheduled to
>>>>> be delivered in May) and Block 3.0 software (scheduled to be delivered at
>>>>> the end of October).
>>>>> 
>>>>> > > You may find it helpful to read the Delaney reference previously
>>>>> provided:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > <snip of irrelevent information>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > * "Block 3S, is currently in testing at the AIL and initiates the sensor
>>>>> > > fusion and sensor tasking key to the F-22 performance."
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > * "Block 3.0 software... will provide the full sensor fusion and weapons
>>>>> > > integration for the F-22."
>>>>> >
>>>>> > John
>>>>> >
>>>>> > <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums>
>>>>> <snip of notice of intent to fail to deliver at minimums over the bridge>
>>>>> 
>>>>> (Cross-posted to alt.non.sequitur and comp.lang.ada, since both seem to now
>>>>> be relevant.)
>>>>
>>>>you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into
>>>
>>>I'm just a truck-drivin' man.
>>
>>we here at comp.lang.ada are a little weird, if you know what i mean
>
>nope, still not mushroom in here

Wait until after Ronald leaves.

--
|  This little nugget of wisdom brought to you by:  |
|  -------------------->Axel<---------------------  |
|                     mhm23x3                       |
|                        @                          |
|                    hotmail.com                    |
|                                                   |
|  "Meow.  Even if you have no place to do it but   |
|        your own newsgroup in alt.bonehead.*"      |
|            --Ayatollah Meow                       |
 ---------------------------------------------------

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Ken Garlington]

"Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote in message
news:17IN4.169$wb7.9885@news.flash.net...
>
> Glad
> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 (scheduled to
> be delivered in May

Of course, that should be 4004. My tarver.

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Kent Kinal]

I was perusing the on line Earlybirds today and noticed that there was a
quote from Sen Lewis which acknowledged the importance of the F-22 and now
instead of wanting to kill it he wants to be sure that it stays on schedule
and performs as advertised.  Was going to post link but it's behind a Mil
server and won't let me in.  I'll post article next week.  Just found it an
interesting change of heart.  Wonder what the reason for his animosity
toward the program was and what caused the change??
Kent
Ken Garlington wrote in message <39IN4.174$wb7.10385@news.flash.net>...
>"Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote in message
>news:17IN4.169$wb7.9885@news.flash.net...
>>
>> Glad
>> to clear up any confusion about the distinction between 4001 (scheduled
to
>> be delivered in May
>
>Of course, that should be 4004. My tarver.
>
>
>

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Tarver Engineering]

Kent Kinal <kinalk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BO5O4.1746$x4.49690@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I was perusing the on line Earlybirds today and noticed that there was a
> quote from Sen Lewis which acknowledged the importance of the F-22 and now
> instead of wanting to kill it he wants to be sure that it stays on
schedule
> and performs as advertised.

That Lewis is nearly as big a radical as me.

>  Was going to post link but it's behind a Mil
> server and won't let me in.  I'll post article next week.  Just found it
an
> interesting change of heart.  Wonder what the reason for his animosity
> toward the program was and what caused the change??

The Program is years behind schedule, over budget and was due to deliver
next year.  Instead Ken here tells us they can't even start to test the
deliverable Avionics package until next January.

John




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Ken Garlington]

To be fair, he's always said that his goal is to make sure the F-22 is
adequately tested before a production contract is ordered. Reasonable people
(and unreasonable people, for that matter) can disagree as to the optimum
amount of testing. I think the real point Rep. (not Sen, by the way) Lewis
was trying to make last year is that there's a lot of expensive fighter
programs in the out years, and it's not at all clear that the budget will
support all those programs. He didn't feel that the DoD was adequately
addressing the issue, so he got their attention.

Note that I'm not agreeing with his position, by the way.

There's a pretty good interview with Rep. Lewis at

http://www.afa.org/magazine/0200jerry.html

that covers the same ground.

One person who does appear to have changed his mind is Rep. Randy "Duke"
Cunningham. Originally, he supported Rep. Lewis. After having flown in a
chase plane during F-22 testing, he has since said he thinks we should buy
more F-22s than currently planned.

"Kent Kinal" <kinalk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BO5O4.1746$x4.49690@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I was perusing the on line Earlybirds today and noticed that there was a
> quote from Sen Lewis which acknowledged the importance of the F-22 and now
> instead of wanting to kill it he wants to be sure that it stays on
schedule
> and performs as advertised.  Was going to post link but it's behind a Mil
> server and won't let me in.  I'll post article next week.  Just found it
an
> interesting change of heart.  Wonder what the reason for his animosity
> toward the program was and what caused the change??

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Kent Kinal]

Ken,
    Thanks forthe corrections.  I knew it was congressman, but was just a
little more tired than I thought.  Interesting article, hard to believe that
AF leadership isn't trusted on the Hill:>)  It never ceases to amaze me with
the bonehead stunts that come out of the SAF/AQ community that we get any
funding at all!!.  As I said will post article from early bird next week.

Kent
Ken Garlington wrote in message
>To be fair, he's always said that his goal is to make sure the F-22 is
>adequately tested before a production contract is ordered. Reasonable
people
>(and unreasonable people, for that matter) can disagree as to the optimum
>amount of testing. I think the real point Rep. (not Sen, by the way) Lewis
>was trying to make last year is that there's a lot of expensive fighter
>programs in the out years, and it's not at all clear that the budget will
>support all those programs. He didn't feel that the DoD was adequately
>addressing the issue, so he got their attention.
>
>Note that I'm not agreeing with his position, by the way.
>
>There's a pretty good interview with Rep. Lewis at
>
>http://www.afa.org/magazine/0200jerry.html
>
>that covers the same ground.
>
>One person who does appear to have changed his mind is Rep. Randy "Duke"
>Cunningham. Originally, he supported Rep. Lewis. After having flown in a
>chase plane during F-22 testing, he has since said he thinks we should buy
>more F-22s than currently planned.
>
>"Kent Kinal" <kinalk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:BO5O4.1746$x4.49690@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> I was perusing the on line Earlybirds today and noticed that there was a
>> quote from Sen Lewis which acknowledged the importance of the F-22 and
now
>> instead of wanting to kill it he wants to be sure that it stays on
>schedule
>> and performs as advertised.  Was going to post link but it's behind a Mil
>> server and won't let me in.  I'll post article next week.  Just found it
>an
>> interesting change of heart.  Wonder what the reason for his animosity
>> toward the program was and what caused the change??
>
>

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Tarver Engineering]

Ken Garlington <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote in message
news:17IN4.169$wb7.9885@news.flash.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
> news:39074a04_3@news4.newsfeeds.com...
> >
>
> > > Ah, now I see what's been confusing you!
> >
> > I am not in the least confused Ken and in fact it is yourself that has
had
> > to make major modifications to your original statements to maintain any
> kind
> > of credibility.
>
> a) Cite "major modifications"?

You were advertising 4004 with Version 3 software for May and now that might
happen sometime in January.

<snip of desperate and childish insult>

> b) If you're not confused, then I assume the strange claim that there's a
> sudden 5+ month slip in the F-22

The slip is far worse than 5 months Ken.  Lockheed is now sometime into
January to start testing what must be completed before any production F-22
are purchased.

<snip of second childish insult>

> > > The designation "4004" refers to an _airframe_. Block 3S refers to a
> > > _software configuration_.  Although not all software configurations
are
> > > compatible with all airframes, there is not a one-to-one
correspondence.
> >
> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
> transportability.
>
> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common Integrated
> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are
installed
> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can compensate
> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" function
in
> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy
person
> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.

Actually nearly any software can do a system generation and run fine with
missing hardware.

> > Why thank you Mr. Garlington for helping those of us at ram understand
> > Software,
>
> You're quite Welcome. I know that some people have difficulty using the
> Internet (e.g., being unable to locate references on the Wall Street
Journal
> website),

Only yourself.

John

<snip of more childish gibberish>

So there you have it folks, on the extreme off chance that nothing else goes
wrong between now and fiscal 2002 we might see a production F-22.  From the
performance of the program thus far this is unlikely.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Ken Garlington]

"Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
news:39084bdf_1@news4.newsfeeds.com...
> You were advertising 4004 with Version 3 software for May and now that
might
> happen sometime in January.

I said, on Saturday, March 25, 2000 6:29 AM: "I think 4004 first flight will
be closer to the first week of May. It's just that the tasks remaining are
relatively low risk. Of course, this is only a stepping stone to the
critical milestone - first flight of the Block 3.0 software."

Reading is fundamental! (Good thing I keep those mail messages, eh?)

(I'll give this a half-tarver, although it's of course very repititious,
just for describing a personal mail message as "advertisitng".)

> The slip is far worse than 5 months Ken.  Lockheed is now sometime into
> January to start testing what must be completed before any production F-22
> are purchased.

No.

> Actually nearly any software can do a system generation and run fine with
> missing hardware.

(Amended note from previous post) If you select the "print" function in your
favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy person
(Q.E.D.) would complain about the software. On the other hand, it would take
a total tarver to think that a paper copy was created anyway!

You must save a lot of money on equipment, not having to buy any. Where do
you insert the software disc? Wait, never mind, I don't think I want to know
the answer to that...

(A solid tarver, that one. Has all of the elements -- unattributed, easily
refuted, and with that extra bit of loony pananche that separates it from
the average mundane mistake. "system" should have been capitalized, perhaps,
but maybe that's just gilding the lily.)

> So there you have it folks, on the extreme off chance that nothing else
goes
> wrong between now and fiscal 2002 we might see a production F-22.  From
the
> performance of the program thus far this is unlikely.

Who are you talking to?

(Oddly enough, a shift in progress. First, the tarver mantra was the end of
fiscal 2000 or death. Then, it was a dispute between Congress and the
Pentagon on the death date. Now, fiscal 2002? Could it possibly be that
light is filtering in?)

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Tarver Engineering]

Ken Garlington <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote in message
news:6I4O4.912$wb7.89161@news.flash.net...
> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
> news:39084bdf_1@news4.newsfeeds.com...
> > You were advertising 4004 with Version 3 software for May and now that
> might
> > happen sometime in January.
>
> I said, on Saturday, March 25, 2000 6:29 AM: "I think 4004 first flight
will
> be closer to the first week of May. It's just that the tasks remaining are
> relatively low risk. Of course, this is only a stepping stone to the
> critical milestone - first flight of the Block 3.0 software."

And now you say 4004 won't be delivered until October.

You also wrote:

"By the way, I'm having a little trouble parsing your T-6 deadline. The
program objectives are all on a calendar year basis, not a fiscal year, and
there's no specific deadline in either the appropriations or authorization
bills."

The T-6 Deadline is about to be T-5 with no hope of delivering the required
3.0 software on 4004.

> Reading is fundamental! (Good thing I keep those mail messages, eh?)

Not really ken, all it did was confirm that even in your little world the
delivery of 4004 has slipped 7 months since we started this conversation.
The fact that the software will not be delivered until January does not get
the flight test done on time either.

John

<snip of more childish insults>




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Marin D. Condic]

Ken Garlington wrote:
> 
> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
> >
> > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
> transportability.
> 
> Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common Integrated
> Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are installed
> in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can compensate
> for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" function in
> your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy person
> (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
> 
Is this the same guy who had problems explaining what he meant by
"extended instruction set" with respect to Ada on VAX/VMS? Clearly,
we're dealing with an uninformed and irrational opinion here and I'm
wondering if there is any point to it. (Other than letting the rest of
the world know that this *is* an uninformed and irrational opinion and
they shouldn't adopt it as their own.)

For the record then, here is the opinion of an *Expert*: Ada is one of
the most portable languages ever invented. No language can ever be 100%
portable. No language can make portable a non-portable design. No
language can stop a programmer from making use of non-portable features
of the computing system. If you design for portability, Ada will help
you get there better than most other languages.

MDC, Revered And Respected Expert
-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - http://www.quadruscorp.com/
Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m
Visit my web site at:  http://www.mcondic.com/

"I'd trade it all for just a little more"
    --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Tarver Engineering]

Marin D. Condic <mcondic-nospam@quadruscorp.com> wrote in message
news:39087107.85C3D0B@quadruscorp.com...
> Ken Garlington wrote:
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
> > transportability.
> >
> > Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common Integrated
> > Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are
installed
> > in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can
compensate
> > for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" function
in
> > your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy
person
> > (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
> >
> Is this the same guy who had problems explaining what he meant by
> "extended instruction set" with respect to Ada on VAX/VMS?

Nope.  I explained what I ment quite nicely, I just hit a nerve when I
explained the pork delivery to Boston.

John




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[David Castrodale]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> 
> Marin D. Condic <mcondic-nospam@quadruscorp.com> wrote in message
> news:39087107.85C3D0B@quadruscorp.com...
> > Ken Garlington wrote:
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > So in fact the software suite fails the first test of Ada
> > > transportability.
> > >
> > > Actually, no. Aircraft 4001-4003 do not have a CIP (Common Integrated
> > > Processor) installed, nor do they have all of the sensors that are
> installed
> > > in the later aircraft. Ada's good, but no software language can
> compensate
> > > for missing hardware. In other words, if you select the "print" function
> in
> > > your favorite software package, and you have no printer, only a crazy
> person
> > > (Q.E.D.) would complain about the software.
> > >
> > Is this the same guy who had problems explaining what he meant by
> > "extended instruction set" with respect to Ada on VAX/VMS?
> 
> Nope.  I explained what I ment quite nicely, I just hit a nerve when I
> explained the pork delivery to Boston.
> 

simply "bop-a-riffic"

-- 
David
"this human form where i was born, i now repent."
	-pixies

Re: Boeing Begins Flight Testing F-22 Block 3S Avionics

[Ken Garlington]

"Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote in message
news:39084c29$1_4@news4.newsfeeds.com...
> Nope.  I explained what I ment quite nicely, I just hit a nerve when I
> explained the pork delivery to Boston.

The funny bone?