In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(T Rittenhouse) wrote:
> Your post reminds me of that ship that went amuck when MS Windows
> crashed in the auto pilot computer. Why the Navy would use Windows in a
> crucial navigation system is beyond comprehension.
OTOH, I was quite pleased
And now we have software written by non-humans. New it would happen.
Right on Keith.
Otis Wright
Keith Whaley wrote:
Well, I'll be danged!
There WAS some validity to it.
However, I don't think it was a human that entered a zero as a divisor,
that caused the software problem.
Warnings that a
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Alling) wrote:
> The LX is almost precisely the same dimensions as the K2, a bit pricey
> though.
Right-oh!
---
John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I owned a Dodge Colt once. It's something I don't admit to very often...
cheers,
frank
T Rittenhouse wrote:
> Ha ha!
>
> Sort of like we ought to buy Korean built Dodge Colt's instead of those
> foreign Honda's built in Marysville Ohio to help keep the american auto
> workers employed?
>
--
Well, I'll be danged!
There WAS some validity to it.
However, I don't think it was a human that entered a zero as a divisor,
that caused the software problem.
Warnings that a 'fatal error" was caused by an improper mathematical
operation (division by zero)" are usually referring to something buggy
Note:
1 - The problem was propulsion; not navigation
2 - The referenced thread dates to 1998
3 - The second referenced thread is about something else entirely.
Nothing that I've read here has any substantive facts about what
happened or why.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was extensive discus
There was extensive discussion on comp.risks. See some:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.91.html#subj7
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.86.html#subj1
T Rittenhouse wrote:
Your post reminds me of that ship that went amuck when MS Windows
crashed in
the auto pilot computer. Why the Navy would us
T Rittenhouse wrote:
Your post reminds me of that ship that went amuck when MS Windows crashed in
the auto pilot computer. Why the Navy would use Windows in a crucial
navigation system is beyond comprehension.
Because both Windows and the Visual Basic programmers are
Common-Off-The-Shelves commod
Sounds like a tale without fact behind it.
Just something the 'great unwashed' would be ready to believe, so
someone started the rumor.
keith
T Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> Your post reminds me of that ship that went amuck when MS Windows crashed in
> the auto pilot computer. Why the Navy would use Wi
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax goes to war?
> The defense department also procured a lot of Honeywell Pentaxs
> at one time to help the US Camera industry.
>
> At 02:42 PM 7/21/03 -0400, you wrote:
> &
Your post reminds me of that ship that went amuck when MS Windows crashed in
the auto pilot computer. Why the Navy would use Windows in a crucial
navigation system is beyond comprehension.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Alling" <[E
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Heide Clausen) wrote:
> Yup. Not to say that the double-digit OM series (OM-10/20/30/40) are
> bad cameras, they are just made for a more occational-use market than
> the single-digit series.
Yup. Personally, I kind of like a truly solid
You need to find some folks from the Royal Navy. The show was about a UK
sub.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(mike wilson) wrote:
I don't know the OM series well at all but I think all of the shutters
are electromechanical.
The OM-1 shutter is
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:18 +0100 (BST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Dallman) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mike wilson) wrote:
>
> > I don't know the OM series well at all but I think all of the
> > shutters are electromechanical.
I know them quite well :)
>
> The OM-
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(mike wilson) wrote:
> I don't know the OM series well at all but I think all of the shutters
> are electromechanical.
The OM-1 shutter is pure mechanical; the only electronics are the
match-needle metering. Don't know about the OM-3; the OM-2
-
From: "Chris Stoddart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax goes to war?
>
> Another thing that struck me last night regarding the documentary
> that started this thread, the one fil
That can happen when you cross the mob . . .
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/03 06:15AM >>>
Hi,
Just remembered that one of my schoolfriends ended up underwater.
He says that he used (mid to late 80's) whatever OM was top of the
range
at the time.
mike
Hi,
It appears that my friend did his time on the very same ship. They
still use 35mm for production of stereoscopic images for intelligence
analysis.
mike
As you said in a subsequent post, it was an Olympus (OM series). If I was specing a
camera for this type of usage it wouldn't be an all manual one. Sailors are using it
and not photographers. A camera with AE would requires less training (we're not
talking art here), and would therefore be cheap
Hi,
Just remembered that one of my schoolfriends ended up underwater.
He says that he used (mid to late 80's) whatever OM was top of the range
at the time.
mike
Hi,
I suppose I should have said that it was a British submarine but I
thought my .uk address would be a bit of a giveaway
The camera was definitely small, like the MX/ME series or OM's. It was
not easily discernable against the bulk of the periscope, just looking
like another of the electro
Another thing that struck me last night regarding the documentary
that started this thread, the one filmed aboard HMS Splendid in The Gulf.
At one point the captain was showing a photo of a Cruise missile being
fired and saying it had been published in a newspaper. The picture looked
like it was t
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Joseph Tainter wrote:
> Would they use a camera that is out of production or a new model?
>
Well from what I gather the British Armed Forces tend to choose an item of
equipment, whether it be a Land Rover or a Pentax/Olympus(?), then buy far
more of them than they need, putt
Well, the US Navy used a lot of Topcon Super Ds at one time.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax goes
WRONG! If it was a U.S. submarine, it would be a Barbie cam, but would
still cost $40,000.00
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax g
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What is within the realm of possibility for what camera it might have been will
> depend on the age of the sub and the procurement rules for your Navy. It would not
> have been an MX on a US Navy sub.
Why not?
>I suspect most camera bodies from the era that thes
It would be an in production model. In accordance with current DOD directives, COTS
equipment would be used. "Ruggedness" is invoked by calling for appropriate specs.
Which specifications that get invoked for a particular system/subsystem depends on how
critical it is to completing a mission. A
Would they use a camera that is out of production or a new model?
If it was a U.S. submarine, it would be a custom-built camera, with
electronics that can withstand 20g and the EMP of a nuclear blast.
Undoubtedly it would be a 14 mp digital. All parts would be built to
custom specifications. It
What is within the realm of possibility for what camera it might have been will depend
on the age of the sub and the procurement rules for your Navy. It would not have been
an MX on a US Navy sub. I suspect most camera bodies from the era that these would be
from will look small mounted on a per
29 matches
Mail list logo
