Re: US army computers 'shut down by hacker'

the govement even calls
e3 awacs computer ...as the "steam driven
computer"

man thats old... the air force finally
got around to doing a computer upgrade
in 1998 on the e3 computer..

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/e-3.htm

"foote" <tjfoote@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dplGe.1374$c63.208@xxxxxxxxxxx
> usually military & goverment working computers are locked in...once they
> are
> built....and are never upgraded till they
> make a new version....
>
> on some of the older Navy's ships
> i heard the fire and control system still uses
> vacum tubes... instead of chips...actually
> vacum tubes where more reliable than chips
> at the time...
>
> our command and control aircraft....awacs planes...are 60's 707 jet
> airplanes that
> uses a computer system thats about equal to
> the 1960 ibm 360... cause thats when the
> airplane was first designed.....
>
>
> these planes are now being replaced with 737 with new gear...
> http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/737aewc/
>
> during the cold war the computers that controled our us nuke missiles are
> norad
> in CO ran on vacuum tubes....and in the 70-80's the pentagon was buying up
> vacum tubes from romainia ...a soviet block country... as the only place
> where they could be purchased....
>
> so russia ..basically controlled NORADS computers ...as well as had top
> spies in the
> our FBI (they guy who was responsible for
> tracking Russian agents) and our CIA, Russia also controlled our Keyhole
> spy satellite...so if there was a nuclear
> war with russia ... the USA would have been
> in deep ***...as Russia knew everything...
>
>
> fortunately Russia could no longer afford to
> play war ...as it ran out of $ as predicted would happen back in the 60's
> that Russia's
> economy would eventualy fail ...cause it wasn't
> as strong enough as the USA.... so militiary
> spending trillions spent on the cold war was
> unecessary. This Russian economy was doom to failure ......this theory
> was widely publicized...back in the 60's
>
> fffffffffff
>
>
> the norad computers where replaced in the late
> 80's with Japanese computers.... as they where
> the low bidder...
>
>
> recall a headline in the old industry computer
> paper... COMPUTERWORLD...saying there
> was Gold in them thar Norad computers ...
> about a oz of gold per ton of computer...
> which they where extracting the gold before
> dumping the computers....
> "Razzbar" <glakk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1122621815.197472.45870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> GraayWolf wrote:
>>
>>> Did you know that a PlayStation 2 has more computing power then the
>>> space shuttle does.
>>
>> Sorta. I rekon you're talking about the basic flight control systems,
>> monitering the fuel and oxygen and temp and stuff, the very basic
>> stuff. It really doesn't take as much as you think, when you don't need
>> all the features and functions we usually have at our disposal in an
>> everyday desktop computer. You can actually do a lot of real computing
>> in 32K or what does the shuttle use? What does the PS have? What are
>> the specs?
>>
>> I don't know. The statement is impressive in a way, but what if you
>> take a Playstation on a shuttle? Then the shuttle would have more
>> compting power than a playstation.
>>
>> I mean, how much computing power does AGR have? Don't you think the
>> shuttle is connected to the earth? Can they send email to and from the
>> shuttle? I'd be surprised if they couldn't. The point is that the
>> computing power of the shuttle is more than just the computer that kees
>> the engine running and the flaps flapping. I wonder how many total code
>> rewrites have been done on the shuttle's software? How many times the
>> hardware has been upped?
>>
>> If the shuttle doesn't have as much computing power than a Playstation,
>> it's only becase it doesn't need it. More computing power isn't going
>> to fix that piece of ***. And I've been calling it that since before
>> the first one flew. The shuttle is a good idea in concept, but the
>> design was ruined by the mandate for solid fuel engines. Solid fuel
>> engines are better for ICBMs in silos, because they can be kept ready
>> to fire practically indefinitely. Liquid fuel has to be used, or
>> drained. It takes longer to fuel up a liquid fuel spacecraft and you
>> have to use it or drain it within a few hours. That's a pain in the ass
>> for scientific space flight, but when you got Russki nukes heading your
>> way, you don't have time to fuel up a wetstick. So you want those
>> bright young chemists out in Utah to get real good at making solid fuel
>> recipes.
>>
>> And then there are those ingenious tiles. Ceramic tiles on a flying
>> machine? What won't those young scientists think of next, Gertrude?
>>
>> A spacecraft is a spacecraft. An airplane is an airplane. Flying
>> saucers are something inbetween. The shuttle should be more like a
>> saucer. It shouldn't come screaming in *** hot... it should float to
>> Earth. Anybody can see that.
>>
>
>


.