Linux-Advocacy Digest #155, Volume #34 Thu, 3 May 01 12:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars. ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: KuKuNut, USA/USAF Doctrine for Airlift Operations? (WesTralia)
Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Zippy)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:28:26 -0400
billh wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > You do realize that the "proper definition" of strategic gets changed
> > every time TRADOC comes up with a new doctrine.
>
> KuKuNut, cite changes TRADOC made in the definition of strategic and the
> corresponding changes in doctrine. Provide those definitions, different due
> to change, and the sources.
>
> This is a pathetic squirm and dance from a wannabe. It really is sad to see
> but doesn't lessen the fun.
Let's see now.
http://www.google.com/search?q=strategic+C-130
Separating the wheat from the chaff, we get a mighty fine array of citations:
[1]
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-130.htm
The standard C-130J has essentially the same dimensions as the C-130E/H
but the J-30 (stretched version) is 15 feet longer. The J-30 incorporates
two extension plugs, one forward and one aft. The foward plug is 100 inches
long while the rear plug is 80 inches for a total of 180 inches or 15 feet.
With its 3,000 nautical mile range, increased speed, and air refueling
capability, it complements the C-5/C-17 airlift team. The J-30 can work
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in the strategic, as well as tactical or intratheater, environment. The
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
J-30 can be an effective force multiplier in executing the US Army Strategic
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brigade Airdrop (SBA). The J-30 can airdrop 100% of the SBA requirement.
No longer is it necessary to expend scarce heavy lift resources on strategic
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
contingency requirements. Whether it's a channel, special airlift, training,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
or contingency airdrop mission, the J-30 can handle it all at a significantly
reduced cost.
[2]
http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/int_05.htm
Italy: The 50° squadron part of the 46 Brigata Aerea,
operate 12 C-130Hs on strategic Airlift duties.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[3]
http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/int_02.htm
Canadian Air Force
429 (Transport Squadron) The squadron operates the CC-130 Hercules aircraft
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in both strategic and tactical airlift roles.
[4]
http://www.sunnersberg.com/c1_c3_hercules.htm
The Lockheed C-130 Hercules is the most numerous transport aircraft in the
West and has been in production longer than any other aircraft in history.
The prototype flew in August 1954 and since then over 60 nations have ordered
the Hercules. Those in use by the RAF are C-130K versions (known as Hercules
C1 and C3) and initial deliveries (of a total of 66 ordered) were made during
the mid-1960s and many are destined to remain in service for some years to come,
although about half of the fleet are now being replaced by the updated C-130J
(Hercules C4 and C5).
The two versions in front-line service are the C1 and the C3. The first C3
was converted in 1979 by inserting a 15-ft fuselage extension which allows
the aircraft to carry a 30% larger load than the standard version. Four
aircraft were also modified as air-to-air refuelling aircraft, but have since
retired and one aircraft has been heavily modified to carry meteorological
survey instrumumentation. The Hercules is the backbone of the RAF tactical
transport fleet and is capable of operating from short, unprepared strips
and can airdrop troops or stores. It also has the endurance to mount
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
long-range strategic airlift missions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[5]
How about the United Kingdom's ROYAL AIR FORCE?
http://www.rin.org.uk/env/personnel.html
Sqn Ldr Tony Cowan first learned to fly whilst a member of the Air
Training Corps. He entered the RAF in 1969 and, after flying training,
joined No 26 Sqn to fly the C-130 Hercules in both the tactical and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
strategic air transport roles.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Site Sponsored by the Royal Institute of Navigation.
[6]
http://british-forces.com/cig/aircraft/c-130.html
Aircraft
C-130 Hercules
Role
...
...
...
Strategic Reconaissance
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[7]
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/dd77148e.html
Malaysia has also purchased VIP-use helicopters from United Technologies'
Sikorsky unit, Lockheed-Martin's C-130 strategic transport aircraft,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
U.S.-made M-16 rifles, and a host of other products and systems.
How about American military contractors?
[8]
And here we have GM Defense systems, manufacturer of the LAV III:
http://www.gdls.com/releases/IAV_Specsheet.pdf
Deployability:
Strategic C-130, C-5, C-17 Air Transport
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[9]
How about the MANUFACTURER of the C-130, Lockheed Martin....
http://news.lmasc.com/article.htm?article_id=57
In fact, the requirement originally filled by the C-130 grew out of the
Berlin Airlift as U.S. military planners saw the need for a rugged
tactical airlifter able to deliver large payloads to even the most
remote airfield. With improvements in propulsion found in the C-130J
and the longer C-130J-30, the aircraft now fits into a wider role,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
serving both tactical and strategic roles.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmmmmmmm, even Lockheed Martin agrees with Specialist Kulkis
and DISAGREES WITH 2nd Lieutenant BILL HUDSON.
[10]
What does the US Army say?
http://www.monmouth.army.mil/monmessg/newmonmsg/mar102000/10plane.htm
Fort Monmouth recently took delivery of a C-130 hull recovered from
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson, Ariz.
While little is known about the history of the aircraft delivered here,
the C-130 has been the Air Force workhorse for long-range strategic airlift
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
over the past 40 years. This particular hull is an "E" Model with tail
number 63-7806 that was built at the Lockheed Plant in Marietta, Ga. in 1965.
[11]
and here is US Military Traffic Management Command
http://www.tea.army.mil/dpe/Aircraft.htm
Air transport by fixed-wing aircraft is the most important transportation mode
in terms of rapid strategic mobility. The need for equipment to be transported
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
by C-130, C-141, C-5 and C-17 cannot be overemphasized.
^^^^^
......
The airfield requirement for the 155,000-pound capability of the C-130 is
use of a paved landing strip of at least 3,000-foot length and 60 foot
width for tactical assault operations. Non-tactical assault operations
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
require a 5,000-foot length and 80 foot width runway.
Clue for the Clueless 2nd Lieutenant Bill Hudson:
non-tactical assault operations = STRATEGIC
[12]
Another US ARMY Site:
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/55-65/ch4.pdf
Air Movement Operations
....
AIR FORCE AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
4-4 Deployment planners must be familiar with the types of
available aircraft and their characteristics. The aircraft
of primary concern are the C-141, C-5, C-17, and KC-10.
The C-130 mayb be used for strategic movement, but it is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
normally used in a theater role.
Yet another Clue for the Clueless Bill Hudson:
"Normally used for" does NOT equal "limited to"
and at yet ANOTHER US ARMY SITE we have the page for the
Joint (US Army and US Marines) Program Manager, Lightweight
155mm towed howitzer.
[13]
http://www.ado.army.mil/weapons/firesupt/lw155.htm
Lightweight 155 (LW 155)
Light Division
The US Army (Army) will use the Lightweight 155 (LW 155), formerly
known as the Advanced Towed Cannon System (ATCAS),.....
....
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
.....
Strategic Lift: 2 in C-130; LW155 w/ PM C-141B, and larger
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Seems that the Program manager at the Directorate of Intigration
also agrees (with me) that the C-130
[14]
Another US ARMY site:
http://enterpriseconsultancy.cs.amedd.army.mil/asp/result.asp?I=36296091947
I S S U E
(845) Forward Surgical Teams (FST) Need IV Infusion Pumps
* Whenever any item of equipment or supply is added to a TOE or MES, its
impact upon strategic deployability and tactical mobility must be
analyzed. Currently, the FST`s strategic deployability requirement is one
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
C-130 aircraft when vehicles/trailers are not included, and four C-130
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
aircraft when vehicles/trailers are deployed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[15]
Here we have an article on the JRTC:
http://call.army.mil/products/trngqtr/tq1-00/chapc.htm
JRTC Fire Support Pre-Rotation Guide
....
If option one is selected, strategic airlift chalks will go through JI in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
chalk order then reconfigure for tactical road march into the area of operation.
The purpose of JI for the strategic airlift chalks is to simulate the actual
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
deployment JI that would have occurred at home station before deployment to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Deleted]. The vehicles designated for tactical airflow will also go through JI.
^^^^^^^^
Actual C-130 chalks will fly and notional C-130 chalks will be loaded into
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
C-130 mock-ups then deploy into the area of operation via road convoy IAW
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.... only the actual C-130 chalks are JId and the strategic and notional
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
C-130 chalks move by tactical road march IAW the [Deleted] movement table.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Notice ALL the talk about SIMULATING THE **ACTUAL** STRATEGIC DEPLOYMENT
and EVERY reference to an aircraft is a C-130.
Once again, the US Army agrees with Specialist Aaron R. Kulkis, NOT Bill Hudson.
[21]
And, let's see what THE UNITED STATES AIRFORCE says about the C-130
Hercules as a strategic airlift platform
And here is on from the US 21st Air Force's own site
http://www.mcguire.af.mil/PA/news/21stfact.htm
The 21st AF strategic airlift force includes C-141 Starlifter,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
C-130 Hercules, C-5 Galaxy, and the C-17 Globemaster III
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
aircraft, used to move cargo and passengers worldwide.
[22]
And last, but not least, lets see what the people who are currently
developing our FUTURE doctrines say:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063787/html/134.html#pagetop
REDUCING THE LOGISTICS BURDEN FOR THE ARMY AFTER NEXT
[Page 134]
.....Depending on the geography and enemy situation in the
battle area, C-130 aricrat could be used for either operational
or strategic lift.
Looks like the retired generals agree with Specialist Kulkis,
and, once again, DISAGREE with 2nd Lieutenant Bill Hudson.
So, I have 22 separate citations, 10 of which are from the UNITED STATES ARMY,
and ONE FROM the US 21st AIR FORCE, and one from THE VERY PEOPLE WHO WRITE
YOUR PRECIOUS DOCTRINAL BOOKS, which ***ALL*** classify the C-130
as a strategic airlift platform.
There are THOUSANDS more like this, but I think anybody with a brain
can get the picture
GAME
SET
MATCH
> You obviously don't know what they mean,
According the the sources above, and THOUSANDS OF OTHERS, it's
quite obvious that *I* do and you, Cadidiot Bill Hudson, do not.
Be careful, or they might demote you from 3 spots down to a single DOT.
> thus you consistently use them inappropriately. If you plan on communicating
> effectively with others in the profession you must understand the meaning of
> the terms used.
Your TOTAL reliance upon a trifling sentance or two in a doctrine manual
which may be rewritten by TRADOC next month, rather than getting a good
INTERNAL understanding of a concept.... will be your downfall.
>
> As a soldier you must first learn the doctrine of how your Army and its
> units operate today, or you'll have nothing to which you can apply the
> lessons of history. Of course you are only a ten year time in grade
As an officer, you had better understand military terms at a better
level than some TRADOC publication. You obviously have ZERO internal
understanding of the word, which is why you reject any usage of the
word "strategic" which doesn't PRECISELY fit with your Field Manual
reference.
YOU CAN'T FUCKING THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!!! YOU ARE A DANGER TO
YOURSELF, AND ANY AND ALL PERSONNEL UNDER YOUR COMMAND!!!!!
This is why you, Bill Hudson, are a fucking DISGRACE to the officer corps.
> Specialist so you not are expected to understand the intricacies of planning
> and executing military operations; however, when you spout incorrectly about
> even the most basic military knowledge in an attempt to impress others with
> your vast military knowledge, you must expect to be called upon it.
Apparently, I am FAR more of a clue about "basic military knowledge",
such as the MEANING of "strategic airlift" than do you, Bill Hudson.
Either that, or the 21st Air Force doesn't know what Strategic Airlift is.
Hope that fucking helps, you clueless moron.
>
> > Oh, and while you're at it, tell us again about your bizarre theory
> > that German, Japanese, North Korean, Chinese, Viet Cong, and North
> > Vietnamese never shot at well-marked American medical personnel,
> > vehicles, and installations.
>
> LOL!!!
You'll really be laughing when you get twice passed-over for promotion.
Q. Do you know the difference between Specialist Kulkis and Bill Hudson?
A. Specialist Kulkis has been promoted more in the past, and will
be promoted AGAIN before Bill Hudson ever is.
Bwwwaaaaaaaaaaahahahah.
Do your country a favor, Bill, and join the Chinese People's Liberation
Army. With enough officers like you, they won't even be able to resist
an invasion by the Laotian army, let alone threaten the US.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.military.folklore,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:28:58 -0400
billh wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > > > I did not write that.
> > >
> > > LOL!!! With your record of lies upon lies, no one in their right mind
> > > believes you, Kulkis.
> >
> > How come nobody can find it on their new servers except you?
>
> Don't ask me, wannabe, as I really don't care. You're the idiot that posts
> about that which he knows little or nothing. A few months ago you tried to
> post what the entire classes of supply were and got 30-50% of them wrong.
> Surprises no one that you've not improved. If you know so much about class
> 2, tell us how many sub classes there are in class 2 and what those
> subclasses are.
>
> You're a wannabe and everybody knows it..
In other words, you admit that you made the whole thing up.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 17:41:07 +0200
"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
<snip>
> > I don't think so. All it does is to document the well-known fact that
the
> > Windows QueryPerformanceCounter() is implemented in a rather stupid way.
> > What this call *ought to do* is retrieve the value of the Time Stamp
Counter
> > register using the RDTSC instruction (see
> >
http://cedar.intel.com/cgi-bin/ids.dll/content/content.jsp?cntKey=Legacy::ir
> >
tp_RDTSCPM1_12033&cntType=IDS_EDITORIAL#4.0.%20Using%20RDTSC%20Properly).
> > For some obscure reason the NT/2000 designers chose some roundabout way
to
> > determine a suitable clocktick, layering the whole thing in the HAL
> > (probably a legacy thing dating from when NT 3.x ran on pre-Pentium
> > hardware). Some people have reported that QueryPerformanceCounter() can
take
> > over 1000 clockcycles to execute.
> >
> > The only amazing thing is that this IBM guy does not know the correct
way of
> > reading time ticks on a Pentium PC. In MS Visual C++ all you do is
execute
> > the following inline assembler:
> >
> > // read the Pentium Time-Stamp Counter (RDTSC)
> > __int64 nTickCountNow;
> > __asm rdtsc
> > __asm mov dword ptr[nTickCountNow] ,eax
> > __asm mov dword ptr[nTickCountNow+4],edx
> >
> > .. and you have the result in the 64-bit integer nTickCountNow.
> >
> > Mikkel
> Thats a different test. Perhaps someone should write the Linux and
> Windows assembly code and run that test. The difference may be smaller,
> but it will still be there due to OS overhead.
Different from what? I don't hope that anyone is interested in testing the
speed differences in the ways you can acquire clock ticks between Linux and
Win2K/NT. These tools are used to measure the performance of *real*
application code. All this IBM guy did was test the speed of the measurement
method itself. That's pretty uninteresting, IMO. And it says nothing about
the relative performance of the two platforms, as Mr. Gardiner clearly
implied. The "Microsofts so-called NT vs. Linux findings" was based on
benchmarking real applications such as Apache versus IIS. And AFAIR, even
the Über-Penguin himself had to acknowledge that NT actually had an edge
over Linux in some aspects (at that point in time, things have probably
changed with the 2.4 kernel)
Mikkel
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: KuKuNut, USA/USAF Doctrine for Airlift Operations?
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 10:41:38 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> billh wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis
> >
> > > Nah. Bill Hudson just doesn't want to admit that equipment is ROUTINELY
> > > used in ways that lie outside their doctrinal classification.
> >
> > Happens quit often, Kulkis. That doesn't change the fact of your idiocy in
> > claiming the C130 is a strategic lift asset. You're a liar and a pathetic
> > wannabe, KuKuNut. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Let's see now.
> http://www.google.com/search?q=strategic+C-130
>
> Separating the wheat from the chaff, we get a mighty fine array of citations:
>
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-130.htm
> http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/int_05.htm
> http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/int_02.htm
> http://www.sunnersberg.com/c1_c3_hercules.htm
> http://www.rin.org.uk/env/personnel.html
> http://british-forces.com/cig/aircraft/c-130.html
> http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/dd77148e.html
> http://www.gdls.com/releases/IAV_Specsheet.pdf
> http://news.lmasc.com/article.htm?article_id=57
> http://www.monmouth.army.mil/monmessg/newmonmsg/mar102000/10plane.htm
> http://www.tea.army.mil/dpe/Aircraft.htm
> http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/55-65/ch4.pdf
> http://www.ado.army.mil/weapons/firesupt/lw155.htm
> http://enterpriseconsultancy.cs.amedd.army.mil/asp/result.asp?I=36296091947
> http://call.army.mil/products/trngqtr/tq1-00/chapc.htm
> http://www.mcguire.af.mil/PA/news/21stfact.htm
> http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063787/html/134.html#pagetop
>
> GAME
> SET
> MATCH
>
The only thing, and I do mean the only thing that you have proven is
that anyone with access to a search engine can become a half-wit
expert on any subject.
Now dance boy, dance!!! OUTED! LOL!
--
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 17:47:57 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cq3cr$t2s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The only amazing thing is that this IBM guy does not know the correct
> > way of reading time ticks on a Pentium PC. In MS Visual C++ all you do
> > is execute the following inline assembler:
>
> Then that's not testing Windows2K versus Linux, is it? Besides, both 2K
> and Linux are meat to be portable, but this would render the application
> pregram very non portable.
As stated in another reply, there is not much of a "Win2K versus Linux
benchmarking" in comparing the speed of how you acquire clock ticks. You use
these clock tick readings to benchmark real code (at least that's what I use
them for). The speed (or lack of it) of QueryPerformanceCounter() does not
have any bearing on the execution speed of a typical Windows application, as
it is rarely used in production code. The exception would be stuff like
(pseoudo)-realtime apps, where you for instance need an accurate timestamp
on data.
Regarding the portability then you're right, at least concening Linux. But
is Win2K still being markedet for other than Intel platforms? I haven't seen
any blurbs here, and the "NT portability" has also sort of dwindled away
(only Alpha supported by now, AFAIK).
Mikkel
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:47:55 +0100
"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Perhaps it's how you measure it but NS4 (4.77) can seem much faster than
> I have been aware of this behavior for some time so I always use NS4 to
> quickly scan through a photo collection. (OK, I could use thumbnails,
> but that's not the point - I have a quick-and-dirty script that
> instantly builds such a slide show from a directory and it usually suits
> my purpose.) IE can be rather annoying for this.
All very nice, but at has nothing to do with what the bloody programme was
build for! ;) Get a copy of PSP!
MP
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zippy)
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:58:22 GMT
AFAIK, that's the ONLY reading of the Sherman ANTI-TRUST Act. Is there some
other felonious type of restraint which can be placed upon free trade? You
seem to be implying that the government can place restraints upon "free
trade" which are also in violation of the Sherman ANTI-TRUST Act, which
just isn't true. The Sherman ANTI-TRUST Act wasn't geared toward
preventing the government from attempting to control trade.
If I'm putting words in your mouth, then I apologize in advance.
>
>I'm not quite sure what your comments are supposed to mean, or how they
>are supposed to pertain to mine, Zippy.
>
>The 'restraint of trade' which contracts violating the Sherman Act cause
>is not necessarily a restraint on either of the parties to the contract.
>If a contract between two parties has the effect of "unreasonably"
>(oops) restraining trade by a third party, the contract is felonious.
>
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 16:05:38 GMT
"T. Max Devlin"
> Rational, non-violent soldiers when duly authorized to use force. They
> are never authorized to use violence, unless they are unethical and
> their government is unfounded and their nation is not free.
>
> Violence is not generally tolerated in the U.S. Armed Forces. Punch
> your commanding officer and see what happens, if you think it is. Or
> beat a civilian, for that matter.
Consider the highway of death during desert storm. The Iraqi's met
overwhelming violence, much of it executed by U.S. forces. Totally
authorized.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
