>I thought it was, indirectly.  Unlike some form of "tonnage", which
>actually measure volume, I thought deadweight was the carrying
>capacity of the ship (e.g., the difference between weights eempty and
>loaded), including fuel and everything else, in actual tons, or
>tonnes, or whatever?

wb8...@panix.com (David Lesher) wrote:
>Well, you may regard this as pointless; but from my perspective, the idea
>of picking up something with the mass of the Arizona is awe-inspiring.

rickde...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Here's an update from a favorite web site:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/13471.html

> Has MS ever stuck with a technology or supported a product
> for more than a few years, much less eight?

> Windows for Warfare - more info on Win2k's Navy carrier gig
> By: John Lettice
> Posted: 22/09/2000 at 17:45 GMT

> More details have emerged of the Win2k-running US Navy aircraft
> carrier we reported as being planned back in July. According to
> Government Computer News the CVN 77 will commence
> construction in February next year, and will be commissioned,
> running 'Son of Windows,' in 2008.

> Roll that seven year period back instead of forward, and it'd be
> reasonable for you to wonder how on earth the Navy knows what it's
> buying into. Microsoft has produced three major OS revs since then,
> and in 1993 hadn't even started imagining Windows 2000.
> Rationally, the decision must have been based on faith that Microsoft
> will be able to deliver a robust, standardised operating system that
> can be used for CVN 77's IT infrastructure, and that the Navy will
> therefore be able to benefit from the cost-savings in training,
> procurement and maintenance associated with commodity
> operating systems.

> In Microsoft's defence we should point out that this is they way these
> contracts generally go - large supplier (e.g. IBM) promises it'll work
> several years down the line, but for most of that period it's expensive
> slideware. Then when it ships, late, it probably doesn't work anyway.

> Microsoft is working as a subcontractor with Lockheed Martin to
> develop the carrier's integrated warfare systems, and 'Windows for
> Warfare' will run a variety of systems, including communications,
> aircraft and weapons launchers, and ship's electronics.

> The difference, according to GCN. is that one OS can be used to run
> many operations, whereas the existing situation is that you've got
> different software running different systems. Lockheed Martin says
> Microsoft was chosen for the gig because it had "a lot of insight that
> could help Lockheed Martin stay current with commercial
> technology." Ominously, a Microsoft Government (an ominous
> thought in itself) spokesman says: "This is a new area for us."

> More interestingly, retired admiral Willie Williamson, who is now
> business strategy executive director for Microsoft Government, says
> "Microsoft software could let the ship’s crew know when there’s a
> pending failure in a ship’s engineering system, for example." Which
> makes it clear Microsoft will have to put a lot of development effort
> into real time monitoring and control systems. Which might be
> Win2k, Jim, but not as we know it. It becomes even more clearly an
> act of faith if you ask yourself how many vehicle manufacturers
> currently use a Microsoft OS to control their systems, rather than just
> to run non mission critical entertainment and navigation plug-ins.
> None, did we hear? But we're sure the Navy knows best. ®

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

  wiccawo...@yah-o.com wrote:
> This scares me a bit. Most of my clients have trouble with Windows
> in their small business operations. The idea of running a carrier
> with it is spooky, indeed.
> Ed
> http://www.abintrapress.com

> rickde...@my-deja.com wrote:

> > Here's an update from a favorite web site:
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/13471.html

  wiccawo...@yah-o.com wrote:
> This scares me a bit. Most of my clients have trouble with Windows
> in their small business operations. The idea of running a carrier
> with it is spooky, indeed.
> Ed
> http://www.abintrapress.com

David E. Powell wrote:
> I am sutably chastened - however, I still recall "Sightings" or one of those
> shows talking about the ship apparently being the site of some odd
> happenings.

Ed Howdershelt <wiccawo...@yah-o.com> wrote in message

> David E. Powell wrote:
> > I am sutably chastened - however, I still recall "Sightings" or one of
those
> > shows talking about the ship apparently being the site of some odd
> > happenings.

> Saw that TV show (Sightings). The ship was named after five
> brothers who served aboard her in WW2. Still in service, I think.
> Saw something mentioned about her being a target prior to the Cole
> being bombed.

SoBernardo wrote:
> Speaking of which, the latest issue of Naval History recounts alleged ghost
> sightings aboard the USS HORNET (CV12) at Alameda, California. I suspect that
> it's a ploy to get the tourists aboard.