From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #36 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Saturday, April 3 1999 Volume 08 : Number 036 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: The stealth excuses begin Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: The stealth excuses begin Re: The stealth excuses begin Re: Stealth debate (longish) Re: The stealth excuses begin F-116 1/2 Re: The stealth excuses begin Re: Stealth debate (longish) *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 17:53:45 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin >No, I don't want to argue for the sake of argument. I want to argue >about the intentional deception the U.S.A.F. is proffering to the >Congress to pry money from hard working taxpayers without some much as >adhering the the scientific method. > >Your statement ... would require that I assume facts not in >evidence. There is no evidence that it works well. There are only >USAF/OSD comments that it works well. EGADS, and I thought you were just trying to do the Navy a favor! Sorry James, it works quite well, and the purest essence of the scientific method is embedded in the process! Namely, the technology given birth by the Lockheed effort that begot the Echo I computer program, allows one to CALCULATE the results of illuminating an object with E/M radiation. You can also model many other characteristics, like materials response to that E/M radiation. You then illuminate the real aircraft with an identical E/M source that you modelled. The results either match or not. So per the essence of the scientific method, you use the theory to make predictions about reality, and then you go out and test it in the real world. It either verifies your theory or not. This is why TACIT BLUE doesn't look anything like the B-2. Given that TACIT BLUE validated the design tool, or the model, you now know that aircraft designed with the same assumptions as the TACIT BLUE have a predictable result. You also verify the B-2's results against the model when you have B-2 models and eventually the real airplane, which I know was done for sure with the model, and I expect they did it with the real airplane. If you don't believe that works James, then you don't believe in Physics, Maxwell's Equations, and Computer Algorithms, and further discussion is hopeless. I'm not trying to flame you here, but I know for a fact, that the above models work because they are based entirely in physics. No philosophy is present at all. In fact, with the proper education, you can implement such a model yourself. Perhaps that's what you need to do to convince yourself. The USAF won't let you have their model, nor will Lockheed or Northrop, or Boeing. They spent a lot of money developing them, and they're probably classified anyway. But, you can go out and roll your own, or look at the feasibility of these models to convince yourself. That's perhaps the only way you'll understand. Regards, larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 18:27:23 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) >Since the GAO had access to the Air Force data, we can also assume that >the data did not permit the Air Force to either: (1) make a >comprehensive system-by-system quantitative comparison of aircraft and > weapon effectiveness; or (2) validate some of the key performance >claims for certain weapon systems." The GAO had access to data from sources beyond merely the AF. Neither the USAF nor GAO attempted to use this report to make comparsions between weapons systems or validate technologies. Certain persons on this list did. > >I agree. That is exactly why one cannot state that the F-117 was >successful due to stealth. Which has little or nothing to do with the GAO report. > >It does not disprove stealth nor does it prove it. Exactly. You said : "You are getting excited over nothing. Stealth doesn't work so if our enemies want to throw their money away like we have on something of no additional value, let them do it." And: "If you want to use statistics, then your point is well made. Statistically, the non-stealth airplanes appear to be more survivable. The Gulf War made the same point: if you look at the few missions (relatively speaking) that the F-117 flew compared with the higher numbers of non-stealth airplanes, then statistically, the F-117 was no great success. I can't infer what you are saying about the GAO reports. Are you saying that the GAO reports are inaccurate" It seems that what some people may have inferred from the GAO report is innacurate. As the report itself states, it makes no claim to being a comparison of weapons systems or a validation of performance. In fact, it states fairly clearly that making such judgement based on their evidence would be ill advised. >According to my interview with one of the authors of the GAO report, >there were other aircraft that flew into areas of equal or greater >threat. "Threat" is another ill-defined term. Attacking a SAM site is considered to be attacking an "area of great threat", but so is attacking an Anthrax plant with no AAA defenses. Threat is a very subjective term. Even then, yes, cruise missiles did fly into similar areas, at some points over 10,000 feet and at night, and even got shot down. In fact, every one was destroyed. Nonetheless, in this case cruise missiles fit your analysis. they are aircraft flying over 10,000 feet at night and in areas of "high threat", yet they were shot down, and every one failed to return home. >What you are addressing is the quality of the bomb dropping avionics >which is reported to be the best in the USAF inventory. But that does >not deal with the issue of stealth. Really? That may be an issue to take up with TI, Loral, etc. but the guts of the system are essentially the same across all the platforms that deploy Paveways. And you seem to ignore the fact that the F-117 is made for dropping bombs, not being invisible. It dropped it's bombs accurately, and on time. In my book that makes a pretty effective weapons system. And never mind the psychological factors, that even if stealth is just PR as you say, if the pilots believe it, their hand is that much steadier when they drop their ordinance. There is a lot ot be said for confidence in combat, but then there's also training, wihich the GAO study and your analysis seem to ignore.... > >Those same databases also make it equally difficult to prove that >stealth worked. But massive databases of data collected both on EW ranges and in the real world indicate that stealth does work, it does reduce the signature of the aircraft significantly, making it hard for an adversary to track and destroy an aircraft before it reaches it's target. > as much as I could. What aircraft would you take in, Jim? > >I would rather take the gross amount of money spent on stealth and apply >it to greater military advance. > Such as the YAL-1? Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you outthink Marketing (while making less money), induce migraines at Microsoft, and create animated, stereo, 3-D , interactive About Boxes.It deservess the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 06:28:53 -0500 From: "Jim Blue" Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin Hello Jim, >Your statement that I am "unwillingness to accept the fact that the >technology probably works well" would require that I assume facts not in >evidence. There is no evidence that it works well. There are only >USAF/OSD comments that it works well. >> Please qualify your statement; Evidence available to "Whom?" What classification of security clearance do you currently hold? Why should we believe that you have any greater access to data than anyone else. You started this thread. The burden of providing evidence is on you. Thank you, Jim... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 07:12:36 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin > Hello Jim, > >>Your statement that I am "unwillingness to accept the fact that the >>technology probably works well" would require that I assume facts not in >>evidence. There is no evidence that it works well. There are only >>USAF/OSD comments that it works well. >>> > Please qualify your statement; > > Evidence available to "Whom?" The "whom" is those of you who claim that stealth works. If you are among those who claim that stealth works, then I say, "where is your evidence?" The burden is on you to provide the evidence of your assertions just as it is on the Air Force. I am not one who is dazzled by the assertions of shoulders filled with shinning stars. I want evidence. To date, none has been provided. The burden is not upon me to prove that stealth does not work; it is upon those who claim that it does, to prove it. > > What classification of security clearance do you currently hold? Why should > we believe that you have any greater access to data than anyone else. > You started this thread. The burden of providing evidence is on you. I have no burden. The Air Force claims that stealth works; you, the unquestioning masses genuflect and bow down facing the Skunk Works five times a day like faithful skunkofiles and hum, "it is written--stealth works--so saith the Air Force and Lockheed." All I am saying is that to date, there is no evidence that stealth works. If you want to believe that Christ walked on water, that is fine; if you want to believe that Mohammed was a prophet of God, fine; if you want to chant the "Om" of the Hindus, fine. But if you want me to accept the assertions of the contractors and the Air Force that stealth works and pay for the extra expense of it under penalty of imprisonment, then all I ask is for some e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. - -------------------------------------- James P. Stevenson jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Author, "The Pentagon Paradox : The Development of the F-18 Hornet" Available at Amazon.com at this web site: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557507759/qid%3D921852978/002-87 71310-1228648 "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding" A history of the Navy's A-12 stealth aircraft. Available Spring of 2000 from The Naval Institute Press Http://www.usni.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 07:35:31 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) > >>Since the GAO had access to the Air Force data, we can also assume that >>the data did not permit the Air Force to either: (1) make a >>comprehensive system-by-system quantitative comparison of aircraft and >> weapon effectiveness; or (2) validate some of the key performance >>claims for certain weapon systems." > The GAO had access to data from sources beyond merely the AF. Neither > the USAF nor GAO attempted to use this report to make comparsions > between weapons systems or validate technologies. Certain persons on > this list did. Well, if it had additional data, and could not conclude that the F-117 did any better than other aircraft, where is the evidence that stealth worked? >>I agree. That is exactly why one cannot state that the F-117 was >>successful due to stealth. > > Which has little or nothing to do with the GAO report. I don't understand your point. >>It does not disprove stealth nor does it prove it. > > Exactly. You said : > "You are getting excited over nothing. Stealth doesn't work so if our > enemies want to throw their money away like we have on something of no > additional value, let them do it." Let me qualify my statement. There is not evidence that stealth works. > And: > "If you want to use statistics, then your point is well made. > Statistically, the non-stealth airplanes appear to be more survivable. > The Gulf War made the same point: if you look at the few missions > (relatively speaking) that the F-117 flew compared with the higher > numbers of non-stealth airplanes, then statistically, the F-117 was no > great success. > I can't infer what you are saying about the GAO reports. Are you saying > that the GAO reports are inaccurate" No. I am saying that the GAO report makes the point that there is no evidence that the F-117 did any better than any other aircraft flying in the same altitudes and at night. > > It seems that what some people may have inferred from the GAO report > is innacurate. As the report itself states, it makes no claim to > being a comparison of weapons systems or a validation of performance. > In fact, it states fairly clearly that making such judgement based on > their evidence would be ill advised. One can reasonably infer that there is no evidence that the F-117 did no better than any of the other aircraft flying above 10,000 feet and at night from the GAO report or the Title V report. >>According to my interview with one of the authors of the GAO report, >>there were other aircraft that flew into areas of equal or greater >>threat. > "Threat" is another ill-defined term. Attacking a SAM site is > considered to be attacking an "area of great threat", but so is > attacking an Anthrax plant with no AAA defenses. Threat is a very > subjective term. As far as I know, no aircraft has been shot down by the anthrax bacillus. > > Even then, yes, cruise missiles did fly into similar areas, at some > points over 10,000 feet and at night, and even got shot down. In > fact, every one was destroyed. > Nonetheless, in this case cruise missiles fit your analysis. they are > aircraft flying over 10,000 feet at night and in areas of "high > threat", yet they were shot down, and every one failed to return home. I am not sure what you are saying. Are you claiming that every cruise missile flying above 10,000 and at night got shot down? >>What you are addressing is the quality of the bomb dropping avionics >>which is reported to be the best in the USAF inventory. But that does >>not deal with the issue of stealth. > > Really? That may be an issue to take up with TI, Loral, etc. but the > guts of the system are essentially the same across all the platforms > that deploy Paveways. > > And you seem to ignore the fact that the F-117 is made for dropping > bombs, not being invisible. It dropped it's bombs accurately, and on > time. In my book that makes a pretty effective weapons system. > > And never mind the psychological factors, that even if stealth is > just PR as you say, if the pilots believe it, their hand is that much > steadier when they drop their ordinance. There is a lot ot be said > for confidence in combat, but then there's also training, wihich the > GAO study and your analysis seem to ignore.... I am separating the stealth treatment of the airframe from the avionics stuffed inside to drop the bombs. I am not interested in discussing the avionics. There is some evidence on the bomb dropping capability although it is far less successful than advertised. A simple observation hardly constitutes analysis. In this case, it takes none. All one has to observe is that there are assertions and there are observations. Put the two together and what do you see: that all aircraft that flew at night above 10,000 feet did not get shot down. Conclusion: there is no evidence that stealth works. >> >>Those same databases also make it equally difficult to prove that >>stealth worked. > > But massive databases of data collected both on EW ranges and in the > real world indicate that stealth does work. . . The data from EW ranges is irrevalant. Real world data is all that counts. The history of flight test and weapons test is filled with successful test results only to go into combat and discovered that the data in combat was a mismatch with the data in test. Look at the GAO report. It talks about the mismatch between stealth claims before the Gulf War and the results. The GAO report highlights those mismatches. > it does reduce the > signature of the aircraft significantly, making it hard for an > adversary to track and destroy an aircraft before it reaches it's > target. Prove it. > > as much as I could. What aircraft would you take in, Jim? >>I would rather take the gross amount of money spent on stealth and apply >>it to greater military advance. > Such as the YAL-1? I don't know the YAL-1. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 07:46:50 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin Jim wrote: >>No, I don't want to argue for the sake of argument. I want to argue >>about the intentional deception the U.S.A.F. is proffering to the >>Congress to pry money from hard working taxpayers without some much as >>adhering the the scientific method. >> >>Your statement ... would require that I assume facts not in >>evidence. There is no evidence that it works well. There are only >>USAF/OSD comments that it works well. Larry replied: > > EGADS, and I thought you were just trying to do the Navy a favor! > > Sorry James, it works quite well, and the purest essence of the > scientific method is embedded in the process! > > Namely, the technology given birth by the Lockheed effort that > begot the Echo I computer program, allows one to CALCULATE the results > of illuminating an object with E/M radiation. You can also model > many other characteristics, like materials response to that E/M > radiation. You then illuminate the real aircraft with an identical > E/M source that you modelled. The results either match or not. > > So per the essence of the scientific method, you use the theory to > make predictions about reality, and then you go out and test it > in the real world. It either verifies your theory or not. > > This is why TACIT BLUE doesn't look anything like the B-2. Given that > TACIT BLUE validated the design tool, or the model, you now know > that aircraft designed with the same assumptions as the TACIT BLUE > have a predictable result. You also verify the B-2's results against > the model when you have B-2 models and eventually the real airplane, > which I know was done for sure with the model, and I expect they did > it with the real airplane. > > If you don't believe that works James, then you don't believe in > Physics, Maxwell's Equations, and Computer Algorithms, and further > discussion is hopeless. > > I'm not trying to flame you here, but I know for a fact, that the above > models work because they are based entirely in physics. No philosophy > is present at all. In fact, with the proper education, you can implement > such a model yourself. Perhaps that's what you need to do to convince > yourself. The USAF won't let you have their model, nor will Lockheed > or Northrop, or Boeing. They spent a lot of money developing them, and > they're probably classified anyway. But, you can go out and roll your > own, or look at the feasibility of these models to convince yourself. > > That's perhaps the only way you'll understand. Modeling is not reality. I am quite sure that these models work. I am also sure that the pole test results were most successful. I feel confident that the scientific method was applied to these models, etc. What was not done, however, was the application of the scientific method against the production aircraft. Production decision were made well in advance of that. I am not interested in seeing the models that the Air Force or Northrop or anyone else has. I want the Air Force to explain why the Australians can spot the B-2s 1,800 miles away; why others have tracked the B-2 with bi-static radar; and why the Russians claim they can track it. But even if you don't accept any of this, the point is that there is no E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E that the F-117 worked any better than anything else that flew above 10,000 feet and at night. - -------------------------------------- James P. Stevenson jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Author, "The Pentagon Paradox : The Development of the F-18 Hornet" Available at Amazon.com at this web site: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557507759/qid%3D921852978/002-87 71310-1228648 "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding" A history of the Navy's A-12 stealth aircraft. Available Spring of 2000 from The Naval Institute Press Http://www.usni.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 12:44:40 -0800 (PST) From: covertboy@webtv.net (Area S-4) Subject: F-116 1/2 The aircraft shot down over Yugoslavia was not an operational F-117 as we know it. Again, the CIA has employed a clever bit of calculated misinformation. The burning aircraft shown on TV was an aluminum repair-training platform known jokingly among the ground crews as the F-116 1/2. Many of the propulsion and control systems are hybrid or bootleg F-14 and early F-15 castaways. The "SA-3" rocket explosion which "brought the craft down" was simply an on board flash/pulse device that detonated seconds after the pilots ejection. The pilot was then easily retrieved from a carefully choreographed safety zone. The "RAM" paint on the exterior surfaces was a blend, nearly identical to the anti-glare U-2 coating. Anyone reverse-engineering this technology will be wasting millions of dollars, only to end up with an aeronautical lemon. Just as "they" intended. Agent T, Area S4 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 18:59:45 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: The stealth excuses begin >Modeling is not reality. I am quite sure that these models work. I am >also sure that the pole test results were most successful. I feel >confident that the scientific method was applied to these models, etc. Then you are basically saying that stealth technology works. The reason the Us leads is not that the US is better at simulation, but that the US has gone much farther than others in validating and refining those models. It's that HUGE investment that the classification system is protecting. All of the information necessary to build nuclear weapons are in the public domain, yet not too many nations have yet developed the infrastructure necessary to produce and refine those devices to a state suitable for deployment. Though, of course, if an individual or group had sufficient confidence in the models, and could obtain the fissile material, we would all be caught by surprise. > >What was not done, however, was the application of the scientific method >against the production aircraft. Production decision were made well in >advance of that. > >I am not interested in seeing the models that the Air Force or Northrop >or anyone else has. I want the Air Force to explain why the Australians >can spot the B-2s 1,800 miles away; why others have tracked the B-2 with >bi-static radar; and why the Russians claim they can track it. EASY! Most stealth aircraft are vulnerable to bistatic radar, however the effective deployment of bistatic radar systems is another thing, and they are realatively easy to counter through means other than stealth. They require infrastructure that is often vulnerable to attacks in both the physical and digital worlds. In any case, very few nations have the money, technology, or time to implement a bistatic radar system capable of detecting and tracking a B-2 befroe the B-2's sucessor, whatever it may be, come online. And the Austrialians probably tracked it with an over the horizon radar system. I suggest you look into these before going further-- while they're good at tracking targets within specific areas far away, they are useless for targeting, and if one vectored fighters into the general area of a B-2 using OTH, the fighters would be unable to track the B-2 with radar or IR. You can't shoot a B-2 down with OTH. AND, I've never heard of anyone advertising current or next generation stealth aircraft as being "essentially invisible" to bistatic or OTH radars, and it's a moot case in any point. they may know you're there, but they can't hurt you. > >But even if you don't accept any of this, the point is that there is no >E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E that the F-117 worked any better than anything else that >flew above 10,000 feet and at night. - - during the Gulf War, after the majority of the Iraqi air defences were destroyed. there is also no evidence that it "worked" (what does that mean in this context?) any WORSE than anything else. And there is no evidence that mutally assured destruction did or did not work. There is no evidence that the internet could survive a nuclear attack. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you outthink Marketing (while making less money), induce migraines at Microsoft, and create animated, stereo, 3-D , interactive About Boxes.It deservess the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 19:20:16 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Stealth debate (longish) > >Well, if it had additional data, and could not conclude that the F-117 >did any better than other aircraft, where is the evidence that stealth >worked? Where is the evidence that it did not? Zero losses is zero losses. > >>>I agree. That is exactly why one cannot state that the F-117 was >>>successful due to stealth. >> >> Which has little or nothing to do with the GAO report. > >I don't understand your point. If one cannot state that the F-117 was successful due to stealth based on the GAO report, according to your own logic, it cannot be stated that it was unsucessful either. > >>>It does not disprove stealth nor does it prove it. >> >> Exactly. You said : >> "You are getting excited over nothing. Stealth doesn't work so if our >> enemies want to throw their money away like we have on something of no >> additional value, let them do it." > >Let me qualify my statement. There is not evidence that stealth works. There is no evidence that it does not, and a subnstatial amount of physics, as Larry pointed out, that indicates it does. There was a great deal of physics that said gun-assembly atomic weapons would be effective and reliable. Without validating that model, it was put into use in combat. That type of atomic weapon was never tested. >> I can't infer what you are saying about the GAO reports. Are you saying >> that the GAO reports are inaccurate" It was niether accurate or inaccurate,as far as your assetions. It neither proves or disproves wether a particular weapons system "worked at 10,000 fett and at night", and in fact it points out that making such judgements based on their data, and their report, would be foolish. All that report gives is numbers without meaning in this case. > >No. I am saying that the GAO report makes the point that there is no >evidence that the F-117 did any better than any other aircraft flying in >the same altitudes and at night. And it also does not show that it was any worse at anything than any other aircraft under the same conditions. > >One can reasonably infer that there is no evidence that the F-117 did no >better than any of the other aircraft flying above 10,000 feet and at >night from the GAO report or the Title V report. And there is absolutely no significance to that statement. > >>>According to my interview with one of the authors of the GAO report, >>>there were other aircraft that flew into areas of equal or greater >>>threat. > >> "Threat" is another ill-defined term. Attacking a SAM site is >> considered to be attacking an "area of great threat", but so is >> attacking an Anthrax plant with no AAA defenses. Threat is a very >> subjective term. > >As far as I know, no aircraft has been shot down by the anthrax >bacillus. And thus, it is not a threat? So it isn't effective at killing pilots? >> >> Even then, yes, cruise missiles did fly into similar areas, at some >> points over 10,000 feet and at night, and even got shot down. In >> fact, every one was destroyed. >> Nonetheless, in this case cruise missiles fit your analysis. they are >> aircraft flying over 10,000 feet at night and in areas of "high >> threat", yet they were shot down, and every one failed to return home. > >I am not sure what you are saying. Are you claiming that every cruise >missile flying above 10,000 and at night got shot down? Every one was destroyed, wasn't it? And quite a few DID get shot down. > >I am separating the stealth treatment of the airframe from the avionics >stuffed inside to drop the bombs. I am not interested in discussing the >avionics. There is some evidence on the bomb dropping capability >although it is far less successful than advertised. Then you seem to think that the aircraft's purpose is to be "essentially insivble" to radar. No, it's purpose is to drop bombs. An aircraft is only effective if it can do it's job, the F-117's job is to drop bombs. Stealth is only a means to an end, to help make sure that the bombs get there. > >A simple observation hardly constitutes analysis. In this case, it takes >none. All one has to observe is that there are assertions and there are >observations. Put the two together and what do you see: that all >aircraft that flew at night above 10,000 feet did not get shot down. >Conclusion: there is no evidence that stealth works. I seem to remember an AC-130 getting shot down in the first nights of the war, and it operates at above 10,000 feet and at night. I do not see how those figures relate to the effectiveness of stealth aircraft or technology. If anything, they show the effectiveness of stealth aircraft in beheading the Iraqi C3I and AAA systems in the early stages of the war, and paving the way for other aircraft to conduct their missions in a reduced AAA threat environment, leading to fewer overall losses. >>> >>>Those same databases also make it equally difficult to prove that >>>stealth worked. >> >> But massive databases of data collected both on EW ranges and in the >> real world indicate that stealth does work. . . > >The data from EW ranges is irrevalant. Real world data is all that >counts. The history of flight test and weapons test is filled with >successful test results only to go into combat and discovered that the >data in combat was a mismatch with the data in test. Look at the GAO >report. It talks about the mismatch between stealth claims before the >Gulf War and the results. The GAO report highlights those mismatches. > >> it does reduce the >> signature of the aircraft significantly, making it hard for an >> adversary to track and destroy an aircraft before it reaches it's >> target. > >Prove it. Got a good microwave? Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you follow thousands of different threads on the Internet, whip up gourmet feasts using only ingredients from the 24-hour store, and use words like "paradigm" and "orthogonal" in casual conversation. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #36 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner