We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.
Seeks and destroys sea-bound CodeMonkeys... http://i.imgur.com/fDhfx.jpg
--Cpt. Vince Foster 2nd Cannon Place Fort Marcy Park, VA
P.S. I'm bored
Jack:
I don't think I am naive. I do believe the captain - I mean, you use a moniker yourself - are you suggesting we start to seriously consider claims you or anybody else here is a fraud based on some incident that happened years ago to a person with the same name? If you think so, you are the one that is gullible here. How do you know the captain is not using a moniker? Face it: what you and others find hard to accept is that somebody here is doing such cool work.
One last thing:
Does it really matter? Is it that important?
If the good old captain is not really a weapons designer, so what? He has interesting wordy stories, and all in all his technical remarks are of great value most of the time. I believe him. You can call me naive. I don't care. It does not matter - don't you have your own fantasies?
I don't think I am naive. I do believe the captain - I mean, you use a moniker yourself - are you suggesting we start to seriously consider claims you or anybody else here is a fraud based on some incident that happened years ago to a person with the same name? If you think so, you are the one that is gullible here. How do you know the captain is not using a moniker?
Ok, you seem very confused by all this.
There is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym, alias, moniker or whatever you want to call it, in fact it is the accepted norm - a Usenet tradidion, even. I have never seen it even mentioned, never mind criticised, outwith this forum.
My view that Vince is not in reality some sort of military weapons programmer is based primarily on the fact that nobody in that position would be bragging about it on a public forum. There's lots of supporting evidence to go along with this - the choice of alias complete with mysterious story, the addition of 'captain' and associated fragile ego, the near archaic programming terminology used, the novice like approach to commonly accepted programming techniques, the fact that every little snippet of, nod, nod, wink, wink semi-secret information he drops pops up verbatim after a quick Google and so on.
You may not think yourself naive but do please realise that people frequently differ enormously from the image they try to present on the internet.
Face it: what you and others find hard to accept is that somebody here is doing such cool work.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that your views are those of all of us. I certainly don't have any desire to work on weapons designed to maim and kill other human beings, indeed I would not do so.
I'm sorry for the "2nd Cannon Place" post. I figured people either recognized the reference or didn't, but hadn't planned on a full-text wikipedia quote.
At the end of the day, quite a lot of progress in society has required people using aliases. A name or alias can greatly affect how people look at peoples initial posts. But after a while, people will move all focus to the contents and not the name.
No, indeed it isn't.
If the good old captain is not really a weapons designer, so what?
Indeed, so what? Although don't forget he isn't a good old captain either.
He has interesting wordy stories
Lose the 'interesting' and I'm with you...
and all in all his technical remarks are of great value most of the time.
But I can't agree with that.
I believe him. You can call me naive. I don't care.
Ok, ok!
It does not matter - don't you have your own fantasies?
Of course. Do I feel the need to reinforce them by posting them to the internet and trying to get others to believe them? No.
I understand your position and frankly - I would work not on weapons either (but it is a fine line sometimes, surely you agree). Anyhow, I think many people that actually do this kind of work justify it by persuading themselves using arguments used by some of the people that worked/developed atomic/hydrogen weapons: "I'm only the technician doing this out of intellectual curiosity. What happens next is non of my business" (or more easily - plain nationalism). A lot of this work was outright brilliant, of course, and had many civilian/scientific implementations too, but the essence remains: I don't thing it is a nice thing to do, not can it be reconciled that easily.
This has definitely turned into a non-typical Cpt. Vince initiated thread.
I've even found myself reading it all!
There are many typos in the previous post - sorry for that.
I don't thing it is a nice thing to do, not can it be reconciled that easily.
I am in agreement with you.
It's now clear that if we think this thing back through to first principles energy is actually to blame for everything. We should lock it all up and only let it out if it promises to appear slowly and gently as nice parts of the spectrum. Bunching itself up in to lumps of mass then mucking about with the speed of light is strictly forbidden.
Jack, I happen to know Captain Vince personally. He was a great mentor to me as I was starting out as a young engineer. I have seen proof that Captain Vince was indeed a weapons programmer for many years.
Well Cyril, that's just great. I won't ask you to show us that proof though because it's no doubt all secret. (Don't worry Cyril, all that other stuff I posted was just a smokescreen to keep the others off our scent. They were getting a bit too close to guessing the truth...)
"I understand your position and frankly - I would work not on weapons either (but it is a fine line sometimes, surely you agree)."
Now that made me curios. Fine line as in "our devices are not weapons, but are known to be at least as lethal"? :)
Something in the line of: A "one-gee express elevator" or a "10kV flash toaster" or maybe a revolutionary environmentally friendly "hibernating ABS system".
Beautiful!
Think of military thermal vision system.
Is it a weapon?
It may be used to target weapons, but are the ones writing the software for it complicit?
Yikes this thread jumped up: monikers-n-all.
#1. Thanks for the vouch there Cyril: BTW read your email. (and thanks for the kudos) #2. Of course I google snippets and pass the off as my own work. Oh, wait, I would have to post some 'proof' otherwise. #3. That 'proof' standard of Jack Sprat would be what exactly? #4. If I posted actual code, I would be breaking two things: a) security, and b) confidential IP #5. Those 'photos' I have aren't google-able: e.g. to gain a chain of claims like the MRM I would have to post the following: -- MRM in flight (published--Duh): www.raytheon.com/.../cms04_022892.wmv (no, I don't work for Raytheon) -- MRM still photo (published): http://i.imgur.com/FyquM.jpg -- MRM electronics validation (un-published): http://i.imgur.com/JMV0r.jpg -- MRM guidance section (un-published): http://i.imgur.com/7Fq7t.jpg -- MRM wind-tunnel testing (un-published because I can't find the photo at the moment) -- Gee, Sardine-head, with all that info, you should be able to google that, right? go ahead and try.
#6. I can 'brag' about doing both the electrical design and the firmware, but to prove so is obviously not going to happen (posting schems and code--I think not) #7. Anybody in MY position can brag about stuff, but we usually don't even bother with forums. I happen to like this one, and I think that there are many things I could contribute to, in order to 'help' others. #8. Andy ... you've been quiet... I've emailed you, but please honor what I asked for (anonymity) #9. Anonymity, DUH. Some of the stuff I illude to shouldn't be illuded to sometimes. #10. So, Jack... I've been into the electronics/firmware business since the 1970's. Thus the 'archaich' references... and the inability to spell. #11. "New" stuff isn't really that new, *IF* you know what you are doing.
#1.
<great stuff snipped>
You just keep on living the fantasy, Vince. It seems to entertain people, so why not?