Re: Strategic Reserve.

["Bill Blomgren" <wblomgren@rr.carolina.com>]

Well... As a quick aside: the error was apparently a HUMAN one that put bad data in
the database.. Wasn't IO error...Statements taken from the individual who did the deed
blamed NT, but the naval investigation showed otherwise.  And it was not towed to
port.  (Another fabrication by the guy that apparently intentionally tried to disable
the ship..)   He was a Unix hack that was trying to "prove" that NT didn't work...and
didn't succeed.

Jim Polaski <jpolaski@wwa.com> wrote in message
jpolaski-0609991446190001@el03-24-131-173-81.ce.mediaone.net">news:jpolaski-0609991446190001@el03-24-131-173-81.ce.mediaone.net...
| In article <37D37747.178E8D62@omni.com.au>, David Bromage
| <dbromage@omni.com.au> wrote:
|
| > David S wrote:
| > > (Or all those Russian ICBMs that are most likely NOT Y2K compliant.)
| >
| > Royal Navy SLBMs are not Y2K compliant either!
| >
| > Cheers
| > David
|
| ====
| And neither is our Navy prepared. Seems a battleship has been taken down
| my a database error ( /0 exception) which crashed the DB and then went on
| to wreck the ship's LAN which was running NT. Couldn't be brought back up.
| Had to be towed to port for days of repairs. And it's happened more than
| once....