Talk:USS Yorktown (CG-48)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old talk

There's a picture of a collision with a Russian ship, but then, no text in the article about why/how it happened.

I disagree - Taken from end of third para or article: While exercising the "right of innocent passage" through Soviet-claimed territorial waters, a Soviet warship intentionally collided with Yorktown in what some observers have called "the last incident of the Cold War." Rob 17:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Omg.. why the hell would you trust a goddamed warship to Microsoft Windows!!!!

Notice how most of the links are now lost or forbidden? United States like China doesn't want the world to know where it stuffed up? --156.62.3.22 (Nzhamstar) 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to notice however, that despite the claims of "innocent passage", the incident has been viewed by the Soviet general public as yet another provocation, and Bezzavetny had to prevent the intrusion "with her own body" so to say. Come on, Yorktown is a warship, what innocence are you talking about? -- Wesha 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think this incident deserves a separate article. KNewman (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A 3500 ton Soviet frigate rammed a near 10000 ton cruiser intending to shunt it into international waters? Ref - a video. Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti US and the York was probably in the right here. But the stated soviet intent seems unlikely. Winston Wolfe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.31.249 (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Museum?

Where has it been said that Yorktown may become a museum? I don't think this will happen. USS Ticonderoga is already well on her way to becoming a museum, why save Yorktown too? AJB93 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no reply, so I changed the status. AJB93 (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Windows problems?

When you read the Wired article, you'll notice an interesting thing - in many places, article _suggests_ (not to say, insinuates) that the problems were somehow related to Windows malfunction. However, it doesn't explicitly say that anywhere. If there actually were any technical problems with Windows, author would write that it crashed, BSOD-ed, whatever. The only explanation I can think of is that the author heard that Windows crashed a warship and later, with dismay, realized that Windows was not actually at fault - which is bad, because story about problem in Windows is much hotter than a story about a problem in software nobody heard about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trasz (talk • contribs) 10:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Why Windows NT Server 4.0 continues to exist in the enterprise would be a topic appropriate for an investigative report in the field of psychology or marketing, not an article on information technology," said John Kirch, a networking consultant and Microsoft certified professional, in his white paper, Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 versus Unix. "Technically, Windows NT Server 4.0 is no match for any Unix operating system."

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1998/07/13987

“Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there have been numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown”

http://lists.essential.org/1998/am-info/msg03829.html

“Refining that is an ongoing process," Redman said. "Unix is a better system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better system for the transfer of information and data. NT has never been fully refined and there are times when we have had shutdowns that resulted from NT.”

emacsuser (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that all these are someones opinions, not facts. There is no information about any _actual_ problems with Windows. Trasz (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That quote is an accurate reflection on what was said by deputy technical director Redman, as such it fully passes Wikipedian verifiability policy. Your opinion as to the truth of those statements is not required.

'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth .. not whether we think it is true'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

emacsuser (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The last part of this article reads like a propaganda piece against Microsoft. The specific error mentioned in the article is caused by a database program - not Windows NT. Stop being such UNIX zealots, already. It's annoying! Dcook32p (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ron Redman quote

The quote is directly attributed to Ron Redman and is most relevant, what other meaning can be gleaned from the words 'numerous software failures associated with NT'.

'Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there have been numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown'

emacsuser (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Weapons systems

Not sure how to edit this, but the Yorktown deployed in 2004 with 2 Mk 38 Mod 0 25mm chain guns, naval variants of the M242 Bushmaster. States purpose was defense against waterborne attack from small craft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mk_38_25mm_Machine_Gun_System.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY4hbTyhoxc (video of MK 38 gun operation on board CG-48) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.53.38 (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Collision not necessarily intentional

There's another plausible explanation for the collision between the two ships: http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2iyki7/united_states_navy_ship_in_soviet_waters_gets/cl6x1u2

Where's the evidence that it was intentional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.252.227 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that contemporary media universally says "deliberately" to describe the bumping. ie. (NY Times) That and the fact that they bumped Caron prior to bumping Yorktown. One would think if the first accidentally struck Caron they would have warned the second not to get as close to Yorktown. According to media reports called the ships over the radio stating, "Soviet ships have orders to prevent violation of territorial waters. I am authorized to strike your ship with one of ours." --Dual Freq (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)