Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-12-2011, 12:45 PM
 
Location: The Ranch in Olam Haba
23,707 posts, read 30,832,077 times
Reputation: 9985

Advertisements

Quote:
The last statement could possibly be related to "dropping wifi".
Need more bread crumbs to follow?

NETCOM-ESTA Wireless (http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/contracts/gwac_idiq/netcom_esta/index.html - broken link)

Quote:
Everything else just points to buggy software.
Not buggy software, but access software that had too many requirements that took it from a simple to use program and turned it into a multilevel program with too many embedded nests.

Thus your next breadcrumbs are Oracle & VM.

 
Old 07-12-2011, 01:28 PM
 
47,036 posts, read 26,126,236 times
Reputation: 29512
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilVA View Post
Not buggy software, but access software that had too many requirements that took it from a simple to use program and turned it into a multilevel program with too many embedded nests.
Oh? I thought it worked "just fine", that it was just a matter of "the Army doesn't have a strong enough wi-fi connection to connect to it." The guy who posted that sounded very sure of himself, actually.

I will say, though, that "too many requirements" is one of the ballsier excuses for IT project failure that I've heard. Couldn't you just have said "It was too hard"?
 
Old 07-12-2011, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Southern California
15,080 posts, read 20,512,355 times
Reputation: 10343
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilVA View Post
Research DCGS-A on how it connects to the network in a desert environment where you can't set up a fixed antenna and how continuously moving nodes in the air in non-secure airspace can't hold a continuous wifi signal.

Or does this need to made simpler to understand for the simple-minded?
Please do.

[keep it simple]
 
Old 07-12-2011, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,832 posts, read 19,546,499 times
Reputation: 9633
the system it self works fine

its just the 30 DIFFERENT systems that the army used most dont match with each other

its the same with the army's HR systems DIMARS(a civilian HR program) was supposed to take over fram RLAS, RSMA, AHORS, ITTRS, ATTRS etc....for the army( the LARGEST EMPLOYEER in the world)

one of the problems ...the army uses a SSN , not a payroll number...the other problems with rolling 30 datebases into one...MISMATCH
 
Old 07-12-2011, 01:58 PM
 
Location: The Ranch in Olam Haba
23,707 posts, read 30,832,077 times
Reputation: 9985
Quote:
the system it self works fine

its just the 30 DIFFERENT systems that the army used most dont match with each other

its the same with the army's HR systems DIMARS was supposed to take over fram RLAS, RSMA, AHORS, ITTRS, ATTRS etc....

one of the problems ...the army uses a SSN , not a payroll number...the other problems with rolling 30 datebases into one...MISMATCH
See, someone who didn't need breadcrumbs.

But back to the other posters: Research the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Look at what it was originally designed to do and all the modifications to it through numerous years and then what it bacame, then compare its original cost to its total cost. Then trade the word Bradley for this system.

Quote:
I will say, though, that "too many requirements" is one of the ballsier excuses for IT project failure that I've heard. Couldn't you just have said "It was too hard"?
It didn't have too many requirements when it was was started. It had too many modifications done to after each time it was field tested. It started as a $296 million contract and each modification was outside of the contracts parameters .
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defen...opment&id=3469
It worked just fine in its 2006 version.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_A...ystem_999.html

Last edited by Pruzhany; 07-12-2011 at 02:08 PM..
 
Old 07-12-2011, 02:02 PM
 
29,407 posts, read 22,053,810 times
Reputation: 5455
So these fools subcontracted two different software vendors that can't "talk" to each other for a communications system? Yep sounds about right for government work.

Jeez who said use walkie talkies? Yep I think the troops have probably already tossed this thing off a cliff somewhere over in the "sticks" and is back to doing what they know. Adapt and overcome.
 
Old 07-12-2011, 02:16 PM
 
Location: The Ranch in Olam Haba
23,707 posts, read 30,832,077 times
Reputation: 9985
Quote:
So these fools subcontracted two different software vendors
More than two: Google DCGS-A Contracts. Plus its not finished yet. its set for completion at the end of 2012. So the final bill hasn't been hit yet.
 
Old 07-12-2011, 04:05 PM
 
2,541 posts, read 2,744,016 times
Reputation: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilVA View Post
Research DCGS-A on how it connects to the network in a desert environment where you can't set up a fixed antenna and how continuously moving nodes in the air in non-secure airspace can't hold a continuous wifi signal.

Or does this need to made simpler to understand for the simple-minded?
Why wouldn't they use satellite telecom connections - isn't that enough wi-fi for you?
 
Old 07-12-2011, 04:31 PM
 
Location: The Ranch in Olam Haba
23,707 posts, read 30,832,077 times
Reputation: 9985
Quote:
Why wouldn't they use satellite telecom connections -
Too many protocols. but your welcome to research it and bring back your findings to this thread.
 
Old 07-13-2011, 11:48 AM
 
2,541 posts, read 2,744,016 times
Reputation: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilVA View Post
Too many protocols. but your welcome to research it and bring back your findings to this thread.
There are still people using satellite phones, so the 'protocols' must be functional, even if the defense phones aren't
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top