| Author | Message | ||
     Crusty |
Who? | ||
| 04xl1200c |
The Doctor. | ||
| Crusty |
Yeah, but Who's on First? | ||
| 04xl1200c |
But of course he is on first. What is on second and I don't know is on third. | ||
| Ducbsa |
"Surely, you tell yourself, this must be some kind of Manchurian EPA, a sort of parody organisation designed and funded by some sinister right-wing cabal with the express intention of satirising Big Government lunacy and discrediting the Obama administration which relied on it so heavily to advance its war on capitalism." http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/07 /delingpole-the-epas-air-pollution-scare-is-just-a nother-fake-news-myth/ | ||
| Hootowl |
I don't give a darn. | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm all for environmental protection. Agencies I have some issues with. Smart regulation is difficult. Lawmakers are mostly lawyers who are trained to argue, not find facts. Basically the worst people to write laws. Lucky for us, mostly, they don't. They have a well paid staff that translates the desires of the folk that bribe their bosses into law. Also, I doubt there is a law school in the country that requires basic physics, chemistry, or math more complex than double billing. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenlan d-vikings-vanished-180962119/#zdXOHFpS3vTJov4R.99 A mystery. Some theories. | ||
| Hootowl |
Good news for the electric car. https://cleantechnica.com/2017/03/06/battery-legen d-goodenough-now-betting-solid-state-batteries/ And we won't have to rely on Chinese Lithium. Though since it will likely be cheaper to rely on China, and their lack of environmental regulations, for Sodium, we'll probably end up buying it from them anyway. | ||
| Ratbuell |
I had an electric car debate the other day - a greenie didn't like my Cummins and told me so. I'm properly tuned and don't "roll smoke" or have stacks or any of that crap, but it's a big diesel and they decided it's evil. I asked them "so where do you think the electricity comes from that you're powering your car with?" "My house, it's totally clean" they replied. I explained the concept of power generation to them - nuclear, coal, diesel, hydro in areas that support it. They were clueless. They thought their precious car was absolutely spotless and apparently thought electricity simply "exists". Granted some are cleaner than others but pretty much any generational source has some "dirt" to it. Even solar - how are the panels made? There's dirt there, too...sure, they make completely non-invasive power...but they have to be built/produced/assembled first. I can't wait for electric cars to start having those big yellow "energy guide" stickers on them. For now though, I'll keep driving (and enjoying) my 22 mpg 3/4 ton diesel pickup truck. Not stellar efficiency, I admit, but...given the utility and the torque on hand I think it's pretty damn good. | ||
| Hootowl |
'Organic' food causes climate change! http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e160263 8.full Meh. I'm still going to grow my own tomatoes. | ||
| Aesquire |
sure, they make completely non-invasive power Not really. If you're lucky or had the foresight to have a roof pointed in the right direction, the intrusion into your view & land use is minimal. If you have to cover acres of scrub, or other wild lands, you can drastically affect the local ecosystem. Those effects can be good and bad. Soil erosion, what kind of critter lives there, it's all different. Could produce a nice rabbit friendly briar patch, or a rotting death swamp. ( or... a fox frustrating death patch, & a sweet poisonous snake hangout ) Digging foundations, heavy equipment, solar installation can be a real yard/woods wrecker. Maintenance is an issue. You have to keep the panels clean, so in the desert you have high water use, and "of course" expect mass herbicide use in high brush country. But, hey, even at nigh zero "impact" just mowing the yard in patterns leaving high grass & sown wildflowers, you get effects. When I put in my backyard maze, I expected a "nice little home for wild life" and wasn't quite ready for the herd of deer and the coyote kills.  | ||
| Aesquire |
Hoot, we need our Organic Farming Guy to comment on that article. He claims, ( if I have this right, please correct me ) that Organic farming can have comparable yields and energy use to conventional industrial modern farming. For sake of argument "organic farming" is an evolving mix of good and stupid definitions. Call it a vaguely defined concept with contradictory regulations and science. You know... what's on the shelf with the buzzword. I partly agree. An ideal organic farming setup can even get better yield, than industrial farms. But... I think an Ideal industrial farm could out produce an organic farm, just as it would a normal industrial farm. Take it as given that all farmers attempt to optimize production and soil use. IMHO the "Ideal" farming would take the best ideas from both, and be done in a scientific & ecologically correct way. Which ideas are stupid or smart is the argument. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445708/f-35- replacement-f-45-mustang-ii-fighter-simple-lightwe ight Seems like a good idea. A do everything fighter is like a do everything motorcycle. There are a very few bikes, the Ulysses comes to mind, or the Kawasaki 650 that can do almost everything but are limited by their compromises. A Ulysses can't take big air off road. A smaller enduro bike isn't great at crossing America on freeways. You make your choices and accept the limits. The F-35 is a great example of poor choices. Three versions. Air force, Navy with bigger wings & tail plus arresting hook & beefier structure to take carrier duty, and the Marine version with VTOL capacity to operate from helicopter carriers & fields. ......... Here's the fail. All versions are severely compromised by the huge engine the Marines need. The Marine version can't land on existing ships because the hot jet blast wrecks the decks. ( so the ships need new very expensive decks ) it also can't carry much off the short decks & fields so you need another different plane to refuel it right after takeoff. ( or else why bother? Without the fuel to get there & back or the weapons to do the job..... it's useless. ) oh, & it doesn't have a gun. There's a gun pod. But it ruins the stealth & doesn't carry much ammo.... and can't be carried with a full load of bombs too. A fighter without a gun is screwed. We learned that over fifty years ago. They want to substitute new mini missiles for old school strafing. The gun lets you shoot very close to your ground troops. Untried non existent expensive wonder missiles just can't equal a Vulcan cannon. Oh, & the gun on the other versions doesn't work. They are working on a software fix? wtf? But most importantly the airplanes won't ever exist in big enough numbers to do the job. Airplanes like a Cessna need x number of mechanic hours for y hours flying. Call it 1 to 10. A F-15 needs 4 to 1. ( lots more stuff & electronics ) a F-22 needs 10 to 1. F-35...15 to 1. You literally can't fly these planes every day. Costs are so high you can't afford to train. I admit I lean towards John Boyd & his teachings. | ||
| Strokizator |
Looks like not much was learned from the FB-111 one-size-fits-all fiasco of the early 60's. | ||
| Aesquire |
Nope. The bean counters have no memory. The history of mistakes repeated over and over isn't part of their education. Look at H-D and Buell. Countless companies that cut R&D and advertising. The Post Office deciding that stamp machines are too expensive to keep going in office buildings. ( you can just see the meeting... "Stamps cost money, we can save......" ) The buzzwords that ruin function. "Commonality", the notion that you can build a touring bike & race bike with the same frame. "Concurrent", the notion you can go into production before product testing. "Sustainability",the notion you can get away with bad practices if you relabel them.  The F-35 program is a great example of the idea that if you can promise jobs in enough Congressional districts you have the votes to buy gold plated feces. But we NEED new airplanes. Most of the fleet is used up. We have aircraft in use older than their pilots. Like fighting Desert Storm with P-39's and B-24's. Technology has moved. We need a mix of planes. Air superiority types or nothing else can fly. Ground attack or nothing supports the troops. Refueling tankers. Cargo planes. ( nothing built by anyone equals the C-130, which is older than many here ) Wild Weasel anti-anti aircraft planes. Sure, drones can supplement manned aircraft. But when the control signal can be jammed or hacked, like the Iranians have done with Russian gear ( & probably technicians ) the drone failures will have no replacement. Modern Russian anti air missiles are unmatched. And most importantly, exist in large enough quantity to use. Using a Billion dollar airplane to bomb 20k pickup trucks protected by 21st century Russian missiles is bad accounting. Losing Europe or Korea/Japan/etc. because we can't project power under the enemies anti air umbrella is even more costly. And Barry Taqiyya gutted the military in so many ways. He will go down in history as most ruinous traitor to western civilization since Lenin. And he's proud of it. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.yahoo.com/news/headphone-batteries-exp lode-flight-australia-070000773--finance.html Ow. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Until you have been in a room with these kinds of folks and witnessed it first hand, it is hard to comprehend exactly how true this really is. Business Guy: "We are going to acquire this company and spend $10M to win a $40M market." Bean Counter: "Here is your $10M" Engineer: "That was the same thing business guy said 7 times in the last 10 years, and all 7 of those projects ended up costing over $50M, the market was always under $30M, and we never did get a competitive product out because all the talent left and the product they had was 80% smoke and mirrors anyway" Bean Counter: That won't happen this team, because he says its a $10M investment to win a $40M market. Engineer: Bang Bang Bang <-- head on desk It's like horse whispering or something. It's the damnedest thing to watch. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/america-insists-o n-a-13-billion-aircraft-carrier-thats-1793233401 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/americas-carrier- gap-crisis-highlights-a-need-for-sma-1740644946 Ultimately, missile combat at sea comes down to numbers. If you can shoot down x number of missiles at a time, ( between detecting them and sinking in flames ) then the enemy can defeat you with X + 1 missiles. In the real world, some of the missiles will just fall off the rails into the sea without heading towards the enemy. So you add enough to compensate. ( this is true for everyone. Our missiles do that too, if someone forgets to plug in something ) This unfortunate math means that supercarriers are a very expensive target. But as the articles above point out,the military is afraid that if they accept less than the biggest, best, solution, then they won't get anything. With a lot of justification. Some Congresscritter always asks if they just can't keep using the stuff that worked fine in the Spanish American war. That's how you end up with 20 total B-2 bombers instead of 200....... and when told we need 100 less capable planes to do the job of 15 new ones, Congress orders 20 less capable planes and figures that's good enough. Then you need to learn Chinese. | ||
| Chauly |
I thought that sounded familiar: "You too may be a big hero, Once you've learned to count backwards to zero. "in german or in english I know how to count down, And I'm learning Chinese," says Wernher von Braun. https://youtu.be/QEJ9HrZq7Ro | ||
| Ourdee |
| ||
| Hootowl |
It's no more a target than the ones we already have are. Several layers of antiship missile defense. And they're pretty tough too. | ||
| Aesquire |
Sure the U.S. Navy Carrier battle group is the most powerful weapon system, possibly the most sophisticated in the world. But missiles get through. Like the box formations of Flying Fortresses with hundreds of machine guns pointing in all directions, could not prevent excessive losses, invulnerability is a comic book concept. I'm not saying we don't need supercarriers. Best Bang for the buck, though, is a mix of big and medium ( late WW2 Fleet Carrier size ) as well as a mix of airplanes. One size don't fit all. Personally, I think I see a repeat of "we got cool tech" mistakes. The original F-4 Phantom didn't have a gun. Missiles were supposed to make guns obsolete. Wrong. The super destroyer with a fancy gun that they probably won't make the fancy ammo for... what? ( but this was just the interim gun while they wait for the rail guns ) The brown water super stealth ship that... isn't equipped to shoot at speedboats full of explosives... since it has one 57 mm cannon in a stealth mount and there's no pintle mounts to hang Ma Deuces on so sailors can repel borders. And to be honest, I want to see anti air R2D2s every fifteen feet on your average destroyer.... It's a hostile world out there. | ||
| Hootowl |
Not just phalanx. Two types of missiles, plus a laser is in the works, and operationally deployed on at least one ship. They also have to get their delivery system in range. With cap and picket ships, that's unlikely to happen. There isn't a system out there that can simultaneously fire hundreds of antiship missiles at a moving target from hundreds of miles away. Cruise missiles are good at fixed positions. Ships that travel 45 mph? Not so much. | ||
| Aesquire |
There are generations of air launched heavy cruise missiles in Russian inventory. A couple of types of bombers set up for attacking carrier groups. A bunch of large trawler sized boats with 4 or more heavy missiles in launchers, cheap disposable counters to U.S. power. The older lower tech missiles are jet fighter sized. The newer ones are the same size, just faster. ( to fit existing platforms ) Half the Russian Navy is designed to kill carriers. The U.S. tech is sophisticated, but numbers matter. Saturate the defenses and hits get through. I haven't mentioned subs or the Chinese ICBM type anti-carrier missiles. Theoretically the newer American carriers are much better defended against 1960's threats than the surplus WW2 carriers now scrapped. Against 21st century threats? We won't know how survivable they are until they confront them. And how good is an Aegis Cruiser and Destroyer against speed boats with suicide bombers? Iran plans to swarm ships. The kind of attack that " super high tech" ships aren't armed for. How many Standard missiles that can kill ICBM s does it take to kill a Boston whaler? 2 dozen at a time? Ironically a late war WW2 Destroyer Escort is far better equipped for that threat than a modern one. It'd be dead meat for a cruise missile. At the beginning of WW2 our ships had few anti air guns. By 1945 the numbers were very different. Battleships were floating flack batteries with the decks nearby covered in guns from .50 cal to 5 inch. Modern ships are., IMHO, at the same state of promises untried as the 1941 fleet. Designed for the last war. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39277940 It had to happen. | ||
| Hootowl |
All true, but you still have to get close enough to deploy the weapons. Russian bears love to overfly carriers...but they are always escorted by cap as they do it. In actual combat, cap would have splashed them long before they got in range. | ||
| Hootowl |
Neat that they can target a small drone...but that kind of target is where the new truck based lasers are going to...forgive me...shine. | ||
| Aesquire |
You have to remember that politicians can mess up anything. With insane rules of engagement, polite and watchful F-18s will escort Bear bombers to point blank range. And never forget the dreaded Jihadi kamikaze. Cheap guidance systems named Abdullah & Freddie, with 5000 lbs. of explosives in outboards. Remember, all this stuff since 1975 is essentially untested.... heck since 1945. When's the last time Carrier forces were attacked? answer, 1951, and the shoot down of 2 Russian flown Migs by a Grumman carrier jet was hidden until a year or so ago, since the warning of the attack was radio intercept of Russian chatter by secret ops on the carrier.... and the Russians lied about their pilots fighting in Korea until just recently. Hey. I loved "Red Storm Rising" and used to get Proceedings ( of the U.S. Naval Institute ) and Aviation Week. I'm just aware that nothing ever works like the commercial, and this stuff has never been tested in combat. The history of war is full of the struggle between armor and weapons. We build a better missile killing missile, they build a better ship killing missile, we...... | ||
| Aesquire |
http://jalopnik.com/the-flying-crowbar-the-insane- doomsday-weapon-america-1435286216 I was always a big Project Pluto fan. The idea of a mach 3 low altitude missile with orbital range... You can almost see the flickering shadow as it passes overhead, followed by a shock wave that blows the barn & farmhouse away like straw, followed by the hurricane force jet blast of radioactive welding torch temperature air. Which sets everything on fire. It would lay a line of devastation, of biblical proportions. One of the greatest inventions I'm happy never was used. |
