OK, then why don't the build a laser 1/10 the size? Less costly, smaller airplane to carry it, more agile, could build more of them for the same price.
90%? citation needed. Dialectric layered mirrors can achieve better than 99% reflectivity for select wavelengths. These types of coatings are probably heavier than polishing the rocket body (or even a simple paint). This whole line of counter-counter measure would depend on the secrecy of the ABL frequency and its ability to change it.
Even if you are right, if it's simple to increase the reflectivity of the rocket by an order of magnitude, then you make the ABL's job an order of magnitude harder. This would be huge of course, increasing the requirements of the ABL to compensate for atmospheric distortion, increasing the time the ABL has to stay trained on a specific spot, probably affecting effective range, and ultimately reducing the overall cost effectiveness of the ABL. All this for a simple polishing of the rocket.
Um, I'm an engineer, and I'm in Japan, and I'm working for a Japanese company despite my American nationality. Watch it before you make such blanket statements.;-)
Liar. If you live in Japan, tell me what Mothra is doing right now.
Try reading the grandparent post for some context. No, I'm not really proposing that cars be banned to the freeways. I'm a car driver as well as a bicyclist.
It's a rare day that I meet someone as stupid as you.
You A) still (yes, still) are ignoring 2/3 of the funding source I mentioned, B) moving the goalposts, C) have yet to propose any coherent allowed-use policy based on relative funding of roads, D) haven't shown that gas or other use based funding sources are "the most significant" funding sources for any roads and E) haven't yet shown that bicycle usage is out of proportion considering the average contribution of bicyclists from non-use based funding sources.
Just admit you are wrong and shut the fuck up already.
Congratulations, you demolished my argument. Well, one third of my argument. Well, not so much demolished as conceded that one of the three non-use sources of funding for roads I mentioned is in fact valid. So if there is a component to road funding that is not use based, then, logically, the argument that only use-based taxed users of the roads are permitted falls flat. Of course the whole argument is flawed to its core, because it's the law which says bicycles can use roads, not misinformed internet asshats. Flawed logical arguments about pay-per use entitlement are not really relevant or useful except perhaps as entertainment.
Do you know what the + sign means? Do you work hard being so stupid?
The claim that funding for roads comes solely from use taxes is false. Depending one where you are and what roads you are talking about, the claim that funding for roads comes primarily from uses taxes is false.
Most roads are paid for in part by general tax funds. Gasoline taxes to not fully fund roads. There you go you ignorant twat, you learn something every day.
Ya... did you stop to consider the impact of your choice to drive a car? Don't inconvenience others and then expect them to like you.
Where I live, car drivers seem to be their own worst enemy; there are laws about what they may and may not do, and yet they seem to feel that it's ok to drive faster than the speed limit (it's not), ignore stop signs (they can't), turn without signalling (nope), harass other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians (assault and sometime battery), talk on the cell phone (illegal here), text message or work on computers (I'm not kidding about this), read books, put on make up, and ignore red lights. Ever see someone stop right in the middle of road just to talk to their passenger oblivious to the traffic they are stopping? Every year, car drivers kill thousands of people and do millions of dollars of property damage.
So, I really have no sympathy for them, and they're such a nuisance that I'm in favor of making it illegal for them to drive ANYWHERE except on the freeways.
No matter how you measure it (number of copy cat programs, efficiency and failure rates, importance to computer science), this program tops them all. Where would we be without it?
Slashdot Mirror
This is my computer Darrel, and this is my other computer Darrel.
Tell them I sent you.
OK, then why don't the build a laser 1/10 the size? Less costly, smaller airplane to carry it, more agile, could build more of them for the same price.
Think about it for a while.
OMG you are so funny.
Even if you are right, if it's simple to increase the reflectivity of the rocket by an order of magnitude, then you make the ABL's job an order of magnitude harder. This would be huge of course, increasing the requirements of the ABL to compensate for atmospheric distortion, increasing the time the ABL has to stay trained on a specific spot, probably affecting effective range, and ultimately reducing the overall cost effectiveness of the ABL. All this for a simple polishing of the rocket.
+1 insightful.
Yea, Luddites!!!!
Um, I'm an engineer, and I'm in Japan, and I'm working for a Japanese company despite my American nationality. Watch it before you make such blanket statements. ;-)
Liar. If you live in Japan, tell me what Mothra is doing right now.
Thought so.
Not only does the GEN not have to meet as many emissions standards
That's the spirit!!
Wow the race analogy and the gay analogy? Oh the humanity.
Try reading the grandparent post for some context. No, I'm not really proposing that cars be banned to the freeways. I'm a car driver as well as a bicyclist.
It's a rare day that I meet someone as stupid as you.
You A) still (yes, still) are ignoring 2/3 of the funding source I mentioned, B) moving the goalposts, C) have yet to propose any coherent allowed-use policy based on relative funding of roads, D) haven't shown that gas or other use based funding sources are "the most significant" funding sources for any roads and E) haven't yet shown that bicycle usage is out of proportion considering the average contribution of bicyclists from non-use based funding sources.
Just admit you are wrong and shut the fuck up already.
Congratulations, you demolished my argument. Well, one third of my argument. Well, not so much demolished as conceded that one of the three non-use sources of funding for roads I mentioned is in fact valid. So if there is a component to road funding that is not use based, then, logically, the argument that only use-based taxed users of the roads are permitted falls flat. Of course the whole argument is flawed to its core, because it's the law which says bicycles can use roads, not misinformed internet asshats. Flawed logical arguments about pay-per use entitlement are not really relevant or useful except perhaps as entertainment.
Do you know what the + sign means? Do you work hard being so stupid?
The claim that funding for roads comes solely from use taxes is false. Depending one where you are and what roads you are talking about, the claim that funding for roads comes primarily from uses taxes is false.
Is it true about ignorance being bliss?
Most roads are paid for in part by general tax funds. Gasoline taxes to not fully fund roads. There you go you ignorant twat, you learn something every day.
NOT where I live. It's bike lanes only.
Where do you live? I've never heard of a place where bicycle are illegal outside of bike lanes.
Ya... did you stop to consider the impact of your choice to drive a car? Don't inconvenience others and then expect them to like you.
Where I live, car drivers seem to be their own worst enemy; there are laws about what they may and may not do, and yet they seem to feel that it's ok to drive faster than the speed limit (it's not), ignore stop signs (they can't), turn without signalling (nope), harass other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians (assault and sometime battery), talk on the cell phone (illegal here), text message or work on computers (I'm not kidding about this), read books, put on make up, and ignore red lights. Ever see someone stop right in the middle of road just to talk to their passenger oblivious to the traffic they are stopping? Every year, car drivers kill thousands of people and do millions of dollars of property damage.
So, I really have no sympathy for them, and they're such a nuisance that I'm in favor of making it illegal for them to drive ANYWHERE except on the freeways.
Why would you bar Alaska?
Seriously, that's your biggest grip? The protector idea rocks compared to breed-for-lucky shit.
What if you flew (~2 hours) every day and drove (~2 hours) once a year, would airplanes still be comparatively "safer"?
Yes.
What if -everyone- on the planet was doing that?
Irrelevant.
That's nothing compared to 14 cores.
You are bad at math.
No matter how you measure it (number of copy cat programs, efficiency and failure rates, importance to computer science), this program tops them all. Where would we be without it?
To vex morons like yourself.
Can you guys take this shit someplace else?