The crew of that Tornado GR.4 belonging to 9 Squadron RAF Marham were known for their concientious attitude towards their work along with their great experience on Tornados.
Neither officer was reknowned for 'goofing-off' as they knew like any-other RAF crew that such behaviour leads to a court-martial in jig-time.
It is know that they were in the right place at the right time and it might also be worth pointing out that it is highly unlikely that they would deactivate the IFF when they knew that Rapier systems were deployed (You don't even know they are there till they fire).
The current status of this 'friendly-fire' incident according to both the US and UK is that it is under investigation. you may like to read this article on possible bugs in the Patriot system software.
Is that there is little talent left in Hollywood and yet the Industry expects people to pay extortionate ammounts for films a six year old could have written.
I just don't bother watching the majority of what gets churned-out these days. If needs must, I watch an older film:)
Incidentally, I wonder why my last post got modded as 'Offtopic'? - Is it because it was mildly anti-corporate-america? - Does slashdot now have corporate moderators?:p
I mean, with the utter rubbish that hollywood constantly turns out, why waste bandwidth.
Take for instance the new Italian Job remake....
1) Its been Americanised (which defeats at least 2 plot elements)
2) They use BMW Minis which just wouldn't fit in a normal coach unlike the original bad-ass Austins.
3) The movie appears to take itself seriously where the original was a comedy
4) Apparently, at no point during the film does anyone say "You were only s'posed to blow the bloody doors off!"
5) The original movie had an ending where you didn't know if they got away with it or not; do you think an American ending would be the same?
6) The Minis although painted in red, white and blue use the same colourscheme as the 1969 minis which with the white tops is meant to denote the British union flag.
Now then
What i've been trying to point out here in a very long winded and round-about fashion is that if Hollywood(the Movie industry) doesn't want to give us original ideas in new films but would rather rape older, far superior films, why the hell would I, the consumer want to give them my money. So, if other people think like me, their sales fall
Now a definition IMHO of a good film: Dog Soldiers. It had it all, drama, action, horror, suspense. And all filmed on British and European money. (later bought by fox on realising it was bloody good). British actors and dark British humor make this a film I can watch again and again.:)
So, until the MPAA pulls it's collective fingers out and starts making a worthwhile product, I'm not giving them the time of day.
Oh, and as for any far-reaching laws, that just has a tendancy to make me very, very upset
If an erroneous RIAA employee decided to hack into my system and delete a file or two, I would become - how shall we say - unhappy.
I wouldn't bother making a counter attack and deleting files on his system, I wouldn't cause a DoS attack on the RIAA servers.
I'd get on a plane, fly across the atlantic and kick his head off his shoulders
Ive really had enough of Corporate America sticking their oar into international affairs (Not to mention the fact that my country (UK) likes to back them up!)
Is Corporate America actually trying to turn the world against the good American public??
The referece to 12's & 14's is the time taken in seconds for the car to cover 1/4 of a mile from a standing start.
Hence anything under 14seconds is pretty impressive.
The japanese really know how to do this with road-legal(ish) cars in their use of Nissan Skylines and Toyota Supras tuned to around 1000bhp!!. I hear that if their quarter-mile times are above 7.5seconds on road tyres they get very upset:)
Re:Austin/Rover Metro?? + 5 Mins Fame
on
LCD Price Fixing?
·
· Score: 1
OIC, my gaff for not reading what I was seeing X-)
Had a look at the Geos on the web: a Suzuki Swift in disguise no less!
Well, they certainly look a lot prettier than British Leylands sad '70s offering:)
Austin/Rover Metro?? + 5 Mins Fame
on
LCD Price Fixing?
·
· Score: 1
Are you referring to the Austin or Rover Metro?
I have seen many British Leyland A-Series blocks in my time but have yet to see one that ran with a decent fuel economy!:) BTW, the Range-Rover 3.5 (carb) alternator *will* fit!
It would still be worth building your ultra-modded, 'neon-in-every-crevice' laptop.
Imagine the 5 minutes of fame till the 'pack went dead:)
Just think; in those 5 minutes you could even boot M$ Windows!!:p
Husband reporting to mission control that "we bumped the stick earlier" suggests an autopilot disengage on pilot input.
Although I don't know, it would seem reasonable that the shuttle's autopilot could be disengaged like this (much like any other aircraft). If during short-final, the pilot decides that the autopilot is leading the shuttle off the approach, a simple grab of the stick for control would seem the safest override method.
Does anyone know any more on this? - Does the shuttle allow pilot-input overrides?
I was stating the obvious to save anyone else doing so, still:
Im just wondering if the game software-houses aren't that stuck in their ways that building a new business model seems totally alien to them now.
Just something that keeps coming to my mind in this topic; Imagine GTA3 as a MMOG. Like the game or not, and whatever business model you apply, there are a hell of a lot of people who would have the credit-cards out there and then.
So why hasn't/isn't it being done? - Its either that they really are stuck in there ways or that I'm missing something (the latter is more probable)
It could also be that the scale of such a project (you prob. couldn't even use the original engine) is just sick making at the very prospect;)
He mentions in the article how 'old business models' aren't suitable for online games; reffering to the pre-packaged product.
Surely the answer then is to develop a new business model adapted to the new market?
Is this too blindingly obvious? (I would think he mentions this in the seminar although its not in the article)
I would include the Russian Buran cancellation here as well but that was more as a result of a coup.
It should, however, be noted that the Russian "Starsem" organisation really know how to get a lot into orbit using the disposible Soyuz system.
Granted its the same size/shape but what I was actually getting at is that the pictures really are of a Gulfstream interior (I recognised them because I must have cleaned/vacuumed a good 100 to date):)
Just a point: Aircraft hulls are designed to resist pressure from within and sub hulls are designed to resist pressure from outside.
If they really were to start building subs with gulfstream hulls, they may want to remove the emergency escape hatches from the 7-8 bulkhead windows (wouldn't do to have a nervous passenger try to get out).
"If the people in the sub have to leave the vessel they will pressurize the sub so it the same pressure as the outside water, then they can easily open the hatch and return to the surface."
The technique for escaping a submarine in an emergency is to flood the compartment you are in so that you can open the hatch and swim out (breathing out to the surface to avoid lung-rupture).
For safety, submarine hatches (much like ship deck-hatches) are outward openers to avoid accidental flooding (water-pressure holds them shut). Thats why on a military submarine they are so fanatical about torpedo-loading with repeated tube-cock checks etc.
To pressurize a sub to match water pressure with air would be extremely dangerous if done in a hurry and the air would become poisonous; to breathe under pressure at depth (Deephabs) you have to be slowly pressurised with exotic gases. Note that regular submarines only increase pressure a little when submerged.
Lets say for the sake of argument that the submarine is pressurised to match outside pressure 1/1 with exotic gases and you and some others open the *bottom* hatch at 200meters to excape....
Immediately you let go of the sub you find yourself ascending at an incredible rate, gas rushing from your mouth, nose ears and eye sockets and your lungs searing. Finally you arrive at the surface travelling at such a rate that you are thrown several feet in the air. Somehow your lungs/arteries didn't rupture during the ascent but you now die in 20-30seconds from the massive nitrogen boil-off in your veins as you suffer from an incredible case of 'bends'
No two ways about it, submarines are still extremely dangerous.
It appears that nauticalniche.com are selling underwater Gulfstream IV aircraft!
I looked at the interior shots of the integrity60 submarine and thought to myslef "Gosh, this submarine interior looks just like a Gulfstream business jet!" Not to mention the "Exit" sign above the near left window:p
Here are some more Gulfstream links for comparison:)
Notice the location of the interior fittings such as lights/window surrounds.
Another thing with small-submarines is that as you descend, vast ammounts of condensation form inside the hull as underwater air-conditioners/scrubbers are a little too large for something this size. Wouldn't this make the nice shag-pile carpet a little soggy?
I wonder if the rest of the sub is for real or just a ruse?
No, you just have to worry about nastier things!
on
Build Your Own Submarine
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Structural failure leading to implosion!
Even at just 100 meters depth, you don't get much warning of a hull failure. One buckled plate becomes a total breach in about 1 second.
Deeper than 100 meters, I'm told that the water entering a breached hull hits you rather like a steam-hammer with most unpleasant results.
These things are great so long as you keep positive pressure (the difference between tin-can and crushed tin-can). However, keeping that pressure is probably defined as a 'blood-difficult' thing.
An automatic buyancy system is a great thing to have in an emergency unless the only thing it drags back to the surface is submariner soup
Fair play to this guy for having a go; he's definately got guts. I seem to remember that Germans used to be rather good at building these things.
As for homebuilt aircraft, barring structural failure, in an emergency you tend to have one major thing on your side: Time
Possibly the thing that was missing here was familiarity with establised characters.
If you were to watch an original series episode for the first time, especially now, you'd probably firstly notice how 'ham' the acting is.
Having compared an original episode with 'Exeter', I'd tend to conclude that it doesn't feel quite the same because I'm not familiar with the new characters. The acting however is just as ham.
But what if there were a few more Exeter episodes? Would that make all the difference?
I did have a little look around this site before it was slashdotted. Quite interesting with plenty of satellite / aerial views of airfields. Includes a number of airfields which are only visible as silhouettes (where the tarmac has been long removed). Interestingly you can see many airfields of bomber-command in silhouette when flying over Lincolnshire in the UK.
Why oh why does slashdot post frontpage links to websites at tripod.com?? - its painfully obvious that tripod only allocates a pitiful ammount of bandwidth and this page is now unlikely to be reachable for a couple of weeks (until the story is well into the slashdot archives)
The Unspoken warning to aviators here: Proceed which extreme caution when attempting to land at any unprepared field. Some of these fields have been out of service for many years and a combination of debris and weathering may have rendered the strip EXTREMELY DANGEROUS
Always make a low-pass when possible (avoiding disturbance to settlements) to inspect the strip and remember when you do land, there may be no services within reasonable distance; emergency or otherwise.
ALWAYS make sure you have either filed a flightplan or let someone know where you are going and when to expect contact from you.
Slashdot Mirror
The crew of that Tornado GR.4 belonging to 9 Squadron RAF Marham were known for their concientious attitude towards their work along with their great experience on Tornados.
Neither officer was reknowned for 'goofing-off' as they knew like any-other RAF crew that such behaviour leads to a court-martial in jig-time.
It is know that they were in the right place at the right time and it might also be worth pointing out that it is highly unlikely that they would deactivate the IFF when they knew that Rapier systems were deployed (You don't even know they are there till they fire).
The current status of this 'friendly-fire' incident according to both the US and UK is that it is under investigation. you may like to read this article on possible bugs in the Patriot system software.
Its just that theres nothing wrong with the 1969 version :)
Is that there is little talent left in Hollywood and yet the Industry expects people to pay extortionate ammounts for films a six year old could have written.
:)
:p
I just don't bother watching the majority of what gets churned-out these days. If needs must, I watch an older film
Incidentally, I wonder why my last post got modded as 'Offtopic'? - Is it because it was mildly anti-corporate-america? - Does slashdot now have corporate moderators?
I bet if they had kept trying to land 'em in the Pacific, they'd have missed sooner or later....
I mean, with the utter rubbish that hollywood constantly turns out, why waste bandwidth.
:)
Take for instance the new Italian Job remake....
1) Its been Americanised (which defeats at least 2 plot elements)
2) They use BMW Minis which just wouldn't fit in a normal coach unlike the original bad-ass Austins.
3) The movie appears to take itself seriously where the original was a comedy
4) Apparently, at no point during the film does anyone say "You were only s'posed to blow the bloody doors off!"
5) The original movie had an ending where you didn't know if they got away with it or not; do you think an American ending would be the same?
6) The Minis although painted in red, white and blue use the same colourscheme as the 1969 minis which with the white tops is meant to denote the British union flag.
Now then
What i've been trying to point out here in a very long winded and round-about fashion is that if Hollywood(the Movie industry) doesn't want to give us original ideas in new films but would rather rape older, far superior films, why the hell would I, the consumer want to give them my money. So, if other people think like me, their sales fall
Now a definition IMHO of a good film: Dog Soldiers. It had it all, drama, action, horror, suspense. And all filmed on British and European money. (later bought by fox on realising it was bloody good). British actors and dark British humor make this a film I can watch again and again.
So, until the MPAA pulls it's collective fingers out and starts making a worthwhile product, I'm not giving them the time of day.
Oh, and as for any far-reaching laws, that just has a tendancy to make me very, very upset
We could always cause a DoS attack at the record store, that is otherwise known as a 'picket'.
:)
- Its legal aswell, under the guise of 'democratic protest'
If an erroneous RIAA employee decided to hack into my system and delete a file or two, I would become - how shall we say - unhappy.
I wouldn't bother making a counter attack and deleting files on his system, I wouldn't cause a DoS attack on the RIAA servers.
I'd get on a plane, fly across the atlantic and kick his head off his shoulders
Ive really had enough of Corporate America sticking their oar into international affairs (Not to mention the fact that my country (UK) likes to back them up!)
Is Corporate America actually trying to turn the world against the good American public??
The holding company (D&M) is a typo...
;)
Thats actually supposed to read "D.R.M."
The referece to 12's & 14's is the time taken in seconds for the car to cover 1/4 of a mile from a standing start.
:)
Hence anything under 14seconds is pretty impressive.
The japanese really know how to do this with road-legal(ish) cars in their use of Nissan Skylines and Toyota Supras tuned to around 1000bhp!!. I hear that if their quarter-mile times are above 7.5seconds on road tyres they get very upset
OIC, my gaff for not reading what I was seeing X-)
:)
Had a look at the Geos on the web: a Suzuki Swift in disguise no less!
Well, they certainly look a lot prettier than British Leylands sad '70s offering
Are you referring to the Austin or Rover Metro?
:)
:)
:p
I have seen many British Leyland A-Series blocks in my time but have yet to see one that ran with a decent fuel economy!
BTW, the Range-Rover 3.5 (carb) alternator *will* fit!
It would still be worth building your ultra-modded, 'neon-in-every-crevice' laptop.
Imagine the 5 minutes of fame till the 'pack went dead
Just think; in those 5 minutes you could even boot M$ Windows!!
Husband reporting to mission control that "we bumped the stick earlier" suggests an autopilot disengage on pilot input.
Although I don't know, it would seem reasonable that the shuttle's autopilot could be disengaged like this (much like any other aircraft). If during short-final, the pilot decides that the autopilot is leading the shuttle off the approach, a simple grab of the stick for control would seem the safest override method.
Does anyone know any more on this? - Does the shuttle allow pilot-input overrides?
If we don't comply, they will go to war and install a puppet Microsoft Palladium?
It is to be hoped that a device like this would only be damaging at the range it it focused upon.
Imagine if the aircraft were at 40,000ft looking down on a launch site, it spies a missile, shoots, misses and smokes a school!
Well, if that didn't happen, you can bet thats what your enemy's propaganda will tell you happened.
I find it mildly disturbing that American copyright law ultimately decides the law for the rest of the world (in terms of DRM technologies etc.)
Oh for a good nights sleep....
I was stating the obvious to save anyone else doing so, still: Im just wondering if the game software-houses aren't that stuck in their ways that building a new business model seems totally alien to them now.
;)
Just something that keeps coming to my mind in this topic; Imagine GTA3 as a MMOG. Like the game or not, and whatever business model you apply, there are a hell of a lot of people who would have the credit-cards out there and then.
So why hasn't/isn't it being done? - Its either that they really are stuck in there ways or that I'm missing something (the latter is more probable)
It could also be that the scale of such a project (you prob. couldn't even use the original engine) is just sick making at the very prospect
He mentions in the article how 'old business models' aren't suitable for online games; reffering to the pre-packaged product.
Surely the answer then is to develop a new business model adapted to the new market?
Is this too blindingly obvious? (I would think he mentions this in the seminar although its not in the article)
"And don't call me Shirley!"
The UK is also perfectly capable of chucking money at a good project ultimately to have it cancelled after 10 years development.
Did anyone in the U.S. ever hear of HOTOL
I would include the Russian Buran cancellation here as well but that was more as a result of a coup.
It should, however, be noted that the Russian "Starsem" organisation really know how to get a lot into orbit using the disposible Soyuz system.
There have been 1675 Soyuz system launches to date!
This image of the Soyuz production line show the extent of the operation.
Granted its the same size/shape but what I was actually getting at is that the pictures really are of a Gulfstream interior (I recognised them because I must have cleaned/vacuumed a good 100 to date) :)
Just a point: Aircraft hulls are designed to resist pressure from within and sub hulls are designed to resist pressure from outside.
If they really were to start building subs with gulfstream hulls, they may want to remove the emergency escape hatches from the 7-8 bulkhead windows (wouldn't do to have a nervous passenger try to get out).
"If the people in the sub have to leave the vessel they will pressurize the sub so it the same pressure as the outside water, then they can easily open the hatch and return to the surface."
The technique for escaping a submarine in an emergency is to flood the compartment you are in so that you can open the hatch and swim out (breathing out to the surface to avoid lung-rupture).
For safety, submarine hatches (much like ship deck-hatches) are outward openers to avoid accidental flooding (water-pressure holds them shut). Thats why on a military submarine they are so fanatical about torpedo-loading with repeated tube-cock checks etc.
To pressurize a sub to match water pressure with air would be extremely dangerous if done in a hurry and the air would become poisonous; to breathe under pressure at depth (Deephabs) you have to be slowly pressurised with exotic gases. Note that regular submarines only increase pressure a little when submerged.
Lets say for the sake of argument that the submarine is pressurised to match outside pressure 1/1 with exotic gases and you and some others open the *bottom* hatch at 200meters to excape....
Immediately you let go of the sub you find yourself ascending at an incredible rate, gas rushing from your mouth, nose ears and eye sockets and your lungs searing. Finally you arrive at the surface travelling at such a rate that you are thrown several feet in the air. Somehow your lungs/arteries didn't rupture during the ascent but you now die in 20-30seconds from the massive nitrogen boil-off in your veins as you suffer from an incredible case of 'bends'
No two ways about it, submarines are still extremely dangerous.
It appears that nauticalniche.com are selling underwater Gulfstream IV aircraft!
:p
:)
I looked at the interior shots of the integrity60 submarine and thought to myslef "Gosh, this submarine interior looks just like a Gulfstream business jet!" Not to mention the "Exit" sign above the near left window
Here are some more Gulfstream links for comparison
Gulfstream IV
Gulfstream IVSP
Notice the location of the interior fittings such as lights/window surrounds.
Another thing with small-submarines is that as you descend, vast ammounts of condensation form inside the hull as underwater air-conditioners/scrubbers are a little too large for something this size. Wouldn't this make the nice shag-pile carpet a little soggy?
I wonder if the rest of the sub is for real or just a ruse?
Structural failure leading to implosion!
Even at just 100 meters depth, you don't get much warning of a hull failure. One buckled plate becomes a total breach in about 1 second.
Deeper than 100 meters, I'm told that the water entering a breached hull hits you rather like a steam-hammer with most unpleasant results.
These things are great so long as you keep positive pressure (the difference between tin-can and crushed tin-can). However, keeping that pressure is probably defined as a 'blood-difficult' thing.
An automatic buyancy system is a great thing to have in an emergency unless the only thing it drags back to the surface is submariner soup
Fair play to this guy for having a go; he's definately got guts. I seem to remember that Germans used to be rather good at building these things.
As for homebuilt aircraft, barring structural failure, in an emergency you tend to have one major thing on your side: Time
Possibly the thing that was missing here was familiarity with establised characters.
If you were to watch an original series episode for the first time, especially now, you'd probably firstly notice how 'ham' the acting is.
Having compared an original episode with 'Exeter', I'd tend to conclude that it doesn't feel quite the same because I'm not familiar with the new characters. The acting however is just as ham.
But what if there were a few more Exeter episodes? Would that make all the difference?
You know there some right nutters out there who still get PPLs tho....
I did have a little look around this site before it was slashdotted. Quite interesting with plenty of satellite / aerial views of airfields. Includes a number of airfields which are only visible as silhouettes (where the tarmac has been long removed). Interestingly you can see many airfields of bomber-command in silhouette when flying over Lincolnshire in the UK.
Why oh why does slashdot post frontpage links to websites at tripod.com?? - its painfully obvious that tripod only allocates a pitiful ammount of bandwidth and this page is now unlikely to be reachable for a couple of weeks (until the story is well into the slashdot archives) The Unspoken warning to aviators here: Proceed which extreme caution when attempting to land at any unprepared field. Some of these fields have been out of service for many years and a combination of debris and weathering may have rendered the strip EXTREMELY DANGEROUS
Always make a low-pass when possible (avoiding disturbance to settlements) to inspect the strip and remember when you do land, there may be no services within reasonable distance; emergency or otherwise.
ALWAYS make sure you have either filed a flightplan or let someone know where you are going and when to expect contact from you.
Once again: Be very careful.