I hear will-power and the notion of a life plagued by health problems followed by an early death completed clinical trials sixty years ago. What's more, there are no side effects, and when taken properly, there is a 100% chance of success.
It did, but those who failed on one or more aspects of this cure may still want to get free. It's good to have multiple solutions to a problem, no?
Whose point are you talking about? JoeBuck's or sexconker's?
If I understand your counter-example well, it's a lot more applicable to early experiments than the textbook case. The point, as I understood it, is that once an experiment is repeated enough times to show that it comes out with the same result, one must be skeptic of a new deviating result because it's quite likely to be caused by human error rather than being a new aspect.
If after strict validation no error can be found, just then it's time to consider that something was missing in the textbook.
I have the impression that this is beginning to stray from the topic, tho.
You just admitted to throwing out dissenting papers because they were dissenting.
Where? I only saw selection based in quality. Where you implied that quality means non-dissenting, I read data that can be reproduced and analysis that hold to that data:
Otherwise we'd have to rewrite the chemistry textbooks every time some student messes up his lab assignment, because this will produce data that contradicts the theory.
A more visual example may help you: chemistry text book says that mixing 1 portion of liquid A with 1 portion of liquid B produces a green liquid. Lab student mixes liquid A with liquid C instead and comes up with a red liquid. Conclusion: text book is wrong?
It might be a good start to stop doing funny speeches in China about how bad it is to control how many kids you can have, like Hillary Clinton did a few years back.
I'd say the patent is missing some key figures for evaluating suitability for use as a shield, but the biggest problem is that to be reflective this type of mirror has to be highly polished (mentinoed several times in the patent). It does not seem realistic to think you're going to keep the surface of an aircraft "highly polished" during use.
Glad to see that we're back to the levels of rationality. I don't know if it's possible or not. Maybe it's difficult, maybe it's not so. It's certainly something I'd venture my research now that high-power lasers seem to be gaining a real chance to become part of an arsenal. From that perspective, I questioned your previous strong statements claiming it to be impossible without showing any citation whatsoever to corroborate them. I did my googling. Did you?
Christ, moderators, you can see from my other posts that I think parent is painfully uninformed, but that is not what Troll means. Get with the program.
Yeah, my first reaction was something close to WTF:) Anyway... I'm quite ready to accept being uninformed, and I'll bite the abuse and stir the discussion some more.
My initial point is that you've been affirming a lot of things that are not easily acceptable as truth without citation. That's at least my case. I'd be really glad to see them and I'm sure others would profit too.
When I propose the shedding layer as a possible path to make the laser + radar problem less effective, I'm not proposing to shed the entire layer at once, just the bit being hit by the laser.
I fail to see why this mere idea should be discarded only because you religiously believe that there's no escape from laser + radar. I hope you don't expect me to come out with a working solution within 1h after reading the/. article. The laser certainly took more than that.
Of course, maybe I'm completely off and you just want to have fun at my expense. In that case, I'll be happy to have contributed to your daily laughter:)
I'd love to see some citations. Sorry if I mix your posts while quoting:
That won't work. The problem starts at step 2. If the top layer isn't reflective, then as it "boils away" it will convert incoming energy from the laser into heat efficiently enough to destroy any reflective layer that might be under it.
I'd wait to see how the outer layer boils away before affirming that it will generate enough heat to destroy any reflective layer underneath. See fire-retardant materials for an example of how materials can resist heat. There shouldn't take much scientific effort to come up with a paint that goes somewhat the other way with laser: burns fast and effectively, quickly exposing the reflective layer which itself is heat resistant.
An expensive mirror that's new, clean, and in perfect condition would still absorb 5% of the energy hitting it in lab conditions. In the air, in combat conditions, coated with goo from the stealth paint that just got burned off of it, the reflective layer wouldn't last even a measurable fraction of a second.
A laser weapon designed to fry a plane that absorbs 70% or more of it should be less than effective if the said plane absorbs only 5%. Once we agree on that, we can then go on discussing your claim that the goo from the paint would have that much impact, which goes back to the first part of my reply.
Optical vs. radio is just a choice of wavelengths. Whatever wavelength you pick to be shiny, can be used to detect you. Whatever wavelength you choose to be "not shiny", can be used to destroy you.
That's when a double approach comes to the rescue. Be "not shiny" to avoid detection, then get rid of the "not shiny" layer once detected so your "shininess" protects you from being destroyed.
no material of any sort can be kept sufficiently reflective under combat conditions that the laser wouldn't destroy it.
That sounds like a mighty assumption without citation.
Say, you wouldn't happen to work for Boeing, would you? : )
Really? Here, users are users with no right to install whatsoever in their Windows computers. IT controls that. Just a few power users get admin rights to their PCs.
I don't see the cause of Linux selling very well to IT people when it starts to allow ye olde user install things to the system by default.
Every flying vertebrate known to science turned forelimbs into wings and flap them. Is it the most efficient way to fly? (...) We see evolution taking away limbs but never adding new ones.
Is ignoring insects a necessary part of your argument?
It's an interesting way of looking at things. Man's earliest ideas of flying all involved trying to mimic the actions of a bird. And ornithopters remain impractical as passenger vehicles.
I'm not so sure that evolution is particularly "worried" about coming out with an efficient flying animal that exists for the sole purpose of carrying other animals, with no living needs of its own. That, in my opinion, was the fundamental error in the beginning of human flight: we can't just fly like a bird unless we replace our needs with that of a bird.
In my opinion, the reason why birds are like they are is that their way of flying is adapted to their life needs. In the other hand, airplanes are like they are because their purpose is somewhat to take us somewhere by air. So I find it a little precipitate to judge the results of natural evolution as less efficient in what they do than our current products. I have less of a problem to accept our products as better suited to a certain need of ours than a corresponding thing already existing in nature. Of course, only if we don't consider the merit of this particular need being well identified or not.
By that reasoning everything should be provided by a single payer. Government-made cars (Tribant), government-made trains (amtrak), government-provided housing (Fannie and Freddie), government-provided ________. Everything would be "more efficient" if the government just provided it.
Of course that would also mean a loss of freedom of choice. Government monopoly == no choice.
The difference is that the choice you're defending is:
- I have a life threatening health problem and I can pay for the cure. Do I pay or do I die?
It's your choice. But it also comes with this situation:
- I have a life threatening health problem and I can't pay for the cure. Do I die or do I die?
You're not choosing between different brands. I hope you can see the difference.
If your life gets in danger, it will be your choice to think "gee I should have saved more money or helped approve public health care but I didn't, too late to repent now". I myself know that I can't save sufficient money for every possible life-threatening disease, so since I don't want to get in that situation, I prefer to defend public health care.
Now back to Obama's project, it's not even forcing you to use public health care. If you think private health care is better and you have the money, by all means, go and pay for it.
Of course it's your right to just sit down and die if you happen to be in a situation where the treatment to save your life can't be paid by your said labor. I prefer to side with the people that believe that right to health care means have access to health care regardless of financial situation.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
I've always wondered how that would stand up when what is being said is half-truths, willful deception and twisting of facts. Do we still have to defend their right to say it?
In rational discourse, where each party acts in good faith to uncover the truth and facts, I completely agree with you. But what I've seen isn't particularly rational discourse.
Unfortunately, yes. We still have to defend their right in saying so if we truly believe in freedom of speech. Otherwise we have no base for wanting it when it's our turn to be muffled.
Then, after defending the right, we can go and sue them for libel.
Unless you can come up with a perfect system capable of detecting rational out of non-rational discourse...
Since the tax exists to that sole purpose, the government has no say in it. The worse it can do is to treat cutting or extinguishing that tax. I'd love to see the brits reaction to that.
Nothing wrong with asking questions. It's just that every Fox News defense from you sounds like republican/anti-obama fanatic propaganda. Just like Fox News itself, by the way, as others were glad to demonstrate with their own links.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm proud of you too. Must be that martian blood of yours : )
I hear will-power and the notion of a life plagued by health problems followed by an early death completed clinical trials sixty years ago. What's more, there are no side effects, and when taken properly, there is a 100% chance of success.
It did, but those who failed on one or more aspects of this cure may still want to get free. It's good to have multiple solutions to a problem, no?
Whose point are you talking about? JoeBuck's or sexconker's?
If I understand your counter-example well, it's a lot more applicable to early experiments than the textbook case. The point, as I understood it, is that once an experiment is repeated enough times to show that it comes out with the same result, one must be skeptic of a new deviating result because it's quite likely to be caused by human error rather than being a new aspect.
If after strict validation no error can be found, just then it's time to consider that something was missing in the textbook.
I have the impression that this is beginning to stray from the topic, tho.
Many wonder why Microsoft doesn't offer nightly builds of Internet Explorer
For some reason, that never crossed my mind. I always assumed that it just wasn't their release model.
You just admitted to throwing out dissenting papers because they were dissenting.
Where? I only saw selection based in quality. Where you implied that quality means non-dissenting, I read data that can be reproduced and analysis that hold to that data:
Otherwise we'd have to rewrite the chemistry textbooks every time some student messes up his lab assignment, because this will produce data that contradicts the theory.
A more visual example may help you: chemistry text book says that mixing 1 portion of liquid A with 1 portion of liquid B produces a green liquid. Lab student mixes liquid A with liquid C instead and comes up with a red liquid. Conclusion: text book is wrong?
Pieces of the truth are still the truth.
Even when they are out of their original context, leading to a different idea than the entire truth is about?
That's right. If you pay 300% more, it will be 1.6% less likely to break in the first year. A bargain!
I'd put that claim in the same bag labeled "people who have a somewhat stretched notion of free country".
Good thing that part of progress comes from optimizing power consumption. Can you imagine what it would be if our computers were still tube based?
It might be a good start to stop doing funny speeches in China about how bad it is to control how many kids you can have, like Hillary Clinton did a few years back.
But then, this is /. so we love to rail on MS, Apple and even Linux anywhere we can.
There, ported it to the present ; )
My dearests were EOB I and II, and Lands of Lore: Throne of Chaos. RIP Westwood.
It does seem that EA has a thing for buy'n'close strategies, wouldn't you say?
Personally, I use John Bradley's xv for photo management.
The fish is out there!
I'd say the patent is missing some key figures for evaluating suitability for use as a shield, but the biggest problem is that to be reflective this type of mirror has to be highly polished (mentinoed several times in the patent). It does not seem realistic to think you're going to keep the surface of an aircraft "highly polished" during use.
Glad to see that we're back to the levels of rationality. I don't know if it's possible or not. Maybe it's difficult, maybe it's not so. It's certainly something I'd venture my research now that high-power lasers seem to be gaining a real chance to become part of an arsenal. From that perspective, I questioned your previous strong statements claiming it to be impossible without showing any citation whatsoever to corroborate them. I did my googling. Did you?
Christ, moderators, you can see from my other posts that I think parent is painfully uninformed, but that is not what Troll means. Get with the program.
Yeah, my first reaction was something close to WTF :) Anyway... I'm quite ready to accept being uninformed, and I'll bite the abuse and stir the discussion some more.
My initial point is that you've been affirming a lot of things that are not easily acceptable as truth without citation. That's at least my case. I'd be really glad to see them and I'm sure others would profit too.
I did do my little googling and I came up with some things like this High reflectivity laser mirrors patent.
When I propose the shedding layer as a possible path to make the laser + radar problem less effective, I'm not proposing to shed the entire layer at once, just the bit being hit by the laser.
I fail to see why this mere idea should be discarded only because you religiously believe that there's no escape from laser + radar. I hope you don't expect me to come out with a working solution within 1h after reading the /. article. The laser certainly took more than that.
Of course, maybe I'm completely off and you just want to have fun at my expense. In that case, I'll be happy to have contributed to your daily laughter :)
I'd guess it depends on how many shots they can do with the laser compared to how many missiles they could carry with the same weight.
I'd love to see some citations. Sorry if I mix your posts while quoting:
That won't work. The problem starts at step 2. If the top layer isn't reflective, then as it "boils away" it will convert incoming energy from the laser into heat efficiently enough to destroy any reflective layer that might be under it.
I'd wait to see how the outer layer boils away before affirming that it will generate enough heat to destroy any reflective layer underneath. See fire-retardant materials for an example of how materials can resist heat. There shouldn't take much scientific effort to come up with a paint that goes somewhat the other way with laser: burns fast and effectively, quickly exposing the reflective layer which itself is heat resistant.
An expensive mirror that's new, clean, and in perfect condition would still absorb 5% of the energy hitting it in lab conditions. In the air, in combat conditions, coated with goo from the stealth paint that just got burned off of it, the reflective layer wouldn't last even a measurable fraction of a second.
A laser weapon designed to fry a plane that absorbs 70% or more of it should be less than effective if the said plane absorbs only 5%. Once we agree on that, we can then go on discussing your claim that the goo from the paint would have that much impact, which goes back to the first part of my reply.
Optical vs. radio is just a choice of wavelengths. Whatever wavelength you pick to be shiny, can be used to detect you. Whatever wavelength you choose to be "not shiny", can be used to destroy you.
That's when a double approach comes to the rescue. Be "not shiny" to avoid detection, then get rid of the "not shiny" layer once detected so your "shininess" protects you from being destroyed.
no material of any sort can be kept sufficiently reflective under combat conditions that the laser wouldn't destroy it.
That sounds like a mighty assumption without citation.
Say, you wouldn't happen to work for Boeing, would you? : )
In a corporate environment, this does make sense.
Really? Here, users are users with no right to install whatsoever in their Windows computers. IT controls that. Just a few power users get admin rights to their PCs.
I don't see the cause of Linux selling very well to IT people when it starts to allow ye olde user install things to the system by default.
Every flying vertebrate known to science turned forelimbs into wings and flap them. Is it the most efficient way to fly?
(...)
We see evolution taking away limbs but never adding new ones.
Is ignoring insects a necessary part of your argument?
It's an interesting way of looking at things. Man's earliest ideas of flying all involved trying to mimic the actions of a bird. And ornithopters remain impractical as passenger vehicles.
I'm not so sure that evolution is particularly "worried" about coming out with an efficient flying animal that exists for the sole purpose of carrying other animals, with no living needs of its own. That, in my opinion, was the fundamental error in the beginning of human flight: we can't just fly like a bird unless we replace our needs with that of a bird.
In my opinion, the reason why birds are like they are is that their way of flying is adapted to their life needs. In the other hand, airplanes are like they are because their purpose is somewhat to take us somewhere by air. So I find it a little precipitate to judge the results of natural evolution as less efficient in what they do than our current products. I have less of a problem to accept our products as better suited to a certain need of ours than a corresponding thing already existing in nature. Of course, only if we don't consider the merit of this particular need being well identified or not.
By that reasoning everything should be provided by a single payer. Government-made cars (Tribant), government-made trains (amtrak), government-provided housing (Fannie and Freddie), government-provided ________. Everything would be "more efficient" if the government just provided it.
Of course that would also mean a loss of freedom of choice. Government monopoly == no choice.
The difference is that the choice you're defending is:
- I have a life threatening health problem and I can pay for the cure. Do I pay or do I die?
It's your choice. But it also comes with this situation:
- I have a life threatening health problem and I can't pay for the cure. Do I die or do I die?
You're not choosing between different brands. I hope you can see the difference.
If your life gets in danger, it will be your choice to think "gee I should have saved more money or helped approve public health care but I didn't, too late to repent now". I myself know that I can't save sufficient money for every possible life-threatening disease, so since I don't want to get in that situation, I prefer to defend public health care.
Now back to Obama's project, it's not even forcing you to use public health care. If you think private health care is better and you have the money, by all means, go and pay for it.
Of course it's your right to just sit down and die if you happen to be in a situation where the treatment to save your life can't be paid by your said labor. I prefer to side with the people that believe that right to health care means have access to health care regardless of financial situation.
I've always wondered how that would stand up when what is being said is half-truths, willful deception and twisting of facts. Do we still have to defend their right to say it?
In rational discourse, where each party acts in good faith to uncover the truth and facts, I completely agree with you. But what I've seen isn't particularly rational discourse.
Unfortunately, yes. We still have to defend their right in saying so if we truly believe in freedom of speech. Otherwise we have no base for wanting it when it's our turn to be muffled.
Then, after defending the right, we can go and sue them for libel.
Unless you can come up with a perfect system capable of detecting rational out of non-rational discourse...
Don't feed the troll AAARGH*dies*
Since the tax exists to that sole purpose, the government has no say in it. The worse it can do is to treat cutting or extinguishing that tax. I'd love to see the brits reaction to that.
Nothing wrong with asking questions. It's just that every Fox News defense from you sounds like republican/anti-obama fanatic propaganda. Just like Fox News itself, by the way, as others were glad to demonstrate with their own links.