But wait, there's still more . . . now that I think about it, the Japanese actually built a submarine/aircraft carrier combo menu plate.
There was a WW2 sub - I forget if it was German or British - which incorporated a hanger for a biplane-floatplane and steam catapult into the forward end of the conning tower and main deck. ISTR that it could be craned from the water back onto the catapult and stowed into the hanger, which could then be sealed.
Actually, the idea seems to have been recurrent and popular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Difficult to implement, but worth the try. Tries.
Yep, had to deal with Pre-revolutionary Russian dates. Which is why astronomers (who do, indeed, regularly have to deal with periods outside the Gregorian calendar) use the Julian Date, which is reasonably consistent from (I'd have to check ; "about") 8000 BCE to 8000 CE.
It pisses me off that it's necessary. But getting the mess sorted out (after identifying the problem) has paid my mortgage in the past : two companies, neither mine, blaming each other over the failure of a piece of equipment. One company recorded date-time in US-ian. The other recorded date-time in what I eventually identified as Unix epoch seconds. And one clock was off (w.r.t. the other ; I had no external reference) by a day and an hour, or something. Hey - it paid the bills.
No. Get rid of this silly expectation that there needs to be a whole number of $NATURALTIMEUNIIITOFCHOICE$ in a $OTHERNATURALTIMEUNIIITOFCHOICE$.
The universe has as much need to coordinate Earth's rotation with the flatulence pulses of the bombardier beetle, as it has to coordinate $ThisLunarSolarEclipse$ with $ThatEuropaIoMutualEclipse$. I.e. none at all.
This sort of adjustment is only an issue if you do it very rarely. If you deal with events more than a coupple of hours different from your local sun rise/set, on a regular basis, you don't find this a proble. You just put several clocks on your wall, with BIG SIGNs on th wall.
The only tinhg I'd consider adding would be a level-0-or-1 source, such as a GPS/ GLONASS time source (you can argue over whether that is level-zero, or level-one, validly), and some glue so that if your time system and the alternative system differ by more than $SENSITIVITY$, your sysadmins get an... orange-not-red flag and are aware of the issue.
If you're doing very time sensitive work, that's a different issue. A large bucket of issues.
I just spent the afternoon inspecting and repairing 2 (two) COTS portable heaters in my parent's hous, both of which had failed in the last several weeks.
Both had similar failures - one of the AC-power lines had over-heated at the (automotive "spade" connector), singing the cable insulation until it shorted out elsewhere. Inadequate jointing design. One cable I replaced, another - where a plastic-bodied time clock was physically close - I took the clock out of the circuit, leaving the thermostat operating.
Same vendor. I left it to my father to choose whether to report the (common) fault. Both devices failed safe. Dad understands the situation and implications - it's up to him whether to report the (common, design) fault. We both suspect "built-in failure," as failure of the devices (see above - failed safe) would typically lead to replacement of the device instead of investigation of the fault. In which case the likely respones would be "here are new ones, can we have the evidence for evaluation" (for cases of "evaluation" identical to "destroy the evidence").
Tesco probaly hate people like us who deny them their extra #40 of sales for 1 hour of investigation and repair. I get the feeling that we're not meant to do this.
We are going to need oil for at least another 30 years. How can I say this? Simple. Boeing has been making planes on a 30 year schedule for a very long time. Any plane they produce today they intend to see flying for the next 30 years. These planes burn kerosene, and they will for 30 years. Therefore we need oil for the next 30 years.
Fair example on the surface. But there is not one plane I've ever seen which burns kerosene. Or any other fuel. Including the Space Shuttle. They have engines which burn the fuel for them, converting fuel into thrust.
The structure of the aircraft does things like pumping the fuel from storage tanks to the engine, operating throttles, that sort of thing. And even on the Shuttle, the pumps and plumbing, and ALWAYS the engines could be changed, and were far more frequently than the aircraft themselves.
To change a Jet-A1 burning plane to burning bio-AvGas might involve tank liners (remember the last commercial Concorde - even for non-military planes, tank liners are significant engineering), pumps, pipes and the engines themselves. But they are all, by design reasonably replaceable. Even the popular Slashdot Car analogy holds - look at the numbers of people who change a vehicle from running on "regular" to unleaded, or unleaded to AutoGas (propane/ butane mix), or "regular" to nitrous-injection. Sure, it's a big refit, but it's not a complete rebuild.
I suspect that conversion to bio-AvGas will be causing more headaches for Pratt-&-Whitney and Rolls-Royce (and some others) than for Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Tupolev etc. If the engines people can re-fit an existing line of engines for appropriate performance with bio-AvGas while the others have to sell a new line of engines... that's a competition-killer technology.
To put up windmills takes coal fired aluminum smelting.
Odd. For a very long time the economics of the Al industry have made big-sea-level-Hydro the determining factor for siting Al-smelters Someone who owns a coal mine must be doing a huge amount of bribery. For a start, the unavoidable coal-to-electricity conversion is going to throw away 70%+ of your energy (OK - I'll be generous. 65%).
You can build windmills with steel (or even cast iron, with care) towers and carbon-fibre-reinforced-epoxy-resin blades (for both of the components, CF and epoxy, you need hydrocarbon-derived long chains of carbon atoms, BTW). They're not energy-cheap - but they don't depend on Al. If you're in a remote location, then the energy cost of installing something heavier might become part of your calculations, but in well-populated locations, material cost ($ or MJ) is likely to be more important.
As much as people might not like it but the world's shipping infrastructure runs on diesel fuel.
Ah. You're familiar with luxury shipping? Bulk shipping, where the metric is $-per-tonne-kilometre, uses the cheapest fuel it can get. For decades now, that has often been "bunker oil" (hint : check what "bunker" means in harbour terminology). It isn't anything like diesel, in terms of cost, smell, calorie content, corrosion-control (let the buyer beware ! ), sulphur content (it is often the highest-sulphur content fuel around - because it is almost always sold to be burned "elsewhere"). I've even had ships engineers bitchng at the galley table about the particle count (which fucks their filters and injectors), which simple mechanical filters could solve - but don't. For cost.
Does anyone out there believe that any other nation will drill oil as responsibly, clean, and safe, as the USA would?
Oh, I do so shudder! Quick check - do you have 3, 5, 9, or 17 years more experience of working with US and non-US drilling conttractors than I do? Of the (counts... 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) fifteen different countries I've worked in drilling for, the worst a
The oil companies are sitting on more proven reserves than can ever be pumped and burned if we are going to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Quite possibly true, but is it relevant?
Say you have an asset that you have discovered and appraised (in deep water offshore, you've just sunk the thick end of a billion dollars on 4 wells, only 2 of which are well-placed for conversion to production wells) and are trying to decide whether the economics of the industry will allow you to embark on an 8-year simultaneous development drilling (20-odd wells), pipeline laying and construction project for the onshore processing plant, with a total price tag of around 10 billion @ 1250 million/year.
Is it rational for you as upstream manager to follow a lead (geological prospect, undrilled, untested, 10-30% success probability) which might yeild an asset with comparable reserves, but a 3 billion discovery, appraisal, development and production cost? Following the lead may cost a mere 100 million.
It is not about the oil price it is all about fossil fueller share prices. All talk of recovery is talk because there is a solid shift away from fossil fuels, with the result there are more fossil fuels in the ground in reserve than will now ever be needed.
You are making the common error (common, but an error nonetheless) of thinking that the ONLY use for fossil fuels is as a fuel. That has never been the case. Coal was, in addition to being a fuel itself, also a source of "coal tar," on which the 19th century chemical industry (dyes, fertilisers, paints, drugs - look up the history of quinine and "mauve") was established. In the 20th century a lot of that was shifted to byproducts of the processing of oil. And more recently of gas. And the production of plastics is seriously dependent on oil consumption. (Including, for an example, the epoxy resins that bind together the carbon fibres in what is still inaccurately called "carbon fibre")
A project I've been involved with (shot in the back of the head as the oil price dropped below $50/bbl) was to produce a waxy crude from an otherwise uneconomic field for direct piping into a chemical manufacture plant. The well is now uneconomic, so the manufacturing plant (Indian-owned, I think) is buying in it's feedstock from a foreign power station burning American coal displaced from America by fracked-gas (which also lifts at about $50/bbl oil equivalent).
In the 1930s, chemists were saying "oil is too good to burn." If burning oil (including in cars) stopped tomorrow, then drilling and pumping oil would continue, to supply long chains of carbon atoms to the chemical industry. Because making those chains by other methods (e.g. Friedel-Krafts reaction) is horribly expensive (in terms of MJ/kg and $/lb) and inefficient compared to using oil. Oil remains too good to burn.
What do these ships that go drilling for oil run on? That's right, oil. If there is a shortage of oil then it could be real hard to find the oil to go looking for more oil.
I get the feeling that you're an American, and therefore don't have any recent family memories of "rationing," where the government gives each citizen a monthly allotment of vouchers for bread, eggs, milk, meat, sugar, coal, petrol, etc and if you use up your monthly "ration" of any of these goods... well, that's it - you don't get any more (or go to the black market).
Rationing is how the British survived against Hilter. It's what kept the navy at sea and the RAF in the skies as the bombs rained down. It also kept the U-boats in the Atlantic, and the Imperial Fleet on a conquest spree across the Pacific. did America have rationing? I don't know. But it's the first thing governments introduce in resource-shortages, such as war. Rationing in Britain ended in about 1956, and I can remember the fear of water rationing being introduced in the "blazing summer" of 1976.
In the event of a war, the fuel for "critical industries" would be found.
You'll be OK with God (or at least, his followers - it amounts to exactly the same thing) as long as you burn the climatologists and other people who disagree with you BEFORE they die.
You might love the smell of napalm in the morning, but God, by all names, really loves the screams of the tormented in the morning.
... if the developers and managers are citizens of a country that can (and will) force the silent installation of backdoors to the software.
Since that potentially means any country, then that probably also means development distributed amongst multiple, mutually hostile nationalities. Which will go down like a lead balloon with La Trumpette and the people afraid of offshoring.
I don't agree that a society is "stupid" for ordering dates based on how they are typically announced in English.
You haven't had to deal with daily reports where one person in the job uses a US numbering system, and his other-month opposite number uses Norwegian numbering, and you're the schmuck who has to sort it out for a 300-day operation.
TTBOMK, the only modern society which rationally chose a date representation was the Japanese, after their self-imposed isolation was broken forcibly by the US Navy. You will note that they use the date representation with left-to-right decreasing significance of all numbers. Because... they're just fucking numbers, with nothing special about them.
Every fucking month, when I get a new trainee, I have this conversation about "this is WHY I always record dates in ISO 8601 format". and it doesn't matter if the trainee is American, German, Dutch, Norwegian, British, Turkish, Gabonese, Beninoise, Nigerian, Tanzanian, Korean, Chinese, or Canadian. The same logic is applied to them all, and they're told to use ISO 8601 format.
My last ship had a similar system. I don't know how the time information was distributed, but it was, to all the analogue clocks, which meant essentially one in every cabin (about 120 cabins, most with 2 bunks apiece for day and nigh shift), one in every office, meeting room, bridge, galley, and most working spaces (some of which had flammable atmospheres in normal operations, so needed special hardware).
Other considerations : it's a fucking ship - time within 100 miles of a cellular network is NOT money-earning time ; it moves from time zone to time zone routinely, so it is easy to get confused ; steel decks and steel wall and steel doors and steel furniture does wonders for wifi signal distribution.
Your sheltered upbringing is showing. Live sex shows (full penetration, various genders, anatomies and species) have been a popular form of entertainment for millennia.
The lead in Flint Michigan's water will look like a quaint inconvenience when bacteria figure out how to feed on the innumerable PVC and ABS pipes
Did you even read the summary, let alone the actual article? A bug has been discovered that can (slowly and inefficiently) digest polyethylene terephthalate. That is a very different plastic to both poly-vinylidene chloride (PVC) and the acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) family of plastics. Surprisingly, the different names of the plastics reflect their different chemistries, and therefore their different chemical susceptibilities to attack.
We didn't start using plastics because people thought they were "effectively indestructible" ; we had that with gold and added physical durability with platinum-iridium alloys in the late 1800s. We started to use plastics because they were (mostly) injection moldable and/ or extrudable, and were reasonably long-lived.
(OK, I have an advantage on most people having grown up in the house of a plastics chemist ; but really, anyone with 16+ school chemistry should have been able to work this out for themselves while still at school.)
Yeah, but individualised tuition of any sort is kind-of expensive compared to the sausage-grinder commoditised model of education. So you'll get people who could really fly with individualised education who can't afford it and end up working flipping burgers, and others who have thousands of $MONEY$ thrown at their education who would have been better used flipping burgers instead of running daddy's property company or running for president.
For example, if a nuke went off somewhere, I would expect ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh/Satan-encarnate to make such a claim, as probably would al-Qaeda, since it makes them seem bigger and more powerful, which they want.
Just to complicate matters, since they're both complex and decentralised organisations, it would be quite possible for them both to claim the attack and genuinely believe (or hope) that it's true.
That's before we get onto the false-flag operations.
The US has more than enough warheads (and I'm sure we could spin production back up if we needed to) to turn any Middle Eastern country and country(s) that support them into irradiated wastelands. You don't cross the nuclear line.
You know, if I were an intelligence operative for the Iranian government, I'd be working out how to get the materials for a dirty bomb into the USA and into the hands of some deranged home-grown attack vector who thinks he's a Jihadi working for ISIS, and leaving enough evidence to point to the Saudis as the real source of the bomb. And if I were an Israeli intelligence operative, I'd be doing the same, but with the evidence pointing at the Iranians. And the Saudis probably have different internal factions looking for material to point the evidence at both the Iranians and the Israelis.
That's right, the Olympics are this year, aren't they?
I don't know - or care - and until you mentioned it I'd never given it a moment's thought. And now that you have mentioned it, I'll try to not give it another moment's thought.
Boom. Powder. Or particles. Doesn't have to be very fine. It just has to be radioactive enough to scare the wits out of the public.
To be honest, I'd use Thermite to make the dirty material into liquid and oxide dusts, then detonate conventional explosives to spread it around. Exact timing doesn't matter much. But that's not the sort of argument the "rubycoderz" is looking for.
Slashdot Mirror
And a contributing factor to going to that precision is the need to accommodate potential new (at the time of design) UV sensors.
There was a WW2 sub - I forget if it was German or British - which incorporated a hanger for a biplane-floatplane and steam catapult into the forward end of the conning tower and main deck. ISTR that it could be craned from the water back onto the catapult and stowed into the hanger, which could then be sealed.
Actually, the idea seems to have been recurrent and popular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Difficult to implement, but worth the try. Tries.
Sorry, you seem to be viewing the world through some extremely rose-tinted spectacles.
By the way, your parents lied to you about Santa Claus. He doesn't exist. Sorry to break the news like this.
It pisses me off that it's necessary. But getting the mess sorted out (after identifying the problem) has paid my mortgage in the past : two companies, neither mine, blaming each other over the failure of a piece of equipment. One company recorded date-time in US-ian. The other recorded date-time in what I eventually identified as Unix epoch seconds. And one clock was off (w.r.t. the other ; I had no external reference) by a day and an hour, or something. Hey - it paid the bills.
Horses for courses. And if you're taking a punt, doing so for $30 is arguably more sensible than taking a punt for $2000.
The universe has as much need to coordinate Earth's rotation with the flatulence pulses of the bombardier beetle, as it has to coordinate $ThisLunarSolarEclipse$ with $ThatEuropaIoMutualEclipse$. I.e. none at all.
This sort of adjustment is only an issue if you do it very rarely. If you deal with events more than a coupple of hours different from your local sun rise/set, on a regular basis, you don't find this a proble. You just put several clocks on your wall, with BIG SIGNs on th wall.
The only tinhg I'd consider adding would be a level-0-or-1 source, such as a GPS/ GLONASS time source (you can argue over whether that is level-zero, or level-one, validly), and some glue so that if your time system and the alternative system differ by more than $SENSITIVITY$, your sysadmins get an ... orange-not-red flag and are aware of the issue.
If you're doing very time sensitive work, that's a different issue. A large bucket of issues.
Both had similar failures - one of the AC-power lines had over-heated at the (automotive "spade" connector), singing the cable insulation until it shorted out elsewhere. Inadequate jointing design. One cable I replaced, another - where a plastic-bodied time clock was physically close - I took the clock out of the circuit, leaving the thermostat operating.
Same vendor. I left it to my father to choose whether to report the (common) fault. Both devices failed safe. Dad understands the situation and implications - it's up to him whether to report the (common, design) fault. We both suspect "built-in failure," as failure of the devices (see above - failed safe) would typically lead to replacement of the device instead of investigation of the fault. In which case the likely respones would be "here are new ones, can we have the evidence for evaluation" (for cases of "evaluation" identical to "destroy the evidence").
Tesco probaly hate people like us who deny them their extra #40 of sales for 1 hour of investigation and repair. I get the feeling that we're not meant to do this.
Fair example on the surface. But there is not one plane I've ever seen which burns kerosene. Or any other fuel. Including the Space Shuttle. They have engines which burn the fuel for them, converting fuel into thrust.
The structure of the aircraft does things like pumping the fuel from storage tanks to the engine, operating throttles, that sort of thing. And even on the Shuttle, the pumps and plumbing, and ALWAYS the engines could be changed, and were far more frequently than the aircraft themselves.
To change a Jet-A1 burning plane to burning bio-AvGas might involve tank liners (remember the last commercial Concorde - even for non-military planes, tank liners are significant engineering), pumps, pipes and the engines themselves. But they are all, by design reasonably replaceable. Even the popular Slashdot Car analogy holds - look at the numbers of people who change a vehicle from running on "regular" to unleaded, or unleaded to AutoGas (propane/ butane mix), or "regular" to nitrous-injection. Sure, it's a big refit, but it's not a complete rebuild.
I suspect that conversion to bio-AvGas will be causing more headaches for Pratt-&-Whitney and Rolls-Royce (and some others) than for Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Tupolev etc. If the engines people can re-fit an existing line of engines for appropriate performance with bio-AvGas while the others have to sell a new line of engines ... that's a competition-killer technology.
Odd. For a very long time the economics of the Al industry have made big-sea-level-Hydro the determining factor for siting Al-smelters Someone who owns a coal mine must be doing a huge amount of bribery. For a start, the unavoidable coal-to-electricity conversion is going to throw away 70%+ of your energy (OK - I'll be generous. 65%).
You can build windmills with steel (or even cast iron, with care) towers and carbon-fibre-reinforced-epoxy-resin blades (for both of the components, CF and epoxy, you need hydrocarbon-derived long chains of carbon atoms, BTW). They're not energy-cheap - but they don't depend on Al. If you're in a remote location, then the energy cost of installing something heavier might become part of your calculations, but in well-populated locations, material cost ($ or MJ) is likely to be more important.
Ah. You're familiar with luxury shipping? Bulk shipping, where the metric is $-per-tonne-kilometre, uses the cheapest fuel it can get. For decades now, that has often been "bunker oil" (hint : check what "bunker" means in harbour terminology). It isn't anything like diesel, in terms of cost, smell, calorie content, corrosion-control (let the buyer beware ! ), sulphur content (it is often the highest-sulphur content fuel around - because it is almost always sold to be burned "elsewhere"). I've even had ships engineers bitchng at the galley table about the particle count (which fucks their filters and injectors), which simple mechanical filters could solve - but don't. For cost.
Oh, I do so shudder! Quick check - do you have 3, 5, 9, or 17 years more experience of working with US and non-US drilling conttractors than I do? Of the (counts ... 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) fifteen different countries I've worked in drilling for, the worst a
Quite possibly true, but is it relevant?
Say you have an asset that you have discovered and appraised (in deep water offshore, you've just sunk the thick end of a billion dollars on 4 wells, only 2 of which are well-placed for conversion to production wells) and are trying to decide whether the economics of the industry will allow you to embark on an 8-year simultaneous development drilling (20-odd wells), pipeline laying and construction project for the onshore processing plant, with a total price tag of around 10 billion @ 1250 million/year.
Is it rational for you as upstream manager to follow a lead (geological prospect, undrilled, untested, 10-30% success probability) which might yeild an asset with comparable reserves, but a 3 billion discovery, appraisal, development and production cost? Following the lead may cost a mere 100 million.
Not an easy question, is it?
You are making the common error (common, but an error nonetheless) of thinking that the ONLY use for fossil fuels is as a fuel. That has never been the case. Coal was, in addition to being a fuel itself, also a source of "coal tar," on which the 19th century chemical industry (dyes, fertilisers, paints, drugs - look up the history of quinine and "mauve") was established. In the 20th century a lot of that was shifted to byproducts of the processing of oil. And more recently of gas. And the production of plastics is seriously dependent on oil consumption. (Including, for an example, the epoxy resins that bind together the carbon fibres in what is still inaccurately called "carbon fibre")
A project I've been involved with (shot in the back of the head as the oil price dropped below $50/bbl) was to produce a waxy crude from an otherwise uneconomic field for direct piping into a chemical manufacture plant. The well is now uneconomic, so the manufacturing plant (Indian-owned, I think) is buying in it's feedstock from a foreign power station burning American coal displaced from America by fracked-gas (which also lifts at about $50/bbl oil equivalent).
In the 1930s, chemists were saying "oil is too good to burn." If burning oil (including in cars) stopped tomorrow, then drilling and pumping oil would continue, to supply long chains of carbon atoms to the chemical industry. Because making those chains by other methods (e.g. Friedel-Krafts reaction) is horribly expensive (in terms of MJ/kg and $/lb) and inefficient compared to using oil. Oil remains too good to burn.
I get the feeling that you're an American, and therefore don't have any recent family memories of "rationing," where the government gives each citizen a monthly allotment of vouchers for bread, eggs, milk, meat, sugar, coal, petrol, etc and if you use up your monthly "ration" of any of these goods ... well, that's it - you don't get any more (or go to the black market).
Rationing is how the British survived against Hilter. It's what kept the navy at sea and the RAF in the skies as the bombs rained down. It also kept the U-boats in the Atlantic, and the Imperial Fleet on a conquest spree across the Pacific. did America have rationing? I don't know. But it's the first thing governments introduce in resource-shortages, such as war. Rationing in Britain ended in about 1956, and I can remember the fear of water rationing being introduced in the "blazing summer" of 1976.
In the event of a war, the fuel for "critical industries" would be found.
You might love the smell of napalm in the morning, but God, by all names, really loves the screams of the tormented in the morning.
Since that potentially means any country, then that probably also means development distributed amongst multiple, mutually hostile nationalities. Which will go down like a lead balloon with La Trumpette and the people afraid of offshoring.
You haven't had to deal with daily reports where one person in the job uses a US numbering system, and his other-month opposite number uses Norwegian numbering, and you're the schmuck who has to sort it out for a 300-day operation.
TTBOMK, the only modern society which rationally chose a date representation was the Japanese, after their self-imposed isolation was broken forcibly by the US Navy. You will note that they use the date representation with left-to-right decreasing significance of all numbers. Because ... they're just fucking numbers, with nothing special about them.
Every fucking month, when I get a new trainee, I have this conversation about "this is WHY I always record dates in ISO 8601 format". and it doesn't matter if the trainee is American, German, Dutch, Norwegian, British, Turkish, Gabonese, Beninoise, Nigerian, Tanzanian, Korean, Chinese, or Canadian. The same logic is applied to them all, and they're told to use ISO 8601 format.
Other considerations : it's a fucking ship - time within 100 miles of a cellular network is NOT money-earning time ; it moves from time zone to time zone routinely, so it is easy to get confused ; steel decks and steel wall and steel doors and steel furniture does wonders for wifi signal distribution.
Your sheltered upbringing is showing. Live sex shows (full penetration, various genders, anatomies and species) have been a popular form of entertainment for millennia.
Conventional breeding may be quicker than genetic engineering.
Did you even read the summary, let alone the actual article? A bug has been discovered that can (slowly and inefficiently) digest polyethylene terephthalate. That is a very different plastic to both poly-vinylidene chloride (PVC) and the acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) family of plastics. Surprisingly, the different names of the plastics reflect their different chemistries, and therefore their different chemical susceptibilities to attack.
We didn't start using plastics because people thought they were "effectively indestructible" ; we had that with gold and added physical durability with platinum-iridium alloys in the late 1800s. We started to use plastics because they were (mostly) injection moldable and/ or extrudable, and were reasonably long-lived.
(OK, I have an advantage on most people having grown up in the house of a plastics chemist ; but really, anyone with 16+ school chemistry should have been able to work this out for themselves while still at school.)
Yeah, but individualised tuition of any sort is kind-of expensive compared to the sausage-grinder commoditised model of education. So you'll get people who could really fly with individualised education who can't afford it and end up working flipping burgers, and others who have thousands of $MONEY$ thrown at their education who would have been better used flipping burgers instead of running daddy's property company or running for president.
Just to complicate matters, since they're both complex and decentralised organisations, it would be quite possible for them both to claim the attack and genuinely believe (or hope) that it's true.
That's before we get onto the false-flag operations.
You know, if I were an intelligence operative for the Iranian government, I'd be working out how to get the materials for a dirty bomb into the USA and into the hands of some deranged home-grown attack vector who thinks he's a Jihadi working for ISIS, and leaving enough evidence to point to the Saudis as the real source of the bomb. And if I were an Israeli intelligence operative, I'd be doing the same, but with the evidence pointing at the Iranians. And the Saudis probably have different internal factions looking for material to point the evidence at both the Iranians and the Israelis.
Sorry, who were you going to bomb again?
I don't know - or care - and until you mentioned it I'd never given it a moment's thought. And now that you have mentioned it, I'll try to not give it another moment's thought.
To be honest, I'd use Thermite to make the dirty material into liquid and oxide dusts, then detonate conventional explosives to spread it around. Exact timing doesn't matter much. But that's not the sort of argument the "rubycoderz" is looking for.
ISIS? You mean that bunch of lunatics inspired and funded by Saudi Arabians (with or against the wishes of their government isn't clear)?