Yes, that is what I mean. I trust that ablative surfaces work a lot better but there can be simple approaches for reducing the energy that is absorbed on a certain spot on the missile with a factor 10 or maybe more. Rotating won't help if the laser uses a very short burst and if it has a way of compensating for the rotation. But it's not about making things perfect just about making it harder for the other side. Stealth planes also don't work with all radars.
To me it looks like a very politically inspired leak. In practice Obama should have known from the start that all restraints on the NSA have gone and that at the moment they stop at nothing. Obama on his part has done nothing to restrain them, well on the contrary. So maybe someone gave him specific information about Merkel at some point, but how does that change the picture? He's fully complicit even if nobody tells him any specifics,
Which would mean they're not yet suited for the two things I would like to have them for: - taking me home when I've(we've) drunk more alcohol than allowed for driving - dropping me off in the city and being able to find a parking spot by itself or just drive around till I call it up again.
Sadly there will always be some doubt that there's still a hidden cache of it somewhere, just waiting for the day.
I'm sure some people will think that way, and the issue will come up with the next chemical attack. The main error there is to think in terms of principle (1 sarin rocket is enough) instead of amounts(how militarily significant is the remaining stock). Part of the campaign on Iraq was with obfuscating that difference. Scott Ritter's analysis before the war was just about that: if there's anything left, would it still be significant on the battlefield. And the answer was no. Quantities matter a lot with chemical weapons. It's not some kind of treasure where you try and keep one behind.
I wasn't exactly thinking of paint or ink , I just didn't know that light passes completely(but filtered) through the 'ink' layer twice. Informative, thanks.
Ink absorbs light, so when applied to white paper, the surface will look darker than before, no matter what.
That made me think. You may be right in the case when the two reds in my example are mixed but if you put one layer on top of the other, even transparently, I am not sure.
That's a reasonable explanation, but I would generalize it to any filter.
For starters, the only meaning of infrared lenses I know is lenses that are transparent for infrared, which is rather useless in this case since you can't see them.
A step of frequency conversion is also pretty hard since you've got to increase the frequency and using low energy photons to release high energy photons is a nontrivial undertaking.
But then we think of the fact that we are in fact extremely colourblind. If we take a bundle of light it covers a spectrum of about 400nm. Now assume that to represent this spectrum fairly accurately we need 400 parameters, one per nm. Our eyes will roughly reduce this spectrum to 3 RGB parameters, meaning that a huge space of color parameters look exactly the same to us. Someone who we call colorblind usually has two parameters.
Then a well chosen filter can indeed make two light bundles look different that look exactly the same without the filter. Just imagine you have two reds, one a rather wide spectrum and the other one very narrow. If a filter is tuned to block that very narrow spectrum and little more then one red will pass through while the other will be blacked out.
And an empty cockpit. No seat, no ejection and no dashboard. On the other hand you have to think in percentages. An F16 weighs over 8 tons and it has 3000-3500 liter internal fuel capacity, so all the weight loss from getting rid of the pilot is your plane has weight x 4 minutes later in flight (at roughly 1l per second).
What I don't like about cops is that they prefer to enforce laws that are easy to enforce. They happily issue lots of traffic tickets, while drug dealers, rapists, murderers, burglars, muggers, etc. are not getting caught.
I disagree with the examples but there's a valid point there.Traffic laws always have areas where they are valid and areas where they make a difference.
Cops can follow a policy of enforcing the law in general, regardless of how much difference it makes. They can even follow a policy where they emphasize there areas where the effect is the least: a speed enforcement camera yields the most tickets if the traffic situation is such that commonsense tells you the allowed speed should be much higher. And commonsense is right. So the top scoring speed cameras typically are the least useful.
As far as fines for texting are concerned, if you're concerned about where they matter most, it's while driving. Still, I don't think this cop has picked a bad item to work on. I think texting during driving is equivalent to very drunk driving and these people apparently have their mobile much to readily available.
Antifoidus is probably referring to the 4 year presidency of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas-Ali_Amid_Zanjani. That was apparently the only cleric who ever was president there and it really didn't work out. But apart from that I fully agree with AC about 'a bunch of BS'. I checked UNESCO and Iran is doing pretty well in education, while in the good old days of 1976 they weren't. In 76 25% of the women could read.
The background story for this is: "Iran is currently trying really hard to make a deal with the West, if not with the US then at least with Europe. We've got to stop that. Throw everything at them that you got."
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that is what I mean. I trust that ablative surfaces work a lot better but there can be simple approaches for reducing the energy that is absorbed on a certain spot on the missile with a factor 10 or maybe more. Rotating won't help if the laser uses a very short burst and if it has a way of compensating for the rotation. But it's not about making things perfect just about making it harder for the other side. Stealth planes also don't work with all radars.
I think a reflective surface on a rotating missile is simple and goes a long way.
To me it looks like a very politically inspired leak. In practice Obama should have known from the start that all restraints on the NSA have gone and that at the moment they stop at nothing. Obama on his part has done nothing to restrain them, well on the contrary.
So maybe someone gave him specific information about Merkel at some point, but how does that change the picture? He's fully complicit even if nobody tells him any specifics,
I agree the choice of the larger family of hominidae is much more appropriate for this site but you should have said ad hominidem then. Or so I think.
Yeah, just the idea that you've got this copilot you can hand over the driving to when you don't feel like it or just want to sleep is pretty cool.
Which would mean they're not yet suited for the two things I would like to have them for:
- taking me home when I've(we've) drunk more alcohol than allowed for driving
- dropping me off in the city and being able to find a parking spot by itself or just drive around till I call it up again.
I agree. I love driving and enjoy my advanced footwork skills and I regret the evolution but it will proceed despite people regretting it.
You can duck but you can't run - apparently. It's worth considering though. This guy tried it. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/22/Barack-Obama-The-Democrats-Richard-Nixon#page1
Just put them in a rocket and point the rocket at the ground
It's a nerdy looking robot, and does Terminator look nerdy?
I think not!
007 isn't, but the word 'Obligatory' is.
No four actually :)
I got to give it to them, it's a nice title.
Here's a good basic emotion measure: adjective count. It covers the bulk of written text even though one can find ways around it.
I wasn't exactly thinking of paint or ink , I just didn't know that light passes completely(but filtered) through the 'ink' layer twice. Informative, thanks.
That made me think. You may be right in the case when the two reds in my example are mixed but if you put one layer on top of the other, even transparently, I am not sure.
That's a reasonable explanation, but I would generalize it to any filter.
For starters, the only meaning of infrared lenses I know is lenses that are transparent for infrared, which is rather useless in this case since you can't see them.
A step of frequency conversion is also pretty hard since you've got to increase the frequency and using low energy photons to release high energy photons is a nontrivial undertaking.
But then we think of the fact that we are in fact extremely colourblind. If we take a bundle of light it covers a spectrum of about 400nm. Now assume that to represent this spectrum fairly accurately we need 400 parameters, one per nm. Our eyes will roughly reduce this spectrum to 3 RGB parameters, meaning that a huge space of color parameters look exactly the same to us. Someone who we call colorblind usually has two parameters.
Then a well chosen filter can indeed make two light bundles look different that look exactly the same without the filter. Just imagine you have two reds, one a rather wide spectrum and the other one very narrow. If a filter is tuned to block that very narrow spectrum and little more then one red will pass through while the other will be blacked out.
You mean speaking australian is like speaking english but not trying hard enough? Well it didn't come from me!
If it sounds like 'fork' you're clearly not trying hard enough...
Especially since if you can pronounce 4K to sound like 'fuck' which is fun.
And an empty cockpit. No seat, no ejection and no dashboard.
On the other hand you have to think in percentages. An F16 weighs over 8 tons and it has 3000-3500 liter internal fuel capacity, so all the weight loss from getting rid of the pilot is your plane has weight x 4 minutes later in flight (at roughly 1l per second).
I disagree with the examples but there's a valid point there.Traffic laws always have areas where they are valid and areas where they make a difference.
Cops can follow a policy of enforcing the law in general, regardless of how much difference it makes. They can even follow a policy where they emphasize there areas where the effect is the least: a speed enforcement camera yields the most tickets if the traffic situation is such that commonsense tells you the allowed speed should be much higher. And commonsense is right. So the top scoring speed cameras typically are the least useful.
As far as fines for texting are concerned, if you're concerned about where they matter most, it's while driving. Still, I don't think this cop has picked a bad item to work on. I think texting during driving is equivalent to very drunk driving and these people apparently have their mobile much to readily available.
Antifoidus is probably referring to the 4 year presidency of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas-Ali_Amid_Zanjani. That was apparently the only cleric who ever was president there and it really didn't work out. But apart from that I fully agree with AC about 'a bunch of BS'. I checked UNESCO and Iran is doing pretty well in education, while in the good old days of 1976 they weren't. In 76 25% of the women could read.
The background story for this is: "Iran is currently trying really hard to make a deal with the West, if not with the US then at least with Europe. We've got to stop that. Throw everything at them that you got."