I am very aware of the dangers of "live steam"... however, a pipe is easier to repair than god knows what kind of electromagnetic whatever the fuck they embed under the decks.
Something that I don't think a lot of people get about naval ships is that most of the maintenance happens at sea. They only send the ship in to a yard or dry dock if they have to and they try to limit what a ship goes into a dock for to things that can only be done in a dock.
A steam catapult is much more likely to be repairable at sea than is an electromagnetic catapult. It will be easier to diagnose problems and easier to patch.
What is more... I want you to think of most heavy industrial machinery. Most of it is driven with hydraulics and pneumatics.
Also I'll just point out that in your case you're talking about exposed high voltage lines... which could be exposed to salt water on the decks... oh and the whole thing is fed by two nuclear reactors.
I think you underestimate that bug zapper quality of the thing you're defending.
The nature of the piston is more configurable than that.
You can have multiple inlets for steam that trigger as the piston goes forward, thus causing an increase in the amount of steam as the piston expands. If configured properly, the stroke can be as uniform in force as anyone will notice.
You'd probably be surprised what you can do with mechanical parts.
keep in mind that the Apollo rockets were mostly mechanical. A lot of the things in them that we'd do today with mirco controllers, they did with valves and pressure regulators and such.
There are advantages to doing it either way.
The digital method is typically easier to set up and easier to configure if something needs to be calibrated.
However, the more robust systems tend to be easier to maintain and harder to damage.
In both military and industrial settings, you use a mixture of both systems. Things that need to be tweaked a lot are typically digital and electronic. Things that need to be really strong and really tough tend to be hydraulic or pneumatic.
I'm not sure if their main boiler runs entirely on that. They could and recycle filtered water.
However, when there were the big typhoons in east Asia that caused something of a survival problem for millions of people, the US dispatched a couple of its carriers to the region to provide clean drinking water.
The carriers can produce huge amounts of clean drinking water and I believe they do have large desalination plants inside of them. Whether they must be used for the reactor or not is not known to me. But I do know they do have a significant desalination feature in those carriers. More than enough to supply steam to the catapult without thinking about it.
Again, all nuclear reactors that we've ever designed work on the same principle that the old external combustion engines worked on... you have a boiler which is heated by some means... in this case it is heated with a reactor. And that heat is used to boil water, which creates pressure, which then is either fed into pistons or turbines to generate power.
That is how they all work.
So the reactor is boiling water. How pure that water is... is not known to me. I'd have to look at the schematics or do some research to figure that out.
It doesn't matter though in this context because we're just talking about enough steam to drive the catapult. And really if you wanted to, you could recycle 100 percent of the water from that operation by having it expand into some expansion chamber rather than just venting. However, I don't see why anyone would care. The water loss is not going to be relevant to a nuclear carrier on the ocean. The damn thing can desalinate as much water as it wants.
The problem with your argument is that perfect security in computers is actually possible... theoretically. Perfect defense in conventional military terms is not even theoretically possible.
You control too many things in a network for the two situations to be analogous. They can't attack you unless they get into physical proximity of your systems or intrude through your firewalls.
That's already a huge advantage. Think of that in terms of military defense.
Imagine if the enemy could only attack you through one little mountain pass and no where else. All you have to cover was THAT entry way.
Then consider you don't need to let just any jackoff through the pass. Instead, you can block anyone from entry except those you've determined to be authorized.
Intrusions are thus a matter of determining who is authorized and who is not through your gate.
There is no question of your supremacy at your gate. You can't be credibly assaulted.
A hacker is more like a smuggler than an invading army.
Now if we think of this like smuggling... can that be stopped?
Well, they can only enter through that gate. They can't sneak in anywhere else unless your organization is far more incompetent than we need to worry about in this thought experiment.
So how do you keep out or detect 100 percent of smugglers?
1. You control the protocol of entry such that no one can enter unless they're very familiar with the system. Secret handshakes and the like. An insider could out your systems but unless they have that they'll reveal themselves.
2. You segregate the data flows into types. This type of data goes here. This type of data goes there. Smugglers tend to get through by mislabeling things. This bag full of drugs is relabeled as coffee. But if you make it impossible for the box labeled coffee to go anywhere but the coffee warehouse than you restrict the distribution of the drugs once they get past the front gate.
The point is if you set up your firewall rules properly it will be very hard for anyone to do anything. High security systems for example shouldn't be conducting all affairs over VPNs. This means someone trying to access the system without the codes and encryption for the VPN can't talk to that system at all. That is the secret handshake.
Have we seen any of these systems get their VPNs breached? Nope. The systems breached weren't using VPNs.
to say that we can't secure systems because bad security policies or absent security policies get breached is silly.
You lock it down and they're not getting in.
I could go through a long list of protocols that could be followed that would make these systems 100 percent hack proof.
No. 100 percent. NSA proof. FSB proof. No one is getting in.
The only thing I couldn't stop would be guys showing up to the data center with guns and shooting their way in. That is a security situation for someone else.
But if your concern is keeping hackers out? 100 percent security is possible. Not 99.9. 100.
The carriers are all nuclear which means they boil sea water to turn steam turbines.
That means they have lots of steam. Stupid amounts of steam. Always.
The EM system means you have high voltage lines running under the decks and I generally think the system is going to be more complicated and harder to repair/maintain than the steam version.
Smoother acceleration? That also makes no sense. You can make a steam piston VERY smooth. As smooth as an electromagnetic whatever?... probably not but who cares... you won't be able to tell the difference. A machine measuring it might be able to tell. But a difference small enough that the dude getting thrown by the thing wouldn't notice is unlikely to be relevant to the airframe.
I am all for using superior technology. I just think there is a bias sometimes to go with electronics on the assumption that they're always superior. Sometimes they're not. Pneumatics or hydraulics or steam in this case are contextually superior in given circumstances.
We were hearing about them testing robots to go into a nuclear reactor in Japan. The robots all have complicated electronics and micro controllers. That's been shown repeatedly to not work. They radiation destroys the micro controllers.
When it comes to big machines that push heavy things around, you find that such big industrial machines are hydraulic in most cases. They rely on pressure. There is a centralized compressor somewhere that drives pressure through tubes and pipes... and that pressure is controlled to move heavy stuff around.
So here you have this big carrier with I believe two nuclear reactors in it... generating fuck tons of steam... and you're going to draw on the electrical grid of the ship instead of just drawing on the boiler directly?
Why? I'm just not seeing it especially in a battle platform.
What you want in a battle platform is something as robust and reliable as possible. A steam piston is more reliable than some electro magnetic whatever. That catapult goes down and the carrier is useless. Think about that. That is easily one of the most critical components of the entire carrier. Right up there with the flat deck on top in so far as utility. No catapult and most of the planes can't take off at all.
Saying that you can't do this with finesse ignores that the most advanced robots these days actually make use of pneumatic actuators.
That's politics. I accept that people I don't like get elected to office sometimes. My problem is when incompetent people are hired to run the machinery that keeps the institution alive.
By all means... be corrupt... but don't be incompetent.
I can tolerate people stealing from me a little bit. Its not avoidable. But if they're stupid on top of that, then that is not acceptable.
... This is how every university gets going and how the big ones stay well funded. They ask rich people for large sums of money... in the old days that was kings, lords, and the Church.
today... it is business tycoons and big fat government checks.
And from this we conclude Harvard is bad because a tycoon gave them 400 million dollars?
Shock... gasp.... horror.
This is about the part in an article where I ask the people that take it seriously to flip a coin.
if you have two genetically identical mice then swapping their heads should be more viable.
The interesting thing in so far as humans would be doing the same thing.
Forget the ethics for a moment. Lets say you got a clone of yourself... doing a head swap would be less of a big deal than grabbing some random other person and doing a head swap with them.
Any system is going to have to be pneumatic and fiber optic in nature. Electronics fail in high radiation environments.
Every robot we've sent in there breaks in minutes if not seconds.
If your motors are all pneumatic actuators like what you see with big dog, then they won't fail when subjected to that kind of radiation.
Your only issue will be getting information from the robot to your command station so you can see what is going on. And the solution there is to use fiber optics. The fiber optics will transmit light into the reactor from the robot and other fiber optics will put up the reflected light to be processed by the command station.
Possibly SOME electronics that are VERY simple will work in a high radiation environment. But nothing complicated has survived. The whole push to miniaturize stuff is counter productive when dealing with radiation.
Second, they both back up my call for improved ethics and standards in science.
Third, I'm not in enemy territory.
Fourth, my motivations are a desire for improved ethics in science. Your belief that identity politics will suit you in a discussion about scientific ethics makes it clear that your pretense as being a man of science was a lie.
Fifth, as pointed out clearly enough that anyone but a liar would acknowledge it... I don't hate scientists or science.
Sixth, as to why I am trading words with you... I'm not... I'm tearing you apart.;)
You've been murdered so throughly in these discussions it is positively hilarious. I have been openly laughing at your stupid ass throughout a good portion of our exchanges.
It is very rewarding and vindicating to run into someone like you every so often. You're such a clear example of an old school sophist. You have no moral center. You lie about everything. You manipulate every discussion. You play endless rhetorical games.
Its great. You're basically the duck I found when I went out duck hunting. How sad would it be if there were no ducks? So here I am... filtering for scumbags. And who bubbles to the surface like swamp gas... but you! And you're not an AC either. Which means I know can track you if I want to. Its awesome. And the fact that you followed me from one thread to another means I can do the same to you if I want. Isn't that super?
I'll make sure to comment on some of your posts. I'm sure you're lying to other people on this forum on a regular basis. So that should be fun.
You're just determined to make go pick all the low hanging fruit and hand it to you aren't you?
Here is my first post in that thread that got you all hot and bothered:
"
That's the issue.
It is as a great man once said "cargo cult science"... it presents the seeming of science... the seeming of logic... but is it? And the thing is that only people that are genuine can really tell one from the other.
While this will sound terribly retrograde and classist... the issue is that we have a lot of sleazy people in positions of trust. Sleazy people are not going to behave themselves under any system.
A community is not just defined by those in it but those not permitted to join it. Some sort of integrity check should be put on the system and those that are clearly only interested in money or power or attention should be kicked out. Those interested in actually doing a real science... humble though it often is... should be the only ones on the pay roll.
I speak of public universities only. Private universities and corporations can do whatever they want. But if you're taking the public coin then the public has a right to insist on integrity. What private individuals want to do with their own money is their own business.
Simply cutting the sophists off from public funding should largely solve the problem. That is where this fungus has grown. The corporations are too goal oriented to get side tracked by this sort of thing. And the private universities are likely just as vulnerable as the public ones but their credibility is their problem and not one anyone else needs to worry about. ""
Please point at where I said that "ALL" non-commercial science is a cargo cult?
I didn't.
I said that there was a problem with sophistry in public science. I also didn't say that corporate science was perfect, just less prone to the problem we're seeing.
stop embarrassing yourself.
Sophists never win against people like me. And you are a sophist. That has been amply proven.
Here is what you're having so much trouble with... I'm very rational. Your little games don't work against me. I am not confused by them. You walk around with your pretense but when push comes to shove... you're a fraud.
Or whatever your people are doing. You need to be able to understand what your people are doing so you can know if they're doing a good job or not.
The whole TPS report thing from office space was a consequence of someone that doesn't know how to code or understand the product trying to keep tabs on people that were creating that product or service.
So they create artificial benchmarks and paper work and then judge the employees by how well they comply with the paperwork.
The problem is that the paperwork is not actually anything the customer cares about. It has nothing to do with the product or service. It is an arbitrary management mechanism. And it is FINE if the manager doesn't need it. If the manager can judge your work without it, than the paperwork might make his job easier.
However, if he can't judge your work without that paperwork than he literally can't do his job at all. He can at best APPEAR to be able to do his job. And the only people that would make that mistake would other people that also don't know how any of this shit works.
How is a non-doctor going to judge the quality of a doctors work? You can't.
Same thing. Managers have to have experience in CS if we're talking about developers... ideally they should be programmers themselves.
Again, if you don't have enough programmers with management experience, then it is easier to give programmers management training than it is to give managers programming training. So do that.
In industry, I see a lot of lawyers and MBAs put in positions that are not appropriate.
My belief for example is that the CEOs of technical companies should have the CEO be someone that personally understands the technology that underlies the product they're providing.
They don't have to understand everything. Just their product.
So I think car companies are better run by engineers. I think computer or IT companies are best run by people with a CS background. I think medical companies are best run by doctors. I think law firms are best run by lawyers.
The point of the MBAs is to serve a competent second in command type people that provide assistance with logistics and organization. But knowing how to organize something doesn't mean you know how it should be organized.
In regards to the IT managers in the government and corporations, they need to put CS or IT background people in those management positions. If they have too many MBAs or lawyers that need management positions that isn't my problem. Find a department they can run comptently.
Here is how you know if a manager shouldn't be managing something:
Do they know when their employees aren't doing a good job?
Now, without a CS or IT background how is your manager going to know that? He isn't. He has no hope of ever figuring that out unless there is a disaster and even then just because there is a disaster it doesn't mean your people even made a mistake.
Lets say you're running a car company... if you're not an engineer than how do you know if the people making your product are doing a good job or not? You can't know. You don't know enough to judge.
And so on. A lawyer running a law firm is going to know if one of his junior partners is fucking up or if one of his senior partners is slacking off. Someone without a deep experience in the profession and industry isn't going to have a clue.
It is why I think MS had trouble after Gates left and it is why I think Apple is going to run into problems now that Jobs is gone.
I don't have hatred for scientists at all. I deeply respect the profession.
If one dislikes quack doctors that kill their patients and one says that bad doctors should be removed from the profession... does one hate all doctors?
I'm not the one that keeps saying all scientists are bad. That's just you desperately trying to breath life into your dead and rotting credibility by trying to retcon the argument with more strawmen.
As I said before... I know you know you're a fraud.
And now you know that I know that you know you're a fraud as well.;)
Sleep tight sweetie, if you stay off the internet the bad man can't hurt your wuddle feelings.
If they can't subcontract one of the major suppliers to turn out a phone with tweaked firmware to suit the NSA's security recommendations then possibly we should just all stick shotguns in our mouths and hope that something evolves from our festing remains to have more wisdom than this species.
This isn't hard.
As to the issues with consolidating aircraft, that is mostly an issue of all departments being forced to use the same fucking airplane.
That's a mistake. It had Lockheed designing a plane that was right for the Navy, the Marines, and the Army. That's stupid. And to make matters worse they tried to harmonize that with the Airforce's air superiority program.
I can send you interviews with Admirals and Generals where they basically say it doesn't cut costs to combine things because they've very different missions and you just get something that is compromised into uselessness.
What is more, every design decision has to be checked with every god damn branch of the military because they're all basically using a very similar platform.
The F35 should have been like... five or six different planes. Each with their own design considerations, life expectancy in the fleet, and supply chain.
The marines wanted something like the harrier jump jet. Boeing had something like that ready to go for a fraction of what the F35 cost. Give them that.
The army doesn't care about vertical take off or landing. They're happy to build an airfield so long as it doesn't have to be perfect. They like big cargo planes and big bombers... so they're going to have access to big airfields. The army likes firepower where as the Marines prefer flexibility and some nimbleness.
The Navy is all about pessimism and preparing for the worst. They like things to have back ups and back ups of back ups. And fail safes when the back ups fail. So they like their planes to have two engines for example. Because they don't trust that one of those engines might die for no reason and cause the plane to go into the drink. They also like range. That lets the carriers stay back and well out of harm's way. Vertical take off and landing are not required when you have Nimitz Class super carriers.
And the airforce likes to paint shit black and go veroom veroom. Seriously though, they like speed, stealth, and fighters that turn on a literal dime. The number of engines, how much fire power it has, or whether it can land vertically isn't really important to them.
Trying to combine all these objectives into a single airframe was dumb. And that's why the F35 was a disappointment.
And to make matters worse, the F22 is absurdly expensive which is driving us to replace its role as much as possible with drones. That is our goal there. The F22 might be relegated to a forward drone commander. All that maneuverability will be pointless.
But to the topic of smartphones... I wouldn't have every single agency use the same stupid phone. That's clearly a bad idea. let them all get their own. They can work out the details. the costs shouldn't be a big deal. An order for 100,000 smart phones isn't going to be expensive on a per unit basis.
I did not call all non-commercial science a cargo cult.
You're just compounding your previous stupid lies with more stupid lies.
I said that there are parts of science that are like cargo cults.
And I then linked to a speech by Richard Feynman in which he talked about how some parts of science are like a cargo cult.
that means... Richard and I were saying the same thing.
And to make matters even more pathetic for you, everything I was saying was mirrored by the chief editor of the Lancet which is one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world.
Your compounded lies and deceits can't be blamed on stupidity any longer. You're just a lying sack of shit now.
Slashdot Mirror
I am very aware of the dangers of "live steam"... however, a pipe is easier to repair than god knows what kind of electromagnetic whatever the fuck they embed under the decks.
Something that I don't think a lot of people get about naval ships is that most of the maintenance happens at sea. They only send the ship in to a yard or dry dock if they have to and they try to limit what a ship goes into a dock for to things that can only be done in a dock.
A steam catapult is much more likely to be repairable at sea than is an electromagnetic catapult. It will be easier to diagnose problems and easier to patch.
What is more... I want you to think of most heavy industrial machinery. Most of it is driven with hydraulics and pneumatics.
Also I'll just point out that in your case you're talking about exposed high voltage lines... which could be exposed to salt water on the decks... oh and the whole thing is fed by two nuclear reactors.
I think you underestimate that bug zapper quality of the thing you're defending.
I'll take my chances with live steam, thanks.
The nature of the piston is more configurable than that.
You can have multiple inlets for steam that trigger as the piston goes forward, thus causing an increase in the amount of steam as the piston expands. If configured properly, the stroke can be as uniform in force as anyone will notice.
You'd probably be surprised what you can do with mechanical parts.
keep in mind that the Apollo rockets were mostly mechanical. A lot of the things in them that we'd do today with mirco controllers, they did with valves and pressure regulators and such.
There are advantages to doing it either way.
The digital method is typically easier to set up and easier to configure if something needs to be calibrated.
However, the more robust systems tend to be easier to maintain and harder to damage.
In both military and industrial settings, you use a mixture of both systems. Things that need to be tweaked a lot are typically digital and electronic. Things that need to be really strong and really tough tend to be hydraulic or pneumatic.
I'm not sure if their main boiler runs entirely on that. They could and recycle filtered water.
However, when there were the big typhoons in east Asia that caused something of a survival problem for millions of people, the US dispatched a couple of its carriers to the region to provide clean drinking water.
The carriers can produce huge amounts of clean drinking water and I believe they do have large desalination plants inside of them. Whether they must be used for the reactor or not is not known to me. But I do know they do have a significant desalination feature in those carriers. More than enough to supply steam to the catapult without thinking about it.
Again, all nuclear reactors that we've ever designed work on the same principle that the old external combustion engines worked on... you have a boiler which is heated by some means... in this case it is heated with a reactor. And that heat is used to boil water, which creates pressure, which then is either fed into pistons or turbines to generate power.
That is how they all work.
So the reactor is boiling water. How pure that water is... is not known to me. I'd have to look at the schematics or do some research to figure that out.
It doesn't matter though in this context because we're just talking about enough steam to drive the catapult. And really if you wanted to, you could recycle 100 percent of the water from that operation by having it expand into some expansion chamber rather than just venting. However, I don't see why anyone would care. The water loss is not going to be relevant to a nuclear carrier on the ocean. The damn thing can desalinate as much water as it wants.
Thank you for the last sentence. Due to Poe's law, you can't tell when people are being sarcastic otherwise. :)
The problem with your argument is that perfect security in computers is actually possible... theoretically. Perfect defense in conventional military terms is not even theoretically possible.
You control too many things in a network for the two situations to be analogous. They can't attack you unless they get into physical proximity of your systems or intrude through your firewalls.
That's already a huge advantage. Think of that in terms of military defense.
Imagine if the enemy could only attack you through one little mountain pass and no where else. All you have to cover was THAT entry way.
Then consider you don't need to let just any jackoff through the pass. Instead, you can block anyone from entry except those you've determined to be authorized.
Intrusions are thus a matter of determining who is authorized and who is not through your gate.
There is no question of your supremacy at your gate. You can't be credibly assaulted.
A hacker is more like a smuggler than an invading army.
Now if we think of this like smuggling... can that be stopped?
Well, they can only enter through that gate. They can't sneak in anywhere else unless your organization is far more incompetent than we need to worry about in this thought experiment.
So how do you keep out or detect 100 percent of smugglers?
1. You control the protocol of entry such that no one can enter unless they're very familiar with the system. Secret handshakes and the like. An insider could out your systems but unless they have that they'll reveal themselves.
2. You segregate the data flows into types. This type of data goes here. This type of data goes there. Smugglers tend to get through by mislabeling things. This bag full of drugs is relabeled as coffee. But if you make it impossible for the box labeled coffee to go anywhere but the coffee warehouse than you restrict the distribution of the drugs once they get past the front gate.
The point is if you set up your firewall rules properly it will be very hard for anyone to do anything. High security systems for example shouldn't be conducting all affairs over VPNs. This means someone trying to access the system without the codes and encryption for the VPN can't talk to that system at all. That is the secret handshake.
Have we seen any of these systems get their VPNs breached? Nope. The systems breached weren't using VPNs.
to say that we can't secure systems because bad security policies or absent security policies get breached is silly.
You lock it down and they're not getting in.
I could go through a long list of protocols that could be followed that would make these systems 100 percent hack proof.
No. 100 percent. NSA proof. FSB proof. No one is getting in.
The only thing I couldn't stop would be guys showing up to the data center with guns and shooting their way in. That is a security situation for someone else.
But if your concern is keeping hackers out? 100 percent security is possible. Not 99.9. 100.
The carriers are all nuclear which means they boil sea water to turn steam turbines.
That means they have lots of steam. Stupid amounts of steam. Always.
The EM system means you have high voltage lines running under the decks and I generally think the system is going to be more complicated and harder to repair/maintain than the steam version.
Smoother acceleration? That also makes no sense. You can make a steam piston VERY smooth. As smooth as an electromagnetic whatever?... probably not but who cares... you won't be able to tell the difference. A machine measuring it might be able to tell. But a difference small enough that the dude getting thrown by the thing wouldn't notice is unlikely to be relevant to the airframe.
I am all for using superior technology. I just think there is a bias sometimes to go with electronics on the assumption that they're always superior. Sometimes they're not. Pneumatics or hydraulics or steam in this case are contextually superior in given circumstances.
We were hearing about them testing robots to go into a nuclear reactor in Japan. The robots all have complicated electronics and micro controllers. That's been shown repeatedly to not work. They radiation destroys the micro controllers.
When it comes to big machines that push heavy things around, you find that such big industrial machines are hydraulic in most cases. They rely on pressure. There is a centralized compressor somewhere that drives pressure through tubes and pipes... and that pressure is controlled to move heavy stuff around.
So here you have this big carrier with I believe two nuclear reactors in it... generating fuck tons of steam... and you're going to draw on the electrical grid of the ship instead of just drawing on the boiler directly?
Why? I'm just not seeing it especially in a battle platform.
What you want in a battle platform is something as robust and reliable as possible. A steam piston is more reliable than some electro magnetic whatever. That catapult goes down and the carrier is useless. Think about that. That is easily one of the most critical components of the entire carrier. Right up there with the flat deck on top in so far as utility. No catapult and most of the planes can't take off at all.
Saying that you can't do this with finesse ignores that the most advanced robots these days actually make use of pneumatic actuators.
That's politics. I accept that people I don't like get elected to office sometimes. My problem is when incompetent people are hired to run the machinery that keeps the institution alive.
By all means... be corrupt... but don't be incompetent.
I can tolerate people stealing from me a little bit. Its not avoidable. But if they're stupid on top of that, then that is not acceptable.
... This is how every university gets going and how the big ones stay well funded. They ask rich people for large sums of money... in the old days that was kings, lords, and the Church.
today... it is business tycoons and big fat government checks.
And from this we conclude Harvard is bad because a tycoon gave them 400 million dollars?
Shock... gasp.... horror.
This is about the part in an article where I ask the people that take it seriously to flip a coin.
https://youtu.be/OLCL6OYbSTw?t...
The immune response would have to be serious.
if you have two genetically identical mice then swapping their heads should be more viable.
The interesting thing in so far as humans would be doing the same thing.
Forget the ethics for a moment. Lets say you got a clone of yourself... doing a head swap would be less of a big deal than grabbing some random other person and doing a head swap with them.
0?
Any system is going to have to be pneumatic and fiber optic in nature. Electronics fail in high radiation environments.
Every robot we've sent in there breaks in minutes if not seconds.
If your motors are all pneumatic actuators like what you see with big dog, then they won't fail when subjected to that kind of radiation.
Your only issue will be getting information from the robot to your command station so you can see what is going on. And the solution there is to use fiber optics. The fiber optics will transmit light into the reactor from the robot and other fiber optics will put up the reflected light to be processed by the command station.
Possibly SOME electronics that are VERY simple will work in a high radiation environment. But nothing complicated has survived. The whole push to miniaturize stuff is counter productive when dealing with radiation.
bingo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Liar liar.
First, my agenda is not anti science.
Second, they both back up my call for improved ethics and standards in science.
Third, I'm not in enemy territory.
Fourth, my motivations are a desire for improved ethics in science. Your belief that identity politics will suit you in a discussion about scientific ethics makes it clear that your pretense as being a man of science was a lie.
Fifth, as pointed out clearly enough that anyone but a liar would acknowledge it... I don't hate scientists or science.
Sixth, as to why I am trading words with you... I'm not... I'm tearing you apart. ;)
You've been murdered so throughly in these discussions it is positively hilarious. I have been openly laughing at your stupid ass throughout a good portion of our exchanges.
It is very rewarding and vindicating to run into someone like you every so often. You're such a clear example of an old school sophist. You have no moral center. You lie about everything. You manipulate every discussion. You play endless rhetorical games.
Its great. You're basically the duck I found when I went out duck hunting. How sad would it be if there were no ducks? So here I am... filtering for scumbags. And who bubbles to the surface like swamp gas... but you! And you're not an AC either. Which means I know can track you if I want to. Its awesome. And the fact that you followed me from one thread to another means I can do the same to you if I want. Isn't that super?
I'll make sure to comment on some of your posts. I'm sure you're lying to other people on this forum on a regular basis. So that should be fun.
*kiss kiss*
You're just determined to make go pick all the low hanging fruit and hand it to you aren't you?
Here is my first post in that thread that got you all hot and bothered:
"
That's the issue.
It is as a great man once said "cargo cult science"... it presents the seeming of science... the seeming of logic... but is it? And the thing is that only people that are genuine can really tell one from the other.
While this will sound terribly retrograde and classist... the issue is that we have a lot of sleazy people in positions of trust. Sleazy people are not going to behave themselves under any system.
A community is not just defined by those in it but those not permitted to join it. Some sort of integrity check should be put on the system and those that are clearly only interested in money or power or attention should be kicked out. Those interested in actually doing a real science... humble though it often is... should be the only ones on the pay roll.
I speak of public universities only. Private universities and corporations can do whatever they want. But if you're taking the public coin then the public has a right to insist on integrity. What private individuals want to do with their own money is their own business.
Simply cutting the sophists off from public funding should largely solve the problem. That is where this fungus has grown. The corporations are too goal oriented to get side tracked by this sort of thing. And the private universities are likely just as vulnerable as the public ones but their credibility is their problem and not one anyone else needs to worry about.
""
Please point at where I said that "ALL" non-commercial science is a cargo cult?
I didn't.
I said that there was a problem with sophistry in public science. I also didn't say that corporate science was perfect, just less prone to the problem we're seeing.
stop embarrassing yourself.
Sophists never win against people like me. And you are a sophist. That has been amply proven.
Here is what you're having so much trouble with... I'm very rational. Your little games don't work against me. I am not confused by them. You walk around with your pretense but when push comes to shove... you're a fraud.
And you know it.
Or whatever your people are doing. You need to be able to understand what your people are doing so you can know if they're doing a good job or not.
The whole TPS report thing from office space was a consequence of someone that doesn't know how to code or understand the product trying to keep tabs on people that were creating that product or service.
So they create artificial benchmarks and paper work and then judge the employees by how well they comply with the paperwork.
The problem is that the paperwork is not actually anything the customer cares about. It has nothing to do with the product or service. It is an arbitrary management mechanism. And it is FINE if the manager doesn't need it. If the manager can judge your work without it, than the paperwork might make his job easier.
However, if he can't judge your work without that paperwork than he literally can't do his job at all. He can at best APPEAR to be able to do his job. And the only people that would make that mistake would other people that also don't know how any of this shit works.
How is a non-doctor going to judge the quality of a doctors work? You can't.
Same thing. Managers have to have experience in CS if we're talking about developers... ideally they should be programmers themselves.
Again, if you don't have enough programmers with management experience, then it is easier to give programmers management training than it is to give managers programming training. So do that.
As to inequities between defenders and attackers, those are always technology specific.
Armored knights for example were quite viable until the fire arm.
We're talking about network security.
Saying you can't secure these systems because of some analogy about people putting bars on their windows is not constructive.
That's a lot of it.
In industry, I see a lot of lawyers and MBAs put in positions that are not appropriate.
My belief for example is that the CEOs of technical companies should have the CEO be someone that personally understands the technology that underlies the product they're providing.
They don't have to understand everything. Just their product.
So I think car companies are better run by engineers. I think computer or IT companies are best run by people with a CS background. I think medical companies are best run by doctors. I think law firms are best run by lawyers.
The point of the MBAs is to serve a competent second in command type people that provide assistance with logistics and organization. But knowing how to organize something doesn't mean you know how it should be organized.
In regards to the IT managers in the government and corporations, they need to put CS or IT background people in those management positions. If they have too many MBAs or lawyers that need management positions that isn't my problem. Find a department they can run comptently.
Here is how you know if a manager shouldn't be managing something:
Do they know when their employees aren't doing a good job?
Now, without a CS or IT background how is your manager going to know that? He isn't. He has no hope of ever figuring that out unless there is a disaster and even then just because there is a disaster it doesn't mean your people even made a mistake.
Lets say you're running a car company... if you're not an engineer than how do you know if the people making your product are doing a good job or not? You can't know. You don't know enough to judge.
And so on. A lawyer running a law firm is going to know if one of his junior partners is fucking up or if one of his senior partners is slacking off. Someone without a deep experience in the profession and industry isn't going to have a clue.
It is why I think MS had trouble after Gates left and it is why I think Apple is going to run into problems now that Jobs is gone.
0 again.
Well... it isn't a matter of corporate versus private. Technically either could be better in almost any situation.
The issue is competence. If one system is competent and the other is not then... one will work and the other will not.
Where did I say that all non-corporate science was cargo cult science?
What you have me saying there is that SOME science is cargo cult science.
Some =/= all.
What are you, some kind of escaped science project? You're so fucking stupid it is remarkable. I mean... Just wow.
I don't have hatred for scientists at all. I deeply respect the profession.
If one dislikes quack doctors that kill their patients and one says that bad doctors should be removed from the profession... does one hate all doctors?
I'm not the one that keeps saying all scientists are bad. That's just you desperately trying to breath life into your dead and rotting credibility by trying to retcon the argument with more strawmen.
As I said before... I know you know you're a fraud.
And now you know that I know that you know you're a fraud as well. ;)
Sleep tight sweetie, if you stay off the internet the bad man can't hurt your wuddle feelings.
If they can't subcontract one of the major suppliers to turn out a phone with tweaked firmware to suit the NSA's security recommendations then possibly we should just all stick shotguns in our mouths and hope that something evolves from our festing remains to have more wisdom than this species.
This isn't hard.
As to the issues with consolidating aircraft, that is mostly an issue of all departments being forced to use the same fucking airplane.
That's a mistake. It had Lockheed designing a plane that was right for the Navy, the Marines, and the Army. That's stupid. And to make matters worse they tried to harmonize that with the Airforce's air superiority program.
I can send you interviews with Admirals and Generals where they basically say it doesn't cut costs to combine things because they've very different missions and you just get something that is compromised into uselessness.
What is more, every design decision has to be checked with every god damn branch of the military because they're all basically using a very similar platform.
The F35 should have been like... five or six different planes. Each with their own design considerations, life expectancy in the fleet, and supply chain.
The marines wanted something like the harrier jump jet. Boeing had something like that ready to go for a fraction of what the F35 cost. Give them that.
The army doesn't care about vertical take off or landing. They're happy to build an airfield so long as it doesn't have to be perfect. They like big cargo planes and big bombers... so they're going to have access to big airfields. The army likes firepower where as the Marines prefer flexibility and some nimbleness.
The Navy is all about pessimism and preparing for the worst. They like things to have back ups and back ups of back ups. And fail safes when the back ups fail. So they like their planes to have two engines for example. Because they don't trust that one of those engines might die for no reason and cause the plane to go into the drink. They also like range. That lets the carriers stay back and well out of harm's way. Vertical take off and landing are not required when you have Nimitz Class super carriers.
And the airforce likes to paint shit black and go veroom veroom. Seriously though, they like speed, stealth, and fighters that turn on a literal dime. The number of engines, how much fire power it has, or whether it can land vertically isn't really important to them.
Trying to combine all these objectives into a single airframe was dumb. And that's why the F35 was a disappointment.
And to make matters worse, the F22 is absurdly expensive which is driving us to replace its role as much as possible with drones. That is our goal there. The F22 might be relegated to a forward drone commander. All that maneuverability will be pointless.
But to the topic of smartphones... I wouldn't have every single agency use the same stupid phone. That's clearly a bad idea. let them all get their own. They can work out the details. the costs shouldn't be a big deal. An order for 100,000 smart phones isn't going to be expensive on a per unit basis.
You know what makes this sweet... that I know that you know you're a fraud.
And now you know that I know that you know you're a fraud as well.
You really have nothing left but pretense do you? That pathetic hope that others don't see right through you... How do you live like that?
You're not that well disguised, chum. Work on your mask, your slip is showing. ;-D
yes it is true. Bags of dead kittens run many US Federal Departments.
What are you? A robot?... and a retard?
Learn the difference between exaggerations made for comic/dramatic effect and statements meant to be taken literally.
Is this your Commander Data impersonation? Do you want me to tell you what sex feels like or something?
Guys, did IBM's Watson escape the lab and start posting on social media? We should know these things.
I did not call all non-commercial science a cargo cult.
You're just compounding your previous stupid lies with more stupid lies.
I said that there are parts of science that are like cargo cults.
And I then linked to a speech by Richard Feynman in which he talked about how some parts of science are like a cargo cult.
that means... Richard and I were saying the same thing.
And to make matters even more pathetic for you, everything I was saying was mirrored by the chief editor of the Lancet which is one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world.
Your compounded lies and deceits can't be blamed on stupidity any longer. You're just a lying sack of shit now.