thing is the stuff has always been shielded, since early on after radar first started being carried by planes. two nearbys planes with their weather radars on issue a metric f ton more EM than if every passenger on both planes dialed out simulatneously.
Another myth. Why are we allowed to read books, talk or go to sleep during such a critical time then? There is nothing you sitting in a seat can do during a crash upon takeoff or landing that you need to be aware and alert for. If you're sitting upright and your belt is buckled and snug, you have already done everything you can do.
The only semirasonable response I've ever heard is "so yuo can follow the emergency procedures". To which I say, Emergency Procedures are executed AFTER the accident as already occured. And believe me, if you weren't alert before it happened, you damn well will be afterward.
It is physically impossible for a cell phone to make a plane "fall out of the sky" (unless its the trigger device for a bomb anyway).
First, the EMI threat of a phone to a plane is a myth. They operate frigging WIFI on board planes these days. And planes take off and land amid HUGE radio EMI areas called Airports and Cities. The EMI isnt magically blocked just cause you went down the jetway and through the little door.
Secondly, engineering. There is no failure that a phone's raido signal could possibly cause to an airplane. If you knew jack squat about aircraft and their design you owuld know that. The absolute worst case scenario is that a phone would interfer with the radio....but anyone with a basic level of intelligence should know that cell phones trasmit on a totally different frequency than aircraft comm gear. Induced signals inside avionics boxes? Ya....doesnt happen. Those things are shielded, grounded, and again, dont even operate on the same frequencies and micropower levels that phones transmit with. And exactly what other systems do you thing are going to be affected by this mystery phone signal? Not hydraulics...not the engine...not the flight controls...
It's a myth. It's BS. Its CYA that isn't warranted. Its hyperprotectionism. It's like defending a law that everyone wear gas masks at all timse cause of the totally random and unlikely scenario of a gas cloud erupting frm the sewer or rolling in on the wind and displacing all air...."it'll never happen but better safe than sorry anyway"...
dont let science get in the way of your testing or anything. it may be how they do the testing and certifying...but when the science says they're wasting their time...they're wasting their time
that doesnt invalidate the concept. thats simply an engineering/usage problem to be overcome. ships and planes dont sail through storms they dont have to. blimps wouldnt either.
the tips going supersonic is due to rotational speed though, not actual aircraft speed. and that's only a few that actually did that. (the Pogo was one)
the wing design problem is common to all planes (re: Tu-195 Bear, russian prop driver bomber with swept wings and high altitude ability). there's been air breathing engines ~80-90k ft. prop driven engines simply use a turbocharger, essentially the compressor section of a jet engine (before there were jets!), to get enough air at higher altitudes.
the real problem prop planes have with going SS is its very hard for a propellor to generate the required thrust. the redesign of a prop to do so is what results in the many bladed turbines of a jet engine. a prop is essentially an unconfined turbine with few blades. confining it results in the ducted prop or ducted fan. still not enough thrust though, so add a reactive component to create more thrust...and you just conceptualized the jet engine itself.
going fast is more about the airframe design. you could design a propellor driven plane that exceeds Mach 1 in a dive fairly easy. the trick is getting it to do it in level flight under its own power. thats why you need the jets.
cargo ships? doubtful trains? possibly. depends on the source/destination combo and on the trucks. if its connected by train, then no. if its not, or not directly, then possibly (such as the seattle to sante fe, which first has to go all the way to LA or chocago first, or even Denver to Sante Fe which goes by truck usually cause the trains have to against cros the mtns and double back). trucks? maybe. trucks already fill in the gaps from the ships and trains, and theres a lot of trucks. but they are still limited by routing.
that's for the US though, and we're farly well conencted except for the couple routes mentioned or similar. in other places, the same rules would apply, but if they lack many roads or trains, its easy to see how an airship route could run delivers without needing the road/tracks inbetween.
And "they" are idiots who know neither history, nor the reality of conflict.
All of history have proven there two basic routes to peace in the face of aggression: 1) When the invaders come, roll over and become their slaves. 2) When the invaders come, kill them all.
To grant one person the right to not be punched is to deprive another of the right to punch. Who's rights are more important? The puncher, or the punchee? Your right to remember me is secondary to my right to not be remembered.
We arent talking about censorship. We are talking about a company datamining my every detail, for profit. So they can market things to me, and sell that info to other people to market things to me. They are essentially selling "me", against my wishes, and with no benefit to myself.
When done to one's physical person its called slavery. But when done to one's personal information its legal marketing for which one gets absolute zero recompense, and we're supposed to just allow cause its supposedly some form of censorship? Bull.
We're not talking about criminal records or warcrimes here. We are talking about being tracked and datamined, for profit.
This is not a form of censorship.
Facebooks right to know everything about and and make money off it does not carry more weight than my right to be left alone and not be tracked and not be datamined.
and your perception of the invasion is complete BS. my grandfather was with his battalion on one of the ships off the coast of okinawa when the bombs were dropped. they were there because they were waiting for the orders to sail to japan and begin the invasion. his battalion was to be the first on the beach. the plans were in place. they had already done their workups and planning for the invasion. everyone knew their role. and they knew they were probably going to die. news of the surrender was the first and last time in his entire life that he got drunk; so drunk that he lost 3 days.
so no, you have no fing clue what you are talking about.
No, the russians flatly refused to even enter into the pacific theater until less than three months before the Japanese surrendered.
They didnt even invade Manchuria until AFTER we dropped the first bomb, and the invasion was just as much them trying to grab as much land/influence in china as it was them honoring their treaty obligations from years earlier in the war.
They weren't doing it to fight the japanese. they were doing it to get china just like they had gotten control of nearly all of eastern europe in their push to germany. infact their invasion of manchuria and the push into the korean penninsula is how North Korea came to be in the first place.
It also proved/developed the atomic theories of Einstein and Oppenheimer and the rest. This paved the way for and made possible nuclear energy/reactors, letting harness the power of the atom for more than just bombs. Nuclear energy remains one of our best options to meet the energy demands of the world, particular as china and india modernize.
there was always a weapons risk, cause the thorium still goes to U233. The idea they couldnt make bombs from it wasnt really that they couldnt make bombs, but that they couldnt HIDE that they were doing it cause of the facilities needed to convert the thorium into fuel (in theory....in reality, how hard is it to bury construction). The ratio of source to fuel is still pretty high though (233:1 !!), so you still need lots of room to store it while it decays naturally. Seems like you'd still want to bury it/hide it (leaving construction tell tales) as just leaving it in a random warehouse to decay would be easily detectable by any radiological sniffers.
So really not much changes with this new information. Except for the fat that letting it decay naturally has fewer toxic byproducts, which seems like a win regardless.
Still seems lower than the traditional route. And (FTA) instead of using a special facility to directly bombard/convert the thorium into fissible U233 in a short time, they just let the stuff sit for a month and decay into U233 naturally. And the article states that using the wait-to-decay method, theres also fewer/less radiotoxic byproduct, so it seems like a cheaper/safer method to start with.
They still turn it into U233, the bomb stuff. just a difference in timescale, facility and method. So there was always a weapon risk.
the whole "low prolfieration" thing just came from theoretically being able to spot the facilities doing the converting...though I think leaving the stuff sitting around and waiting for it to decay would also be theoretically somewhat simple to detect.
All in all, it seems like waiting for it to decay naturally is better, unless the ratio of fissible material is significantly worse, sufficient to outweigh the fewer toxic byproducts thing..
sears is no more a hardware store than home depot. they are the walmarts of tools and sell products to match. your exmaple sucks so you're wrong, to use your elegant logic.
want real hardware store with quality stuff? try ACE or TrueValue. they havent yet succumbed to the big box store mentality.
How else would you explain why Greece (which undeniably had a much worse economic crisis) has a lower murder rate than the USA?
-Vastly smaller population -More homogenous population/culture -Different culture -Lack of gangs and drug cartels from around the world -Fewer people in poverty and smaller gap between have/have nots.
But we're all exactly the same right? Cause differences dont matter....
that said, it has nothing to do with an economic downturn or cultural response to it. you people are extrapolating string theory from someones random observation about apples falling. it's a simple study of one city, one with a traditionally higher than average crime rate..it's Jersey. what do you expect? No one likes Jersey. Seriously though. We dont go grab our guns and kill people because of recessions. That's a BS line of thought. People with the economic means (or incentive like a job) to leave a bad place for a good place tend to do so. This leaves behind a population of people without said means. Said people have a disproportionately higher crime rate. It's like having a weak solution of acid, nearly harmless by volume, and concentrating it by evaporating off the water til a single drop will melt your face off.
what obscenely high murder rates? your popular perception has little to do with reality. rates are down, and have been going down for years. crime, including homicide, in the US is at quite possibly the lowest point in the country's entire history.
but dont let that stop you from making your stupid american comments for an instant +5 insightful.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. After an inflight emergency I am totally going to safely power down my laptop first before saving my life.
thing is the stuff has always been shielded, since early on after radar first started being carried by planes. two nearbys planes with their weather radars on issue a metric f ton more EM than if every passenger on both planes dialed out simulatneously.
Another myth.
Why are we allowed to read books, talk or go to sleep during such a critical time then?
There is nothing you sitting in a seat can do during a crash upon takeoff or landing that you need to be aware and alert for.
If you're sitting upright and your belt is buckled and snug, you have already done everything you can do.
The only semirasonable response I've ever heard is "so yuo can follow the emergency procedures".
To which I say, Emergency Procedures are executed AFTER the accident as already occured. And believe me, if you weren't alert before it happened, you damn well will be afterward.
It is physically impossible for a cell phone to make a plane "fall out of the sky" (unless its the trigger device for a bomb anyway).
First, the EMI threat of a phone to a plane is a myth.
They operate frigging WIFI on board planes these days. And planes take off and land amid HUGE radio EMI areas called Airports and Cities. The EMI isnt magically blocked just cause you went down the jetway and through the little door.
Secondly, engineering.
There is no failure that a phone's raido signal could possibly cause to an airplane. If you knew jack squat about aircraft and their design you owuld know that. The absolute worst case scenario is that a phone would interfer with the radio....but anyone with a basic level of intelligence should know that cell phones trasmit on a totally different frequency than aircraft comm gear. Induced signals inside avionics boxes? Ya....doesnt happen. Those things are shielded, grounded, and again, dont even operate on the same frequencies and micropower levels that phones transmit with. And exactly what other systems do you thing are going to be affected by this mystery phone signal? Not hydraulics...not the engine...not the flight controls...
It's a myth. It's BS. Its CYA that isn't warranted. Its hyperprotectionism.
It's like defending a law that everyone wear gas masks at all timse cause of the totally random and unlikely scenario of a gas cloud erupting frm the sewer or rolling in on the wind and displacing all air...."it'll never happen but better safe than sorry anyway"...
dont let science get in the way of your testing or anything.
it may be how they do the testing and certifying...but when the science says they're wasting their time...they're wasting their time
Ya, that was totally a troll post. Thank you faceless gutless enemy who happened to get mod points.
Ya, that was totally a troll post. Thank you faceless gutless enemy who happened to get mod points.
that doesnt invalidate the concept. thats simply an engineering/usage problem to be overcome. ships and planes dont sail through storms they dont have to. blimps wouldnt either.
the tips going supersonic is due to rotational speed though, not actual aircraft speed. and that's only a few that actually did that. (the Pogo was one)
the wing design problem is common to all planes (re: Tu-195 Bear, russian prop driver bomber with swept wings and high altitude ability). there's been air breathing engines ~80-90k ft. prop driven engines simply use a turbocharger, essentially the compressor section of a jet engine (before there were jets!), to get enough air at higher altitudes.
the real problem prop planes have with going SS is its very hard for a propellor to generate the required thrust. the redesign of a prop to do so is what results in the many bladed turbines of a jet engine. a prop is essentially an unconfined turbine with few blades. confining it results in the ducted prop or ducted fan. still not enough thrust though, so add a reactive component to create more thrust...and you just conceptualized the jet engine itself.
going fast is more about the airframe design. you could design a propellor driven plane that exceeds Mach 1 in a dive fairly easy. the trick is getting it to do it in level flight under its own power. thats why you need the jets.
cargo ships? doubtful
trains? possibly. depends on the source/destination combo and on the trucks. if its connected by train, then no. if its not, or not directly, then possibly (such as the seattle to sante fe, which first has to go all the way to LA or chocago first, or even Denver to Sante Fe which goes by truck usually cause the trains have to against cros the mtns and double back).
trucks? maybe. trucks already fill in the gaps from the ships and trains, and theres a lot of trucks. but they are still limited by routing.
that's for the US though, and we're farly well conencted except for the couple routes mentioned or similar. in other places, the same rules would apply, but if they lack many roads or trains, its easy to see how an airship route could run delivers without needing the road/tracks inbetween.
And "they" are idiots who know neither history, nor the reality of conflict.
All of history have proven there two basic routes to peace in the face of aggression:
1) When the invaders come, roll over and become their slaves.
2) When the invaders come, kill them all.
You only get to pick one.
"It Would Violate Your Privacy to Say if We Spied on You" - the NSA
To grant one person the right to not be punched is to deprive another of the right to punch.
Who's rights are more important? The puncher, or the punchee?
Your right to remember me is secondary to my right to not be remembered.
We arent talking about censorship. We are talking about a company datamining my every detail, for profit. So they can market things to me, and sell that info to other people to market things to me. They are essentially selling "me", against my wishes, and with no benefit to myself.
When done to one's physical person its called slavery.
But when done to one's personal information its legal marketing for which one gets absolute zero recompense, and we're supposed to just allow cause its supposedly some form of censorship? Bull.
We're not talking about criminal records or warcrimes here.
We are talking about being tracked and datamined, for profit.
This is not a form of censorship.
Facebooks right to know everything about and and make money off it does not carry more weight than my right to be left alone and not be tracked and not be datamined.
then you're a fool and know nothing about the military itself nor the people in it.
and your perception of the invasion is complete BS. my grandfather was with his battalion on one of the ships off the coast of okinawa when the bombs were dropped. they were there because they were waiting for the orders to sail to japan and begin the invasion. his battalion was to be the first on the beach. the plans were in place. they had already done their workups and planning for the invasion. everyone knew their role. and they knew they were probably going to die. news of the surrender was the first and last time in his entire life that he got drunk; so drunk that he lost 3 days.
so no, you have no fing clue what you are talking about.
No, the russians flatly refused to even enter into the pacific theater until less than three months before the Japanese surrendered.
They didnt even invade Manchuria until AFTER we dropped the first bomb, and the invasion was just as much them trying to grab as much land/influence in china as it was them honoring their treaty obligations from years earlier in the war.
They weren't doing it to fight the japanese. they were doing it to get china just like they had gotten control of nearly all of eastern europe in their push to germany. infact their invasion of manchuria and the push into the korean penninsula is how North Korea came to be in the first place.
It also proved/developed the atomic theories of Einstein and Oppenheimer and the rest. This paved the way for and made possible nuclear energy/reactors, letting harness the power of the atom for more than just bombs. Nuclear energy remains one of our best options to meet the energy demands of the world, particular as china and india modernize.
there was always a weapons risk, cause the thorium still goes to U233. The idea they couldnt make bombs from it wasnt really that they couldnt make bombs, but that they couldnt HIDE that they were doing it cause of the facilities needed to convert the thorium into fuel (in theory....in reality, how hard is it to bury construction). The ratio of source to fuel is still pretty high though (233:1 !!), so you still need lots of room to store it while it decays naturally. Seems like you'd still want to bury it/hide it (leaving construction tell tales) as just leaving it in a random warehouse to decay would be easily detectable by any radiological sniffers.
So really not much changes with this new information. Except for the fat that letting it decay naturally has fewer toxic byproducts, which seems like a win regardless.
Still seems lower than the traditional route. And (FTA) instead of using a special facility to directly bombard/convert the thorium into fissible U233 in a short time, they just let the stuff sit for a month and decay into U233 naturally. And the article states that using the wait-to-decay method, theres also fewer/less radiotoxic byproduct, so it seems like a cheaper/safer method to start with.
They still turn it into U233, the bomb stuff. just a difference in timescale, facility and method. So there was always a weapon risk.
the whole "low prolfieration" thing just came from theoretically being able to spot the facilities doing the converting...though I think leaving the stuff sitting around and waiting for it to decay would also be theoretically somewhat simple to detect.
All in all, it seems like waiting for it to decay naturally is better, unless the ratio of fissible material is significantly worse, sufficient to outweigh the fewer toxic byproducts thing..
your anecdote about using a word incorrectly only proves that your vocabulary needs improvement.
yes. a whole entire continent has a bigger economy than the lone single country of the US of A. Barely. You showed him!
sears is no more a hardware store than home depot. they are the walmarts of tools and sell products to match. your exmaple sucks so you're wrong, to use your elegant logic.
want real hardware store with quality stuff? try ACE or TrueValue. they havent yet succumbed to the big box store mentality.
How else would you explain why Greece (which undeniably had a much worse economic crisis) has a lower murder rate than the USA?
-Vastly smaller population
-More homogenous population/culture
-Different culture
-Lack of gangs and drug cartels from around the world
-Fewer people in poverty and smaller gap between have/have nots.
But we're all exactly the same right? Cause differences dont matter....
that said, it has nothing to do with an economic downturn or cultural response to it. you people are extrapolating string theory from someones random observation about apples falling. it's a simple study of one city, one with a traditionally higher than average crime rate..it's Jersey. what do you expect? No one likes Jersey. Seriously though. We dont go grab our guns and kill people because of recessions. That's a BS line of thought. People with the economic means (or incentive like a job) to leave a bad place for a good place tend to do so. This leaves behind a population of people without said means. Said people have a disproportionately higher crime rate. It's like having a weak solution of acid, nearly harmless by volume, and concentrating it by evaporating off the water til a single drop will melt your face off.
what obscenely high murder rates? your popular perception has little to do with reality. rates are down, and have been going down for years. crime, including homicide, in the US is at quite possibly the lowest point in the country's entire history.
but dont let that stop you from making your stupid american comments for an instant +5 insightful.