Stupid question: how could stealth planes be invisible to missile radar systems, considering that they can use ultra-high-frequency IR, better known as a video image?
Because video isn't radar.... and neither is IR. Duh.
Seriously, video (IR) only works at fairly short ranges. You need radar to get the missile/launching platform into range - and even then, stealth aircraft are designed to minimize their IR signature.
Editorial comment: People need to realize that stealth isn't an invisibility cloak or an "I WIN" button and never was meant to be. It's intent is to minimize detection range (which decreases the time available for the defender to react) and minimize signatures (which interferes with the ability to attain and maintain a lock on). This heavily biases the odds towards the aircraft.
Disclaimer: WYYIDHEWSW - Why yes, yes I do have experience with stealth warfare. (Though with the USN's original stealth attack craft - the submarine. But the general principles are the same.)
Awkward moment when even the military is calling out excessive military spending
Not really. The military is not a uniform monolithic entity - it's made up of people with a wide variety of opinions. Nor is this the first time a senior leader has gone public with his position... historically, it's quite common.
One thing about the Slashdot audience (aka "nerds") is they can figure out when something works and when it doesn't.
Um, no. They actually aren't very good at this at all. To figure out whether something works or not, you first have to understand it - and outside of tech topics Slashdotters aren't much better at that than anyone else. And then, they're also heavily biased... on both tech and non tech topics.
The problem I think is people hear stories about US infrastructure problems, because there are, and because we want to look out and identify problems before they become a crisis.
No, the problem is that (as the grandparent opines) people are clueless. They hear memes (which almost invariably tell half the story) and then repeat them (blaming their bugaboo de jour), and hear them being repeated back at them (in the vast echo chamber that is the internet) - and all the sudden a "truth" is created where none exists before. They aren't looking for problems to solve, they're looking for stuff to blame the 1%ers, or the current party in power, or the Birchers or whoever for.
I really wish there was competition for QB. I think it's a fine platform if you are a very small business with a limited product line. Get complicated, and it fails.
So rather than wishing for a competitor for QB, which would be designed for the same market and thus almost certainly have the same flaws... get off your butt and search out the proper program designed for your business/sector. QB is a good tool, but if you're pushing past it's boundaries, that's not QB's fault.
You'll note I didn't absolutely claim it didn't happen. And your, "oh this was a couple of years back" and "here's some examples from decades ago" just proves my point.
It's just that cars are pretty much mature technology these days that lawsuits don't happen because it's all been invented already. About the only patenting going on comes from radical changes to the power train and the like (see Toyota hybrid patents, Ford hybrid patents).
Given the list of applicable patents in my owner's manual and on various stickers on my car... I suspect you're either just blowing smoke, making shit up, or are completely oblivious. (Or some combination of the three.)
For that matter, rocket technology is largely mature - and largely based on information in the public domain. Specific items may be subject to design patents, but there are no "look and feel" suits. Nor are there "Northrup's fuel pumps look a lot like our, and pump fuel like ours, so they must have copied" type suits.
No, they've improved on an idea that New York City first tried in the mid 1970's, and that several other municipalities also flirted with in the late 1970's and early 80's. There's been fairly steady work on it ever since.
You can either cooperate. It means you have no unique intellectual property (IP) position, but through the widespread use of your IP you might get some benefits back like cheaper space flight.
Or you can protect the IP. No cooperation. Create an inflexible closed operation. Costs increase
Despite decades of rhetoric, there is absolutely zero evidence that cooperation reduces cost. None. Zip. Zero. Nor is there any evidence that "IP" plays and huge role.
without cooperation you'll have to invent everything yourself, or buy it under a license agreement. The best case scenario you succeed at being the first at everything. In a worse scenario, you pay for knowledge. In the worst cases, you either have no access, or you're violating someone else's IP.
Look at the money being squandered on patent battles in courts in the IT and also manufacturing industries.
Despite your fear mongering, when you look outside the tech/consumer electronics industries - you don't see this happening, or at worse it happens very rarely. Toyota isn't suing Ford over having a six cylinder engine, GM isn't suing Mercedes Benz over having tail lights. Etc... The tech and consumer electronics industries operate under some unique pressures - and it's dangerous to generalize from them to other industries.
Nope, not a troll, just stone cold fact. When someone rejects an argument out of hand and without demonstrating a rational basis for doing so, he's clueless.
Here's a hint: the Russians like big dumb boosters for a reason.
When you have difficulty building big non-dumb boosters, you learn real fast to love the dumb ones. Seriously, the Soviet's did build some high tech stuff, but big advanced boosters always proved problematical. On top of that, the Soviets had an intensely political procurement process... (It makes that in the West looks positively sane by comparison) which made the whole affair even more difficult, as space efforts always ended up taking a back seat to the military.
The Russians on the other hand love what they inherited from the Soviet's - because they've never really had the money to do much else, and don't have much choice.
But they need to catch up to something near their valuation or their stock could completely implode.
Since their valuation is the number I referred to as being from the Street's collective asses...
And seriously, anyone that expected them to suddenly come up with some magical plan to vastly increase their income needs to either lay off the drugs or check the dosage of their meds. All the data that was needed was plainly available.
Air transport speeds have stagnated around mach 0.9
Because it simply costs too much to fly faster than that.
the top speed at Indianapolis was recorded more than a decade ago
Because top speeds are now increasing regulated both for safety reasons, and to keep it a competition between drivers rather than checkbooks.
and the optimistic plan for a return to the moon has three times the development time of the original flight.
Actually about one and a half times once you understand that Apollo development actually started in the mid 50's. And, actually, not a bad thing once you understand the difference between a large budget and limited one.
We live in an era where we shy back from the edge achieved in the past.
Only because we live in the real world, and you don't seem to.
just because an aircraft designed in the 1950s wasn't cost effective doesn't mean an aircraft designed in the 2010s couldn't be.
No, the horrid economics of supersonic flight mean an aircraft designed in 2010's won't be cost effective. It's extraordinarily expensive to design and build them, and even in the 2010's they gulp fuel - which keeps them (relatively) small and short ranged. The real market for supersonic commercial aircraft is the long haul flights - but noise regulations keeps them off of transcontinental routes, and horrid fuel economy keeps them off the trans-Pacific routes. The trans-Atlantic market simply isn't big enough.
The noise associated with the sonic boom, and the accompanying regulation to prevent it, was well-understood in the 60's. That is indeed what killed any possible market for the Concorde - and every other potential SST including Boeing's own.
Noise wasn't the only issue - it's just the only issue to have survived in the public consciousness.
The other issue was range, or more accurately the lack thereof. Back in the 60's, what the airlines wanted was range and carrying capacity - and attempting to provide that drove the costs of the US supersonic effort through the roof. Boeing especially wanted a piece of the growing trans-Pacific market, and took it very hard when it became clear that no practical supersonic aircraft was every going to be anything but a "small trans-Atlantic taxi". (The last quote come from a retired Boeing engineer I used to know.)
No, the problem isn't that you're a geek - it's that you're thirteen years old emotionally.
Occasionally saying something off-color doesn't make one "thirteen years old emotionally", it makes one human.
"Occasionally saying something off-color" isn't lacking filters or tending to say what you mean - you're moving the goalposts.
As so many have said elsewhere in this discussion, it's long past time to grow up.
If I ever "grow up" in the way you mean it - Just kill me and put me out of my misery. I didn't go to school for 18 years just so I could spend the next 40 as a soulless worker-drone - If I can't have fun in what I do, I see no point in doing it.
Had I suggested you be a soulless worker drone, you'd have a point. If you can't have fun while acting like an adult, well, as I said before - grow the fuck up.
With the real problem (which management recognized by that point) moved to an all-female team.
That you believe that she was the real problem just confirms in spades what I and so many others have said in this discussion. You, and the males in question, are juvenile jackasses who haven't grown up and learned to behave like adults and accept responsibility for your own actions.
I know you didn't mean it to be funny - but this made me laugh out loud.
I'm also seeing it as an episode of a cop drama - complete with dramatic musical cues and either a look of complete obliviousness or "oh, f*ck" on the managers face as the last question sinks in....
That's just an illegal custom firearm. The AR-15 has a split receiver design and the lower is serialized and constitutes the firearm. By fabricating the lower receiver this gunsmith just made a new custom firearm (legal), but did not serialize it (illegal).
So long as he does not sell or distribute the weapon, I don't believe he's required to serialize it.
. But like many other words such as "genocide" and "terrorist", "harassment" has been bastardized to include any sexual behavior between anyone if one of the parties doesn't consent (or later changes their mind about consenting).
No, it's not that the term has been bastardized - it's that you're a misogynist fourteen year old living in 1972. Grow up, and join the rest of us in the 21st century.
Slashdot Mirror
Because video isn't radar.... and neither is IR. Duh.
Seriously, video (IR) only works at fairly short ranges. You need radar to get the missile/launching platform into range - and even then, stealth aircraft are designed to minimize their IR signature.
Editorial comment: People need to realize that stealth isn't an invisibility cloak or an "I WIN" button and never was meant to be. It's intent is to minimize detection range (which decreases the time available for the defender to react) and minimize signatures (which interferes with the ability to attain and maintain a lock on). This heavily biases the odds towards the aircraft.
Disclaimer: WYYIDHEWSW - Why yes, yes I do have experience with stealth warfare. (Though with the USN's original stealth attack craft - the submarine. But the general principles are the same.)
Not really. The military is not a uniform monolithic entity - it's made up of people with a wide variety of opinions. Nor is this the first time a senior leader has gone public with his position... historically, it's quite common.
Um, no. They actually aren't very good at this at all. To figure out whether something works or not, you first have to understand it - and outside of tech topics Slashdotters aren't much better at that than anyone else. And then, they're also heavily biased... on both tech and non tech topics.
No, the problem is that (as the grandparent opines) people are clueless. They hear memes (which almost invariably tell half the story) and then repeat them (blaming their bugaboo de jour), and hear them being repeated back at them (in the vast echo chamber that is the internet) - and all the sudden a "truth" is created where none exists before. They aren't looking for problems to solve, they're looking for stuff to blame the 1%ers, or the current party in power, or the Birchers or whoever for.
So rather than wishing for a competitor for QB, which would be designed for the same market and thus almost certainly have the same flaws... get off your butt and search out the proper program designed for your business/sector. QB is a good tool, but if you're pushing past it's boundaries, that's not QB's fault.
You'll note I didn't absolutely claim it didn't happen. And your, "oh this was a couple of years back" and "here's some examples from decades ago" just proves my point.
Given the list of applicable patents in my owner's manual and on various stickers on my car... I suspect you're either just blowing smoke, making shit up, or are completely oblivious. (Or some combination of the three.)
For that matter, rocket technology is largely mature - and largely based on information in the public domain. Specific items may be subject to design patents, but there are no "look and feel" suits. Nor are there "Northrup's fuel pumps look a lot like our, and pump fuel like ours, so they must have copied" type suits.
I didn't generalize from them to other industries - I used them as a specific example. Learn to read and comprehend.
No, they've improved on an idea that New York City first tried in the mid 1970's, and that several other municipalities also flirted with in the late 1970's and early 80's. There's been fairly steady work on it ever since.
Despite decades of rhetoric, there is absolutely zero evidence that cooperation reduces cost. None. Zip. Zero. Nor is there any evidence that "IP" plays and huge role.
Despite your fear mongering, when you look outside the tech/consumer electronics industries - you don't see this happening, or at worse it happens very rarely. Toyota isn't suing Ford over having a six cylinder engine, GM isn't suing Mercedes Benz over having tail lights. Etc... The tech and consumer electronics industries operate under some unique pressures - and it's dangerous to generalize from them to other industries.
Nope, not a troll, just stone cold fact. When someone rejects an argument out of hand and without demonstrating a rational basis for doing so, he's clueless.
When you have difficulty building big non-dumb boosters, you learn real fast to love the dumb ones. Seriously, the Soviet's did build some high tech stuff, but big advanced boosters always proved problematical. On top of that, the Soviets had an intensely political procurement process... (It makes that in the West looks positively sane by comparison) which made the whole affair even more difficult, as space efforts always ended up taking a back seat to the military.
The Russians on the other hand love what they inherited from the Soviet's - because they've never really had the money to do much else, and don't have much choice.
I won't. You've abundantly demonstrated that you're clueless enough not to comprehend it.
The problem is, constant high levels of sound are harmful to fish.
Since their valuation is the number I referred to as being from the Street's collective asses...
And seriously, anyone that expected them to suddenly come up with some magical plan to vastly increase their income needs to either lay off the drugs or check the dosage of their meds. All the data that was needed was plainly available.
So? That doesn't change the simple fact that it was very limited in range and carrying capacity.
Facebook is making money - hand over fist. "Not making the figures the Street pulled out of it's ass" != "not making money".
Ah, the old no true Scotsman fallacy rears its ugly head once again.
Those aircraft aren't contemporary with Concorde, not in any useful sense of the word.. as they were introduced over a decade prior.
Because it simply costs too much to fly faster than that.
Because top speeds are now increasing regulated both for safety reasons, and to keep it a competition between drivers rather than checkbooks.
Actually about one and a half times once you understand that Apollo development actually started in the mid 50's. And, actually, not a bad thing once you understand the difference between a large budget and limited one.
Only because we live in the real world, and you don't seem to.
No, the horrid economics of supersonic flight mean an aircraft designed in 2010's won't be cost effective. It's extraordinarily expensive to design and build them, and even in the 2010's they gulp fuel - which keeps them (relatively) small and short ranged. The real market for supersonic commercial aircraft is the long haul flights - but noise regulations keeps them off of transcontinental routes, and horrid fuel economy keeps them off the trans-Pacific routes. The trans-Atlantic market simply isn't big enough.
Noise wasn't the only issue - it's just the only issue to have survived in the public consciousness.
The other issue was range, or more accurately the lack thereof. Back in the 60's, what the airlines wanted was range and carrying capacity - and attempting to provide that drove the costs of the US supersonic effort through the roof. Boeing especially wanted a piece of the growing trans-Pacific market, and took it very hard when it became clear that no practical supersonic aircraft was every going to be anything but a "small trans-Atlantic taxi". (The last quote come from a retired Boeing engineer I used to know.)
"Occasionally saying something off-color" isn't lacking filters or tending to say what you mean - you're moving the goalposts.
Had I suggested you be a soulless worker drone, you'd have a point. If you can't have fun while acting like an adult, well, as I said before - grow the fuck up.
That you believe that she was the real problem just confirms in spades what I and so many others have said in this discussion. You, and the males in question, are juvenile jackasses who haven't grown up and learned to behave like adults and accept responsibility for your own actions.
I know you didn't mean it to be funny - but this made me laugh out loud.
I'm also seeing it as an episode of a cop drama - complete with dramatic musical cues and either a look of complete obliviousness or "oh, f*ck" on the managers face as the last question sinks in....
So long as he does not sell or distribute the weapon, I don't believe he's required to serialize it.
No, it's not that the term has been bastardized - it's that you're a misogynist fourteen year old living in 1972. Grow up, and join the rest of us in the 21st century.