Aren't most parts for US Navy vessels custom made regardless? I don't recall seeing a section at WalMart for warship parts.
Yes... and no. Depends on your definition of 'custom'.
The parts for the fire control system I worked on were 'custom made for the US Navy' in the sense that nobody but the Navy operated that system. OTOH, there were sixteen more just like it (a total of twelve deployed plus four trainers plus one software testing/validation installation). On top of that there were twelve more (eight deployed, two trainers, one software testing/validation installation, one at the Cape for the shore launch facility) that were about 96% compatible in terms of spare parts. So, the Navy had a whole warehouse full of spares that supported those twenty eight systems.
But in the case of Enterprise... many of her systems were 'one of a kind' right out of the building yard, Because of her age, many of the systems that used to be in common with other units no longer are, because those units themselves have gone to the scrapyard. So many of her parts are indeed custom made in the more usual sense - one of a kind.
How much of the an original wooden vessel survives after ten years, thirty years, 100 years is a very interesting question. In the end, you are always looking at a restoration or re-construction.
Wood rots. Hemp rots. Canvas rots.
Sure, if you wait long enough, everything rots. But I've held two hundred year old books in my hands. Just because it eventually rots doesn't mean it can't last a very long time indeed.
I'm cool with all my parts going into other people once brain death occurs, but I guess I'd just like them to check a little more rigorously to be sure it has occurred.
How much more rigorous can you get than "fails to respond"? One can have an EEG, and still be nothing but a vegetable that will never breathe or do anything else on it's own again - the very definition of brain death.
Umm... You've got the idea right, but the details somewhat scrambled. She'll be defueled at Newport News, which requires cutting from the hanger deck, not the flight deck. Then she'll come here to PSNS (in Bremerton) where the reactors will be removed and shipped to Hanford and the balance of the ship scrapped.
That being said - she's had such a long service life for two big reasons. First, the conventionally fuelled carriers started getting too expensive to operate. Second, they haven't wanted to tackle removing her reactors.
Seriously, removing the reactors from Enterprise along with Long Beach and Triton are all problematical for one reason or another and all three were put off for decades. Triton sat on red lead row for nearly thirty years, and Long Beach for over fifteen, to avoid dealing with them. (Plus, rumor has it that there are contamination issues on Enterprise that will make the job even more challenging.)
It's always easy to cherry pick, and with 20/20 hindsight, find someone whose predictions matched or exceeded what actually happened. Or, to put it another way - if the tsunami hadn't over topped the wall, those being lauded today would instead be laughingstocks for crying wolf.
There are three hundred million Android devices in the field, adding almost a million more every single day. If you can't profitably sell your application into that base, it's your problem.
That sound you heard was the OP's point whooshing over your head.
There aren't three hundred million Android devices - there's five million Android Vx.y on handset Z, ten million on Vx.z on handset Y, eight million on Vy.z on handset X.... Etc.. etc... It's not a single market or a 'base', it's an incredibly fragmented ecosystem.
If the article (at the top of the page) has anything right, it's embedded in the press releases and quotes from the investors... not from any effort or clue on the part of the author. There's no evidence he has any photography chops or even understands the real drawbacks and problems with the Lytro, which are much more fully outlined in the DPReview article.
The basic issue, is that the technology delivers crappy pictures under the best of circumstances - and the market niche for such at current price point is essentially nonexistent.
But that's where Lytro misses the bus... It's priced above the average consumer's price range, requires more fiddling and diddling, and requires Lytro's proprietary web based software - all to produce a picture that would be the pride of 2002.
It ends up being a solution in search of a problem. Too much for consumers, too little for prosumers and professionals.
Not really. Filling the Shuttle's external tank cost (last time I looked) around a million bucks or so. Fuel (energy) is cheap... the expensive part is all the hardware.
Couldn't you just have a robotic arm that's tied into the flame retardant system attached to the ceiling in important or dangerous rooms?
Well, on a warship - that's damn near every room. Even berthing compartments are often right next to places you don't want fire to spread to.
Seems like that could be done without the need for battery packs and ambulation, and not only would it be more ubiquitous, it'd be able to respond a hell of a lot faster than something that's traveling on foot throughout the ship, which would mean less time for the fire to cause damage.
While you'd do without without battery packs and ambulation, you'd replace it with considerable wiring and a hell of a lot of piping - all which is heavy and expensive and susceptible to battle damage. Not to mention all those sensors and arms and valves and controls scattered about the ship will represent a significantly increased maintenance workload.
Granted, you can't just drop the sort of thing I'm talking about into a ship, since you'd need to pipe flame retardant into a few places it isn't already
Fire retardant pretty much isn't piped anywhere in any ship. Seawater is, but nobody in their right mind is going to leave a pressurized seawater system subject to automatic control lying about... Too many expensive and valuable things that can be damaged by an accidental discharge.
Since ideal results are never possible, you are inevitably left making the excuse "sure, it's not as good, but it's more ideologically pure!" which is only really convincing for the most hardline ideologues.
But [the obsessive compulsive pursuit of] ideological purity is the whole point of FOSS.
It won't get you chicks. It won't make (except for a lucky handful) you enough money to get you a latte. It won't amount to more than a subsidiary bullet point on any resume worth reviewing. If you're really lucky, it'll get you the respect of maybe half a dozen people when they remember to think about it.
So, after dislocating your arm patting yourself on the back, ideological purity is all that's left.
This post is clearly intended to legitimatize the right wing push to attack Iran.
Only to someone who sees the entire world through some seriously, seriously, warped preconceptions. If you actually check the site it was published on, it's hardly a hotbed of right-wing activism. In fact, it veers all over the political spectrum (to the limited extent that it's political) and spends most of it's time over in weird lane.
It takes a pretty unhealthy and blinkered worldview to proclaim something posted on a third string website as "pure right wing propaganda".
This topic is a de facto intelligence test.
And you failed - by leaping from an innocuous and fairly unbiased article to a full on. wild-eyed anti-right wing screed. (Finished off by attempting to stifle discussion by pronouncing those who disagree with you to be "brain dead".)
That depends on the burst altitude as well as the weapon design. A pure fission weapon that detonates at the surface is going to produce orders of magnitude more fallout than a fusion weapon detonated at high altitude.
most of the yield comes from fissioning the U238 tamper, which gives a ton of fallout. Pu239 fission initiates the fusion stage, which provides craploads of neutrons which will fission the U238.
That depends on the design of the weapon, I.E. how much (if any) U238 is used in the secondary. It's quite possible to design a (Teller-Ulam) hydrogen weapon that uses none and thus most of the yield comes from fusion and you get less (as the OP puts it) 'radioactive nastiness' than a fission weapon of equivalent yield. Not to mention the fusion and enhanced fission weapons that don't have a fissile tamper or fusion secondary (in the conventional sense) at all.
If they were the same device, you'd have a point. But while they do greatly resemble each other - one is a subcompact hatchback and the other a midsize truck. Both "automobiles", but nobody sober would ever confuse the two.
But you *know* there's a rock out there with Humanity's name on it. This one. Another one. Doesn't really matter. If we can't get off this planet in serious numbers before it hits, the universe goes on without us.
Better start working on the obituary then. With a flat-out, spare no expense, wreck the planetary economy effort - in about three or four centuries we might be able to get enough people and sufficient industrial infrastructure off planet to be independently survivable.
That would depend on what it's made of. If it's a dirty snowball (mostly ice, with some small rock debris), it'd fall apart when it hit the atmosphere, and make for a pretty light show.
Nope. Regardless of what it's made of, it's still going to deliver a gigaton punch. All that changes with composition is where and how the punch is delivered - whether it's a shotgun blast or a.45 to the gut.
That's my choice to make - not your decision to make for me.
It's the same as being out of range of a tower, you get back in range, check your voicemail, call and apologize that you were out of range. Not a big deal.
No, it's not the same. Unless you live out in the boonies, you're rarely out of range of a tower. Even if you are out of range/communication, as the vehicle moves - you eventually move back into range/communication. In the case of a jerk with a jammer, you remain unable to communicate until he chooses to stop using the jammer.
Even without an optical illusion that ship unfortunately still sinks.
A conjecture, not a fact. (Even though you've cleverly slipped it in at the end of a long series of facts, assumptions, myths, hyperbole, and misinformation all presented as fact in an attempt to pass it off as a fact.)
I think the fact that all the watertight doors of the "unsinkable ocean liner" were open sort of makes everything else irrelevant. User error, in the extreme. Bad Captain!
No, the error isn't on Captain's part.
In pretty much every ship, including warships and submarines, those doors are routinely left open to allow normal fore-and-aft working access. They're closed (in the case of warships) before going into battle, or (for all ships) in the event of a casualty (fire, flooding, etc...). That's why the doors (on Titanic) could be remotely operated from the bridge, so that they could all be be quickly closed in the event of a casualty.
In any event, even if the doors had been closed, it wouldn't have made any difference - because the damage from the collision opened too many compartments to the sea. The remaining compartments that flooded did so from the top, because they didn't have a lid. (Standard practice then and now on commercial vessels.) Naval vessels of course are designed to withstand a greater amount of damage and have lids - horizontal watertight bulkheads.
There is nothing 3.6 offers that is better than the current release.
Having just gotten around to upgrading to the latest release from 3.6 on Friday, I have to say you're wrong. In 3.6, all the page navigation buttons were in one place, right next to each other. Now they're scattered entirely across the navigation bar. This sucks.
First, that Valve plans to start issuing a sort of standard system requirement for game developers to target, which is one of the benefits of consoles right now.
It's also one of the downsides of consoles - as you're stuck with whatever hardware the console provides, even if it's years out of date.
That sounds more like a model for $PARTY_YOUTH than anything else, because you're teaching a catechism (True American Common Law, whatever that is, and I bet you have more) rather than just skills. Even more frightening - you've included a method for encouraging proselytizing and recruiting *and* a method to subtly enforce remaining a member.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes... and no. Depends on your definition of 'custom'.
The parts for the fire control system I worked on were 'custom made for the US Navy' in the sense that nobody but the Navy operated that system. OTOH, there were sixteen more just like it (a total of twelve deployed plus four trainers plus one software testing/validation installation). On top of that there were twelve more (eight deployed, two trainers, one software testing/validation installation, one at the Cape for the shore launch facility) that were about 96% compatible in terms of spare parts. So, the Navy had a whole warehouse full of spares that supported those twenty eight systems.
But in the case of Enterprise... many of her systems were 'one of a kind' right out of the building yard, Because of her age, many of the systems that used to be in common with other units no longer are, because those units themselves have gone to the scrapyard. So many of her parts are indeed custom made in the more usual sense - one of a kind.
Sure, if you wait long enough, everything rots. But I've held two hundred year old books in my hands. Just because it eventually rots doesn't mean it can't last a very long time indeed.
How much more rigorous can you get than "fails to respond"? One can have an EEG, and still be nothing but a vegetable that will never breathe or do anything else on it's own again - the very definition of brain death.
Umm... You've got the idea right, but the details somewhat scrambled. She'll be defueled at Newport News, which requires cutting from the hanger deck, not the flight deck. Then she'll come here to PSNS (in Bremerton) where the reactors will be removed and shipped to Hanford and the balance of the ship scrapped.
That being said - she's had such a long service life for two big reasons. First, the conventionally fuelled carriers started getting too expensive to operate. Second, they haven't wanted to tackle removing her reactors.
Seriously, removing the reactors from Enterprise along with Long Beach and Triton are all problematical for one reason or another and all three were put off for decades. Triton sat on red lead row for nearly thirty years, and Long Beach for over fifteen, to avoid dealing with them. (Plus, rumor has it that there are contamination issues on Enterprise that will make the job even more challenging.)
It's always easy to cherry pick, and with 20/20 hindsight, find someone whose predictions matched or exceeded what actually happened. Or, to put it another way - if the tsunami hadn't over topped the wall, those being lauded today would instead be laughingstocks for crying wolf.
But, proceed with your Two Minute Hate anyhow.
That sound you heard was the OP's point whooshing over your head.
There aren't three hundred million Android devices - there's five million Android Vx.y on handset Z, ten million on Vx.z on handset Y, eight million on Vy.z on handset X.... Etc.. etc... It's not a single market or a 'base', it's an incredibly fragmented ecosystem.
If the article (at the top of the page) has anything right, it's embedded in the press releases and quotes from the investors... not from any effort or clue on the part of the author. There's no evidence he has any photography chops or even understands the real drawbacks and problems with the Lytro, which are much more fully outlined in the DPReview article.
The basic issue, is that the technology delivers crappy pictures under the best of circumstances - and the market niche for such at current price point is essentially nonexistent.
But that's where Lytro misses the bus... It's priced above the average consumer's price range, requires more fiddling and diddling, and requires Lytro's proprietary web based software - all to produce a picture that would be the pride of 2002.
It ends up being a solution in search of a problem. Too much for consumers, too little for prosumers and professionals.
Not really. Filling the Shuttle's external tank cost (last time I looked) around a million bucks or so. Fuel (energy) is cheap... the expensive part is all the hardware.
Well, on a warship - that's damn near every room. Even berthing compartments are often right next to places you don't want fire to spread to.
While you'd do without without battery packs and ambulation, you'd replace it with considerable wiring and a hell of a lot of piping - all which is heavy and expensive and susceptible to battle damage. Not to mention all those sensors and arms and valves and controls scattered about the ship will represent a significantly increased maintenance workload.
Fire retardant pretty much isn't piped anywhere in any ship. Seawater is, but nobody in their right mind is going to leave a pressurized seawater system subject to automatic control lying about... Too many expensive and valuable things that can be damaged by an accidental discharge.
But [the obsessive compulsive pursuit of] ideological purity is the whole point of FOSS.
It won't get you chicks. It won't make (except for a lucky handful) you enough money to get you a latte. It won't amount to more than a subsidiary bullet point on any resume worth reviewing. If you're really lucky, it'll get you the respect of maybe half a dozen people when they remember to think about it.
So, after dislocating your arm patting yourself on the back, ideological purity is all that's left.
Only to someone who sees the entire world through some seriously, seriously, warped preconceptions. If you actually check the site it was published on, it's hardly a hotbed of right-wing activism. In fact, it veers all over the political spectrum (to the limited extent that it's political) and spends most of it's time over in weird lane.
It takes a pretty unhealthy and blinkered worldview to proclaim something posted on a third string website as "pure right wing propaganda".
And you failed - by leaping from an innocuous and fairly unbiased article to a full on. wild-eyed anti-right wing screed. (Finished off by attempting to stifle discussion by pronouncing those who disagree with you to be "brain dead".)
You're partly right, partly wrong.
That depends on the burst altitude as well as the weapon design. A pure fission weapon that detonates at the surface is going to produce orders of magnitude more fallout than a fusion weapon detonated at high altitude.
That depends on the design of the weapon, I.E. how much (if any) U238 is used in the secondary. It's quite possible to design a (Teller-Ulam) hydrogen weapon that uses none and thus most of the yield comes from fusion and you get less (as the OP puts it) 'radioactive nastiness' than a fission weapon of equivalent yield. Not to mention the fusion and enhanced fission weapons that don't have a fissile tamper or fusion secondary (in the conventional sense) at all.
"I have never heard before of Mr.Jackson, but he is bound to be (or at least should be) hailed as a top-notch public intellectual."
Oh sure, he'll be so hailed - but not by anyone I'd be pleased to be recognized by. He, and the author of the review, sound like tinfoil hat Marxists.
If they were the same device, you'd have a point. But while they do greatly resemble each other - one is a subcompact hatchback and the other a midsize truck. Both "automobiles", but nobody sober would ever confuse the two.
Better start working on the obituary then. With a flat-out, spare no expense, wreck the planetary economy effort - in about three or four centuries we might be able to get enough people and sufficient industrial infrastructure off planet to be independently survivable.
Nope. Regardless of what it's made of, it's still going to deliver a gigaton punch. All that changes with composition is where and how the punch is delivered - whether it's a shotgun blast or a .45 to the gut.
That's my choice to make - not your decision to make for me.
No, it's not the same. Unless you live out in the boonies, you're rarely out of range of a tower. Even if you are out of range/communication, as the vehicle moves - you eventually move back into range/communication. In the case of a jerk with a jammer, you remain unable to communicate until he chooses to stop using the jammer.
A conjecture, not a fact. (Even though you've cleverly slipped it in at the end of a long series of facts, assumptions, myths, hyperbole, and misinformation all presented as fact in an attempt to pass it off as a fact.)
No, the error isn't on Captain's part.
In pretty much every ship, including warships and submarines, those doors are routinely left open to allow normal fore-and-aft working access. They're closed (in the case of warships) before going into battle, or (for all ships) in the event of a casualty (fire, flooding, etc...). That's why the doors (on Titanic) could be remotely operated from the bridge, so that they could all be be quickly closed in the event of a casualty.
In any event, even if the doors had been closed, it wouldn't have made any difference - because the damage from the collision opened too many compartments to the sea. The remaining compartments that flooded did so from the top, because they didn't have a lid. (Standard practice then and now on commercial vessels.) Naval vessels of course are designed to withstand a greater amount of damage and have lids - horizontal watertight bulkheads.
Having just gotten around to upgrading to the latest release from 3.6 on Friday, I have to say you're wrong. In 3.6, all the page navigation buttons were in one place, right next to each other. Now they're scattered entirely across the navigation bar. This sucks.
That's called a quern, and back in the stone age.
It's also one of the downsides of consoles - as you're stuck with whatever hardware the console provides, even if it's years out of date.
"we don't see 'leaderboards' for skills yet"
No, I hope, will we ever do so. Leaderboards encourage finding ways to rank high on the leaderboards, not the retention and extension of skills.
That sounds more like a model for $PARTY_YOUTH than anything else, because you're teaching a catechism (True American Common Law, whatever that is, and I bet you have more) rather than just skills. Even more frightening - you've included a method for encouraging proselytizing and recruiting *and* a method to subtly enforce remaining a member.
Kind of a combination of Amway and Scientology.