It's basically irrelevant, if nothing else because the show teaches people to laugh at geeks and nerds. The "science" is just window dressing to enable this, it could be techno-babble for all the audience knows - or cares.
It doesn't seem to be pervasive. We've all seen the recent stats on similar stories. Over half of all gamers are female.
About half of all humans are female... and misogyny is widely documented across history and across cultures. The presence or absence of misogyny is thus not correlated with the percentage of females in the population. Not to mention the multiple incidents that have come to light recently should provide further clue that there's far more than 'one bad apple'.
Which seems kind of idiotic, to me, since one could use kinetic bombardment (Rods from God) instead of nuclear weapons, and avoid all that nasty fallout badness.
In a world where useful kinetic bombardment weapons weren't fiction, I'd agree. They'd make great replacements for nuclear weapons.
Bullshit. The law [nasa.gov] authorizing NASA directs NASA at numerous points to plan and promote things that fall under "having vision".
Only if you're under the influence of sufficient drugs to be having hallucinations, or have a complete lack of understanding of the English language. Given your posting history and complete lack of connection to reality, it's hard to discern which is the case. (Not that it matters, as the end result is the same.)
Decades is the usual shortest time frame discussed for this sort of thing anyway. You're not in disagreement with most "space fanboys" on that. I think it's a bit dishonest to downplay someone's ambitions as delusions and hallucinations while simultaneously admitting that the only real problem is that you think their estimates of time to achievements are mildly ambitious.
Space fanboys never discuss time-frames, as that requires doing a painful thing that they never voluntarily do - which is deal with reality. (And estimation of time-to-achieve is hardly the only problem with their fantasies, err..., ambitions.)
Only to the clueless that don't realize that NASA is an organization that executes the policies of others subject to the funding whims of yet others. (I.E. pretty much everyone sadly.)
Part of the reasoning was that the scientific developments driven would then flow out into the broader economy, powering the US forwards. It was pretty successful in that regard.
It was almost entirely unsuccessful in that regard. Despite the efforts of generations of NASA PAO's to convince people otherwise, the reality is that space program is a net consumer of technology and has produced very little that has subsequently made it's way out into the general economy.
This would entirely be the land of make believe, but just imagine what NASA could have achieved by today if it had continued to receive sponsorship and support at the same level as it did for the Apollo program...
Sponsorship and support when during the Apollo program? If you actually look at the funding, it's pretty much define by a sharp spike in '63-'65, followed by an almost equally sharp decline in '65-'67 and a gradual decrease from there onwards. By the time we landed on the Moon, the program was already running on fumes.
they're handicapped by a management structure that's too fat and doesn't have an aggressive vision for the future. NASA depends too much on contractors that can't produce anything on budget and there's no penalty for not performing.
NASA is not supposed to have vision - they're a branch of the Executive Department and carry out the policies of the Executive as funded by Congress. Ditto for contractors, NASA has always relied on contractors.
If we're going to explore space then we have to face the fact that it's unlikely we're going to get there with NASA as it exists today.
NASA is an engineering and scientific agency (with an overlay of flags-and-footprints) and always has been, not an exploratory agency. They do not exist to feed the wet dreams and masturbation fantasies of the space fanboys.
And we have to find a way to fund that exploration so it's more insulated from politics. Otherwise we're stuck on this rock until a giant comet, asteroid or neutron star wanders by or we get fried by our own sun or a gamma ray burst.
Exploration has always been about money, not as in funding, but as in making it by the bucketload. Space exploration pretty much no chance of doing so, and thus is unlikely to ever be funded. (See the above about wet dreams.) As far as using space to avoid some planetary disaster... you're hallucinating. We know so little about what will be required we can barely describe the known unknowns. Even with significant investment, that's unlikely to change for decades, maybe centuries.
Seriously, the problem isn't NASA. The problem is clueless space fanboys who have somehow decided the world should provide them with and endless supply of willing supermodels and free supercars - and who blame reality for failing to live up to their fantasies.
The only possible way for someone to think I'm confusing the two is to be even more ignorant and clueless than the poster I was replying to. Not an easy feat, I salute you!
And imagine the users setting drinks on top of it! At least with a box, if you knock your drink over, it's on the floor. HERE.... it can drain your entire soda into the mobo ports (back) or fan intake. (front) I think that will be the biggest problem this case has, getting users out of the habbit of setting things on top of their case.
What kind of moron gets in the habit of putting liquids on top of their case in the first place?
*sigh* Not only are you ignorant, you seem doggedly determined to remain that way.
So those documents are based on first hand knowledge and tested results and people who read them are likely to succeed at building the bombs, right?
Those documents are on science, physics, chemistry, and engineering. They aren't bomb making instructions, they're the science behind the instructions - and thus it doesn't matter what the bomb making experience of the writers are. It's a critical difference and one you seem determined to remain blind to.
Because my point is that there's a ton of "howto" stuff out there
There's also a ton of solid science out there - and so long as you insist on not even trying to grasp the difference between actual science and handwaving how-to's you haven't the requisite intellectual equipment to have a point. You're just a parrot repeating phrases you have no grasp of the meaning of.
Yup. I own a powerful desktop, an iPhone, and a low end tablet... but when I start a project of any significance, the first thing I reach for is my trusty steno pad. (A habit learned at my mother's knee forty years ago.)
I can do a write up for how to build a nuclear bomb for my terrorist brothers based on my rudimentary undergraduate physics education, but there's no way in hell those instructions would actually produce anything useful.
Just because you're ignorant - that doesn't mean everyone else is. There's a lot of stuff openly available for the use of those that aren't [ignorant].
Since gender balance isn't a requirement in this instance, you're just blowing smoke. (Further enhanced by the need to make shit up to claim intellectual superiority - failing to realize that such is proof positive of quite the opposite.)
I suspect chargers are cheaper than battery packs. Also, swapping a pack invites mechanical failure, while a wired charger has a lesser chance, and a wireless charger none at all.
Are the drugs you're on actually legal? Or have large portions of your brain been surgically removed? Because your reply indicates that you in no way comprehended what I wrote. Hell, it doesn't indicate any significant connection to the real world.
Why must everything be gender balanced? Why not let women do what they want instead of trying to force them in to places that aren't necessarily their thing?
When a huge chunk of the human race chooses en masse not to participate in something when there's no particular reason they shouldn't - the intelligent person wonders why and tries to correct the problem. Folks like you just ask vapid questions and perpetuate ignorance and bias.
That's the purpose of interviewing that man - to figure out if he had anything to do with illegal activities or not. Apparently he didn't. So what's the problem?
The problem is that there is a lot of very paranoid people absolutely (and groundlessly) convinced that if the police are talking to them, the police are coming after them. Personally. With malice aforethought. They've never heard of investigations, or due dilegence... or if they have heard of them, they discard them because the police are after them.
Two countries separated by a common language...:) What you call a refit, we call an overhaul. What I meant by refit in my original message was that period where the crew is swapped and maintenance performed between at-sea patrol periods. (Which is done in Faslane.)
No, it's mostly where it is because they wanted to put it somewhere where it's easy to get it out into the deep water of the Atlantic - you can rapidly disperse them to places where they'll be almost impossible to find from the North Western side of the country. Putting it on the East coast like Newcastle isn't ideal because it's much easier for a country like Russia to get it's forces there to start searching, and there's less room for a sub to run.
Not quite. It's mostly because they wanted them in a location where they could reach their operating areas as quickly as possible - and back in the Polaris days when the base was initially sited, those opareas were to the north of England due to the missile's short range. (That the SSBN base itself would also be a target in a counterforce scenario was also a consideration, but it wasn't the only one.) Other than that, Faslane/Coulport sucks as an operating base because you have a long (6-8 hour) surface transit to the dive point and a fairly limited set of narrow exit points... perfectly sited for a hostile gatekeeper to lie in wait. (But, at the time, it was the best of several competing alternatives, and easy access to the US base at Holy Loch also played a role.)
Which is why Portsmouth is under discussion as an alternative - today, because of the range of Trident-II, the opareas lie to the west and southwest of England.
If you look at a depth map of the world's seas then you'll see that the current location gives some of the quickest access to very deep waters that our coasts offer.
The water doesn't need to particularly deep. I suspect that the Vanguard's can only dive to 1,000 feet or so, and you don't need nearly so much to dive and operate safely and patrol depths will also be shallower. (Patrol depths are limited by the ability of the launcher system to get the bird to the surface, typically in the range of a couple of hundred feet.) What SSBN's typically want is room more than depth, as they rely mostly on stealth and evasion for security. Depth isn't very much use against modern weapons, which can easily dive far deeper than the SSBN can.
But the UK's real problem when it comes to siting a new SSBN operating base is none of these - for safety reasons it's room to site the missile magazines away from both the docks and civilian population. (Which is why the missiles are stored and handled at Coulport and the SSBN's are based and refitted at Faslane.) Once Scotland is taken out of the mix, the UK has a real shortage of deep draft ports that are also isolated enough to provide a safety and security buffer around the missile magazines and (to a lesser extent) around the docks and refit areas.
Disclaimer: Former US SSBN crewman, long time student of SSBN operations.
That has to be one of the most misguided ideas I've ever seen...
Worry about using deuterium and tritium being used to boost the output of a fission weapon is like worrying about whether a heavily armed maniac's getaway car can do 120mph rather than 115mph. The basic problem isn't the speed of the get away car. If a proliferator can get their hands on sufficient U235 or Pu in the first place, they're 99.99996% of the way towards their goal - the extra.00003 provided by the availability of deuterium and tritium is all but meaningless because when it comes to proliferators it's the mere fact that they have a weapon in the first place that's the problem. That they can now build two or more, or increase the yield of a single weapon simply doesn't count for much when even a low kiloton range weapon is sufficient for their needs. (Which is deterrence generally, or failing that attacks against non military area targets. They aren't trying to crack open Cheyenne Mountain.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's basically irrelevant, if nothing else because the show teaches people to laugh at geeks and nerds. The "science" is just window dressing to enable this, it could be techno-babble for all the audience knows - or cares.
About half of all humans are female... and misogyny is widely documented across history and across cultures. The presence or absence of misogyny is thus not correlated with the percentage of females in the population. Not to mention the multiple incidents that have come to light recently should provide further clue that there's far more than 'one bad apple'.
In a world where useful kinetic bombardment weapons weren't fiction, I'd agree. They'd make great replacements for nuclear weapons.
We don't live in such a world.
No they the hell do not. The US Military has, by law, no jurisdiction beyond the base's fence line.
Only if you're under the influence of sufficient drugs to be having hallucinations, or have a complete lack of understanding of the English language. Given your posting history and complete lack of connection to reality, it's hard to discern which is the case. (Not that it matters, as the end result is the same.)
Space fanboys never discuss time-frames, as that requires doing a painful thing that they never voluntarily do - which is deal with reality. (And estimation of time-to-achieve is hardly the only problem with their fantasies, err..., ambitions.)
Only to the clueless that don't realize that NASA is an organization that executes the policies of others subject to the funding whims of yet others. (I.E. pretty much everyone sadly.)
It was almost entirely unsuccessful in that regard. Despite the efforts of generations of NASA PAO's to convince people otherwise, the reality is that space program is a net consumer of technology and has produced very little that has subsequently made it's way out into the general economy.
Sponsorship and support when during the Apollo program? If you actually look at the funding, it's pretty much define by a sharp spike in '63-'65, followed by an almost equally sharp decline in '65-'67 and a gradual decrease from there onwards. By the time we landed on the Moon, the program was already running on fumes.
NASA is not supposed to have vision - they're a branch of the Executive Department and carry out the policies of the Executive as funded by Congress. Ditto for contractors, NASA has always relied on contractors.
NASA is an engineering and scientific agency (with an overlay of flags-and-footprints) and always has been, not an exploratory agency. They do not exist to feed the wet dreams and masturbation fantasies of the space fanboys.
Exploration has always been about money, not as in funding, but as in making it by the bucketload. Space exploration pretty much no chance of doing so, and thus is unlikely to ever be funded. (See the above about wet dreams.) As far as using space to avoid some planetary disaster... you're hallucinating. We know so little about what will be required we can barely describe the known unknowns. Even with significant investment, that's unlikely to change for decades, maybe centuries.
Seriously, the problem isn't NASA. The problem is clueless space fanboys who have somehow decided the world should provide them with and endless supply of willing supermodels and free supercars - and who blame reality for failing to live up to their fantasies.
The only possible way for someone to think I'm confusing the two is to be even more ignorant and clueless than the poster I was replying to. Not an easy feat, I salute you!
What kind of moron gets in the habit of putting liquids on top of their case in the first place?
*sigh* Not only are you ignorant, you seem doggedly determined to remain that way.
Those documents are on science, physics, chemistry, and engineering. They aren't bomb making instructions, they're the science behind the instructions - and thus it doesn't matter what the bomb making experience of the writers are. It's a critical difference and one you seem determined to remain blind to.
There's also a ton of solid science out there - and so long as you insist on not even trying to grasp the difference between actual science and handwaving how-to's you haven't the requisite intellectual equipment to have a point. You're just a parrot repeating phrases you have no grasp of the meaning of.
Yup. I own a powerful desktop, an iPhone, and a low end tablet... but when I start a project of any significance, the first thing I reach for is my trusty steno pad. (A habit learned at my mother's knee forty years ago.)
Just because you're ignorant - that doesn't mean everyone else is. There's a lot of stuff openly available for the use of those that aren't [ignorant].
Since gender balance isn't a requirement in this instance, you're just blowing smoke. (Further enhanced by the need to make shit up to claim intellectual superiority - failing to realize that such is proof positive of quite the opposite.)
I suspect chargers are cheaper than battery packs. Also, swapping a pack invites mechanical failure, while a wired charger has a lesser chance, and a wireless charger none at all.
Are the drugs you're on actually legal? Or have large portions of your brain been surgically removed? Because your reply indicates that you in no way comprehended what I wrote. Hell, it doesn't indicate any significant connection to the real world.
When a huge chunk of the human race chooses en masse not to participate in something when there's no particular reason they shouldn't - the intelligent person wonders why and tries to correct the problem. Folks like you just ask vapid questions and perpetuate ignorance and bias.
The problem is that there is a lot of very paranoid people absolutely (and groundlessly) convinced that if the police are talking to them, the police are coming after them. Personally. With malice aforethought. They've never heard of investigations, or due dilegence... or if they have heard of them, they discard them because the police are after them.
Two countries separated by a common language... :) What you call a refit, we call an overhaul. What I meant by refit in my original message was that period where the crew is swapped and maintenance performed between at-sea patrol periods. (Which is done in Faslane.)
Not quite. It's mostly because they wanted them in a location where they could reach their operating areas as quickly as possible - and back in the Polaris days when the base was initially sited, those opareas were to the north of England due to the missile's short range. (That the SSBN base itself would also be a target in a counterforce scenario was also a consideration, but it wasn't the only one.) Other than that, Faslane/Coulport sucks as an operating base because you have a long (6-8 hour) surface transit to the dive point and a fairly limited set of narrow exit points... perfectly sited for a hostile gatekeeper to lie in wait. (But, at the time, it was the best of several competing alternatives, and easy access to the US base at Holy Loch also played a role.)
Which is why Portsmouth is under discussion as an alternative - today, because of the range of Trident-II, the opareas lie to the west and southwest of England.
The water doesn't need to particularly deep. I suspect that the Vanguard's can only dive to 1,000 feet or so, and you don't need nearly so much to dive and operate safely and patrol depths will also be shallower. (Patrol depths are limited by the ability of the launcher system to get the bird to the surface, typically in the range of a couple of hundred feet.) What SSBN's typically want is room more than depth, as they rely mostly on stealth and evasion for security. Depth isn't very much use against modern weapons, which can easily dive far deeper than the SSBN can.
But the UK's real problem when it comes to siting a new SSBN operating base is none of these - for safety reasons it's room to site the missile magazines away from both the docks and civilian population. (Which is why the missiles are stored and handled at Coulport and the SSBN's are based and refitted at Faslane.) Once Scotland is taken out of the mix, the UK has a real shortage of deep draft ports that are also isolated enough to provide a safety and security buffer around the missile magazines and (to a lesser extent) around the docks and refit areas.
Disclaimer: Former US SSBN crewman, long time student of SSBN operations.
You should get out of your bubble more, because you're completely and utterly clueless.
Like Elon Musk?
The problem isn't greed. The problem is that people don't grasp economics and the difference between paying for content and paying for delivery.
They're not advertising pieces. Motley Fool is a financial advice site, and thus all their articles contain the appropriate disclaimers.
That has to be one of the most misguided ideas I've ever seen...
Worry about using deuterium and tritium being used to boost the output of a fission weapon is like worrying about whether a heavily armed maniac's getaway car can do 120mph rather than 115mph. The basic problem isn't the speed of the get away car. If a proliferator can get their hands on sufficient U235 or Pu in the first place, they're 99.99996% of the way towards their goal - the extra .00003 provided by the availability of deuterium and tritium is all but meaningless because when it comes to proliferators it's the mere fact that they have a weapon in the first place that's the problem. That they can now build two or more, or increase the yield of a single weapon simply doesn't count for much when even a low kiloton range weapon is sufficient for their needs. (Which is deterrence generally, or failing that attacks against non military area targets. They aren't trying to crack open Cheyenne Mountain.)