Dells are fine if you just want to buy the PC and use it until it's time to buy the next one. I bought a Dimension 8200 and was very happy with it. Until I tried to upgrade.
Since they don't use COTS motherboards, you have to remove a heatsink, scrape the glue off your Northbridge, get an ID off the chip and go read the user forums just to figure out what the best CPU is that the system will support.
Then when it's time to upgrade the power supply, you've pretty much got two choices: 1) Spend $150 to get a 3rd party PSU designed to fit an 8200 or 2) Cut a hole in the back of your case so that it will hold a standard ATX PSU.
Tech support has not been terrible (by industry standards) although I had to repeatedly educate the rep on things he should have known so that he could find the info I needed.
If you just want to buy a computer and never upgrade, Dells are fine (I recommend them to my parent to minimize the tech support that I have to do for them). If you want a system you can customize (e.g., with an AMD CPU) and upgrade later, I would never recommend a Dell.
Ah. So, contrary to your earlier post, there are such things as non-existent words in particular languages (e.g., 'French'). Perhaps swillden was implicitly referring to the 'English' language.
My point was that missiles do still have some advantages over rail gun rounds in addition to range. I don't see anything in your post to contradict that assertion.
If you read the pdf, it said that the flight time of the railgun round at 250 nm was 6 minutes, and that they include a guidence system. While this does not undermine the basic premise ("missles still have a purpose"), it does answer several of his points. In fact "railgun round" sounds like it has many of the benefits of "missile" that he was espousing.
If you read the pdf, it implies that the guidance system is GPS/INS, which means that the round's destination is fixed once it leaves the gun. This means it will not hit a moving target (unless one can accurately predict the target's position 6 minutes ahead at 250 nm).
Furthermore, the pdf referenced a study comparing a railgun's capabilities to that of a naval air wing, and (in the realm where the railgun would operate) it came out ahead.
It's entirely believable that a rail gun would be preferable to a conventional air wing in many situations. I did not state otherwise.
Finally, the ariticle plainly states that railguns (and all Naval Surface Fire Support) are just there to give more options and to augment the missile and air wing capabilities of task force.
You are repeating assertions of the article as if I have somehow contradicted or refuted them, which I have not. I think that having rail guns on navy ships is a great idea. And, for the reasons stated in my original post, I think keeping cruise missiles on ships and aircraft is also a good idea.
Many cruise missiles can hit moving targets. They usually have terminal homing via radar, IR, or TV (remote control). A hundred miles is only a 5 to 10 minute trip for many missiles, during which a land or sea target won't move very far. As long as the target is still in the search area once the missile arrives, it can be targeted.
Rail gun rounds are probably preferable for fixed/stationary targets but I think missiles have not outlived their usefulness yet. Plus, continued development of missiles could provide further benefit. Think of a cruise missile with dozens of independently targetable sub-munitions, all of which could hit moving targets.
Now, if someone could harden seekers so they could be strapped to the end of a rail gun round...
There are several advantages of missiles in addition to range:
1. Loitering capability - Missiles can be sent to a target area to loiter until ground forces decided precisely when and where the munition should impact. This is useful when precise timing/location of the target is not known well in advance.
2. Re-targeting capability - An engagement can be canceled or a higher priority target can be selected while the missile is underway.
3. Homing on non-fixed targets - If it takes 2 minutes for a munition to arrive, hitting a mobile target with a GPS/INS guided munition is a tricky task.
Slashdot Mirror
Dells are fine if you just want to buy the PC and use it until it's time to buy the next one. I bought a Dimension 8200 and was very happy with it. Until I tried to upgrade.
Since they don't use COTS motherboards, you have to remove a heatsink, scrape the glue off your Northbridge, get an ID off the chip and go read the user forums just to figure out what the best CPU is that the system will support.
Then when it's time to upgrade the power supply, you've pretty much got two choices: 1) Spend $150 to get a 3rd party PSU designed to fit an 8200 or 2) Cut a hole in the back of your case so that it will hold a standard ATX PSU.
Tech support has not been terrible (by industry standards) although I had to repeatedly educate the rep on things he should have known so that he could find the info I needed.
If you just want to buy a computer and never upgrade, Dells are fine (I recommend them to my parent to minimize the tech support that I have to do for them). If you want a system you can customize (e.g., with an AMD CPU) and upgrade later, I would never recommend a Dell.
Ah. So, contrary to your earlier post, there are such things as non-existent words in particular languages (e.g., 'French'). Perhaps swillden was implicitly referring to the 'English' language.
If you read the pdf, it implies that the guidance system is GPS/INS, which means that the round's destination is fixed once it leaves the gun. This means it will not hit a moving target (unless one can accurately predict the target's position 6 minutes ahead at 250 nm).
It's entirely believable that a rail gun would be preferable to a conventional air wing in many situations. I did not state otherwise.
You are repeating assertions of the article as if I have somehow contradicted or refuted them, which I have not. I think that having rail guns on navy ships is a great idea. And, for the reasons stated in my original post, I think keeping cruise missiles on ships and aircraft is also a good idea.
Many cruise missiles can hit moving targets. They usually have terminal homing via radar, IR, or TV (remote control). A hundred miles is only a 5 to 10 minute trip for many missiles, during which a land or sea target won't move very far. As long as the target is still in the search area once the missile arrives, it can be targeted.
/stationary targets but I think missiles have not outlived their usefulness yet. Plus, continued development of missiles could provide further benefit. Think of a cruise missile with dozens of independently targetable sub-munitions, all of which could hit moving targets.
Rail gun rounds are probably preferable for fixed
Now, if someone could harden seekers so they could be strapped to the end of a rail gun round...
There are several advantages of missiles in addition to range:
1. Loitering capability - Missiles can be sent to a target area to loiter until ground forces decided precisely when and where the munition should impact. This is useful when precise timing/location of the target is not known well in advance.
2. Re-targeting capability - An engagement can be canceled or a higher priority target can be selected while the missile is underway.
3. Homing on non-fixed targets - If it takes 2 minutes for a munition to arrive, hitting a mobile target with a GPS/INS guided munition is a tricky task.
Thanks for that post. I needed a good laugh to start the day. Now if I can just get the image of that scene out of my head...