Oh and when you claim the Russians are fighting WW2 with their emphasis on tanks a lot of people say the same about the US Navy and their emphasis on aircraft carriers in a world of satellites and prompt launch ICBMs. But to each his own.
The only thing I'm seeing with the T-14 is that it is claiming an effective range of something like 5 kilometers with its main gun. Where as the Abrams claims about 2.5.
That's nothing special. The Russians have supported missile launching from the gun tube for quite some time (that's how they get that range). Heck the T-80 and T-64 could do it. e.g. the Refleks missile. The US used to have something similar with the Sheridan tank which could fire the Shillelagh missile. If the US needed something like that in a hurry they could just license the Israeli LAHAT missile which can be fired from a 120mm NATO gun.
Now, does the T14 have defenses against that/ I'm sure it does. But those defenses are not any better than most modern tanks especially when you take into consideration that many anti tank rockets already make a point of attacking targets from above. That is, an attacker fires the missile at a tank, the missile then rises above the tank, and then plunges down. The armor of nearly all tanks is thin on the top, the bottom, and the rear. The heaviest armor is on the front with less thick armor on the sides. But the armor on the bottom, top, and rear is generally quite thin.
Modern tanks have active protection systems like the Russian Shtora-1 system. I still remember the last time people said tanks were obsolete back in the 1990s. Then Black Hawk down happened in Somalia and a lot of Delta Force guys in light vehicles and jeeps died in the middle of Mogadishu to AK-47 and RPG-7 fire. Something which could have been avoided had they had heavy tanks. Then the War on Iraq happened and you saw Jeeps and M113 APCs fail horribly against IEDs, suicide cars and the like. Same think happened in the Second War on Chechnya. Tanks are *NOT* obsolete.
I have my doubts about that T-14 turret. It's too tall and full of shot traps IMO. But the idea of the separate crew compartment and remote weapon station seems good.
The Russians suck at microelectronics. They don't have the manufacturing facilities nor the expertise. This has hampered a lot of their military technologies like in the areas of AESA radar, command and control, night vision equipment, etc.
The Chinese are a lot better at this than the Russians now. Some even claim they are getting better than Europe at it.
You have to try to separate work teams or at least divisions somehow. There also needs to be done sort of divider when you have a lot of people even its just a bookshelf. The acoustics are never going to be perfect you have to get used to it. Some places put background music (at a low level) to cut down on some of the noise but its a tradeoff.
Open space has lots of good qualities. It facilities communication between workers. The open spaces are usually more well lit with natural light. Plus they are easier to rearrange as the company grows.
Use headphones. Personally I prefer open-space to the cubicle farm. Cubicles are the bastard child of open space and offices with the worst qualities of both.
- If you own the bank $$$ Drachmas and the Drachmas drops in value, the amount you own also drops, while if you drop your paycheck and the $$$ amount you own the does not drop YOU are literally worse off.
This is the exact reason why the creditors need to take a writedown. Or what will happen eventually is someone will leave the euro. Greece could be the first.
The lenders have a responsibility to check if the person they are loaning money to can afford to pay as well. A lot of bogus money was loaned to Greece knowing full well the Greeks could not pay with the intent of colonizing Greece in the future by owning their transport infrastructure, water supply, and other natural monopolies which should not be in private hands to begin with.
He's just dumb. If we actually needed to defend Europe from Russian aggression the only countries with a military to even attempt to defend something would be France and the UK.
Slashdot Mirror
What about software design, will I outsource development of my company database or something to a Russian firm? No
Oracle does a lot of development in Russia. So perhaps you're using Russian developed software and don't even know about it.
Oh and when you claim the Russians are fighting WW2 with their emphasis on tanks a lot of people say the same about the US Navy and their emphasis on aircraft carriers in a world of satellites and prompt launch ICBMs. But to each his own.
The only thing I'm seeing with the T-14 is that it is claiming an effective range of something like 5 kilometers with its main gun. Where as the Abrams claims about 2.5.
That's nothing special. The Russians have supported missile launching from the gun tube for quite some time (that's how they get that range). Heck the T-80 and T-64 could do it. e.g. the Refleks missile. The US used to have something similar with the Sheridan tank which could fire the Shillelagh missile. If the US needed something like that in a hurry they could just license the Israeli LAHAT missile which can be fired from a 120mm NATO gun.
Now, does the T14 have defenses against that/ I'm sure it does. But those defenses are not any better than most modern tanks especially when you take into consideration that many anti tank rockets already make a point of attacking targets from above. That is, an attacker fires the missile at a tank, the missile then rises above the tank, and then plunges down. The armor of nearly all tanks is thin on the top, the bottom, and the rear. The heaviest armor is on the front with less thick armor on the sides. But the armor on the bottom, top, and rear is generally quite thin.
Modern tanks have active protection systems like the Russian Shtora-1 system. I still remember the last time people said tanks were obsolete back in the 1990s. Then Black Hawk down happened in Somalia and a lot of Delta Force guys in light vehicles and jeeps died in the middle of Mogadishu to AK-47 and RPG-7 fire. Something which could have been avoided had they had heavy tanks. Then the War on Iraq happened and you saw Jeeps and M113 APCs fail horribly against IEDs, suicide cars and the like. Same think happened in the Second War on Chechnya. Tanks are *NOT* obsolete.
I have my doubts about that T-14 turret. It's too tall and full of shot traps IMO. But the idea of the separate crew compartment and remote weapon station seems good.
The Russians suck at microelectronics. They don't have the manufacturing facilities nor the expertise. This has hampered a lot of their military technologies like in the areas of AESA radar, command and control, night vision equipment, etc.
The Chinese are a lot better at this than the Russians now. Some even claim they are getting better than Europe at it.
The Netherlands? Ahahah. Ask them to send their tanks to save you. They don't have any left!
Its called telecommuting.
You have to try to separate work teams or at least divisions somehow. There also needs to be done sort of divider when you have a lot of people even its just a bookshelf. The acoustics are never going to be perfect you have to get used to it. Some places put background music (at a low level) to cut down on some of the noise but its a tradeoff.
Your bosses aren't managing and keeping discipline properly. That work scheme is not going to work.
By that logic molecules are indivisible as well.
Exactly.
Open space has lots of good qualities. It facilities communication between workers. The open spaces are usually more well lit with natural light. Plus they are easier to rearrange as the company grows.
Java supports multiple-inheritance of interfaces, which is your actual problem.
most people require quiet
Use headphones. Personally I prefer open-space to the cubicle farm. Cubicles are the bastard child of open space and offices with the worst qualities of both.
They only matter in that they make long term planning of prices easier.
- If you own the bank $$$ Drachmas and the Drachmas drops in value, the amount you own also drops, while if you drop your paycheck and the $$$ amount you own the does not drop YOU are literally worse off.
This is the exact reason why the creditors need to take a writedown. Or what will happen eventually is someone will leave the euro. Greece could be the first.
Not the same thing. Lowering the value of the currency erases private debt. What you propose makes it harder to pay.
Germany is one of the most corrupt nations in Europe.
They were buying things from Germany with money they borrowed from Germany.
The lenders have a responsibility to check if the person they are loaning money to can afford to pay as well. A lot of bogus money was loaned to Greece knowing full well the Greeks could not pay with the intent of colonizing Greece in the future by owning their transport infrastructure, water supply, and other natural monopolies which should not be in private hands to begin with.
The difference is that there are Greeks still living TODAY from when Germany invaded them in WWII.
How is it better? They lost most of their industry shortly afterwards.
He's just dumb. If we actually needed to defend Europe from Russian aggression the only countries with a military to even attempt to defend something would be France and the UK.
He's probably a COBOL programmer.
Pray Vlad doesn't roll his tanks over Europe then.
I'm using Adblock Plus and Disconnect but I'll check uBlock out then.