actually, it's officers who have the right to interpret orders. as an enlisted or noncom you can still be convicted for refusing to follow an order from your CoC regardless of merit.
Since TFA is about F-22 pilots, I'll note that all of them are officers. I don't think the USAF has any enlisted pilots at all - aircrew yes, but pilots are all officers.
I dare you to watch Hrafninn flýgur (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087432/) then come back and say that Vikings in movies can't speak anything but English or Scottish.
Time and again it has been demonstrated that human intelligence is biased towards certain kinds of tasks. And it is debatable if driving is one of those
About 40,000 road fatalities a year in the US alone is pretty good evidence that human intelligence is not up to the task of driving.
I drove a Yaris in that configuration for about four months while my iQ was being built/delivered.
It's really weird the first few times you drive it, but after that it becomes just as non-distracting as any other non-HUD display. A quick glance to the right isn't any more distracting than a quick glance down.
I spent so many hours designing maps for Car Wars...
I spent way more time designing cars for Car Wars than I did playing the game... Like, a factor of 5:1 or even 10:1. It was a gloriously fiendish system where you always seemed to break your weight or space budget...
From the title I thought they were moving toward the Star Trek utopia with no money at all, and the economy is based on, um, well, I guess that's in one of the tech manuals somewhere.
In Sweden, the economy is based on Moose bites. Pretty nasty.
Aye. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, The hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
A chain gun is a type of machine gun or autocannon that uses an external source of power, rather than diverting energy from the cartridge, to cycle the weapon
A chain gun has a single barrel while a Gatling gun has several rotating barrels. It is a common error to refer to Gatling guns as chain guns
The rotating barrel cluster on most Gatling-type guns is powered by an external force such as an electric motor
Do you think there would be a problem giving kids sexual education if there wasn't a deranged stigma about sex in western society?
Please don't say "western society" when you mean "the U.S.".
In the part of western society where I live we're constantly baffled by the US' attitudes towards sex and violence - and we do educate our teens about birth control and safe sex.
Nobody claimed they couldn't get into LEO (although of the three only the Terrier-Malemute is really capable of it).
Neither of these rockets are new - both the Orion and the Malemute first flew in the 70's, so the military (and anyone else interested) has had plenty of time to consider them as launch vehicles.
Also, the "Terrier" in Terrier-Malemute and Terrier-Improved Orion is the old RIM-2 Terrier Surface-to-Air missile from the 50's used as a first stage for the Malemute and Orion rockets, making them two-stage for improved altitude and payload.
Finally, while there certainly is a fuzzy border between top-performing sounding rockets and small lift launch vehicles (generally defined as being able to lift 2,000 lbs to LEO), these three vehicles belong squarely in the sounding rocket category.
This is not a test of a new inexpensive launch vehicle, nor is it a way to demonstrate our military capabilities. It's just science.
The Orion is a single stage sounding rocket which will achieve an altitude of 60 km with a 250 lb payload or 90 km with a 75 lb payload. The Terrier-Malemute is a two-stage, solid fuel rocket consisting of a Terrier 1st stage and a Malemute 2nd stage. It is capable of lifting a 200 lb payload to an apogee of approximately 700 km or a 500 lb payload to approximately 400 km. The The Terrier-Improved Orion consists of a Terrier 1st stage and an "improved" Orion second stage. This vehicle is capable of achieving an altitude of 75 km with an 800 lb payload and 225 km with a 200 lb payload. (source: http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/mpl/srockets.html)
In short, the Chinese already know we have "the capability of rapidly launching a barrage of orbit-capable warheads", and either way, these rockets aren't demonstrating anything of the sort.
Rationalizing is easy. "I deserve this". "It's only a job". "I was only following orders". "Everybody else does it". "Nobody will know". "Nobody will care". "It's not against the law". et cetera.
The Harrier is a British 60's-era V/STOL strike fighter, heavily updated as the AV-8B Harrier II in the 80's. To my knowledge it has never had any problems passing the International Date Line.
I was merely suggesting that you prove a proposition to be true, but you show it to be false. You don't prove it to be false. A proof, as I stated, is by definition "sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition". A negative proposition can (of course) be true, and can be proven so, or it can be shown to be false.
Slashdot Mirror
actually, it's officers who have the right to interpret orders. as an enlisted or noncom you can still be convicted for refusing to follow an order from your CoC regardless of merit.
Since TFA is about F-22 pilots, I'll note that all of them are officers. I don't think the USAF has any enlisted pilots at all - aircrew yes, but pilots are all officers.
Cake will be served on board.
So it's a Church of England flight then?
(Cake or death? for those wondering).
I dare you to watch Hrafninn flýgur (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087432/) then come back and say that Vikings in movies can't speak anything but English or Scottish.
Time and again it has been demonstrated that human intelligence is biased towards certain kinds of tasks. And it is debatable if driving is one of those
About 40,000 road fatalities a year in the US alone is pretty good evidence that human intelligence is not up to the task of driving.
I drove a Yaris in that configuration for about four months while my iQ was being built/delivered.
It's really weird the first few times you drive it, but after that it becomes just as non-distracting as any other non-HUD display. A quick glance to the right isn't any more distracting than a quick glance down.
I spent so many hours designing maps for Car Wars...
I spent way more time designing cars for Car Wars than I did playing the game... Like, a factor of 5:1 or even 10:1.
It was a gloriously fiendish system where you always seemed to break your weight or space budget...
From the title I thought they were moving toward the Star Trek utopia with no money at all, and the economy is based on, um, well, I guess that's in one of the tech manuals somewhere.
In Sweden, the economy is based on Moose bites. Pretty nasty.
Aye.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
The hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Where'd you get the power for your chain gun?
A chain gun is a type of machine gun or autocannon that uses an external source of power, rather than diverting energy from the cartridge, to cycle the weapon
A chain gun has a single barrel while a Gatling gun has several rotating barrels. It is a common error to refer to Gatling guns as chain guns
The rotating barrel cluster on most Gatling-type guns is powered by an external force such as an electric motor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_gun, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_cannon
Better than isometric is the upcoming XCOM from Firaxis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uHHmTSDCvA
Oh wow. Oh yeah. Hell yeah!
Thanks!
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up so high it'd hurt. Well said, well said indeed.
Do you think there would be a problem giving kids sexual education if there wasn't a deranged stigma about sex in western society?
Please don't say "western society" when you mean "the U.S.".
In the part of western society where I live we're constantly baffled by the US' attitudes towards sex and violence - and we do educate our teens about birth control and safe sex.
What's wrong with nipples? Most shop mannequins where I live have them.
What, exactly, are you sorry about?
Nobody claimed they couldn't get into LEO (although of the three only the Terrier-Malemute is really capable of it).
Neither of these rockets are new - both the Orion and the Malemute first flew in the 70's, so the military (and anyone else interested) has had plenty of time to consider them as launch vehicles.
Also, the "Terrier" in Terrier-Malemute and Terrier-Improved Orion is the old RIM-2 Terrier Surface-to-Air missile from the 50's used as a first stage for the Malemute and Orion rockets, making them two-stage for improved altitude and payload.
Finally, while there certainly is a fuzzy border between top-performing sounding rockets and small lift launch vehicles (generally defined as being able to lift 2,000 lbs to LEO), these three vehicles belong squarely in the sounding rocket category.
This is not a test of a new inexpensive launch vehicle, nor is it a way to demonstrate our military capabilities. It's just science.
These are sounding rockets.
The Orion is a single stage sounding rocket which will achieve an altitude of 60 km with a 250 lb payload or 90 km with a 75 lb payload.
The Terrier-Malemute is a two-stage, solid fuel rocket consisting of a Terrier 1st stage and a Malemute 2nd stage. It is capable of lifting a 200 lb payload to an apogee of approximately 700 km or a 500 lb payload to approximately 400 km.
The The Terrier-Improved Orion consists of a Terrier 1st stage and an "improved" Orion second stage. This vehicle is capable of achieving an altitude of 75 km with an 800 lb payload and 225 km with a 200 lb payload.
(source: http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/mpl/srockets.html)
To be compared to the LGM-30G Minuteman-III which is a three-stage, solid fuel rocket capable of lifting an approximately 600 lbs warhead to over 1100 km. We have 450 of these more or less ready to launch.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30G_Minuteman-III and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W87)
In short, the Chinese already know we have "the capability of rapidly launching a barrage of orbit-capable warheads", and either way, these rockets aren't demonstrating anything of the sort.
These rockets will come down (see the graphic in the two first links in the summary), so barrage isn't as mal placé as you think.
"Gully Foyle is my name
And Terra is my nation
Deep space is my dwelling place
The stars my destination"
Definitely seconded. One of my all-time favourite SF books.
11 hops to 8.8.8.8, average ping 34 ms.
That's from the EU as well, mind you.
I think the submitter should have a talk with his ISP, or even shop around for another.
Rationalizing is easy.
"I deserve this".
"It's only a job".
"I was only following orders".
"Everybody else does it".
"Nobody will know".
"Nobody will care".
"It's not against the law".
et cetera.
Watch the video again - and make sure to stay tuned until it hits the higher speeds.
It does exactly what you say it should, it's quite easy to see in the slow-motion 18 mph parts.
But you know, sticks and stones...
...may break my bones, but words can REALLY hurt me?
Undoing bad moderation, disregard.
Remember how the most expensive jet at the time (the Harrier I think?) would become uncontrollable when passing time zones?
It was the American F-22 Raptor passing the International Date Line, and it didn't become uncontrollable. It's navigation and communications systems failed.
The Harrier is a British 60's-era V/STOL strike fighter, heavily updated as the AV-8B Harrier II in the 80's. To my knowledge it has never had any problems passing the International Date Line.
Of course.
I was merely suggesting that you prove a proposition to be true, but you show it to be false. You don't prove it to be false.
A proof, as I stated, is by definition "sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition".
A negative proposition can (of course) be true, and can be proven so, or it can be shown to be false.
Prove it false, and you are out of a job.
A proof is sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition, never for the falsity of a proposition.