You didn't read the full comment before smashing "Reply", did you? Let me quote for you, since going back and reading it yourself might prove too difficult:
... they had a service where I could pay a small additional fee per drive (something like £10 GBP) and get to keep the failed unit when they replaced it.
Throw some meat in a grinder, take what comes out, and knead in some seasonings. Not much far removed from making meatloaf!
When I was doing this, the most objectionable part of the job was the smell of the vinegar, of all things. "Oh sure, don't worry about the ground up miscellaneous animal parts... but do watch out for that nasty vinegar!"
Yea, but you can't "discharge" explosives into a safe state and then later charge them back up for use. The explosives are always dangerous... the capacitors only when charged for use.
OK, so what if you used the rail to bring it up close to that speed, and let an onboard motor (eg rocket) finish the job? You don't have to go one way or the other, you can use both. Give the rocket less to do, and you get more efficiency out of the whole thing, since you don't have to move nearly as much fuel.
Some of us enjoy the aspect of getting everything to work together to put a projectile to a target. It just so happens that substituting the target for a person suddenly makes you horrible (hint: shooting at people is bad, not shooting in general)
At that speed and mass (5000mph, 16kg) wind etc doesn't really matter as much as it does for traditional munitions. The hardest part is firing it at the right moment, if either target or platform is in motion. Fire control computers can do this, they already do to an extent. Basically the operator says "fire" and the computer starts waiting for the gun to align to the required vector. This computer usually feeds back to either the operator or other systems to bring this into alignment if needed/possible - whether that be vessel steerage commands or a gimbal rotating the gun.
The platform knows how it's moving, and the gun is fixed (for now? I'd imagine getting it to work is harder than getting it on a gimbal). It's trivial for the computers to go 'hot' and wait for just the right moment to fire. The targeting system would give consent to fire, and the motion compensation system would wait for the thing to point in the right direction before sending the signal to act. If action was required to make this happen (eg make a slow turn starboard) this requirement could be communicated and acted on. (this eliminates the rotational aspect, for pitch, i'd imagine it would be much easier to put the thing on an adjustable slope than to allow it to pivot like a turret)
As others have said, the other vessel has (practically) all of 10 seconds to move out of the way. Not much time at all.
The difference is that the police are encrypting to help ensure their performing their job is not interfered with, and to increase their operational safety.
Your reason? Whether or not you have a legitimate reason to encrypt your data, you can't tell me it's on par with the above.
... and even then, if the training is fast and efficient, why NOT have more marksman-trained riflemen? It's not like engaging at a longer range with better accuracy isn't a good thing. It's not like a game where someone "classed" for long range is excluded from function at close range.
Even better... a design fail! The hardware worked (or not) as per it's specifications. It's not the hardware's fault you put it where it wasn't meant to go!
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't read the full comment before smashing "Reply", did you? Let me quote for you, since going back and reading it yourself might prove too difficult:
... they had a service where I could pay a small additional fee per drive (something like £10 GBP) and get to keep the failed unit when they replaced it.
Yea, I suppose you think that's Newegg's responsibility?
As a result my daughter never learned to write in cursive
... and nothing of value was lost? I, nor anyone I know, has had any use for knowing this "skill."
Wilson Avenue school, for instance, had to be closed because it was flooded with water laced with benzene
Well, you are talking about New Jersey, aren't you?
Perhaps for you to place the subject in, smartass?
Indeed. Making sausage isn't even that nasty.
Throw some meat in a grinder, take what comes out, and knead in some seasonings. Not much far removed from making meatloaf!
When I was doing this, the most objectionable part of the job was the smell of the vinegar, of all things. "Oh sure, don't worry about the ground up miscellaneous animal parts... but do watch out for that nasty vinegar!"
if people would stop using the subject as part of the message body. It's not, it's a totally separate field (for a reason)
Yea, but you can't "discharge" explosives into a safe state and then later charge them back up for use. The explosives are always dangerous... the capacitors only when charged for use.
OK, so what if you used the rail to bring it up close to that speed, and let an onboard motor (eg rocket) finish the job? You don't have to go one way or the other, you can use both. Give the rocket less to do, and you get more efficiency out of the whole thing, since you don't have to move nearly as much fuel.
Some of us enjoy the aspect of getting everything to work together to put a projectile to a target. It just so happens that substituting the target for a person suddenly makes you horrible (hint: shooting at people is bad, not shooting in general)
At that speed and mass (5000mph, 16kg) wind etc doesn't really matter as much as it does for traditional munitions. The hardest part is firing it at the right moment, if either target or platform is in motion. Fire control computers can do this, they already do to an extent. Basically the operator says "fire" and the computer starts waiting for the gun to align to the required vector. This computer usually feeds back to either the operator or other systems to bring this into alignment if needed/possible - whether that be vessel steerage commands or a gimbal rotating the gun.
The platform knows how it's moving, and the gun is fixed (for now? I'd imagine getting it to work is harder than getting it on a gimbal). It's trivial for the computers to go 'hot' and wait for just the right moment to fire. The targeting system would give consent to fire, and the motion compensation system would wait for the thing to point in the right direction before sending the signal to act. If action was required to make this happen (eg make a slow turn starboard) this requirement could be communicated and acted on. (this eliminates the rotational aspect, for pitch, i'd imagine it would be much easier to put the thing on an adjustable slope than to allow it to pivot like a turret)
As others have said, the other vessel has (practically) all of 10 seconds to move out of the way. Not much time at all.
How do you know he didn't dictate?
You seem to be (wrongly) assuming that encrypting it locks it away forever.
The difference is that the police are encrypting to help ensure their performing their job is not interfered with, and to increase their operational safety.
Your reason? Whether or not you have a legitimate reason to encrypt your data, you can't tell me it's on par with the above.
I've avoided massive delays on the highway because I heard about a fire on my radio.
Certainly not life saving, and I'm pretty sure I was hearing either paramedics or the fire department - but still.
So? The issue posed wasn't "it's too slow" - it was "I can't run blender."
I gave the only sensible solution - use the mesa build. You apparently want him to either buy hardware or bend principles. Fuck off.
My, aren't you an angsty badger!
Sounds like the article is actually talking about designated marksmen or sharpshooters in general.
... and even then, if the training is fast and efficient, why NOT have more marksman-trained riflemen? It's not like engaging at a longer range with better accuracy isn't a good thing. It's not like a game where someone "classed" for long range is excluded from function at close range.
... how exactly does one verb a verb?
Yea, I'm sure the leaders of Pakistan, Iran, al-Qaeda et al won't mind us rigging them up to some electrodes. Not at all.
Far more to it than that.
Even better... a design fail! The hardware worked (or not) as per it's specifications. It's not the hardware's fault you put it where it wasn't meant to go!
If Intel would bother actually putting some hardware behind those things, they may well be the 'best' solution.