Your beliefs are not what determines another person's values. It is absurd that you think you can decide what the benefits are for other people. Being stupid and egotistical is no way to go through life. How you can have an ego that large with an intelligence level that small is astonishing but, then again, lots of people think they are smart when they are really about as numb as a cunt full of Novocaine. In case it is not obvious, yes, you fall within that category so you can, at least, feel good about fitting in somewhere.
If you are a fanatic are you ashamed of it? There is a difference between a fanatic and a zealot. Fan is short for fanatic. How could you, if you are, be ashamed of being a fan of open source? It is not derogatory even if they person said it as a pejorative. I am an open source fanatic. Closed source is fine too but I prefer open source. I will use the appropriate tool for the job. If that tool is open then I am even happier. If it is closed then, frankly, I do not care. I am a fan and not a zealot, there is a difference. I have no time and no respect for zealots, they are blinded by emotion and unable to be rational. It is okay to be a fan. I dare say it is normal to be a fan of things we like.
If you take offense at being called an open source fanatic then you probably do not belong here. I am an open source fanatic. I also use closed source software. In fact, I am using a Windows OS right now on this laptop to type to you. I am still an open source fanatic. I love open source. I love the cost, I love the learning curve, I love being immersed in the culture. I love finding bugs and reporting them (or, better, seeing if I can figure out how it is fixed). When I do write software that I bother to release I release it with the do what the fuck you want license and let it be truly free. I like it because it is free... I am an open source fanatic and I am proud of it. I am not, on the other hand, an open source zealot. The difference is huge and, well, I suspect you are not aware of it for any one of a number of different reasons.
You do not understand how traction control systems work, do you? Physics is not too difficult for a layman's understanding. The ability to power each wheel, individually, is not something commonly seen even in many "AWD" vehicles and even less likely in 4WD vehicles. There is a reason we have posi-track and ESC in fancier cars that do, indeed, benefit from being able to power each wheel individually. What's more is that, with some tweaking and actually few additional components, they could apply proportional power to each wheel individually giving even greater traction.
There's a reason why we have ESC and AWD. Some AWD vehicles only have a single wheel that is powered at the front and rear of the vehicles much like a typical front-wheel-drive vehicle will have one wheel powered for forward gears and one wheel powered for reverse. That is why you have two separate CV shafts in many vehicles. Even some of the low-end AWD vehicles will have only two wheels that are powered for forward and two for reverse. Some ESC only have braking for stability controls. Good ones have all four wheels powered individually and can generally apply anywhere from 30 to 70% of the power to a single wheel when stability control is actively engaged.
I will assume you either did not know or do not understand physics very well but it is a great deal more easy to control if you can apply power to all the wheels individually and even more control is granted if you can apply different percentages of power to different wheels at different times. If, for instance, a single wheel is spinning the system will stop applying power to that wheel and will apply a higher percentage of power to the opposite and diagonal wheel and then work its way around with different percentages of power depending on the friction. It is a bit complex but not totally foreign. Even advanced systems sometimes only use the brakes for ESC. My BMWs have all been rear-wheel-drive so stability control is a combination of braking and, perhaps, power being applied to one or the other of the wheels or, in some cases, less power than I may be calling for depending on how much I depress the accelerator pedal.
Hmm... More to add, I suppose. Oh well, I was not doing anything better.
With the HMMWV the general safety rule was three of water and fifteen miles per hour. If the water was over a three feet and moving faster than fifteen miles per hour we were not to attempt to ford it unless there was a great and compelling reason to do so. We were to test by finding something that floats and throwing it in the water and then estimating how fast it goes. If it was faster than fifeen mph and deeper than three feet then it was considered unsafe and that we should seek an alternative fording point. If, on the other hand, you have an armored unit in pursuit then you are obviously going to attempt the crossing.
However, an armored vehicle is unlikely to have any major issues crossing that theoretical three feet of water with a fifteen mile per hour flow. It is simply heavy enough and is not submerged enough to be buoyant so it will likely make it through that and worse. Obviously we are talking about a purely theoretical situation that is unlikely to ever be precisely met. HMWVVs were not armored, even lightly armored really, at the time - I was driving them in the late 1980s.
Now, in practice, I can not now or ever say I knew the exact speed of the water. I do know that we fairly frequently forded fairly rapidly moving bodies of water. We would generally lower the tire's PSI by fifteen to twenty pounds per square inch, put on (if not already attached) the deep water fording kit (if the water was deeper than four feet), and go for it. I can say, with some certainty, that we exceeded that safety limit with water that was most certainly much faster than your proposed 6 MPH limit. In fact, I have some photographic evidence that suggests this is not just my own personal experience and that I am not talking out of my ass. Here:
Now we can not be 100% certain of the speed that the water is moving at. What we can do is guesstimate if you will allow such and still consider it evidence. Scroll down on that page and you will see some water fording in action. Given the height of a HMMWV - about 7.5 feet with the tires properly deflated for water fording, take the two feet away for the windscreen, and you end up with a HMMWV in about 5½' of water. If we look at the water, itself, and judge by its depth and then the whitecaps on the top, we can safely assume that the water is far in excess of your six mile per hour limit. It looks like, and this is just using the picture and personal experience which has been trained to observe such but - again - this is just a still picture, the water is fairly close to triple the six mile an hour limit that you have suggested.
I think that, maybe, you are confused in thinking that a vehicle that floats, a boat, is similar to a vehicle that does not float - namely anything that is not a boat with few exceptions. If you examine the above linked photographs you will see that it is quite effective with water moving much faster than your proposed limit. I strongly suspect that is because an HMMWV is not, in fact, a boat. This is the Army and they do get confused but I was in the Marines. The Marines are a department of the Navy. I am no expert but I have spent time with some experts and I think it is safe to conclude that I can spot a boat. The Humvee is not a boat. Automobiles have a number of characteristics that make them different than a boat. The primary difference is that, unlike witches, they do not float.
I suppose you could say that, "Well, we do not know that that water is going faster than six miles per hour." That is true - we do not know that. What we do have is an opportunity to use our own judgment. In my judgment, based on years of observation and a modicum of training, I strongly assert that that water is moving much more rapidly than six miles per hour. I suspect, again - this is subjective, that the water is going so
Your shared picture... I have friends, much more into off-roading than I am - I do get some joy out of going out to extract them however, who would actually attempt to drive over the terrain you have there. I have two friends, in specific, who would consider it a personal slight by mother nature and would feel the need to tackle it post-haste! They are specifically, very specifically, into rock climbing and have heavily modified vehicles for the task. It is not uncommon for them to call me and have me provide a second winch, block and tackle, and even some pulling power (they are both scientists with one being a physicist) to extract one and that often requires putting them back onto their wheels before we can extract them. Sometimes it is a bit rougher than that and requires that we just say screw it and yank it out while it is still on its side. There is not a whole lot to them that they can not fix.
One is a physicist who works for the University of Maine as a professor and the other was (I guess he still is) a materials scientist who worked at JPL but now has his own place where he does materials certification. He is a sole proprietor and makes great money but has huge expenses. He has very nice toys too. He has his own lab in what used to be a barn and lives out in the woods though not really all that far from civilization. I am not certain what certifications he does but it is similar to Underwriters Laboratories and I think, I do not know, that he may actually do some work for them? I do know he often has government projects and is unable to disclose some of them and I have no idea what those types of projects would consist of. Given that he is a materials guy, well, I suspect that it may be anything from armor to heat shielding. His toys are pretty fun but that's not really my type of job. He does not create anything. He just tests and does independent certifications as far as I know.
But, enough of the mindless banter...
I have a question and my question is this... That looks like Hawaii. Does anyone go out to those areas and try to tackle them with four wheeled vehicles? I found some off-roading pictures from Hawaii when I just searched but they were just on mountains or in some fairly shallow mud. I did not find anybody tackling terrain like that. I ask because, well, it is surprising what some of those vehicles are capable of doing. The two rock climbing friends generally go out in pairs and have spotters with them. They may take four or five hours just climbing a few hundred feet simply because they wanted to try it. They will sit there and ponder their routes, go out with orange marker paint, and will plan the most difficult track that they think they can accomplish. Rolling over (and down) is not uncommon but there is almost no way they can be hurt.
These are not road-legal vehicles, not by any stretch of the imagination. Well, they would be road legal in parts of Florida actually. They go out to specific areas (sometimes the same areas - over and over again) and really plan it. They even go out ahead of time, sometimes, and take pictures of the terrain and will map a preliminary trek before even considering it. I can see the attraction but it is not really my thing though I have gone with them a number of times. It is quite a mental challenge and a physical challenge though one many not think so. It is not easy driving and it is more than driving. Anyhow, they trailer the vehicles in, offload them, and then trailer them back out again. I believe both of them have been 'featured' in one of the off-road magazines. They tell me that there are competitions and prizes that they could compete for but neither of them are into that scene. It is just a hobby for them and it is not at all uncommon for their trek to include some rather complex math scribbled onto the sides of their ledgers. As I mentioned, they are heavily into it.
So, if they actually allow this sort of thing on that type of terrain and it is feasible then I may have a couple of friends who are just crazy enough to
The very last shots were impressive. Scale it up, harden it, and put a diesel on it and they might have something. An alternative would be scaling it up less, harden it a little less, and turn it into one of the buggies that special forces seems to use. I can see some value in it and, as it is, it is fine. It is fine because, as it is, it is a toy and meant to be a toy. The articulation in the last shot of the video on YouTube is impressive though, credit where it is due. You can get a Jeep to do that, to some extent, but not without a great deal of expense and a great deal of fragility.
For what it is, a toy, it is just fine though. And, again, if you look at the last shots of the video you can see how vastly different the angles are. It would need to be beefed up to be of any real value beyond that of a toy. There is not enough clearance. When they go down over an embankment you can see them hitting the skid panel and the only reason it made it over is that it retained some speed and had gravity on its side. They also transversed a 35-40 degree slope like that was impressive. *sighs* It is not. But, again, it is a toy and should be treated as such. As a toy it is novel and looks like it would be fun for someone interested in those things. I did not read the stats but I suspect the battery does not last long enough to even consider it as anything other than a toy for a half hour's worth of fun.
Those statistics are probably available. I did not read one single word of the article because I am not a heretic. I do have an enjoyment of the physics, risks, and excitement offered by off-roading and have a couple of off-road appropriate vehicles but nothing of that nature. I have a fairly fancy 85 Jeep and a handsomely decked out and heavily modified 1998 Ford Explorer Sport.
You may laugh at the concept but with a lift kit, TruxUs tires, front and rear winches, heavy duty suspension, brush guard, Euro rack with spare tires and lights, and all the creature comforts it does exactly what I paid it to do and does it very well. It is not meant to be a rock climber. It is meant to get to the top of mountains, however, and it does that just fine as well as going through scads of mud, over very rough terrain, on old logging roads, and still looks good enough to go to the bar afterwards.
All the mods were absurdly expensive and many were labor intensive so I do not think I will ever bother building another one. It was one of the last projects I did pretty much all by myself and it predates my retirement. I'd just get something built for me these days. I kind of want to do something on a late 70's Chevy chassis. I certainly will not be doing the work myself, though. I am too old to be busting knuckles and getting grease embedded in my skin to the point where it takes a half dozen showers to get it truly clean. I appreciate the geekitude of doing the work myself, and I have, but I really have never been all that fond of it. There is something primal and childlike to packing bearings however. But, it still is messy and labor intensive.
To be a pendent... (Or a pendant...) HMMWV. I, at least, know what you meant. My MOS was 3505, motor pool - driver, and I drove lots and lots of different vehicles. I was not in the test program but I was one of the first to drive on at Quantico when they appeared. As I mentioned above, they are exactly as fun as they look. They are not speedy and they do not slow down very well. But, given their wide stance, they do corner much better than one might imagine - even on uneven/slippery terrain. They grip quite nicely. There is no parking gear so remember to set the emergency brake. The e-brake also does not work like many civilian vehicles. It locks all four wheels instead of just the rear wheels. The shifting pattern is otherwise like an automatic (they are not manual shift, some folks seem to think they are - they are not) but it starts with R instead of P. So it is R N D 2 1. Where first is an extremely low gear like a granny gear in old 4WD trucks. With the vehicle in low you could probably pull a house off its foundation. It has loads of torque. Not that I have ever tried to pull a house off the foundation or anything.
As I also mentioned above (but you would be unlikely to see it, so I will share it here) it appears you can now buy them from resellers or from surplus sales. I tried to buy one about four years after getting out (I had taken my first real contract and was starting my business and had hoped to buy one with some of the money as it made me feel very wealthy to have a seven figure contract.) right after the Gulf War. I had expected there to be a surplus of them. I contacted a few people and the official reply was that I was never going to be able to buy one because they were going to bone yard them all for spares as they expected them to be in service for thirty year life cycle at that point. (Not one individual vehicle for thirty years but the same concept vehicle for thirty years. Sort of like the B-52.) Anyhow, it now appears that I can buy one and I have found a source but I have not gone down to look at the few he has in stock. Assuming I can find one in stock that meets my quality expectations then I will buy one. I do not want to deal with the hassle and gamble that is buying from surplus sales directly.
I do not normally take and share pictures online. I do think that this may be an exception. I have not, to my knowledge, seen a civilian owned HMMWV in the wild/on the road. I only learned they were available a bit over a month ago but I had not seen any that I knew were civilian owned on the road. Hell, the place that does sell them is actually where I thought there was a depot for a local Guard unit but it turns out that those are actually for sale. I guess they have been for sale for a while. In case you can not tell, I am a bit excited to buy one. I repeat, they are exactly as much fun as they look like - they are even more fun if you get the 998 (I think it was) with the winch kit outfitted along with the deep water fording kit. Other than drugs, alcohol, and sex there is not much more fun one can have.
That is a riot. I watched the video and only opened this to opine that I thought it was too frail for my particular desires and that I had driven an HMMWV as such was included in my MOS so, frankly, I am not the least bit impressed with this EXCEPT as a nifty toy.
Do not get me wrong. I think this COULD be impressive - it is going to need some beef and a heavy diesel but it could be impressive. It is going to need to be a lot larger, wider, and made of much heavier parts if it is to be anything more than a toy. It is a toy and being considered such so, well, that is all well and good.
Also, if you have never driven an HMMWV - the civilian Hummer is not the same - not even close though it is kind of nice, I can tell you that it is as fun as it looks. If you have two of them and are properly trained you can put them anywhere you want (within reason, well - you can put them in some unreasonable spots too). With two of them, both with the winch configuration, you can even almost certainly extract a stuck HMMWV. What is awesome is sitting hunched over on the seat in granny gear with deep water fording kit attached - you steer with your feet and you're good to go in 7' of water. Mud? Drop some air out of the tires. Snow? Pump them up until they are just about at the PSI limit. Oh - and do it from inside.
The heat sucks and there is no AC. Still worth it. I just recently found out that I can buy one as a civilian (I checked a long long time ago as I expected a surplus after the Gulf War and was told that they were still not for sale and that they intended to bone yard all of them and that they would never be on the civilian market). I have found a local retailer that carries a few of them. I have not made time to go down and look them over. I have no desire to do the auction or the direct buy market so the markup is okay. When I find one that suits (my MOS was 3505 at the time so I will know which is worth grabbing), I will buy one.
I have never seen it tried but they claimed we could fill the tanks up rum or vodka if we needed and that they would run just fine that way. Though I have not been a drinker for a few years now, I still see that as a horrific waste of perfectly good alcohol. Assuming I do get one (and I plan to) and I have been smoking enough weed then I may just test that theory out though it will likely be cheap vodka and not a whole lot of it.
Again, they are as awesome as they look. I would like to try the MRAP though. Also, no, they do not have keys. Hit the toggle, press the button, go. I believe they just have three position toggles now. There are not too many things more fun than a dead dinosaur burning romp through the williewacks. The trip is made even more enjoyable knowing that you are probably going to ride out instead of walk out. I can not, for the life of me, think of too many third party after-market addons that I would consider beneficial to them? Well, an M-202 is a nice feature but they are not really going to be happy with me driving down the road with that - not to mention, after the tax stamp and filing - that may actually be more expensive than the used HMMWV.
What is true is that no OS is secure. Well, not one you can turn on at any rate. Nothing connected is secure. No OS is secure. No code is bug-free. Well, almost no code is bug free. I have a couple of Hello World's that I trust. Some are more secure, OS X is - traditionally - one of the more secure operating systems out there. No, no I am not an Apple fan. I do not even use them. I use Linux, Windows, and sometimes play with Unix. My phones I do not care about - even smart phones. I do nothing on them that is hidden really. I just discount them as insecure by default. I tend to do very little on my computer either.
I have not used a real credit card online in many years and always just get my credit union or bank to either make an account specifically for online transactions or just have them hook me up with a re-loadable card. This way, when (not if - though it has never happened oddly enough and I'd assume I would be targeted) it happens the risks are minimal. As banks pass the fault on to the vendor, and I side with the vendor - usually, I would likely just eat the cost and it would be trivial.
As for Macs? I own an iPod and an MacBook Pro. I gave my last MBP to my daughter and bought a new one just about a year ago. I only have it so that I can poke at it to help friends and family. I do not use the OS enough to be comfortable in it but, I suspect, it is a fine operating system. I have had no problem with it and the hardware is top notch even though it feels flimsy. I do find it to be a bit too light (if that makes sense) for my taste. I am a big laptop fan and prefer a large laptop with a full number pad and a second drive bay.
One of the forums that I frequent had a user who supposedly had a remote execution on a Mac for sale. The price was not unreasonable and I have seen others come and go. I can only assume there are some in the wild. I have seen similar/same for every OS on the planet pretty much - including some of the more obscure stuff. Meh... Practice safe hex. No matter what you do there are risks. To be ignorant of them is folly but, well, some folks tend to think they are immune. I suspect they are already pwned and just attribute their credit card hack from being from a skimmer somewhere at a gas station even though they have no evidence for it and it likely is their computer. Oh well... 'Snot much I can do about it. Nobody listens to a KGIII and that is probably a good thing.
I am *not* an Apple guy but it has Unix at its core. Can't you just chmod the file and be done with it? I have no idea what the commands should be but it seems likely there's a way to set it to read only even beyond root so that root would have to chown it before it can set the privileges to writable and actually do anything?
Maybe I am missing the exploit but that is what I got from it. A patch should not even be needed, really. It would be nice but it seems something easy enough to fix for the time being. It should not be more than one line in terminal, maybe two.
Cows eat bugs and other stuff in their feed. They would probably eat hamburger if someone was strange enough to feed it to them mixed in with their food. Cows are not too bright, really. Well, none of the cows I have met were bright. I am kind of glad they are fenced in. Can you imagine them in the road? Moose and deer are bad enough. I have almost hit a cow in the road on a blind corner - I stopped and helped it back into it's yard and the owner took care of it from there.
I do not see any numbers but I do see a suspecting about men type of comment. I am glad I am retired. You all are nuts. As a business owner, and a fairly good sized place with offices in five locations, I'd have fired people from both ends of the spectrum. I'd have also fired anyone accused of sexual wrongdoing - immediately.
Have you even read Margret Weiss and Tracy Hickman's work? The Dragonlance series was beautiful - it was exactly was it was meant to be. There is no fixing the books, they are perfect as they are. They are not meant to be gritty. They are meant to be lighthearted and unprovocative. They are meant to entertain - not enlighten. They are for entertainment and, on that end of the scale, they are exactly perfect. That you expected them to be something they were not meant to be is not the fault of the books.
Did they sell the figurines unpainted at all? I always figured that I would sell them unpainted as well as painted if I wanted to get the most out of it. Of course, 3D printing kind of negates that whole need.
As it is, I have managed to somehow avoid all figuring games and all card games. I just have never managed to find a way to get into them. I am a huge fan of table top though and I strictly limit myself to blank or graph paper maps of my own creation if I am the GM. I did have some hexagonal graph paper for a while. That got old.
I recorded some gaming sessions (back in the cassette tape days) in hopes of, someday, turning them into novels. I had a group that was that good - we could ad hoc our way into entirely unscripted sessions lasting days. They just did not translate well to paper (or a movie, I suspect) but I have always tended to blame that on me. Now that I think about it, I am not sure that I was the problem. While I have written since and some has been read by others, it still does not seem to lend itself to transcription in a readable format. Then again, as a script it might work.
If I made the movie the soundtrack, during the initial credits/opening scene, would be nasal voices talking about Mountain Dew (I'd make them pay for the reference) and the lulling sound of many die being cast on a wooden table.
There is likely a reason I am not allowed to direct movies. It would be, however, by gamers and for gamers. And it would be appropriately bad because nobody would fund the special effects I would want. We'd be using cardboard cutouts while an off-camera narrator urged the audience to use their imagination. It would be awesome in a Down's Syndrome kind of way.
It might be nice to see a young Tim Burton do it. I think Kubrick might have done it justice if he could have gotten his head inside of it. Some method actors in it should be nice too. I expect a repeat of history. Not one of the two that I suggest is available.
I once had a party stomp through a small Drow enclave whereupon they took the chieftain's daughter, tossed her in the air, and pinned her to the door with a short sword. I had fun with that group.
Anyhow, ever play Marvel? Boot Hill was always fun for a short spell, also.
Slashdot Mirror
Your beliefs are not what determines another person's values. It is absurd that you think you can decide what the benefits are for other people. Being stupid and egotistical is no way to go through life. How you can have an ego that large with an intelligence level that small is astonishing but, then again, lots of people think they are smart when they are really about as numb as a cunt full of Novocaine. In case it is not obvious, yes, you fall within that category so you can, at least, feel good about fitting in somewhere.
If you are a fanatic are you ashamed of it? There is a difference between a fanatic and a zealot. Fan is short for fanatic. How could you, if you are, be ashamed of being a fan of open source? It is not derogatory even if they person said it as a pejorative. I am an open source fanatic. Closed source is fine too but I prefer open source. I will use the appropriate tool for the job. If that tool is open then I am even happier. If it is closed then, frankly, I do not care. I am a fan and not a zealot, there is a difference. I have no time and no respect for zealots, they are blinded by emotion and unable to be rational. It is okay to be a fan. I dare say it is normal to be a fan of things we like.
If you take offense at being called an open source fanatic then you probably do not belong here. I am an open source fanatic. I also use closed source software. In fact, I am using a Windows OS right now on this laptop to type to you. I am still an open source fanatic. I love open source. I love the cost, I love the learning curve, I love being immersed in the culture. I love finding bugs and reporting them (or, better, seeing if I can figure out how it is fixed). When I do write software that I bother to release I release it with the do what the fuck you want license and let it be truly free. I like it because it is free... I am an open source fanatic and I am proud of it. I am not, on the other hand, an open source zealot. The difference is huge and, well, I suspect you are not aware of it for any one of a number of different reasons.
You do not understand how traction control systems work, do you? Physics is not too difficult for a layman's understanding. The ability to power each wheel, individually, is not something commonly seen even in many "AWD" vehicles and even less likely in 4WD vehicles. There is a reason we have posi-track and ESC in fancier cars that do, indeed, benefit from being able to power each wheel individually. What's more is that, with some tweaking and actually few additional components, they could apply proportional power to each wheel individually giving even greater traction.
There's a reason why we have ESC and AWD. Some AWD vehicles only have a single wheel that is powered at the front and rear of the vehicles much like a typical front-wheel-drive vehicle will have one wheel powered for forward gears and one wheel powered for reverse. That is why you have two separate CV shafts in many vehicles. Even some of the low-end AWD vehicles will have only two wheels that are powered for forward and two for reverse. Some ESC only have braking for stability controls. Good ones have all four wheels powered individually and can generally apply anywhere from 30 to 70% of the power to a single wheel when stability control is actively engaged.
I will assume you either did not know or do not understand physics very well but it is a great deal more easy to control if you can apply power to all the wheels individually and even more control is granted if you can apply different percentages of power to different wheels at different times. If, for instance, a single wheel is spinning the system will stop applying power to that wheel and will apply a higher percentage of power to the opposite and diagonal wheel and then work its way around with different percentages of power depending on the friction. It is a bit complex but not totally foreign. Even advanced systems sometimes only use the brakes for ESC. My BMWs have all been rear-wheel-drive so stability control is a combination of braking and, perhaps, power being applied to one or the other of the wheels or, in some cases, less power than I may be calling for depending on how much I depress the accelerator pedal.
Hmm... More to add, I suppose. Oh well, I was not doing anything better.
With the HMMWV the general safety rule was three of water and fifteen miles per hour. If the water was over a three feet and moving faster than fifteen miles per hour we were not to attempt to ford it unless there was a great and compelling reason to do so. We were to test by finding something that floats and throwing it in the water and then estimating how fast it goes. If it was faster than fifeen mph and deeper than three feet then it was considered unsafe and that we should seek an alternative fording point. If, on the other hand, you have an armored unit in pursuit then you are obviously going to attempt the crossing.
However, an armored vehicle is unlikely to have any major issues crossing that theoretical three feet of water with a fifteen mile per hour flow. It is simply heavy enough and is not submerged enough to be buoyant so it will likely make it through that and worse. Obviously we are talking about a purely theoretical situation that is unlikely to ever be precisely met. HMWVVs were not armored, even lightly armored really, at the time - I was driving them in the late 1980s.
Now, in practice, I can not now or ever say I knew the exact speed of the water. I do know that we fairly frequently forded fairly rapidly moving bodies of water. We would generally lower the tire's PSI by fifteen to twenty pounds per square inch, put on (if not already attached) the deep water fording kit (if the water was deeper than four feet), and go for it. I can say, with some certainty, that we exceeded that safety limit with water that was most certainly much faster than your proposed 6 MPH limit. In fact, I have some photographic evidence that suggests this is not just my own personal experience and that I am not talking out of my ass. Here:
http://www.clublexus.com/forum...
Now we can not be 100% certain of the speed that the water is moving at. What we can do is guesstimate if you will allow such and still consider it evidence. Scroll down on that page and you will see some water fording in action. Given the height of a HMMWV - about 7.5 feet with the tires properly deflated for water fording, take the two feet away for the windscreen, and you end up with a HMMWV in about 5½' of water. If we look at the water, itself, and judge by its depth and then the whitecaps on the top, we can safely assume that the water is far in excess of your six mile per hour limit. It looks like, and this is just using the picture and personal experience which has been trained to observe such but - again - this is just a still picture, the water is fairly close to triple the six mile an hour limit that you have suggested.
I think that, maybe, you are confused in thinking that a vehicle that floats, a boat, is similar to a vehicle that does not float - namely anything that is not a boat with few exceptions. If you examine the above linked photographs you will see that it is quite effective with water moving much faster than your proposed limit. I strongly suspect that is because an HMMWV is not, in fact, a boat. This is the Army and they do get confused but I was in the Marines. The Marines are a department of the Navy. I am no expert but I have spent time with some experts and I think it is safe to conclude that I can spot a boat. The Humvee is not a boat. Automobiles have a number of characteristics that make them different than a boat. The primary difference is that, unlike witches, they do not float.
I suppose you could say that, "Well, we do not know that that water is going faster than six miles per hour." That is true - we do not know that. What we do have is an opportunity to use our own judgment. In my judgment, based on years of observation and a modicum of training, I strongly assert that that water is moving much more rapidly than six miles per hour. I suspect, again - this is subjective, that the water is going so
Your shared picture... I have friends, much more into off-roading than I am - I do get some joy out of going out to extract them however, who would actually attempt to drive over the terrain you have there. I have two friends, in specific, who would consider it a personal slight by mother nature and would feel the need to tackle it post-haste! They are specifically, very specifically, into rock climbing and have heavily modified vehicles for the task. It is not uncommon for them to call me and have me provide a second winch, block and tackle, and even some pulling power (they are both scientists with one being a physicist) to extract one and that often requires putting them back onto their wheels before we can extract them. Sometimes it is a bit rougher than that and requires that we just say screw it and yank it out while it is still on its side. There is not a whole lot to them that they can not fix.
One is a physicist who works for the University of Maine as a professor and the other was (I guess he still is) a materials scientist who worked at JPL but now has his own place where he does materials certification. He is a sole proprietor and makes great money but has huge expenses. He has very nice toys too. He has his own lab in what used to be a barn and lives out in the woods though not really all that far from civilization. I am not certain what certifications he does but it is similar to Underwriters Laboratories and I think, I do not know, that he may actually do some work for them? I do know he often has government projects and is unable to disclose some of them and I have no idea what those types of projects would consist of. Given that he is a materials guy, well, I suspect that it may be anything from armor to heat shielding. His toys are pretty fun but that's not really my type of job. He does not create anything. He just tests and does independent certifications as far as I know.
But, enough of the mindless banter...
I have a question and my question is this... That looks like Hawaii. Does anyone go out to those areas and try to tackle them with four wheeled vehicles? I found some off-roading pictures from Hawaii when I just searched but they were just on mountains or in some fairly shallow mud. I did not find anybody tackling terrain like that. I ask because, well, it is surprising what some of those vehicles are capable of doing. The two rock climbing friends generally go out in pairs and have spotters with them. They may take four or five hours just climbing a few hundred feet simply because they wanted to try it. They will sit there and ponder their routes, go out with orange marker paint, and will plan the most difficult track that they think they can accomplish. Rolling over (and down) is not uncommon but there is almost no way they can be hurt.
These are not road-legal vehicles, not by any stretch of the imagination. Well, they would be road legal in parts of Florida actually. They go out to specific areas (sometimes the same areas - over and over again) and really plan it. They even go out ahead of time, sometimes, and take pictures of the terrain and will map a preliminary trek before even considering it. I can see the attraction but it is not really my thing though I have gone with them a number of times. It is quite a mental challenge and a physical challenge though one many not think so. It is not easy driving and it is more than driving. Anyhow, they trailer the vehicles in, offload them, and then trailer them back out again. I believe both of them have been 'featured' in one of the off-road magazines. They tell me that there are competitions and prizes that they could compete for but neither of them are into that scene. It is just a hobby for them and it is not at all uncommon for their trek to include some rather complex math scribbled onto the sides of their ledgers. As I mentioned, they are heavily into it.
So, if they actually allow this sort of thing on that type of terrain and it is feasible then I may have a couple of friends who are just crazy enough to
The very last shots were impressive. Scale it up, harden it, and put a diesel on it and they might have something. An alternative would be scaling it up less, harden it a little less, and turn it into one of the buggies that special forces seems to use. I can see some value in it and, as it is, it is fine. It is fine because, as it is, it is a toy and meant to be a toy. The articulation in the last shot of the video on YouTube is impressive though, credit where it is due. You can get a Jeep to do that, to some extent, but not without a great deal of expense and a great deal of fragility.
For what it is, a toy, it is just fine though. And, again, if you look at the last shots of the video you can see how vastly different the angles are. It would need to be beefed up to be of any real value beyond that of a toy. There is not enough clearance. When they go down over an embankment you can see them hitting the skid panel and the only reason it made it over is that it retained some speed and had gravity on its side. They also transversed a 35-40 degree slope like that was impressive. *sighs* It is not. But, again, it is a toy and should be treated as such. As a toy it is novel and looks like it would be fun for someone interested in those things. I did not read the stats but I suspect the battery does not last long enough to even consider it as anything other than a toy for a half hour's worth of fun.
Those statistics are probably available. I did not read one single word of the article because I am not a heretic. I do have an enjoyment of the physics, risks, and excitement offered by off-roading and have a couple of off-road appropriate vehicles but nothing of that nature. I have a fairly fancy 85 Jeep and a handsomely decked out and heavily modified 1998 Ford Explorer Sport.
You may laugh at the concept but with a lift kit, TruxUs tires, front and rear winches, heavy duty suspension, brush guard, Euro rack with spare tires and lights, and all the creature comforts it does exactly what I paid it to do and does it very well. It is not meant to be a rock climber. It is meant to get to the top of mountains, however, and it does that just fine as well as going through scads of mud, over very rough terrain, on old logging roads, and still looks good enough to go to the bar afterwards.
All the mods were absurdly expensive and many were labor intensive so I do not think I will ever bother building another one. It was one of the last projects I did pretty much all by myself and it predates my retirement. I'd just get something built for me these days. I kind of want to do something on a late 70's Chevy chassis. I certainly will not be doing the work myself, though. I am too old to be busting knuckles and getting grease embedded in my skin to the point where it takes a half dozen showers to get it truly clean. I appreciate the geekitude of doing the work myself, and I have, but I really have never been all that fond of it. There is something primal and childlike to packing bearings however. But, it still is messy and labor intensive.
To be a pendent... (Or a pendant...) HMMWV. I, at least, know what you meant. My MOS was 3505, motor pool - driver, and I drove lots and lots of different vehicles. I was not in the test program but I was one of the first to drive on at Quantico when they appeared. As I mentioned above, they are exactly as fun as they look. They are not speedy and they do not slow down very well. But, given their wide stance, they do corner much better than one might imagine - even on uneven/slippery terrain. They grip quite nicely. There is no parking gear so remember to set the emergency brake. The e-brake also does not work like many civilian vehicles. It locks all four wheels instead of just the rear wheels. The shifting pattern is otherwise like an automatic (they are not manual shift, some folks seem to think they are - they are not) but it starts with R instead of P. So it is R N D 2 1. Where first is an extremely low gear like a granny gear in old 4WD trucks. With the vehicle in low you could probably pull a house off its foundation. It has loads of torque. Not that I have ever tried to pull a house off the foundation or anything.
As I also mentioned above (but you would be unlikely to see it, so I will share it here) it appears you can now buy them from resellers or from surplus sales. I tried to buy one about four years after getting out (I had taken my first real contract and was starting my business and had hoped to buy one with some of the money as it made me feel very wealthy to have a seven figure contract.) right after the Gulf War. I had expected there to be a surplus of them. I contacted a few people and the official reply was that I was never going to be able to buy one because they were going to bone yard them all for spares as they expected them to be in service for thirty year life cycle at that point. (Not one individual vehicle for thirty years but the same concept vehicle for thirty years. Sort of like the B-52.) Anyhow, it now appears that I can buy one and I have found a source but I have not gone down to look at the few he has in stock. Assuming I can find one in stock that meets my quality expectations then I will buy one. I do not want to deal with the hassle and gamble that is buying from surplus sales directly.
I do not normally take and share pictures online. I do think that this may be an exception. I have not, to my knowledge, seen a civilian owned HMMWV in the wild/on the road. I only learned they were available a bit over a month ago but I had not seen any that I knew were civilian owned on the road. Hell, the place that does sell them is actually where I thought there was a depot for a local Guard unit but it turns out that those are actually for sale. I guess they have been for sale for a while. In case you can not tell, I am a bit excited to buy one. I repeat, they are exactly as much fun as they look like - they are even more fun if you get the 998 (I think it was) with the winch kit outfitted along with the deep water fording kit. Other than drugs, alcohol, and sex there is not much more fun one can have.
Do not get... You will be disappointed. It turns out you can get an actual HMMWV from resellers or from a direct surplus buy.
That is a riot. I watched the video and only opened this to opine that I thought it was too frail for my particular desires and that I had driven an HMMWV as such was included in my MOS so, frankly, I am not the least bit impressed with this EXCEPT as a nifty toy.
Do not get me wrong. I think this COULD be impressive - it is going to need some beef and a heavy diesel but it could be impressive. It is going to need to be a lot larger, wider, and made of much heavier parts if it is to be anything more than a toy. It is a toy and being considered such so, well, that is all well and good.
Also, if you have never driven an HMMWV - the civilian Hummer is not the same - not even close though it is kind of nice, I can tell you that it is as fun as it looks. If you have two of them and are properly trained you can put them anywhere you want (within reason, well - you can put them in some unreasonable spots too). With two of them, both with the winch configuration, you can even almost certainly extract a stuck HMMWV. What is awesome is sitting hunched over on the seat in granny gear with deep water fording kit attached - you steer with your feet and you're good to go in 7' of water. Mud? Drop some air out of the tires. Snow? Pump them up until they are just about at the PSI limit. Oh - and do it from inside.
The heat sucks and there is no AC. Still worth it. I just recently found out that I can buy one as a civilian (I checked a long long time ago as I expected a surplus after the Gulf War and was told that they were still not for sale and that they intended to bone yard all of them and that they would never be on the civilian market). I have found a local retailer that carries a few of them. I have not made time to go down and look them over. I have no desire to do the auction or the direct buy market so the markup is okay. When I find one that suits (my MOS was 3505 at the time so I will know which is worth grabbing), I will buy one.
I have never seen it tried but they claimed we could fill the tanks up rum or vodka if we needed and that they would run just fine that way. Though I have not been a drinker for a few years now, I still see that as a horrific waste of perfectly good alcohol. Assuming I do get one (and I plan to) and I have been smoking enough weed then I may just test that theory out though it will likely be cheap vodka and not a whole lot of it.
Again, they are as awesome as they look. I would like to try the MRAP though. Also, no, they do not have keys. Hit the toggle, press the button, go. I believe they just have three position toggles now. There are not too many things more fun than a dead dinosaur burning romp through the williewacks. The trip is made even more enjoyable knowing that you are probably going to ride out instead of walk out. I can not, for the life of me, think of too many third party after-market addons that I would consider beneficial to them? Well, an M-202 is a nice feature but they are not really going to be happy with me driving down the road with that - not to mention, after the tax stamp and filing - that may actually be more expensive than the used HMMWV.
What is true is that no OS is secure. Well, not one you can turn on at any rate. Nothing connected is secure. No OS is secure. No code is bug-free. Well, almost no code is bug free. I have a couple of Hello World's that I trust. Some are more secure, OS X is - traditionally - one of the more secure operating systems out there. No, no I am not an Apple fan. I do not even use them. I use Linux, Windows, and sometimes play with Unix. My phones I do not care about - even smart phones. I do nothing on them that is hidden really. I just discount them as insecure by default. I tend to do very little on my computer either.
I have not used a real credit card online in many years and always just get my credit union or bank to either make an account specifically for online transactions or just have them hook me up with a re-loadable card. This way, when (not if - though it has never happened oddly enough and I'd assume I would be targeted) it happens the risks are minimal. As banks pass the fault on to the vendor, and I side with the vendor - usually, I would likely just eat the cost and it would be trivial.
As for Macs? I own an iPod and an MacBook Pro. I gave my last MBP to my daughter and bought a new one just about a year ago. I only have it so that I can poke at it to help friends and family. I do not use the OS enough to be comfortable in it but, I suspect, it is a fine operating system. I have had no problem with it and the hardware is top notch even though it feels flimsy. I do find it to be a bit too light (if that makes sense) for my taste. I am a big laptop fan and prefer a large laptop with a full number pad and a second drive bay.
One of the forums that I frequent had a user who supposedly had a remote execution on a Mac for sale. The price was not unreasonable and I have seen others come and go. I can only assume there are some in the wild. I have seen similar/same for every OS on the planet pretty much - including some of the more obscure stuff. Meh... Practice safe hex. No matter what you do there are risks. To be ignorant of them is folly but, well, some folks tend to think they are immune. I suspect they are already pwned and just attribute their credit card hack from being from a skimmer somewhere at a gas station even though they have no evidence for it and it likely is their computer. Oh well... 'Snot much I can do about it. Nobody listens to a KGIII and that is probably a good thing.
I am *not* an Apple guy but it has Unix at its core. Can't you just chmod the file and be done with it? I have no idea what the commands should be but it seems likely there's a way to set it to read only even beyond root so that root would have to chown it before it can set the privileges to writable and actually do anything?
Maybe I am missing the exploit but that is what I got from it. A patch should not even be needed, really. It would be nice but it seems something easy enough to fix for the time being. It should not be more than one line in terminal, maybe two.
What is cute is all this effort to deflect from the problem with OS X. And you all are falling for it. Silly users...
Funding research is giving money out? Hmm... Not sure if intelligent.
Cows eat bugs and other stuff in their feed. They would probably eat hamburger if someone was strange enough to feed it to them mixed in with their food. Cows are not too bright, really. Well, none of the cows I have met were bright. I am kind of glad they are fenced in. Can you imagine them in the road? Moose and deer are bad enough. I have almost hit a cow in the road on a blind corner - I stopped and helped it back into it's yard and the owner took care of it from there.
I do not see any numbers but I do see a suspecting about men type of comment. I am glad I am retired. You all are nuts. As a business owner, and a fairly good sized place with offices in five locations, I'd have fired people from both ends of the spectrum. I'd have also fired anyone accused of sexual wrongdoing - immediately.
I shall pirate it immediately. If I remember I will report back.
Have you even read Margret Weiss and Tracy Hickman's work? The Dragonlance series was beautiful - it was exactly was it was meant to be. There is no fixing the books, they are perfect as they are. They are not meant to be gritty. They are meant to be lighthearted and unprovocative. They are meant to entertain - not enlighten. They are for entertainment and, on that end of the scale, they are exactly perfect. That you expected them to be something they were not meant to be is not the fault of the books.
Did they sell the figurines unpainted at all? I always figured that I would sell them unpainted as well as painted if I wanted to get the most out of it. Of course, 3D printing kind of negates that whole need.
As it is, I have managed to somehow avoid all figuring games and all card games. I just have never managed to find a way to get into them. I am a huge fan of table top though and I strictly limit myself to blank or graph paper maps of my own creation if I am the GM. I did have some hexagonal graph paper for a while. That got old.
I recorded some gaming sessions (back in the cassette tape days) in hopes of, someday, turning them into novels. I had a group that was that good - we could ad hoc our way into entirely unscripted sessions lasting days. They just did not translate well to paper (or a movie, I suspect) but I have always tended to blame that on me. Now that I think about it, I am not sure that I was the problem. While I have written since and some has been read by others, it still does not seem to lend itself to transcription in a readable format. Then again, as a script it might work.
I ain't getting on no teleport spell! I pity the fool that messes with Drow!
I think he wears too much metal to be a magic using Drow.
If I made the movie the soundtrack, during the initial credits/opening scene, would be nasal voices talking about Mountain Dew (I'd make them pay for the reference) and the lulling sound of many die being cast on a wooden table.
There is likely a reason I am not allowed to direct movies. It would be, however, by gamers and for gamers. And it would be appropriately bad because nobody would fund the special effects I would want. We'd be using cardboard cutouts while an off-camera narrator urged the audience to use their imagination. It would be awesome in a Down's Syndrome kind of way.
It might be nice to see a young Tim Burton do it. I think Kubrick might have done it justice if he could have gotten his head inside of it. Some method actors in it should be nice too. I expect a repeat of history. Not one of the two that I suggest is available.
I once had a party stomp through a small Drow enclave whereupon they took the chieftain's daughter, tossed her in the air, and pinned her to the door with a short sword. I had fun with that group.
Anyhow, ever play Marvel? Boot Hill was always fun for a short spell, also.