Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I agree (Score 1) 138

by Gareth Iwan Fairclough (#47544595) Attached to: The Army Is 3D Printing Warheads

Oh poppycock. It wasn't until well after the battle from second hand observations of the Germans boasting about how crappy the British shells were that it was known how bad they truly were. And if you believe during even a lengthy battle as this that it was determined that somehow Xlbs of concrete rather than Xlbs of AP shell would be better I've a bridge to sell you.

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is "gunners were seeing their shells were hitting but not doing anything, so they thought something along the lines of "Fuck it, lets use the concrete ones instead, they couldn't be any more useless than the normal ones!" and found out that they were rather more effective.

In a stand up fight, "smashing through armour with something that shouldn't be able to do that" beats "barely scratching armour with something that is supposed to get through" any day.

Comment: Re:I agree (Score 5, Interesting) 138

by Gareth Iwan Fairclough (#47535551) Attached to: The Army Is 3D Printing Warheads

How about ones that don't explode?

Oddly enough, training shells were used by desperate gunners during the battle of Jutland. The normal shells weren't penetrating the armour of the German ships, but the concrete filled training shells were punching right through, dealing surprisingly heavy damage.

Comment: Re:I'm curious (Score 1) 180

by Gareth Iwan Fairclough (#47526969) Attached to: "Magic Helmet" For F-35 Ready For Delivery

What was wrong with the F-22 that the F-35 was going to fix?

I am out of my element a bit here, but my understanding is that the F22 is an air superiority fighter only, whereas the F35 was supposed to be a multirole aircraft (air-to-air and air-to-ground) with (optional) VTOL features, (which no version of the F22 has) all in the same airframe. It was supposed to be the Windows 8 of fighter aircraft, a single airframe to take the place of a bunch of other craft.

...and apparently, it works about as well as you would expect of those types of solutions...

And, it was (giggle) supposed to (snerk) be (Bwaaaa haa haaa) affordable. Sorry, I can't say that with a straight face.

Pretty much. It has similarities to the relationship between the F-15 and F-16 development projects. One was built to do one thing, the other was built as a response to it when it started getting out of control. A kind of "Little and large" relationship. Though now the f35 has gotten out of control...sheesh :(

Comment: Re: user error (Score 1) 709

If you're British, you have a larger gallon. And you're driving a smaller diesel engine, as opposed to a larger gasoline engine for Dayze!Confused. And his car is 7 years older, which might also impact fuel efficiency (both by age and by technology level).

That, and we generally drive far shorter distances here in the UK. None of that "1000+ mile car journey" stuff over here!. I also have a ton of hills to worry about as well as a mountain right between where I live and where I work. The hills themselves wouldn't be an issue, but no-one around my home town seems to know just how a gearbox works. On the way up, they just put their foot right the way down and hope for the best, instead of dropping down a gear. On the way down, they'll keep it in uber high gear while practically sitting on the brakes and wondering why their brakes aren't working as well as they should (hint, "brake fade").

Comment: Bulbs? (Score 1) 278

by Gareth Iwan Fairclough (#47414003) Attached to: My most recent energy-saving bulbs last ...
Honestly, I've only ever had one and that was a freebie. That was 5 years ago and it works. I haven't bought any up until now simply because I already had a stack of the old fashioned filament bulbs to use up first and even then, they've been lasting 2-3 years before popping. At current usage rates, I won't have to buy any household bulbs for another decade or so, assuming there is no disaster that destroys the bulbs.

Comment: Re:Fear Mongers Didn't Want to Let Cassini Fly (Score 1) 45

by Gareth Iwan Fairclough (#47397829) Attached to: Cassini's Space Odyssey To Saturn

nonetheless and ignoring possible character flaws, does his calculation hold water? that's the only thing I'm interested in.

Considering that there was only 33KG or so of plutonium 238 in its RTG, I would say "hell no, no no no no no, never-in-a-million-years-absolutely-not" and I haven't even seen MKs calculations. That amount, even if the RTG broke open and scattered the Pu238 over a city, would be far to dilute to do any harm at all.

Comment: Re:Fear Mongers Didn't Want to Let Cassini Fly (Score 1) 45

by Gareth Iwan Fairclough (#47395791) Attached to: Cassini's Space Odyssey To Saturn

Now you mention it, no, I don't remember that. Maybe concerns were expressed and I didn't notice in the excitement and anticipation. Maybe those concerns weren't as widespread as you remember. In any case I don't think that should be the takeaway.

I do. It was incredibly big news at the time. I also recall similar protests about Galileo in the run up to that launch.

Comment: Re:Fear Mongers Didn't Want to Let Cassini Fly (Score 3, Interesting) 45

by Gareth Iwan Fairclough (#47395787) Attached to: Cassini's Space Odyssey To Saturn

Huh, I had overlooked the name when reading the article, just read right though to "some physics prof thinks NASA is wrong and it's actually super-dangerous". Didn't realize it was Michio Kaku, which is indeed surprising.

It wasn't surprising to me in all honesty. The man is very intelligent yes, but when it comes to nuclear energy he simply will not look at the facts. I've read a few books by him and every single one has had some mention of nuclear energy in it and all of those mentions could be paraphrased as "Nuclear fission reactors are bad and you would be bad for thinking they could ever possibly be good". In fact, I recall that he dedicated an entire book to that very message.

Comment: Re:Supply Chain (Score 1) 158

Good to know. I'm going to study that at university from this September. I suppose I should get in some classes programming etc while I'm there. Thanks!

My wife is in Supply Chain Management as an analyst, and here are some of the ares of IT that she feels would help her do her job better (and once the kids are in school she may have time to work on them).

Databases are by far the most important area of IT for someone working in SCM. Understand how database schemas work. Know basic optimization techniques; you probably won't need to implement it yourself but you may need to intelligently discuss this topic with your DBAs. Know the difference between OLAP and OLTP (and not just the definitions).

Simple programming knowledge will also help immensely. Sometimes you need to manipulate data in a way that your BI tools won't allow. The difference between an SCM analyst/planner that has full control over her data and one that doesn't is immense. You will often be fighting against intuitive solutions with data driven solutions, and usually that will be hard. So far my wife has had to rely on me when she needs something done and can't get developer resources assigned at work. Usually the result is a couple hours of work on my part to allow her to solve a problem that would have literally been impossible for a team of dozens without the use of custom code.

Okay, so either "learn some coding skills" or "get with a programmer" and I'll be good. Hah! Seriously though, thanks for the heads up. I'll probably be erring on the "get with a programmer" side of things due to my background in logistics from my time in military, a career where IT skills were...non-existent generally.

Though I did make a nice bit of cash on the side building and repairing PCs etc for people on the camp.

"Indecision is the basis of flexibility" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.

Working...