My late wife did undergraduate research in photosystem II where there was quantum effects back in 2002. She did her PhD thesis on proton coupled electron transfer (PCET) in soybean lipoxogenase, then had a long career developing models for Fortran code that did quantum simulation of proteins (she was behind Tagdock in Amber MD). This is nothing new; several biological systems have quantum effects that are central to their mechanism.
William Shatner is a classically trained Shakespearean actor who appeared in festivals and on Broadway prior to switching from stage to television. His TOS enunciation and emphasis is due mostly to his experience with radio performances (which were over the top verbally) combined with directors on TOS constantly telling him to increase the astonishment. And in reality, wasn't anywhere near as pervasive or dramatic as the pop culture version that pokes fun at Kirk.
That was 12 years ago. A 12 year out of date critique of a web technology that has had ongoing language updates and two entire rewrites in that interval should be viewed with some suspicion. Also, are you really just citing the title of the article and none of the content?
I'm not even defending PHP here, just questioning lazy kneejerk, "but it sucked once, so now I hate it forever" thinking.
I'll disagree a little bit: we have heavy lift rockets bringing mass to orbit at a greater rate than any time in history and new larger and more efficient rockets on the cusp of being brought to use, with next generations planned for the future. Space launch technology -- the actual raw launching of mass to orbit, where it can be useful -- has advanced. And mass to orbit means more fuel -- if we really wanted to get something out there faster.
And that's where our statements arrive at the same conclusion: there's little need to do anything but super efficient deep space probes. While I can quibble with your implied assertion about newer technology not making a difference in ability, in a practical sense given our funding of deep space research, the big tech upgrade has been to data collection devices and communication. We'll have to have way cheaper lift capability before extra fuel to cut time off a project makes any kind of sense. But it is now at least plausible as an option.
(Also, this appears to be the only thread that isn't making Trek or Aliens jokes)
alt.sexy.mad.man.murdock
While antivirus software pioneer John McAfee is in the media spotlight for his long-shot Libertarian presidential run...
I'm sorry, but if he's "in the spotlight" for his presidential run, it's pretty dim, maybe needs a new bulb.
That may be, but this is specifically a fighter plane. A plane designed to dogfight.
Wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, the F-35 is designed as a multirole aircraft: the F-22 is a pure air superiority fighter, but the F-35 is supposed to be able to look after itself in the air and hit ground targets too.
The "look after itself in the air" would seem to agree with my assertion that one of the metrics for which it was designed was aerial combat. I did not say there were not others. The F-35C adds carrier landing and storage. If it is really bad at that you can't excuse it away with, "but it's a multirole aircraft, so it should be judged only as a FB, even if it splits apart on deck when it catches a hook." For one thing, single flight planes get *really* expensive.
Sure it's a multirole aircraft. In fact, each type has a different focus. But one of the roles it is currently intended to fill *is* aerial combat. But I disagree that it will necessarily be bad at it forever. These airframes can sometimes see a lot of changes over their lifespans. And if it is, it still will likely be useful. Look at the B-1B conventional munitions conversion: aircraft do shift roles as needed.
What you're saying is it's a bad tool for dick measuring games like Russia with its bombers or Greece and Turkey with their US provided fighters play? Well that I agree, it might hurt the exports if F16s beat it at it.
And tsotha already answered but I believe it's worth repeating: it's not a fighter. It's a design-by-committee everything plane.
I didn't say it's a bad tool, and I don't think we really see the final iteration of the concept, so the problems today aren't what the problems with it will be in 15 years. They will be different and exciting new problems. But it'll likely serve well.
I almost dropped in the multipurpose/multibranch aspect, but I was addressing specifically the assertion that it is stupid to be judged as an aerial combat plane. It is an aerial combat plane by designation and it is designed to fill that role. As has been pointed out several times (which quite gratifies me; there are some smart folks here), it is a multirole aircraft that has the primary designation of fighter, but it certainly isn't *only* a fighter.
But it is indeed questionable to say aerial combat is *not* a role it is intended for. Multirole does not preclude the metric, it merely adds more criteria for the aircraft. The person to whom I was responding was saying that it was ridiculous to judge it's merit in that role. You might as well say that the F-35B should not be judged as a military craft as it has the role of a VTOL aircraft, so it's moot if it can carry munitions. Sure the F-35 series is also FB, but it *is* designed for an aerial combat role *as well*.
Variables don't; constants aren't.
