Re: The Problem
Or they will simply not sell you a tractor but you can only subscribe to your tractor for a monthly fee and then pay monthly service fees for it. The fee may also be subject to surge pricing at harvest time.
26124 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Dec 2009
That is pretty much the defn of 'law'.
Hey my Royal Society hommies.
It really looks like two massive objects attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely with the square of the distance between them. I think it should be my law.
My Newton why are you talking like that? This is the 18th century ?
I'm hoping that somebody writes a best selling musical about my fights with Leibnitz and I want it to be hip with da yoof.
>You'll have to explain how the F-35 would survive the exact same threat?
>Time to put the Fairey Swordfish back in production?
Surely the Supermarine seaplane would be better?
Then when it falls off the aircraft carrier it will at least float.
In fact you wouldn't need an aircraft carrier - just some sort of yacht with a floating wardroom and some sort of tender with aviation fuel, stocks of bombs and the necessary grubby mechanics
>Predominently Chinese businesses have come out of nowhere, and buy up everything on a speculative whim.
Those damn Chinese capitalists. If only the socialist banks, hedge funds and investors in the west had the profit motive, organization experience and access to cheap capital to allow them to do this
And yet somehow are incredibly expensive Das Keyboard
There is an army dept in an office block next to me. It is obviously some sort of administration dept rather than running-shooting-killing dept.
However they do have to wear boots and uniforms while queuing at Starbucks. They are also of a physique which suggests the typical Texan rather than the Special Forces
Conclusion:
1, Somewhere in the DoD is a supply of camo trousers with a 56inch waist
2, If they ever were to be deployed their camo wouldn't really conceal them - a forest might not be enough
3, They are unlikely to strike terror into the Russian army
>could manufacture a single -- quantity one -- aircraft qualified toilet seat for some ridiculous price. ($3000?)
Even without military certification (was this made entirely in the USA by US owned companies, with a certain percentage being veteran owned and all following federal labor guidelines) and aviation certification (did 10 engineers sign off that this part is only a toilet seat and can't emit RF that could trigger the nuclear bomb in bay next to )
It's incredibly expensive to design and tool a single replacement part for some 50 year old bit of kit.
How much would it cost you to make a windscreen for a 1972 Vauxhall Viva from scratch? Probably more than $3000 !
>But the basic issue here is that DoD desk wallahs' desks aren't going to be suddenly deployed to the field
So if the whole DoD wasn't a socialist conspiracy to provide jobs for life, free college education, and free healthcare to the unemployable you could contract-out all the non running-shooting-killing part to civies ?
On the other hand.
You are a lowly paid academic.
You volunteer to go to the big city to provide expertise for free that would cost $$$$ if they had to pay.
You sit in a meeting with a bunch of consultants/lawyers/PR who are being paid $$$$
And then they nickel and time you on the coffee from the station
My prof once did this.
Went to London for some gov dept meeting and got a burger at the station. Claim denied since there had been refreshments provided (tea and biccies).
So he refused to sign off on the official report.
Eventually 2 civil servants were dispatched to our swampy outpost to reason with him. They made the mistake of saying how they had traveled first class .....
I had one and a visit to a very remote site in a foreign country. Card readers were out at the local town so I persuaded the only bank branch to give me a cash advance.
Caught a huge amount of shit for it.
OK my new policy is either a manager comes with me and pays for everything or the next time I have a problem with the official process I abandon the $M of kit I have with me and come home.
>We need a Manhattan project for a working commercial fusion reactor and should have started about 10 years ago.
We sort of did with ITER. But that was more like asking the USAF, the Royal Navy the USMC and the French resistance to all design the bits of the bomb they wanted and come together to deliver it at the target
>I think the problem was that the FAA naively let Boeing self approve the MAX and more.
No the FAA has to let Boeing self approve the MAX - they are the only ones that know how it works.
The FAA aren't like the teacher with the "correct" answers in the back.
What they failed on was not pushing Boeing's risk assesments. If you have a critical component you have to consider what happens when it fails, and the various modes that it can fail in, and what sort of redundancies are needed. And all that has to be documented.
This is what the FAA failed to do. You don't need to be an expert on the 737-MAX, or even on aviation, to know to ask these sort of questions !
The problem is that the FAA wasn't just rubber stamping Boeing's approval it was rubber stamping Boeing's auditing of it's own approvals
Those are politician-driven projects, full of power struggles, pork barrels and general incompetence.
While this was designed sub-contracted to the usual pork-barrelled defence contractors, down-scoped, budget reduced, re-scoped, cancelled, restored, sub-contracted, launch vehicles (payload size G forces) changed because of politics etc etc