vlehto

42 ms·

331.
by vlehto 11y ago
It's likely they are mostly students or enjoy some kind of disability benefit. You can tax their parents and give the students UBI. The sick will cost anyhow. Or you can exclude students from UBI, that's what you are doing now. I&
332.
by vlehto 11y ago
""Objective architecture", assessed by measurable effects instead of subjective whimsy, would revolutionise the profession." Agreed. It could also put money back to architecture. Let's say your company revenue of 70
333.
by vlehto 11y ago
Thanks for the info, I learned something. The trick usually in reinforcing is that you need to find two materials that have relatively equal heat expansion coefficient, while the fiber needs to be lot stiffer than the matrix. Luckily concre
334.
by vlehto 11y ago
"The rebar can rust, and the rust can cause the concrete to fracture." The rebar will only rust if the concrete PH is neutralized. (Cement is pretty strong base.) This neutralization happens when the concrete slowly reacts with ox
335.
by vlehto 11y ago
"quantize a dense signal, treat it as a hash table lookup, and reference a specific concept in their memory" Did you just describe a word in a foreign language? Let's take string of letters:" t e r v e - m a a n - a s u
336.
by vlehto 11y ago
85 ton B1 vs. 35 ton C130. It doesn't matter that much if you are going 720 knots or 320 knots if you get shot by BUK missile traveling 2000 knots. Both C-130 and B1 can fly above small caliber Anti-air artillery range and above MANPAD
337.
by vlehto 11y ago
Why not C130?
338.
by vlehto 11y ago
My personal bet for current 1st world lack of rapid economic growth is simply lack of demand. Not absolute lack, but people in the rich countries aren't hungry, cold, physically exhausted or sick. They aren't even close, most peop
339.
by vlehto 11y ago
I've been in construction and it's surprisingly common that one company tears street up for sewers and then patch it up. Then a week later, another subcontractor tears up the exact same spot for gas line repair. Both instances sch
340.
by vlehto 11y ago
You're referring to Nazies, so are you suggesting simply sterilization of "stupid" people? That gets you most bang for the buck and could have been done since 60's with ease.
341.
by vlehto 11y ago
...and at what price? In 2008 you could get 5 star luxury hotel with average price of 2600$/square meter. Seattle Central library costed 4922$/square meter. Even airport terminals and hospitals are usually cheaper. It's true
342.
by vlehto 11y ago
Yes you can use it. But F16 was still credible aerial superiority fighter against everybody in 2005. Mostly because of collapse of Soviet union, as there was a decade of low intensity R&D with everything except F-22. Now with latest SAM
343.
by vlehto 11y ago
Rocket engines are light. But rockets need lots of fuel. The problem is lifting all the fuel.
344.
by vlehto 11y ago
Biggest problem of rifling is that the "lands" wear down quickly. For a pistol it's probably good thing that it wears down before it has time to break in other ways. For tank gun, you can use some other, more accurate way to
345.
by vlehto 11y ago
What you're saying is correct for short term. I guess my point is that F35 service life is not goint to be four decades long, as it was for F16. It's too optimized for current threat enviroment, which is likely to change a lot in
346.
by vlehto 11y ago
That would be correct for ranges above 50km or for systems that we're first fielded in the 60's. With modern system at ranges below 50km you can get speed, identification and distance. But it all depends on weather, heat signature
347.
by vlehto 11y ago
Eurofighter and Superhornet first flew in mid 90's. Eurofighter has been shipped with PIRATE IRST since 2007. At the same time dudes started thinking about equipping Super Hornet with short range IRST. That option will be available som
348.
by vlehto 11y ago
I don't think any modern fighter yet has all aspect IRST. They are usually mounted above the nose and have somewhat limited field of vision. Current USAF tactic is probably to illuminate targets with AWACS and engage them from long ran
349.
by vlehto 11y ago
>No, you won't. First off, the primary source of heat in an aircraft is the aircraft's own power plant, not solar heating. Second, a mirror finish would be a beautiful target for radar. It would be a blinding "KILL ME!&quo
350.
by vlehto 11y ago
As soon as someone learns to detect F35 radar signal, more than half if it's stealth advantage melts away. So far U.S. has only made air-to-ground anti-radiation missiles, but the Russians have tried also air-to-air version. https:&#x
351.
by vlehto 11y ago
Slight increase in capital cost, should show as slower expansion to foreign markets. Self destructive rise of burger price is unlikely, as McDonalds executives are likely not idiots.
352.
by vlehto 11y ago
>a signal that a particular industry is morally unappealing to a society, so much so that it's days are numbered. So what you are saying that if Gates foundation stops investing in McDonalds, then in the long run people will stop ea
353.
by vlehto 11y ago
Two opposing countries launching ICBM war between them never happened either. But that didn't stop people pouring incredible amounts of money into it. Until certain saturation point was achieved. Military spending is not much determine
354.
by vlehto 11y ago
"Hence the guerilla side also loses its victory condition. This is a scenario I'd actually like to see, since it might put an effective end to the kind of fighting we've seen in the middle east." As a Finn, this is exact
355.
by vlehto 11y ago
It was simplification. But yes, the real shit hits the fan when infantry can be replaced with robotics. See "combined arms approach".
356.
by vlehto 11y ago
Yes I do. It's oversimplified scenario to drive home the principle. Money and perceived threat are big factors in the equation. But anyhow there is currently a limit on how much money you can throw at a Field army until you hit deeply
357.
by vlehto 11y ago
Currently anything "homing" is launched at a target by human. The fact that it can correct its course, does not make it "autonomous" in the sense of autonomous currently used. It's about differentiating kill decisio
358.
by vlehto 11y ago
Because any technological advance is going to be countered. Then at some point, we have drones killing drones. Currently military numbers are limited by manpower. And military units (like let's tanks) are to some degree limited by mone
359.
by vlehto 11y ago
Everything DoD says or does is partially American propaganda. (I say "propaganda", because "information war" is American propaganda.) And we are dealing with a U.S. hegemon. It all started with American revolutionary war
360.
by vlehto 11y ago
>We've had autonomous killing machines since WW2 What are you referring to? The only examples I know involve using animals to do the targeting. But all examples failed, as animals don't detect friend from foe. https:/&#x2

More ›