Technology

chrisd wrote:

TN4994 wrote:
Oh, before anyone trys it, study up on Murphy's Law and Finagle's Law of Dynamic Negatives.

And remember "O'Toole's Corollary" - "Murphy's a fekin' Optimist"

For some people, hitting the broad side of the barn is a bad thing. Especially when the rocket was aimed at the lake.

Please refrain saying thing like "If our leaders had to fight they wouldn't send us to war." It's stupid. First in the case of many states which you might mention they were/are democracies. France, Great Britain, USA, India ect. Those are just the biggest and yet they have all fought wars recently. So If people really hated wars so much and got dragged into them by cowardly leaders, you would think people wouldn't elect people who would go to war.

Also some politicians can claim former military service. I am unable to say how many serve in combat positions, but there are some who have. So disparaging there physical courage is inaccurate at least.


Finally out of the last ten US presidents one has died in office from being shot and another was shot while in office but survived. So being a US president has a 20 percent casualty rate, with half of the casualties being fatalities. Compared to Iraq(last war, not first) being a US president is more dangerous.


Edit: Also Indonesia

Highjohn wrote:Please refrain saying thing like "If our leaders had to fight they wouldn't send us to war." It's stupid. First in the case of many states which you might mention they were/are democracies. France, Great Britain, USA, India ect. Those are just the biggest and yet they have all fought wars recently. So If people really hated wars so much and got dragged into them by cowardly leaders, you would think people wouldn't elect people who would go to war.

Also some politicians can claim former military service. I am unable to say how many serve in combat positions, but there are some who have. So disparaging there physical courage is inaccurate at least.


Finally out of the last ten US presidents one has died in office from being shot and another was shot while in office but survived. So being a US president has a 20 percent casualty rate, with half of the casualties being fatalities. Compared to Iraq(last war, not first) being a US president is more dangerous.


Edit: Also Indonesia

Apples and oranges on the percentage.
Could say that we've had 57 presidential terms beginning April 1789 (omitting the first six before Washington). 4 assassinated, 2 survived attempted assassinations.
Let's say that's roughly 10%.
But, the President is one politician. How many US politicians have been assassinated or wounded while holding office?
I'm not calling anyone a coward. Just saying I don't like your statistics.
Also, research the military experience of US Supreme Court Justices 1918. This was the court that ruled the draft constitutional.

TN4994
So you won't let Highjohn count only the last ten presidents but it's OK for you to refer only to the 9 Supreme Court Justices who were in office in 1918? Same problem in both situations though, isn't it?

Randomiser wrote:TN4994
So you won't let Highjohn count only the last ten presidents but it's OK for you to refer only to the 9 Supreme Court Justices who were in office in 1918? Same problem in both situations though, isn't it?

Apples and Oranges again.
The reason for only considering the 9 justices in 1918, is that they are the ones that ruled the draft unconstitutional, so he was including the entire set of relevant justices, just as he was with presidents since the establishment of the Constitution.

TN4994 wrote:For those DIY's, a 2 meter long metal tube with an inside diameter of approximately 20 centimeters, makes a dandy fuselage for a glide rocket. You can finagle the material used, skin thickness, wing location and length, as well as the rear stabilizer and launch rig.
No need for liquid fuels such as hydrogen. Fertilizer mixed with a few other ingredients makes a good dry solid propellant.
Kids: Rocket Launches are cool, and should only be done under the supervision of a rational adult.
Which is why I have to sneak off into the unoccupied section of the county.
Oh, before anyone trys it, study up on Murphy's Law and Finagle's Law of Dynamic Negatives.

This sounds like fun, but it also sounds very much like a P-B (and I don't mean peanut butter) and likely to attract the attention of Dumb Housing Sh*ts (if you know what I mean).

fallsfromtrees wrote:

Randomiser wrote:TN4994
So you won't let Highjohn count only the last ten presidents but it's OK for you to refer only to the 9 Supreme Court Justices who were in office in 1918? Same problem in both situations though, isn't it?

Apples and Oranges again.
The reason for only considering the 9 justices in 1918, is that they are the ones that ruled the draft unconstitutional, so he was including the entire set of relevant justices, just as he was with presidents since the establishment of the Constitution.

Hee, hee.
Question: Should people in power, of elite privilege, make legal, a law of military conscription, without having served in a combat role?
Basically they said the 13th amendment clause on indentured servitude didn't apply to the military services. Back then they couldn't envision an all-volunteer force. When we had draft boards, look at how discriminatory they were.

Keith_w wrote:

TN4994 wrote:For those DIY's, a 2 meter long metal tube with an inside diameter of approximately 20 centimeters, makes a dandy fuselage for a glide rocket. You can finagle the material used, skin thickness, wing location and length, as well as the rear stabilizer and launch rig.
No need for liquid fuels such as hydrogen. Fertilizer mixed with a few other ingredients makes a good dry solid propellant.
Kids: Rocket Launches are cool, and should only be done under the supervision of a rational adult.
Which is why I have to sneak off into the unoccupied section of the county.
Oh, before anyone trys it, study up on Murphy's Law and Finagle's Law of Dynamic Negatives.

This sounds like fun, but it also sounds very much like a P-B (and I don't mean peanut butter) and likely to attract the attention of Dumb Housing Sh*ts (if you know what I mean).

You got me on the P-B.
The DHS, yep. That's why we go out to Mike's ranch once a month. Had the US Forest Service swoop in on a Helicopter last April. Invited them for the May experience. Gave them the rules about after-launch barbecue, and the trailers for us ale drinkers. It also helps to have a county mountie as a safety checker. "Everyone step behind the line." He won't let us convert Mike's sand-buggy into a Mad-Max skimmer.

Going back to technology.
What about multi barreled cannons for ships? Similar to design used in French tanks after II world War?
What about creating Zeppelins as bombers and to transport very fast a lot of troops? Similar to fleet of Herculeses and Galexies maintained by US Air Force?

Draken wrote:Going back to technology.
What about multi barreled cannons for ships? Similar to design used in French tanks after II world War?
What about creating Zeppelins as bombers and to transport very fast a lot of troops? Similar to fleet of Herculeses and Galexies maintained by US Air Force?

Multi-barreled cannon? Like on the second Pirates of the Caribbean? or one massive gun with several barrels on it like a giant revolver? Either way, no. A multi-barreled cannon would be way to heavy for any ship to carry, let alone use. Issues with weight and balancing on the ship, and recoil.

Zeppelins; no. No one on Safehold, no one, has -any- experience in lighter than air flight. It is literally beyond the industrial capacity of any nation to build a zeppelin. It would require advances in metallurgy yet ahead of Charis's current foundries and the development if the internal combustion engine (diesel, gas, kerosene, they would all likely need to use electricity for quick starts to be effective) and there is no way you can make a steam engine small and light enough to put out the required horse/dragonpower and still have the zeppelin be light enough to fly with a cargo. This is after counting in the engine, cooling equipment so it doesn't set the hydrogen gas bags on fire (I don't see any chance they'd be using helium), water tanks, fuel tanks plus the flight controls and other controls, crew quarters and cargo bays and such.