|
Pharmaskittle posted:Elysium. I don't remember exactly what, but the bad guy's getting blown up by a grenade or bomb going off in an enclosed space on a ship or something. It doesn't kill him, either.
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
I thought that plutonium was so loving toxic, that if you were to touch some you'd be dead before you could lift your finger off it. A guy in a Grateful Dead t shirt told me this so it must be true. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
No, you're thinking of dimethyl mercury. the action isn't actually that fast, but two drops on your skin will kill you within a couple days
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 21:09
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Olothreutes posted:I'm pretty sure you can get away with way less than that, but it depends on a number of factors. But 11 kg is an insanely large amount. I would expect you'd need 2-3 kg. It's so loving sense that an 11kg critical mass is only a 4" diameter sphere. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:Elysium. I don't remember exactly what, but the bad guy's getting blown up by a grenade or bomb going off in an enclosed space on a ship or something. It was a grenade that Matt Damon was carrying. The space ship gets flipped over, Damon drops the grenade and then you get that splatter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Olothreutes posted:I'm pretty sure you can get away with way less than that, but it depends on a number of factors. But 11 kg is an insanely large amount. I would expect you'd need 2-3 kg. If you're being economical with your Plutonium, you can get by with about 5kg, but then you need a heavy tamper (likely U238) and a levitated core, so that the core has more inertia holding it together during the actual fissioning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:It's so loving sense that an 11kg critical mass is only a 4" diameter sphere. I got it down to 10.036 kg, which has a radius of 4.945 cm, for a bare sphere. If I surround it with an infinite reflector I can get to 3.975 cm radius, which is 5.213 kg. These values are probably not 100% correct for reasons, but I'm not going to correct them. You should not try to eat a 10 cm diameter sphere of plutonium. Olothreutes fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Olothreutes posted:I got it down to 10.036 kg, which has a radius of 4.945 cm, for a bare sphere. If I surround it with an infinite reflector I can get to 3.975 cm radius, which is 5.213 kg. These values are probably not 100% correct for reasons, but I'm not going to correct them. Is this a Kerbal Space Program thread now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
That's hypnotic, wow. The way he presses with his arms it almost looks intentional. Well, maybe not the landing...
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Dillbag posted:
You forgot the companion GIF.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
wolrah posted:What would give you this idea? Parking brakes work equally well in both directions. In most vehicles they're just a cable-actuated drum brake (generally inside the rear discs) which works exactly the same as the rear brakes still to this day found on cheap cars. On a few higher-end vehicles where the rear disc doesn't have the space for this it's an additional cable-actuated caliper. Technically true, but with every rear-drum brake truck I've owned I can easily drive in reverse with the brake engaged but it there's enough stopping power to stall the motor going forward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Breakfast Feud posted:Technically true, but with every rear-drum brake truck I've owned I can easily drive in reverse with the brake engaged but it there's enough stopping power to stall the motor going forward. That's because the reverse gear typically has lower gearing (so the motor provides more torque) than even the first forwards gear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Breakfast Feud posted:Technically true, but with every rear-drum brake truck I've owned I can easily drive in reverse with the brake engaged but it there's enough stopping power to stall the motor going forward. I laughed at your ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Jabor posted:That's because the reverse gear typically has lower gearing (so the motor provides more torque) than even the first forwards gear. There was some movie where every single car was a crappy Yugo (this is probably redundant) and they all had to drive them backwards to go up hills. e: Apparently it was called Drowning Mona https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spkXO4-iQgE e:e: man i thought it was way older than 2000 a kitten fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Jabor posted:That's because the reverse gear typically has lower gearing (so the motor provides more torque) than even the first forwards gear. on top of that, the straight cut gear can take more load than the forward helical gears without messing up your gearbox
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Lime Tonics posted:
This thread moves fast so sorry for quoting pages back but this happened on the Burlington Skyway in 2014 (a bridge 200 ft over Lake Ontario)  Skyway crash: Judge finds truck driver guilty of dangerous driving
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:No, you're thinking of dimethyl mercury. Or your rubber glove in a few months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
(They are referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wetterhahn)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
HEY NONG MAN posted:Is this a Kerbal Space Program thread now? Kerbal Nuclear Weapons Program. (Don't tell anyone but the code to the PAL is "000000". (Thank God nobody in real life would ever do something that stupid.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Three-Phase posted:Kerbal Nuclear Weapons Program.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Three-Phase posted:Kerbal Nuclear Weapons Program. There's a game like that on Steam but I can't remember the name of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There's a game like that on Steam but I can't remember the name of it. "Bye Norway!" https://youtu.be/WNxHUfGc3gE "Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Tumblr of scotch posted:That's the kind of combination someone would have on their luggage! I'd make a note to change the combo on my luggage but TSA just kept the loving lock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There's a game like that on Steam but I can't remember the name of it. Children of a Dead Earth? It's like KSP but with "scientifically accurate" space combat. The upshot is that all the nuclear missile armed combat spacecraft look like cigars with big glowing radiators. E: a sample screen shot 
ATP_Power fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
xtal posted:This thread moves fast so sorry for quoting pages back but this happened on the Burlington Skyway in 2014 (a bridge 200 ft over Lake Ontario) that's my hometown! neat! I can't remember, is the skyway bridge the lift bridge going into Hamilton or is it that newer 6 lane one or whatever? the lift bridge was my favourite place to hang out as a kid until I got yelled at by the operator for trying to ride it up when a boat was coming. edit: looking closer at the picture I can see it's the latter bridge
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:From what I remember, Tex Grebner (the guy who shot himself) explained that he did it because he was using a different holster than he normally did. The SERPA he was using requires you to push the button and then pull up on the gun; if you pull up and then push the button, the gun stays locked. Tex was used to a holster with a different mechanism so he pulled, pushed, realized it wasn't coming out and tried to curl his index finger to get more leverage, and so as the gun came out his finger slipped and pulled the trigger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
More fun with nuclear weapons: That's from Eric Schlosser's recent New Yorker article, World War Three, By Mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
That's not entirely accurate. You can pay Microsoft arbitrarily lots of money to support a special snowflake version of an old OS. Its an option militaries and digital controls companies often take because of well developed risk analyses and justified because "well its an internal operating system, we don't need to worry about network vulnerabilities." Its like the same reason electronics used in state of the art military or control equipment have raw specs comparable to consumer PCs from 15-30 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
I would personally be a little horrified to find out military hardware was running an even newer version of Windows than my PC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
It's almost certainly Windows Embedded, and there's a zero percent chance the sub is publically visible on the internet. Nobody is installing internet explorer toolbars on a nuclear sub. It's also not at all shocking that specialized military equipment is running an older version of Windows than a modern home computer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
It's pretty shocking they're running Windows in the first place...
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
You trust the military to write its own operating system?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Rascar Capac posted:More fun with nuclear weapons: If a ZX81 could run a nuclear power station, Windows XP should be plenty powerful enough for a nuclear submarine. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Running industrial equipment takes preciously little computation force. Not crashing is key. Also functional programming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Ruby On Rails
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
This is Windows! I know this! *loads up mine sweeper*
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Running Windows in an industrial control environment is fine. Any suggestion that it is inadequate is just someone speaking from a lack of any real, practical experience. While I cannot say I like that the military is still running XP for things like their submarines, they likely have done a risk assessment and it is far from unlikely that this is an unsupported environment. These systems are unlikely to ever touch the Internet especially when they're below water.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
the russians will just drop some USB sticks in the car park by the docks when the submarines are in dock. someone will plug it into the sub.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
You are assuming that these systems have USB ports let alone any that servicemen will have access to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 18:49
|
|