|
Arglebargle III posted:Chinese friends have also been confused about why the Chinese and Russian space capsules were identical (copied) in Gravity and thought eenie-meenie-minie-mo was a racist slur so idk. To be fair, there are a few examples of racial slurs in children's rhymes.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
computer parts posted:To be fair, there are a few examples of racial slurs in children's rhymes. Yeah, the version of enny-meeny I heard was definitely not something you'd sing at a MLK memorial. Arglebargle III posted:Chinese friends have also been confused about why the Chinese and Russian space capsules were identical (copied) in Gravity and thought eenie-meenie-minie-mo was a racist slur so idk. From AK-47s to tanks to iPods, the PRC has a tendency to plagarise, copy and otherwise ripoff. It's either a nod to that or the director couldn't be bothered with additional props.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
^^^ That part of Gravity was actually true to life. The Chinese Shenzhou capsule is based off the Russian Soyuz, so it stands to reason that they would look very similar. After all, what better way to jump start your fledgling space program than to just use a design thats worked fine for the past ~30 years. I think it was all done legit too, in the sense that it was part of a technology transfer deal. ManifunkDestiny posted:Just like other great powers Thailand and Italy I knew about Italy, but today I learned Thailand has an aircraft carrier. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Chinese friends have also been confused about why the Chinese and Russian space capsules were identical (copied) in Gravity and thought eenie-meenie-minie-mo was a racist slur so idk. Eenie-meenie-minie-mo was a racist slur. When you say it, what are you "catching by the toe"? This was initially racist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:^^^ That part of Gravity was actually true to life. The Chinese Shenzhou capsule is based off the Russian Soyuz, so it stands to reason that they would look very similar. After all, what better way to jump start your fledgling space program than to just use a design thats worked fine for the past ~30 years. I think it was all done legit too, in the sense that it was part of a technology transfer deal. China bought some Soyuz stuff and then designed the Shenzhou off it, basically. They are different but at a glance you'd never know. The Shenzhou is larger. It's closer than the Shuttle/Buran, which again, you'd be forgiven for not being able to tell apart immediately even though there were a lot of differences. The Shenzhou is just a marginally larger Soyuz. Like you say, it was a good idea. The Soyuz is the most reliable manned spacecraft around so it's the best thing to copy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Great powers have ships they can land aircraft on. Have they been able to do anything with the carrier besides sail it around their local waters for a bit before docking to make sure it doesn't sink?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Chinese friends have also been confused about why the Chinese and Russian space capsules were identical (copied) in Gravity and thought eenie-meenie-minie-mo was a racist slur so idk. You have friends who are aware of western racist concepts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:China bought some Soyuz stuff and then designed the Shenzhou off it, basically. They are different but at a glance you'd never know. The Shenzhou is larger. Why do the Russians keep on selling stuff to the Chinese when the Chinese just reverse engineer it and then stop buying it from Russia? pentyne posted:Have they been able to do anything with the carrier besides sail it around their local waters for a bit before docking to make sure it doesn't sink? They've taken pictures of it and shown the pictures to people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Why do the Russians keep on selling stuff to the Chinese when the Chinese just reverse engineer it and then stop buying it from Russia? I'm pretty sure the Shenzhou program isn't like the SU-33, where they bought a Sukhoi and secretly reverse engineered it. If I recall, all/most of this was legit and part of a technology transfer deal where the Russians helped the Chinese built their own capsule based off the Soyuz technology. On a completely different note, it stands to reason that given the resources being poured into China's blue water fleet, their aircraft carrier is probably in good condition and in constant use, and not like the Thai-carrier, which apparently sits around in dock rusting 364 days out of the year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Good condition relative to what? I mean yes, it's actually being brought out of port and sailed around which is more than some other countries can say about their carriers, but the impression I've always gotten from the Chinese navy is that it's made up of old stuff and the crews aren't particularly well trained. I remember someone in GiP got to see a Chinese ship up close and the instruments and whatnot were from like the 60's, there were loads of safety violations, and the crew didn't seem to care about anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Good condition relative to what? I mean yes, it's actually being brought out of port and sailed around which is more than some other countries can say about their carriers, but the impression I've always gotten from the Chinese navy is that it's made up of old stuff and the crews aren't particularly well trained. I remember someone in GiP got to see a Chinese ship up close and the instruments and whatnot were from like the 60's, there were loads of safety violations, and the crew didn't seem to care about anything. This isnt some destroyer from the 60s though. The ship itself was launched in 1988, which makes it relatively young. Hell, we just retired the Enterprise, and that thing was built in 1958. Edit3: The frickin' Hermes, the one from the Falklands war in 82, that was built during WW2, and is STILL in use. Its been completely rebuilt, and the focus of the PLAN fleet, since theyre using it to test systems for a domestic carrier. Its probably top of the line, or as full of modern tech as you can get in China- with probably loads of safety violations still because china. Edit: because its a test platform, it doesn't make sense for China to completely rebuild it with obsolete technology. Nor does it make sense to put illiterate sailors on it. You wouldn't assign someone fresh out of Flight school to be a test pilot for your new aircraft prototypes. Same thing here. Edit2: The planes are so drat new, they havent even been painted yet-  Edit4: This is a J-15, a clone of the SU-33. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:You have friends who are aware of western racist concepts? Sorry I have cooler Chinese friends than you. We mostly talk about movies history and politics. And I was laughing at people who didn't know shenzhen was a copy and then some dnd goon comes in and betrays his ignorance so who cares.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:This isnt some destroyer from the 60s though. The ship itself was launched in 1988, which makes it relatively young. Hell, we just retired the Enterprise, and that thing was built in 1958. Pretty sure that's an export Russian fighter or a copy of one. Home brew Chinese fighters are delta wing with canards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
I don't think China's focus is on the development of a blue water navy though, is it? I was under the impression that they were more vested in green water strategies. I may be confused about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Sogol posted:I don't think China's focus is on the development of a blue water navy though, is it? I was under the impression that they were more vested in green water strategies. I may be confused about that. They are most definitely interested in the development of a blue water navy. You don't need Aircraft carriers for coastal defense. There have been numerous articles in the People's Daily that talks about Chinese naval ambitions- http://media.people.com.cn/GB/40606/12606109.html http://pic.people.com.cn/GB/162940/162941/10326912.html And so forth. Even if we write them off as bluster and propaganda, seeing as they're coming from a state mouthpiece, look at what they're actually doing - 1. They've sent a mission to patrol off Somalia. Their first since like the 1400s. 2. Carrier(s). A carrier is for force projection. 3. Buildups of larger and larger frigates/destroyers, etc. The naval building plan focuses on large vessels for extended missions. 4. New support ships. If you have a task force, you need replenishment vessels, oilers, and the like. 5. A reason - A coastal defense force doesn't have the capability to deal with issues in the Malacca strait or the South China Sea (spratlys, etc), or with Japan, who has aircraft carriers (sorta). It wont be a force capable of taking on the US for quite a long time, but within a few years, they'll be capable of dealing with the South East Asian countries, which is why you see them all flippin' out and pivoting towards the US. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Sogol posted:I don't think China's focus is on the development of a blue water navy though, is it? I was under the impression that they were more vested in green water strategies. I may be confused about that. If they don't at least have an eye towards building a blue water navy, then they are absolutely retarded. Saint Celestine posted:I'm pretty sure the Shenzhou program isn't like the SU-33, where they bought a Sukhoi and secretly reverse engineered it. If I recall, all/most of this was legit and part of a technology transfer deal where the Russians helped the Chinese built their own capsule based off the Soyuz technology. Russia was probably ready to go along with it for the money and because bolstering China helps balance out the US in terms of a multi-polar world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
It isn't really "balancing out the US" if China needs to be propped up by old Soviet tech.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It isn't really "balancing out the US" if China needs to be propped up by old Soviet tech. Why not? It's not just a sale and then buh-bye. It's a tech transfer situation where China in legally able to continue developing the technology probably with the assistance of Russia. You can see a day down the line where China takes of the training wheels and bikes off on their own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Why not? It's not just a sale and then buh-bye. It's a tech transfer situation where China in legally able to continue developing the technology probably with the assistance of Russia. You can see a day down the line where China takes of the training wheels and bikes off on their own. Its also the case where the Soyuz is a tried and tested way of getting to and from LEO. Why spend billions on developing a new system when you can just buy a working design from the Russians? You get something that you know works, you do it faster, and for way cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Because you gain things from developing your own tech that you don't get by buying it/reverse engineering it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
I think the idea is to steal all the tech everyone else has then develop new tech your self.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
With a scientific and technical base that doen't really exist because you never had to use it. Creating new technology and pushing the envelope is vastly different from understanding how to use other people's tech.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Because you gain things from developing your own tech that you don't get by buying it/reverse engineering it. It costs so much money and time to be an early adopter of new technology. What China did made perfect sense. They didn't have a manned space program at all. Its a much faster and cheaper path to use something that works, then expanding and modifying upon that. Every company/state does this. Look at when the Soviets needed a strategic bomber. They straight up copied our B-29, and using the technological knowledge and know-how gleaned from it, then they went on to build their own. Hell, Tupolev wanted to improve upon the design and was forbidden to. Its a much faster and cheaper way of building your scientific/technical base and know how then ignoring what works and going your own way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Because you gain things from developing your own tech that you don't get by buying it/reverse engineering it. You know that we stole a massive amount of British technology right? As in we were giving out bounties for engineers to defect during the 1800's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
It's a brilliant way to build up a powerful military (as an example) very quickly: Copy what works. That's the only sensible thing a country like China can do. Not everyone wants to be like the US, where we'll spend a buttload of money to get technology that's marginally better than what we made ten to twenty years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Pretty much every country in the world either buys or steals tech, developing your own is very much the preserve of the rich and desperate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Mineaiki posted:It's a brilliant way to build up a powerful military (as an example) very quickly: Copy what works. That's the only sensible thing a country like China can do. Not everyone wants to be like the US, where we'll spend a buttload of money to get technology that's marginally better than what we made ten to twenty years ago. Sometimes not even better! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Pretty much every country in the world either buys or steals tech, developing your own is very much the preserve of the rich and desperate. Well come on if everybody did that nothing would get invented.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Yeah, if anything I could see China come to a hard limit if they run out of technology to appropriate. For example, their space program is pretty much following in the footsteps of the Soviets but the Soviets ultimately only went so far with their program. I wouldn't be surprised if much of the original instrumentation of Vayrag is still in there and from the outlook of an present-day American late 80s Soviet technology probably does look pretty out of date. I think the Chinese are hoping for a blue water navy at some point but there is a lot of obstacles in their path beyond just the US Navy. They don't have pretty much not have any experience in running on, and regional navies are arming themselves at the same time. No one really talks about it but recently built Japanese "helicopter destroyers" are more or less the size and profile of light carries and they have 3 of them at this point with more planned. In addition, the Russians have been arming Vietnam, and Taiwan still has a fairly potent force. In addition, South Korea has been considerably expanding their navy. Also, relying so extensively on foreign technology is going to hurt your ability to invent new technology in the future. The infrastructure and education isn't going to be devoted in the same way as a country developing technology from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
The space trade is never going to take off until someone builds a moon elevator, basically. The energy requirements of exit velocity are too high for us to send much up there.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
That's why the smart money is on getting your materials from space rather than shipping it up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, if anything I could see China come to a hard limit if they run out of technology to appropriate. For example, their space program is pretty much following in the footsteps of the Soviets but the Soviets ultimately only went so far with their program. You have to think that the only two countries with extensive experience in carrier operations are the US and Japan, both of which battered each other and learned during the hard lessons of WWII. That was decades ago, and it's going to be that much harder for China to catch up with all the knowledge from shipbuilding and design down to an operations level. The Russians themselves despite being a superpower never had a navy that could rival the US. All this of course is assuming that the US doesn't just collapse and retire from the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Well come on if everybody did that nothing would get invented. Everyone does it but not for everything necessarily. That's how diffusion works, you see how some other guy did something and you see if you can do it better or build upon it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Put a baby in a cave and give him no outside ideas to steal from, let him develop all of his own science. He will be the greatest mind in the world with all that experience developing his own stuff rather than just learning from others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:You have to think that the only two countries with extensive experience in carrier operations are the US and Japan, both of which battered each other and learned during the hard lessons of WWII. That was decades ago, and it's going to be that much harder for China to catch up with all the knowledge from shipbuilding and design down to an operations level. The Japanese have gently caress all institutional knowledge of carrier warfare since the Imperial Navy got dismantled 70 years ago, and if events like the Forrestal fire and the F-35 debacle are any indication the US isn't too far behind in institutional rot. The British Navy ruled the waves in the 1800s but Jutland and the Prince of Wales proved that having an active navy during peacetime only helps so much against knowledge decay. Basically it's a ~brave new world~ as far as actual, existential-threat-unconditional-warfare-war-of-annihilation is concerned, as opposed to kicking over third world sandcastles and declaring victory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:I knew about Italy, but today I learned Thailand has an aircraft carrier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTMS_Chakri_Naruebet
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:The Japanese have gently caress all institutional knowledge of carrier warfare since the Imperial Navy got dismantled 70 years ago, and if events like the Forrestal fire and the F-35 debacle are any indication the US isn't too far behind in institutional rot. The British Navy ruled the waves in the 1800s but Jutland and the Prince of Wales proved that having an active navy during peacetime only helps so much against knowledge decay. I'm pretty sure the latter is all China really cares about anyway. For the former that's why they (or anyone) have nukes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:The Japanese have gently caress all institutional knowledge of carrier warfare since the Imperial Navy got dismantled 70 years ago, and if events like the Forrestal fire and the F-35 debacle are any indication the US isn't too far behind in institutional rot. The British Navy ruled the waves in the 1800s but Jutland and the Prince of Wales proved that having an active navy during peacetime only helps so much against knowledge decay. Yeah, the USN has been continually running carriers since the 1920s. To pretend the US is starting from square one is just ridiculous especially since those carriers have actually been used for some type military operation period. Japan doesn't have any real experience with carriers, lets not pretend the Japanese Marine Self-Defense forces are a glorified coast guard or Japan is out picture here. China has a Soviet relic that is mostly being used for training. It isn't a serious threat, and regional navies are paying close attention. If anything China is already being contained from all sides and it is rather doubtful they can put together the type of funds that are going to be necessary to challenge the entire region and the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
It is a good point that Japan is the only other power that saw extensive use of carriers, however long ago that may have been. Japan does also have the benefit of training from the U.S. military. That the guys who were second-best before are now under the wing of the guys who were and are the best isn't something we should really ignore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
Mineaiki posted:It is a good point that Japan is the only other power that saw extensive use of carriers, however long ago that may have been. Japan does also have the benefit of training from the U.S. military. That the guys who were second-best before are now under the wing of the guys who were and are the best isn't something we should really ignore. I strongly suspect the Chinese carriers aren't actually there to fight Japan. They have IRBMs for that. It does, however, let China toodle over to Africa and punch people they really don't like, which adds that stick to their toolbox of diplomacy there. Also, it lets them troll the absolute poo poo out of the US military-industrial complex, which flips out and demands a trillion more dollars whenever China invents anything that might have military applications, from spaceflight to carriers to jet engines to shovels. Whether this is a good thing for anyone long-term is up in the air.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:51
|
|
