 | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
|
Very interesting discussion everyone. In my opinion, MBT's will always have the advantage over powersuits in terms of cross country mobility, firepower and protection. There are a few situations where a single man powersuit would have significant (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
|
(...) I don't know jack about real-world tank design and specifications, and haven't given much thought to potential powersuit concepts, but this has been a very cool discussion to read all day. I certainly see a place for tanks in the future, as (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
|
(...) I used to think that bipedal war machines had absolutely no advantages over their tank-al equivalents beyond "wow" factor (and face it, getting your enemy to say, "wow, that's cool that they can do that," just before he blows you to kingdom (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
|
(...) That entirely depends on what technology you want to speculate on. Power armor would require an incredibly powerful and small power source. I suppose that is a given if you are saying that power armor would exist. The problem with power armor (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
|
(...) In the storyline I've been "working up" for twenty years now (!!), in fact, I do use both. Part of the reason is that I tend to think that bipedal combat machines would have to develop very high levels of flexibility and survivability before (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
|
(...) Another thought is maintainability and cost. Consider that WWII Germany was able to produce several tank destroyers for the cost of a single tank, simply because the expense of the turret went away. As the end of WWII approached and money (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
|
(...) Those are all powerful advantages but I think that tanks are more efficient at providing an armored and enclosed area because they're closer to a spherical shape than a power suit, and because they get mass fraction advantages. Anecdotally: (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
|
(...) I think so. Since a tank (I'm talking about real life MBTs, not hovertanks) is firmly situated on the ground, it is a more stable firing platform. Also, even if powersuits are eventually developed, I doubt that they will be able to carry the (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
|
(...) I think tanks will still remain useful as siege weapons, spearheading assaults, and general heavy battle. Power armor might be very useful for surgical strikes, and urban warfare. But in an open field, or over long distance, I think tanks will (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Tanks or Power Armor
|
|
Hello everyone. I was checking out (URL) Ryan Wood's Jade Empire Hong Hovertank post> and he mentions that we have seen little in ground combat vehicles other than (URL) power suit>. That got me thinking, when you have Power Suits available, should (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
(...) You play with LEGO bricks. You openly admit it. You even joined an online community to bask in the brickiness of it all. You've got the Geek gene. Now, your gene might be smaller and more selective than those of others here, but it still (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
(...) Recursively speaking. I saved this reply so I could enjoy it all over again. See, by ignoring this post, thus savoring the experience, I held off in replying so I could cherish the moment. Until I was ready to pop-stack. THEN, I look over and (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Attention all RSS geeks!
|
|
(...) I've become convinced that Atom might be a better solution. If only because it has better mechanisms to ensure that entries are identified uniquely, and support for meta information about authors, etc. (...) If we're using RSS, using a custom (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.general, lugnet.fun.community, lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.org)
|
| |
| | Attention all RSS geeks!
|
|
Call for technical participation in a proposal for LEGO enthusiast content sharing. BACKGROUND: I've been working on a project for a couple of months that extends the RSS spec to encompass envisioned needs of specific communities, specifically (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.general, lugnet.fun.community, lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.org, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
(...) True. There's always the square equivalent where you cut into nine and remove the centre square. Sorry, back up. That's just too weird to contemplate. Cutting a slice of bread into ninths, not quarters? I mean, even the triangularists still (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
(...) The easiest way to divide up a bottle of liquid would be to use the spirit measure, though this is not recursive: Repeat Attach measure to bottle Repeat pour drink drink Until bottle empty Seek another bottle Until too drunk to lift glass not (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
(...) Hey thanks Todd, I think. To be honest I just found the whole thing so funny because I can honestly say, none of my non-Afol friends can manage to spell "recursively" after a night of drinking never mind have a working theory around it based (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
(...) Heh heh, ok, lemme see if I can give it a non-geeky explanation... Instead of eating your french toast by carving out roughly equal-sized small pieces one at a time, do this: Cut the toast in half and consider each half a new piece of toast. (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
(...) snipped You know, I think I may take this as proof that I am missing the GEEK gene, as I heard the discussion first hand, and now I'm reading it again..... and STILL the *ONLY* part I understand is "copious amount of liquor." On a side note, (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Todd Lehman wrote: snip (...) And what makes this even more impressive is that earlier in the evening, Todd gave every impression of a man so tired he couldn't hit the ground two tries out of three (although I know a (URL) (...) (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
(...) I feel privaleged to be present when this important algorithm was created. But, I am not so sure that Todd's very important contribution into the consumption of food and to the further appreciation of the culinary delights is really as limited (...) (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
(...) Well let's just say it was a thinking and reflecting kind of evening. --Todd (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Todd Lehman wrote: <snip> (...) <more snip> (...) It may be sound in theory, but I think you need to recheck your math a bit... (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
On 02:13 16-08-04, Todd Lehman wrote (...) <MUCH GEEKAGE SNIPPED> (...) Me thinks someone was over thinking this a bit too much.... excellent geek analysis... Note that this algorithm doesn't apply well to liquids in bottles or (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
(...) Get some sleep! :-) -->Bruce<-- (now I'm going to have make French Toast in the morning...) (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
|
Last night at IHOP, after copious amounts of beer at Rocklands, a few of us were talking about how we cut our food up into differently-sized portions during the eating process, and I realized that an algorithm exists for maximizing the total (...) (20 years ago, 16-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.events.brickfest, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad Ventura goes to Brickfest
|
|
(...) Oops, my bad. I sent it to the email address listed by the "From" in your post. I guess that means that your t[IAddedThisAgainToA...tule.qc.ca address isn't working though. (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Try to think of the glass as half full. (was: Re: Indiana Jones extends his vacation)
|
|
(...) Bruce & Lindsay, Thanks much for this great laugh on a dreary afternoon. :-D -Andrew (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Pac-Man Wedding Cake Topper
|
|
(...) Oooo! Check out the "marriage" versions of the figures-- looks like they once came in 'tux' and 'gown' form: (URL) luck finding them, but hey, that'd be pretty cool! DaveE (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Pac-Man Wedding Cake Topper
|
|
(...) I received a "not amused" glare when I suggested that very idea, but I appreciate the support! (...) than trying a futile search for a non-existent topper. Thanks! Dave! (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Pac-Man Wedding Cake Topper
|
|
(...) Wouldn't the easiest thing be to just take out a slice of cake? :) Failing that, it looks like there's a couple figures on Ebay: (URL) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Pac-Man Wedding Cake Topper
|
|
I have a friend who'd like to have a Pac-Man cake topper on her wedding cake, ideally in the form of a sculpture of Mr. and Ms. Pac-Man, perhaps with a love-you heart of some kind. Any suggestions? These aren't LEGO-savvy people, so a LEGO-based (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) Embarassing? No. Regrettable, perhaps. But please do bear with us. This one thread is messier than one might like, yes, but hopefully overall future admin activity will be the better for it. As for ObNASA's I did consider including some but (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
Don't you think it is a little embarassing that the thread is now 75% administration Lar? I pushed "nested inline" in the expectation of lots of juicy NASA stuff. You didn't even include an "ob NASA" anywhere. :( You must go back N levels to (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Legged Robots
|
|
(...) Leonard, I found the article on robotic leg motion very interesting. I hope to find time to play with springy legs in the near future. Kevin (URL) (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.robotics, lugnet.technic, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) Shuttle = great idea in 1972, ridiculous albatross in 2004. You're undoubtedly right about the $4.3B being spent before a single SRB is lit. What really bugs me is the systematic way they're trying to kill all manned spaceflight by unfunding (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) It's not over yet. Look at House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's comments in these articles: (2 URLs) He's quoted as calling the proposed NASA budget cuts as "unacceptable" and followed that by saying, "It would be very hard to get this bill to (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Legged Robots
|
|
(...) Not to disparage the results of his studies, but that has got to be the funniest thing I've heard in months. On the surface, I can see that it's a valid source of robotics research, but if I think about it too hard I keep coming up with images (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) All those new initiatives were a neat idea, but as you can see Shuttle has eaten them alive. Congress voted $4.3 billion for a shuttle that won't fly before that money is all gone. It has always done this because our lawmakers are addicted to (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) That sucks. That was a great way to potentially generate billions of dollars in NASA R&D without having to spend tax dollars to pay for it all. It also allows a greater variety of ideas to be explored, since noone has to justify experimenting (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
