|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
