search results matching tag: mover
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
| Videos (23) | Sift Talk (2) | Blogs (3) | Comments (98) |
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
| Videos (23) | Sift Talk (2) | Blogs (3) | Comments (98) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
The Electric Vehicle Charging Problem
testlump7.8 billion USD to make charging stations easily accessible across North America and allow Tesla to not only gain first mover on advantage on a charging network but also larger potential market for EV sales, and yet Elon Musk wasted 1.5 billion USD on Bitcoin.
The guy is an idiot.
Top5th Movers and Packers Agra videosift.com Video
chicchorea*related= https://videosift.com/video/Top5th-Movers-and-Packers-Agra-twitch-tv-Video
* ban2.0
Top5th.co.in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u57CRv0hArQ
Top5th Movers and Packers in Agra videosift.com Video
chicchorea*ban2.0
Top5th.co.in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u57CRv0hArQ
*related= https://videosift.com/video/Top5th-Movers-and-Packers-Agra-videosift-com-Video
* ban1.0
Custom Hybrid Stanley 24/7 ASSA ABLOY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9PnEynanB8
Movers broke his stuff
AeroMechanical says...Not that this guy doesn't have a valid complaint, but when it comes to freight companies and movers, you generally assume that your stuff is going to be dropped, fall, get thrown around, and just generally mistreated and pack it accordingly. It doesn't look like he did a terrible job, but not a particularly good job either. Maybe the company packed it. That's never a good idea. Surely they're bonded at least, right?
Also, though I'm sure it's not always practical, generally the irreplaceable fragile family heirlooms usually *don't* go on the moving truck.
Top Victoria SEO Agency - Digital Mover Agency
chicchorea*ban
Digital Mover Agency
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTuc1uRoxes
Rashida Jones coaches Stephen on how to be a Feminist
FlowersInHisHairDon't overreact. If you believe in gender equality, you are a feminist.
As has been pointed out, and as you acknowledge, you were not there at the start of feminism. Why feminism is feminism is because the fight for gender equality was not initiated by men, nor has the bulk of the work been done by men. Calling it anything but feminism disacknowledges that women are the prime movers here. The fight for gender equality is the fight, spearheaded by women, to bring women's rights up to meet men's existing privilege level. It's feminism. You get credit for being part of the movement, but that's not enough reason to rename that movement, and I can't understand that argument.
Equality for all is the goal, yes. But to do this, women and non-whites are the ones who need the "boost". So that's why the movements are called "feminism", and "Black Lives Matter". Men and whites don't need "equal rights"; they already have more rights than non-white and women, aside from a few issues such as equal child custody rights, which will equalise when gender rights reach balance.
Not true if I was part of starting it. I suppose '75 doesn't really count as the 'start', but certainly was in it's early stages, and I was at many rallies and functions for 'feminism' as far back as then. ;-) It turns out that it's not a group I belong in, as I don't want to intentionally discriminate on the basis of gender....I think that's the problem, not the solution.
Commercial Move Management in Louisville
chicchorea*ban
Office Movers Louisville
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1B5Y7NvP8
The Most Costly Joke in History
transmorpher says...This is where drones come in. They can loiter literally all day long and identify targets. Without putting a pilots life in danger like with the A-10.
But that's how 70% or so of air support is already done with current planes.
A fast mover comes in and releases munitions on marked locations if it is in deep territory. Or a helicopter will do it to support close by infantry.
That's the theory anyway. Whether it's realistic and works I have no idea
If anyone ever flies a stealth plane low and slow. They're an idiot. So I really hope that never happens.
Pretty much every plane ever built has a had a rough start. The F-35 is no different, expect it has more systems to tune so it takes longer. Although it's probably being milked by the manufacturer by the sounds of it.
I've already discussed why helicopters and drones are good in areas of light cover while sucking in areas of high cover. They fulfill a role, but realistically they aren't always the best option.
I also explained what happens in real combat. So called fast movers end up being tasked to do roles that they were not designed for. No plan stays certain in the face of the enemy. There will come a time when the F35 is expected to provide the same type of support as the A-10 and it is going to suck hard at it, planes will be shot down and pilots will die or be captured. I suspect this will happen especially with the forces using the F35 that are not the Air Force, such as the Marines. Here is a link to the laughable failures that the Marines had with the plane, but due to the 'cannot fail' nature of the project, they certified it anyway. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428
Finally, the A-10 was absolutely not designed initially to be a Soviet tank killer. The initial A-X program was created because of the DISMAL performance of the Air Force and F4 in providing close air support to troops.
The Secretary of the Air Force contacted Pierre Sprey and asked him to come up with a design spec for a close air support plane. After consulting with the pilots we had in Vietnam, mostly the successful ones that were flying the prop driven A-1 Skyraider (which btw, destroyed the F4 JET in CAS operations), it was indicated that the ideal aircraft should have long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability. It was only later, after the plane had been mostly designed, that the USAF asked that it be also tasked to counter the Soviets.
As I said, the Air Force has always hated providing CAS to the other branches of the Armed Forces. They constantly forget that you need to make a multi-role fighter actually function in a multi-role environment, preferring to think that they can buzz in and buzz out while the rest of the military does the 'dirty' work. However, they always get burned for it. Just like now, when they were fighting as hard as possible to kill the A-10, they discovered that fighting a force that is mobile and that hides in cover/cities (ISIS) is damn near impossible with fast planes/drones. Which is why they changed paths and rescheduled the A-10 phase out to 2028 (or beyond).
The Most Costly Joke in History
MordhausI've already discussed why helicopters and drones are good in areas of light cover while sucking in areas of high cover. They fulfill a role, but realistically they aren't always the best option.
I also explained what happens in real combat. So called fast movers end up being tasked to do roles that they were not designed for. No plan stays certain in the face of the enemy. There will come a time when the F35 is expected to provide the same type of support as the A-10 and it is going to suck hard at it, planes will be shot down and pilots will die or be captured. I suspect this will happen especially with the forces using the F35 that are not the Air Force, such as the Marines. Here is a link to the laughable failures that the Marines had with the plane, but due to the 'cannot fail' nature of the project, they certified it anyway. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428
Finally, the A-10 was absolutely not designed initially to be a Soviet tank killer. The initial A-X program was created because of the DISMAL performance of the Air Force and F4 in providing close air support to troops.
The Secretary of the Air Force contacted Pierre Sprey and asked him to come up with a design spec for a close air support plane. After consulting with the pilots we had in Vietnam, mostly the successful ones that were flying the prop driven A-1 Skyraider (which btw, destroyed the F4 JET in CAS operations), it was indicated that the ideal aircraft should have long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability. It was only later, after the plane had been mostly designed, that the USAF asked that it be also tasked to counter the Soviets.
As I said, the Air Force has always hated providing CAS to the other branches of the Armed Forces. They constantly forget that you need to make a multi-role fighter actually function in a multi-role environment, preferring to think that they can buzz in and buzz out while the rest of the military does the 'dirty' work. However, they always get burned for it. Just like now, when they were fighting as hard as possible to kill the A-10, they discovered that fighting a force that is mobile and that hides in cover/cities (ISIS) is damn near impossible with fast planes/drones. Which is why they changed paths and rescheduled the A-10 phase out to 2028 (or beyond).
I'm saying that the F-35 doesn't need to do the job of the A-10 in the same style, because helicopters and drones already fill that loitering style of close air support. And they fill it better than the warthog. Drones loiter better and longer, and helicopters are less vulnerable while having just as much fire power, with the ability to keep enemies suppressed without stopping to turn around and run in again. Helicopters don't even fly that much slower than the A-10 and they have the advantage of being able to stay on the friendly side of the battle-line while firing at the enemy, as well as being able to use terrain as cover.
And fast movers do a better job of delivering bombs.
The warthog was created as a soviet tank killer and hasn't been used in the role ever, since the cold war never became a hot war. It was created in a time where high losses were acceptable. You could argue it was made to fight a war that didn't happen either. But it's been upgraded with all sorts of sensors that are already in helicopters and drones to extend it's role into something it wasn't really designed for in the first place.
I'm not beating up the warthog, it's my 2nd most favourite plane. I've logged some 400+ virtual flying hours in the A-10C in DCS World. I know what every single switch does in the cockpit. And I've dropped thousands of simulated laser and GPS guided bombs, launched thousands of mavericks, and strafed thousands of BMPs. I love the thing really
But it's duties are performed better by a range of modern aircraft now.
The Most Costly Joke in History
transmorpher says...I'm saying that the F-35 doesn't need to do the job of the A-10 in the same style, because helicopters and drones already fill that loitering style of close air support. And they fill it better than the warthog. Drones loiter better and longer, and helicopters are less vulnerable while having just as much fire power, with the ability to keep enemies suppressed without stopping to turn around and run in again. Helicopters don't even fly that much slower than the A-10 and they have the advantage of being able to stay on the friendly side of the battle-line while firing at the enemy, as well as being able to use terrain as cover.
And fast movers do a better job of delivering bombs.
The warthog was created as a soviet tank killer and hasn't been used in the role ever, since the cold war never became a hot war. It was created in a time where high losses were acceptable. You could argue it was made to fight a war that didn't happen either. But it's been upgraded with all sorts of sensors that are already in helicopters and drones to extend it's role into something it wasn't really designed for in the first place.
I'm not beating up the warthog, it's my 2nd most favourite plane. I've logged some 400+ virtual flying hours in the A-10C in DCS World. I know what every single switch does in the cockpit. And I've dropped thousands of simulated laser and GPS guided bombs, launched thousands of mavericks, and strafed thousands of BMPs. I love the thing really
But it's duties are performed better by a range of modern aircraft now.
So, you're saying it CAN'T do the job the A-10 does, but it's still going to replace it.
Fast moving screamers were not capable of doing the job we need, so we created the tank killer-Warthog. If this replaces the warthog, but can't do what it can, it makes us LESS capable. Fast runs with bombs simply don't do the job we need, and slow and low runs with bomblets or an auto cannon just won't work with this plane.
I'm pretty sure it's just as useless against some of the other enemies/situations it's supposed to take on, and even if I'm 100% wrong about that, it's so expensive it doesn't matter. We can't afford to lose one, so we can't afford to use them.
The Most Costly Joke in History
transmorpher says...Overpriced, I'll agree with that - I'll also add overdue
But hey I'm no accountant.
1) We need F-35s because the playing field is currently too level. When it's life and death, you can never have too much of an advantage. It's not like a race, where better acceleration might get you over the finish line faster than the others. The thinking behind stealth is that you don't even need to be in the race.
Why they couldn't have just made more F-22s instead? I'm not sure. They probably expected the F-35 to be cheaper and less hassle to maintain. But that's probably not the case anymore.
And of course, as soon as China and Russia have their stealth planes ready the playing field will be more level again. And the air combat will change quite drastically.
2) I haven't heard of that before. If that's the case then it's a useless plane, since the whole point of of making a fighter stealth plane is to put it into danger with so much tech that it's capable of meeting the threat easily and returning home.
The costs are pretty silly in a time of debt for sure. My country is currently $5b in debt, and we ordered $20b worth of F-35s. Seems like it would have been a good idea to order $5b less of them
The close air support style of the A-10 won't be around once they retire the A-10's. Helicopters and drones will do something similar, but in terms of planes delivering bombs it's just going to be fast movers screaming past so fast and high that man-portable missiles systems won't be able to reach.
In all your over defense of this overpriced Swiss Army plane, I have yet to see you answer 1)why we would need it considering many of our planes out perform all other nations planes already (contrary to your assertion that "every Russian fighter can out maneuver the F-16", I found that's only partly true against older, non upgraded F-16s ) and 2) how you get around the 'we won't use it much because it's far too expensive to put in danger' argument.
It can't be the best for air superiority if we are too afraid to use them because they cost too much, or if we only have a few, because they cost too much.
What I read (I'm not a pilot) is that air combat is about the kill-loss ratio, where today we expect the losses to be 0.
Again, stealth is NOT 100%, and every method used has eventually been 'cracked'. If it worked every time, I would agree with you. Since it only works until the enemy figures out how, it's not worth $1.3 trillion for ANOTHER stealth fighter, we've already got them.
This plane isn't bullet or missile proof, and will be just as visible and slow when doing real close air support...if it can. I've seen footage of warthogs landing that looked like a whiffle ball they were so full of holes. They're pretty tough.
In 10 years time, I have the feeling that international air superiority will not be our biggest concern. It's good to be prepared, but terrible to bankrupt yourself to meet a challenge that's already met, or a challenge that does not yet, and may never exist. Upgrading our current aircraft would be a MUCH better way to spend that money, and we would get WAY more out of each dollar.
The F-35 may not be in service for 10 years, and may already be obsolete by then (at least it's special systems that make it 'better' than the aircraft we have today). It really seems more like a star wars project, designed to force our 'enemies' to spend themselves into oblivion, but forcing us to the brink in the effort.
Not the "close air support" that the A-10 provides. If this is meant to replace them too, and I think it is, it will have to do what they do, low and slow.
I don't disagree that advanced systems CAN make more difference than slight performance specs, that's no reason to ignore performance, or go backwards. If it's the systems that make the plane perform better, the smart thing would be to put them on the better air frame and have a better plane all around for much cheaper. Simple.
To me, if we spent $1.3 trillion developing and tens of Billions building a fleet of these planes, it's more likely we'll eventually invent a reason to have to use them. Even if we don't, while nice we aren't killing for nothing, we will have wasted that money for nothing, and done it at a time when our debt and poorly used federal funds have the country literally falling apart... that seems more than dumb, it seems criminally insane and treasonous.
Amazing 4D baby scan Buckinghamshire
chicchorea*ban4.0
Baby Moments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXKxs4MaARo
*related= http://videosift.com/video/For-DC-moving-choose-district-movers
*ban3.0
jasion taz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhBk0EGBYUw
*related= http://videosift.com/video/Amazing-4D-baby-scan
*ban2.0
jasion taz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpodsQmDYqo
*related= http://videosift.com/video/WildWallet-Earn-easy-Money-with-your-Smartphone
*ban1.0
jasion taz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkNkjn6nW3w
Amazing 4D baby scan
chicchorea*ban2.0
jasion taz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpodsQmDYqo
*related= http://videosift.com/video/WildWallet-Earn-easy-Money-with-your-Smartphone
*related= http://videosift.com/video/For-DC-moving-choose-district-movers
WildWallet Earn easy Money with your Smartphone
chicchorea*ban1.0
jasion taz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkNkjn6nW3w
*related= http://videosift.com/video/Amazing-4D-baby-scan
*related= http://videosift.com/video/For-DC-moving-choose-district-movers
Real Time - Dr. Michael Mann on Climate Change
Asmo says...I'm obviously talking Swahili here... What part of "do not have a choice" don't you understand? I don't get to set the tariffs or when the sun comes up, and batteries enough to load shift significantly in Aus are still in the 20-30 grand area. You are fortunate you live in a place where the energy company still allows you a reasonable price for the energy you produce. The acceptance you talk about is the same acceptance a hostage gives it's kidnapper when they have a gun held to their head... Perhaps you're even lucky enough to have multiple energy providers competing for your custom. In Aus, it's almost entirely single provider in the realm of electricity supply.
However, that's neither fucking here nor there when it comes to energy returns... Energy returned on energy does not once mention the word "dollars" or "money"...
A simple analogy would be using a thousand 200 dollar bicycles to pull a load or 1 200 thousand dollar prime mover. The bikes are cleaner, certainly, but once you pay the wages of 1000 people to ride them/feed them, give them accomodation etc (vs 1 guy in the truck), and then work out just how long those people can continuously ride, the cost of the fuel in the truck etc, the truck becomes the obvious answer. That's why we use trucks instead of team pulled wagons, they are just better suited to the task. The same counts for energy generation, we need a clean prime mover, and we're going to have to suck up the cost to do it. If we're going to save the world, we're going to have to make sacrifices in the form of paying more until someone invents clean abundant energy generation that is also cheap.
Your "double the return on coal" is completely unsubstantiated.
Of course solar PV is cleaner than coal, but you need to expend far more energy to generate 1 KW/h of PV energy than you do to generate 1 KW/h of coal energy... It's part of the reason why coal is cheaper than solar and why so much of the world still relies on it. Because people cannot see past their wallet to the bigger picture.
I would love if PV on roofs were the answer, just like it would be awesome if everyone could farm their own vegetables in their backyard. But we moved beyond subsistence living to mass production a long time ago because people realised it was a huge effort that paid relatively small returns. Residential solar PV is a convenient foil to keep people thinking that it's making a difference when we could be investing public dollars in to wind (more viable), nuke (more viable), solar thermal (more viable), wave (more viable), hydro etc. And a lot of those techs are probably going to be more expensive than solar PV. What did that Native American fellow say? 'When it's all gone to shit, will you eat money?'
Money being the only concern is what got us to where we are at the moment ffs... =)