The Small Rants Thread IX: Leaping into the Well of Darkness

[Kuroimaken]

well, my boys scoliosis has progressed, his c7/t1 have fused.

That absolutely sucks. Here's to hoping something can be done...

We need more scientists working on developing high energy density batteries so we can get on with using electromagnetic weaponry on foot soldiers already.

I'd like to humbly suggest that we don't need more scientists working on ways to kill people. Working on battery technology is certainly a great area for research, but please not for more fucking war machines. Same with the Lockheed news about small fusion generators. Awesome! But do we really need tanks and subs running on them? Humans are the worst.

There are usually perfectly valid non-killing applications for military research. Mostly in the field of stress-testing. Building something to milspec usually means building it to not break even under heavy fire, and that includes personal defense technologies. Granted, bulletproof vests wouldn't exist if no one used bullets, just as body armor wouldn't exist without swords and other instruments of murder and mayhem, but both are useful to keep someone from getting hurt by things other than bullets and knives. We would not, unfortunately, enjoy much of the communications tech we do today without a necessity of military logistics behind it.

It's probably easier to develop energy-based methods of defense rather than attack anyway. More bang for one's buck in many ways.

[wotmaniac]

I'd like to humbly suggest that we don't need more scientists working on ways to kill people.

There are usually perfectly valid non-killing applications for military research.

I disagree

[bhu]

Looks possible i may need an alternator.   

[brujon]

We like violence. We all watch violent movies, violent series, violent anime... It's a part of culture.

[Kuroimaken]

I'd like to humbly suggest that we don't need more scientists working on ways to kill people.

There are usually perfectly valid non-killing applications for military research.

I disagree

Consider what that will mean for commercial transportation once they figure a way to compensate for intense g-force acceleration - kinetic dampening of some sort.

Imagine ordering something online and having it arrive within minutes instead of weeks, ACME-style.

Consider what something like this might mean for anyone who ships internationally.

EDIT: I will, however, concede that humans are by and large assholes when it comes to deployment methods.

[wotmaniac]

Looks possible i may need an alternator.   

Depending on your car, that's set you back $150-$300.
From experience, I would seriously recommend first taking it to one of those whole-in-the-wall shops (as in that greasy dude running a shack in the industrial part of town, who only does alternators and starters and shit) to see if they can rebuild it .... a lot of times, you just need to replace the brushes -- out the door for $50.

Consider what that will mean for commercial transportation once they figure a way to compensate for intense g-force acceleration - kinetic dampening of some sort.

Imagine ordering something online and having it arrive within minutes instead of weeks, ACME-style.

Consider what something like this might mean for anyone who ships internationally.

EDIT: I will, however, concede that humans are by and large assholes when it comes to deployment methods.

Warfare tech is what gives us the leaps and bounds that lets the civilian tech advance.   WE NEED WAR TO ADVANCE! HELL YEAH!
We've already got circuitry tech that can sustain 30+Gs (for munitions, of course); but that shit is prohibitively expensive at this point for everyday civilian use.
Just give it time.

[bhu]

It's possible it's the battery.  If I jump it i can drive it, but once i shut the car off it needs jumped again.  The battery simply will not hold a charge.  WHich means the alternator isnt charging it, something is draining on it, or maybe the battery is just shot.

[oslecamo]

There are usually perfectly valid non-killing applications for military research. Mostly in the field of stress-testing. Building something to milspec usually means building it to not break even under heavy fire, and that includes personal defense technologies. Granted, bulletproof vests wouldn't exist if no one used bullets, just as body armor wouldn't exist without swords and other instruments of murder and mayhem, but both are useful to keep someone from getting hurt by things other than bullets and knives. We would not, unfortunately, enjoy much of the communications tech we do today without a necessity of military logistics behind it.

It's probably easier to develop energy-based methods of defense rather than attack anyway. More bang for one's buck in many ways.

No, it's not, because Entropy always gets the last laugh.

Aka it's always much easier to destroy stuff than to make sure it remains in one piece. If you somehow create a portable force shield, then we'll have the tech to create a portable energy gun that can focus that shield in one point and destroys it.

Just compare the price of your average bullet-proof vest against the price of a gun. Then remember that the bullet-proof vest doesn't completely protect you, it just turns potentially fatal shots into extremely painful disabling hits because the kinetic energy from the impact still has to go somewhere.

There's a reason why no army on the world deploys heavy armor infantry anymore and the standard defense doctrine for infantry is "hug the hell out of cover". Any kind of armor that would allow a soldier to take a bullet head on and keep going would be so heavy that you need a car engine to move it around. And then you may as well use an armored transport/tank.

Our current top offensive tech are nukes, and the closest thing to a "defense" against that we have is threat of mutual destruction "Ok, you can wipe me out, but I'll drag you down with me." I guess for once greed is indeed good, because anybody who has the capacities to gets their hands on nukes won't use them in a way where there's no hope of profit of some kind.

[littha]

There are usually perfectly valid non-killing applications for military research. Mostly in the field of stress-testing. Building something to milspec usually means building it to not break even under heavy fire, and that includes personal defense technologies. Granted, bulletproof vests wouldn't exist if no one used bullets, just as body armor wouldn't exist without swords and other instruments of murder and mayhem, but both are useful to keep someone from getting hurt by things other than bullets and knives. We would not, unfortunately, enjoy much of the communications tech we do today without a necessity of military logistics behind it.

It's probably easier to develop energy-based methods of defense rather than attack anyway. More bang for one's buck in many ways.

No, it's not, because Entropy always gets the last laugh.

Aka it's always much easier to destroy stuff than to make sure it remains in one piece. If you somehow create a portable force shield, then we'll have the tech to create a portable energy gun that can focus that shield in one point and destroys it.

Just compare the price of your average bullet-proof vest against the price of a gun. Then remember that the bullet-proof vest doesn't completely protect you, it just turns potentially fatal shots into extremely painful disabling hits because the kinetic energy from the impact still has to go somewhere.

There's a reason why no army on the world deploys heavy armor infantry anymore and the standard defense doctrine for infantry is "hug the hell out of cover". Any kind of armor that would allow a soldier to take a bullet head on and keep going would be so heavy that you need a car engine to move it around. And then you may as well use an armored transport/tank.

Our current top offensive tech are nukes, and the closest thing to a "defense" against that we have is threat of mutual destruction "Ok, you can wipe me out, but I'll drag you down with me." I guess for once greed is indeed good, because anybody who has the capacities to gets their hands on nukes won't use them in a way where there's no hope of profit of some kind.

While this is true of modern weapons and armour it has not always been so. There have been periods in history where it was possible to construct a defense like that.

Plate armour is a fairly good example of this. At certain points in history the armour was in essence good enough to save you from most every infantry weapon.

It is not inconceivable that we could once again develop armour that surpasses our offensive options. Just quite unlikely. What if that force shield you talked about had an extremely limited range, how would you weaponise that?

[brujon]

Soft Body Armor + Ceramic Plating is good against anything but military caliber, and Soft Body Armor + Composite Plating is good against non-specialized military caliber weapons. Soldiers do regularly use those in the battlefield (at least U.S troops do).

I'll concede the point that they *only* protect vitals, which means they have slots to insert the plates in the torso, near the heart/lungs & liver area. Anything else can still take reduced damage because of soft body armor, but will still penetrate enough to cause damage.

Soft + Ceramic & Soft + Composite, if hit, protect well enough that the soldier can continue to operate after being hit. Just look it up, there are tests and testimony from soldiers that have actually been shot.

[dman11235]

That's.....that's not how entropy works.....

It /is/ easier for energy based defense than offence, because of how energy works.  And because of entropy.  In order to weaponize something, it needs range.  So let's look at weaponizing pure energy, in the form of E+M.  AKA lasers, EM pulses, and high level fields.  In order to hit something with enough power to do damage with any of these things, you need a LOT of power.  The range is dependent on the energy put in.  However, in order to defend against an EM pulse, you need...well, a faraday cage.  That works.  A laser: plating works.  Also: mirrors.  Also, a small, but powerful, EM field can work.  All options require significantly less energy.  This is why lasers are being developed to destroy....missiles.  AKA defensive uses.  And high energy fields, well, if you have an opposing field, yours doesn't need to be as big.

All this is because the energy dissipates in the atmosphere.  And because of the uncertainty principle.  And a few other physics concepts I won't go into (they require vector calculus, not the best place for that)

[Kuroimaken]

That's.....that's not how entropy works.....

It /is/ easier for energy based defense than offence, because of how energy works.  And because of entropy.  In order to weaponize something, it needs range.  So let's look at weaponizing pure energy, in the form of E+M.  AKA lasers, EM pulses, and high level fields.  In order to hit something with enough power to do damage with any of these things, you need a LOT of power.  The range is dependent on the energy put in.  However, in order to defend against an EM pulse, you need...well, a faraday cage.  That works.  A laser: plating works.  Also: mirrors.  Also, a small, but powerful, EM field can work.  All options require significantly less energy.  This is why lasers are being developed to destroy....missiles.  AKA defensive uses.  And high energy fields, well, if you have an opposing field, yours doesn't need to be as big.

All this is because the energy dissipates in the atmosphere.  And because of the uncertainty principle.  And a few other physics concepts I won't go into (they require vector calculus, not the best place for that)

Unless you could somehow prepare a "trail" for your energy discharge to go through; like using a device to ionize the air in between yourself and the target or something. But at that point you're basically making a large-ass taser, not a cannon or anything of the sort.

Also worth noting, those lasers you're mentioning are usually mounted on big aircraft carriers, still a bit lacking in range (practically 100% accuracy though) and can't do a thing against torpedos (due do refraction).

But yes, you made my point about defensiveness nicely.

[littha]

Unless you could somehow prepare a "trail" for your energy discharge to go through; like using a device to ionize the air in between yourself and the target or something. But at that point you're basically making a large-ass taser, not a cannon or anything of the sort.

I actually saw that as a theoretical base for a plasma cannon at one point...

That said, if you could weaponize the device that ionizes the air between you and your target you could have an Ion cannon or some sort of lightning gun.

[dman11235]

What you described is literally lightning.  And it comes with its own issues.  The better way to do it is actually to fire a projectile first, with a trailer, kind of like a harpoon, and when the projectile hits, THEN send the ultavoltage charge down the line.  This will, if it's powerful enough, vaporize the cable and then melt the point of contact and the path to the ground.  This would take so much power however, that it is unfeasible.

The problem with making an energy based lightning gun it that, well, lightning is semi-random.  And it's actually the leaders that are random, not the charge.  So you'd need to contain the charge down the line with an electric or magnetic (or both, but magnetic would be easiest) field.  Which again, would take a LOT of energy, and even more computing power and specialized equipment.  Then what you have is the plasma guns from Halo.

[altpersona]

It's possible it's the battery.  If I jump it i can drive it, but once i shut the car off it needs jumped again.  The battery simply will not hold a charge.  WHich means the alternator isnt charging it, something is draining on it, or maybe the battery is just shot.

the battery not holding a charge and alternator not charging it are oddly separate things.

an auto parts store should have a load tester, to see if the battery is viable. thats what i'd do first.

[wotmaniac]

It's possible it's the battery.  If I jump it i can drive it, but once i shut the car off it needs jumped again.  The battery simply will not hold a charge.  WHich means the alternator isnt charging it, something is draining on it, or maybe the battery is just shot.

the battery not holding a charge and alternator not charging it are oddly separate things.

an auto parts store should have a load tester, to see if the battery is viable. thats what i'd do first.

Yes, this.  'Cause that shit's free to check.   
(though a new battery, sadly, is not)

[altpersona]

a week / 10 days ago my mrs broke her car

the passenger lower ball joint snapped, the wheel fell over sideways and pulled the axle apart.


here is what the axle looks like

(click to show/hide)

looks like someone gutted an alien 

i thought the car was done, this isnt its only problem...

turns out it should be a cheap and easy fix. and i get to buy new tools 

first time iv ever looked forward to an auto repair 

[awaken_D_M_golem]

back edit for altp, on C7 bone, C8 is nerve only, T1 bone.

Looks possible i may need an alternator.   

Are you sure it isn't your Cat ... (hypnotizing your car) ??

[bhu]

The mechanic thinks it's the battery, and says if it's not my alternator is still under warranty.  Phew!

[Amechra]

The mechanic thinks it's the battery, and says if it's not my alternator is still under warranty.  Phew!

Woo! Life decided to cut you a break for once!