The development of them had been plagued by many failures and crashes. That led to a redesign and the current design is very reliable and usable, but most people still associate it with the design phase since they never changed the name.

especially with a dividend and a buyback annoucned.

When I read this story (months ago) it was the tower that was being jammed as it was near the highway and it was only dropping signal twice a day, for about 10 minutes, on week days. They eventually figured out it was one d-bag driver who always had his on.

it looks like the two would be a natural fit together.

To the author's ponit about lazers being far from deployment. This article [www.theengineer.co.uk] discusses their testing and states that they are using the same acquisition and guidance tech as the Phalanx, from what I've read the systems are supposed to be pretty much plug and play.

Aegis missile system is designed to take out everything from small rockets to air planes to ICBM's. As the article states we have several of these in each carrier task force and they would be capable of defeating one of these. Can they do it with 100% reliability, I'm not sure. Can they defeat 10 at once? Again, not…

Three things the Chinese have going for them are 1) Years of espionage in which they took advantage of lax cyber security to rifle through NASA data and defense contractors 2) They probably bought a lot of tech and research from the Russians to cover some ground and 3) The world is very different now. The kinds of…

Also the trajectory will be different. Ideally I wouldn't want a defeated missile the size of an IBM landing on my carrier deck, warhead ready or not. If the CIWS took out the punch you would still have a tractor trailor worth of metal just falling out of the sky since it takes a ballistic trajectory.

I can think of one clear issue. CIWS (I'm assuming you are thinking of the Phalanx) are designed to trigger a contact detonation system or destroy a missile through attrition. That works great on missiles that are 1) Designed to detonate on impact or 2) small enough to get carved up by flying into some metal pellets.

ha

The bigger joke is he could have said "I know of this incident.... " which was a real incident but by playing it off as though he interviewd them himself he kills his own credebility for no reason.

Also, many big advances since hte early 90's have focused on the avionics and internal control systems. Using complex computers to enterprit the input from the pilots and move the flaps and struts accordingly.

I'm betting that they battle it out in what will become known as the war of succession. They'll eventually come to some kind of accord and go on to grow in size and complexity, forever plauged by the annoying warm blooded furry things that constatly nest in dark hard to reach areas and bite them while they sleep.

Anyone else think of those face grabbers from alien?

That is incredibly creapy lol

you would think someone from the hospital would have seen the hubub and came by to explain lol

Pressure isn't a vertical force. It is exerted in all directions, otherwise you could just stand vertically and breathe.

The air, as it enters your lungs, at 30 feet, would be traveling through a hose which is 30 feet under water. That means that the hose and air itself would be at the same pressure as the water around you by the time it reached your lips.

I'm confused, is that you in the photo?

I don't think that is right. I know plenty of people that go 30 feet under water while holding their breath (usually during snorkeling trips). The pressure in their lungs while holding their breath would be the same pressure in their lungs if they were to take a breath through a tube at 30 feet. The only difference…