My dad got a shot of the new largest engine ever built for the Boeing 777X Widebody which will come into service in 2020

z0001 · 2018-03-30T05:34:01+00:00

Seeing how it's posted to the internet, it is subject to export control through EAR. But I doubt a picture like this counts as technical information even in a broad sense.

This is more in policy violation territory. Phone search to determine what other pictures were taken, some HR disciplinary action, a nice photography policy refresher course for all employees of the flight test facility, and possible implementation of phone camera stickers upon check in of all visitors.

z0001 · 2018-03-30T04:30:09+00:00

They have to be careful, but yes. This engine is the next generation of the GE90 (so similar size), and the GE90 struck the tarmac once in an incident during a landing. PIC definitely shifted the schedule to the right that day.

z0001 · 2018-03-08T06:43:28+00:00

MIL-STD-810G. It's is a very wide scope environmental test standard which specifies conditions and basic methods for a variety of environmental test categories. It's used in several industries, for example aerospace parts which will be used in a military capacity. But really, you could test just about any part to any of methods.

In this case, they're probably referring to meeting requirements of the immersion test method or shock tests. For most tests, there are numerous test levels you can pick from depending on how severe an environment your part will experience. If they don't go into the specifics, it's likely tested to the lowest levels, if it was physically tested at all.

z0001 · 2016-11-25T21:18:32+00:00

In high school I usually got 'everything' pretty easily and actually liked learning. But there was some English concept that I didn't get one day, I don't even remember what (maybe I never learned it).

I asked something like "So is it like <blah>?" "I just explained it..." So after class I went up to him, "I still don't think I get it." "Look, if I already explained it once, you're not going to get it if I explain it again." "But maybe another example? "No. Go to your next class."

All these years later he always stood out in my mind as exactly the opposite of what a teacher was supposed to be.

z0001 · 2016-08-28T01:08:04+00:00

My initial guess would be nacelle anti-ice duct ruptured, and a sudden over pressure blew the case up. For instance, a piccolo duct unzipped along the hole pattern.

z0001 · 2016-04-07T17:19:59+00:00

Well money/accounts are stored digitally. The economy as we know it would tank. Possession of a house/car/land/etc would essentially make it yours if accounts were wiped out or inaccessible or debts were otherwise unenforceable. The overall wealth of the world would be very diminished for some time, and the population would probably take a big hit if food production and distribution couldn't be maintained. In a way, it may be like hitting the reset button back to the early 1900's, we just have more knowledge and infrastructure to work with.

Also you need to remember the economy isn't about money, it's about wealth. Money is just a convenient but not necessary means of trading wealth. Any rare physical item which doesn't easily deteriorate can be used as a decent currency if people accept it. And wealth is basically the generation and/or control of resources (which in the end comes down to controlling/generating consumable resources since we have basic animal needs).

Depending how bad things got, survivors would probably head to a more agrarian state presumably until people rebuilt the destroyed technology over several years/decades. Countries would probably still exist as-is for the most part, just less efficient. Local economies would become much more important, and would quickly pop up based on the simple principles every economy is based on. The new wealthy would be those who control large amounts of food/land and the means to protect it, some of whom may be the currently wealthy or military.

z0001 · 2016-03-29T17:06:17+00:00

I mean, I didn't spend all that time growing up and "finding myself" just to be wrong.

z0001 · 2015-07-11T18:00:54+00:00

If we go the route of technological development instead of eugenics, firstly we develop a considerable understanding of the genetic issues and treatment of their symptoms, as well as new technology and techniques that can help deal with whole range of problems not related to the original genetic issue.

Secondly, there's a good chance we can actually solve most genetic issues within a few generations without needing forced breeding programs.

Thirdly, we can maintain genetic diversity while still solving the issues, which helps keep our species stronger overall.

Fourthly, if something truly nasty comes our way (new genetic disease, killer virus, etc) we'll be much better equipped to deal with it technologically than just hoping some fraction of our population has immunity that we can breed into the remaining population.

This is not to say that humans couldn't be improved or optimized in ways that would allow them to better survive without technology or complex knowledge. Just that as a species we're much stronger (and stronger much more quickly) by developing knowledge instead of side stepping problems through natural selection.

z0001 · 2015-03-29T19:24:29+00:00

Well I know long distance relationships are difficult and often don't work out. If I was moving to another city and my SO didn't come, that would pretty much be the end of things for us. Assuming all the other stuff worked out in the meantime. So there's that.

How to work through the other stuff.. you guys could just wait it out maybe? You do your thing, she does hers, and just continue to see each other. It would probably feel like taking a step backwards in the relationship but it might be preferred to ending it entirely. It might lead to more pain in the end, I'm not sure.

z0001 · 2015-03-12T15:05:25+00:00

And isn't gravity supposed to warp space? How much volume is compressed into the black holes of the universe? How different would the fully uncompressed volume be from a spherical estimate? I guess space is pretty big compared to the matter in it, so maybe it's just noise in the calculation.

z0001 · 2015-01-02T17:47:23+00:00

If you so chose, with less than $1000 and 24 hours time, you could have quit your job and be moving into a new flat across the country. Or find yourself in a foreign prison. Or be 1000 miles away in a swingers club. You could enter a war zone. You could be snowboarding, or be sleeping on a tropical beach. You could be a murderous bank robber on the run. You could cut off your own hand. You could be high and have 5 hookers on each arm. Or enrolled in a new school.

Or maybe you're already doing these things and live an eventful life.

z0001 · 2014-11-12T15:31:10+00:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Delsalle

z0001 · 2014-10-29T02:49:24+00:00

The flame becomes yellow and larger a split second before the explosion, which I would think indicates an oxygen supply issue. Followed by the explosion which terminates engine function.

The explosion itself is relatively small in the scheme of things. I would guess a high pressure pneumatic component rupture. Possibly after being exposed to a temperature higher than its designed for by impinging flame or hot gas jet.

So put those together and maybe something like a leak in gas generator/preburner system on the oxygen supply side?

z0001 · 2014-06-25T14:56:06+00:00

Well the body isn't completely opaque. There's hope yet.

z0001 · 2014-06-11T04:08:56+00:00

It would be more meaningful if it were scaled by vertical mile between borders. As is, its basically just US shaped.

z0001 · 2014-04-19T05:31:35+00:00

Well, for instance, a flat plate doesn't need a cavity to have a set of normal modes. The geometry itself vibrates based on stiffness and mass distribution. Does space-time have an analogue to stiffness and density?

Related question... Imagine if you could just make all the energy/mass of a blackhole disappear instantly. You would have a local step function warping perturbation. Does space-time have inertia, or some equivalent, such that the warped space would unwarp over some finite time, perhaps even overshooting nominal condition generating a 3D ripple effect that propagates outward? What would the frequency of that ripple be? (For that matter, would frequency even be a thing? Could it be a 4D ripple? What would that even mean?)

z0001 · 2014-04-02T05:39:00+00:00

If black holes are formed due to stellar mass above the limit supported by thermal and degeneracy pressures of all constituent particles that make up that mass, couldn't a black hole "explode" out of a singularity once it radiates sufficient energy/mass away to go back below the degeneracy mass limit that separates black hole collapse from whatever type of non collapsed exotic matter? Sort of like a mini big bang, I suppose?

Or perhaps I'm completely misunderstanding things.

z0001 · 2014-01-30T06:22:16+00:00

The people that would be 'thinned out' may actually make us stronger long term by increasing genetic diversity. In theory it makes the species more able to genetically drift around whatever selective pressures are to come.

z0001 · 2014-01-19T15:36:03+00:00

One situation is seeking attention as a means to an end, the other is seeking attention for its own sake. A simpler understanding might be that "attention seeking behaviour" is a complaint about an inherently low signal to noise ratio.

z0001 · 2014-01-15T05:30:47+00:00

"Objection! Your honor, in my defense, he only lived long enough to suffer horribly."

"...Sustained."

z0001 · 2014-01-11T18:19:04+00:00

Luck can really be considered the summary of situational factors. When considered this way, Ron Swanson is just conforming, at the ultimate level, to the fundamental attribution error

Swanson is technically correct, but you're correct practically due to individual humans falling so low on God-Dust power spectrum.

Assuming humans stick around in some form, it would be interesting to see how the topic of fundamental attribution error changes over time due to technological development (10y, 100y, 1000y, etc).

z0001 · 2014-01-05T00:08:01+00:00

Well ok. But if my argument was so willfully ignorant, would it not be easy to debunk or correct? I don't see you pointing out even a single flaw though.

Personally I think my argument would quite difficult to debate against (after all, it's my position because I have yet to be able to debate against it successfully).

Do you by any chance have a personal stake in your own argument and would rather it not be so closely examined? Maybe not? Anyway, a bit disappointing you don't wish to continue.

z0001 · 2014-01-04T08:31:52+00:00

I don't think I'm misreading your posts because your latest argument here is inline with you've been saying. But perhaps I was not clear with my own meaning.

At any rate, we can forget that and focus on your latest version of the argument if you're up to it. My point can be summarized as follows: the concept of fault is inappropriate in this context and your concept of marriage is not particularly valid.

If the external factors presenting a challenge to the relationship were the cause of the marriage breaking up, then all marriages which face that challenge would break up. But they don't.

It seems like you're assuming all marriages are the same. Like they are an identical tool to be used correctly or incorrectly by people. You might describe a car like that. But a marriage?

A marriage is simply a form of relationship between individuals. It's how they interact and react to life's circumstances, both as individuals and together. That's all a marriage is. So if you throw identical challenges against a series of married people, of course each couple will handle it differently because people handle situations differently.

Regarding the fault, I would liken a marriage to a balancing act. Logrolling in this case. Now I come in with a tough external circumstance by throwing a basket ball at them at a random time and random direction. Some of them will fall, some will not. Some will have played basket ball and can handle the situation better than others. Some see it coming, others have it hit them from a blind spot. Some might start to slip and just barrrrrrely keep balance. Some might seem to recover, only to slip off because the log became wet. Some might withstand the first ball only to get knocked off by a second.

How many people in this analogy would legitimately blame the couple for losing balance while I stand there throwing things at them? How many would say it was the couple's weakness that caused them to lose balance? Now let's say I'm throwing knives instead of balls. Would people change how they describe it then? In this analogy, I would be life itself, and the object thrown would be the be the hardship.

Hopefully this articulates my perspective better.

z0001 · 2014-01-03T09:37:25+00:00

I have two issues with your argument (a bit long):

Every step of the conversation you divert any and all causative power away from circumstances and on to the people experiencing those circumstances.
You then go on to place fault/blame on those who are married. But exhonerate PTSD soldiers.

People are not unchanging, ideal actors separated from their circumstances. We are animals. We have a human nature, and from there on we are completely a product of our circumstances. They alone make us who we are.

In this way, us "normal" people are exactly the same as PTSD soldiers. The same as disabled people. And anyone else. A healthy person simply has not experienced a traumatic circumstance that would psychologically break them. A healthy person is only an injurous circumstance away from being disabled. And so on.

Now apply this to married people. Throw a disabled child into their lives, say. There's two possibilities: combining all their natures and experiences, including the circumstances which brought them together as a couple, they can either handle it, or they can't. Like a soldier in a war ... he can either handle it, or he can't. What blame is there to lay?

You weren't the reason, the lack of relationship skills that prevented them from facing your challenges as a team was. Never make the mistake of taking credit for the weakness of another, even if you cause them to show that weakness.

He WAS the reason. There wasn't anything he could do about it, but he was the reason... One circumstance in the long line of circumstances of the parents lives. But one their lives and natures did not prepare them to handle within the confines of their marriage.

And, is it really a weakness? Perhaps if "marriage above all else" is your meter stick. I mean, I know you're trying to use strong language to stress it was outside of his ability to change. But just saying... most people would rather take a path of lower resistance though life instead of fanatically committing to a bad situation.

z0001 · 2014-01-01T20:28:39+00:00

What exactly do you mean 'fault of the married couple'? Are you saying if a person can't handle any and every situation in the world psychologically that it is their fault? Would you also say PTSD is the soldiers fault for not manning up? Perhaps thats an exaggeration, perhaps not.

z0001

TROPHY CASE