[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46241740]If a conglomerate of decadent American capitalist war-profiteering gets this thing figured out before a country which now helps to lead the struggle against western imperialist excess I will be really... depressed.[/QUOTE]
conscript is that you? go sit in the corner with the other butthurt shills.
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46241740]If a conglomerate of decadent American capitalist war-profiteering gets this thing figured out before a country which now helps to lead the struggle against western imperialist excess I will be really... depressed.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand how you can against Western imperialism and yet be so eager to lick the boots of Eastern imperialism. Are you under the impression that there's a difference between the two beyond the current degree of success?
[QUOTE=OvB;46241580]imagine container sized fusion generators. That would change everything. Holy shit.[/QUOTE]
Imagine a reactor so small you can put it in a small hole in your ribcage to hold off shrapnel from killing you by piercing your heart
[IMG]http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130611164848/ironman/images/9/98/Iron-man-tony-stark-arc-reactor.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46241940]But in all seriousness; no one should celebrate that such an important step in mankind's energy development will be in the hands of a... defense contractor.
Regardless of your opinion on Russia and China.[/QUOTE]
So we should stop any science that comes from any technological company because they take contracts from the government? Are you shitting with me?
Imagine if NASA hadn't been able to release its technologies because its a government program.
Lockheed? Great, it'll cost three times what it says on the price tag and stop working if it gets left out in the rain.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46242350]Lockheed? Great, it'll cost three times what it says on the price tag and stop working if it gets left out in the rain.[/QUOTE]
to be fair: they make great missile guidance systems
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46241740]If a conglomerate of decadent American capitalist war-profiteering gets this thing figured out before a country which now helps to lead the struggle against western imperialist excess I will be really... depressed.[/QUOTE]
is this a real post. did a real person actually type this out?
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46241740]If a conglomerate of decadent American capitalist war-profiteering gets this thing figured out before a country which now helps to lead the struggle against western imperialist excess I will be really... depressed.[/QUOTE]
You sound like a 19-year-old college hippy who just learned a few new words from a pseudo-communistic east Ukrainian serial killer.
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46241740]If a conglomerate of decadent American capitalist war-profiteering gets this thing figured out before a country which now helps to lead the struggle against western imperialist excess I will be really... depressed.[/QUOTE]
Of course we will! How do you think we are where we are in the first place?
We outspend [B][I][U]EVERYBODY.[/U][/I][/B]
[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4"]"Nuclear hacking"[/URL] is alive and well in the 21st century, not only with rediscovering/inventing new fission reactors, but with this technology, we can end the world's power needs (or atleast put a massive dent in it) before this decade is out.
I don't think you guys understand my point:
Businesses like these need conflict, or the very imminent risk of conflict, to survive. If there is none then such businesses are among the first with real incentive to create it. Almost like the bad guy from Tomorrow Never Dies but more subtle.
Rarely in the course of human history has a nation been presented with the choice of taking military action vs. not taking it and the former option being the correct choice. But with businesses whose bottom-line depends on demands for weapons technology it's the other way around; they need the use of force or threat of force and work subtly to ensure it exists. Case in point: [URL="http://www.wired.com/2013/09/syria-war-authorization-money/"]Senators who voted to authorize airstrikes on Syria last year received, on average 83% more campaign financing from defense contractors then those who were opposed to it.[/URL]
My point is: do we as a society really want to look back and know that it was these kinds of people who were responsible for bringing us this kind of advancement? Owing our development to some of the most unscrupulous amongst us?
I'm well aware that many advancements we today take for granted were the result of the military industrial complex, but did they need to be? The first printing-press, for example, was not created with any military application in mind, but was instead first used to print the first non-latin copies of the Holy Bible, doesn't that show that we can innovate without owing our future progress to those who profit off of war?
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Derailing" - Orkel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46242946]I don't think you guys understand my point:
Businesses like these need conflict, or the very imminent risk of conflict, to survive. If there is none then such businesses are among the first with real incentive to create it. Almost like the bad guy from Tomorrow Never Dies but more subtle.
Rarely in the course of human history has a nation been presented with the choice of taking military action vs. not taking it and the former option being the correct choice. But with businesses whose bottom-line depends on demands for weapons technology it's the other way around; they need the use of force or threat of force and work subtly to ensure it exists. Case in point: [URL="http://www.wired.com/2013/09/syria-war-authorization-money/"]Senators who voted to authorize airstrikes on Syria last year received, on average 83% more campaign financing from defense contractors then those who were opposed to it.[/URL]
My point is: do we as a society really want to look back and know that it was these kinds of people who were responsible for bringing us this kind of advancement? Owing our development to some of the most unscrupulous amongst us?
I'm well aware that many advancements we today take for granted were the result of the military industrial complex, but did they need to be? The first printing-press, for example, was not created with any military application in mind, but was instead first used to print the first non-latin copies of the Holy Bible, doesn't that show that we can innovate without owing our future progress to those who profit off of war?[/QUOTE]
What is your point, technological advancement is technological advancement whether the invention originates from raytheon, lockheed martin or NASA. And yes we could all be living in a utopia right now, however we are not, short of time traveling i don't see how anyone could affect that either.
arms race 2: electric boogaloo?
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46242946]I don't think you guys understand my point:
Businesses like these need conflict, or the very imminent risk of conflict, to survive. If there is none then such businesses are among the first with real incentive to create it. Almost like the bad guy from Tomorrow Never Dies but more subtle.
Rarely in the course of human history has a nation been presented with the choice of taking military action vs. not taking it and the former option being the correct choice. But with businesses whose bottom-line depends on demands for weapons technology it's the other way around; they need the use of force or threat of force and work subtly to ensure it exists. Case in point: [URL="http://www.wired.com/2013/09/syria-war-authorization-money/"]Senators who voted to authorize airstrikes on Syria last year received, on average 83% more campaign financing from defense contractors then those who were opposed to it.[/URL]
My point is: do we as a society really want to look back and know that it was these kinds of people who were responsible for bringing us this kind of advancement? Owing our development to some of the most unscrupulous amongst us?
I'm well aware that many advancements we today take for granted were the result of the military industrial complex, but did they need to be? The first printing-press, for example, was not created with any military application in mind, but was instead first used to print the first non-latin copies of the Holy Bible, doesn't that show that we can innovate without owing our future progress to those who profit off of war?[/QUOTE]
No you're right, we should continue to use fossil fuels as an energy crutch instead, and pump out absolutely staggering amounts of CO2 as opposed to have effectively 100% clean energy based on the principle that a defense contractor shouldn't be the one to make it, so that while people die due to the effects of climate change and pollution, the rest of us fortune enough to not get dicked by our own arrogance and pride as a species can sit back with a warm fuzzy.
If that's how you feel that's how you feel, but personally I've got to make it known, you're a fucking moron.
well if the bugs get ironed out that means that the energy problems for powered armor are solved.
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46242946]I don't think you guys understand my point:
Businesses like these need conflict, or the very imminent risk of conflict, to survive. If there is none then such businesses are among the first with real incentive to create it. Almost like the bad guy from Tomorrow Never Dies but more subtle.
Rarely in the course of human history has a nation been presented with the choice of taking military action vs. not taking it and the former option being the correct choice. But with businesses whose bottom-line depends on demands for weapons technology it's the other way around; they need the use of force or threat of force and work subtly to ensure it exists. Case in point: [URL="http://www.wired.com/2013/09/syria-war-authorization-money/"]Senators who voted to authorize airstrikes on Syria last year received, on average 83% more campaign financing from defense contractors then those who were opposed to it.[/URL]
My point is: do we as a society really want to look back and know that it was these kinds of people who were responsible for bringing us this kind of advancement? Owing our development to some of the most unscrupulous amongst us?
I'm well aware that many advancements we today take for granted were the result of the military industrial complex, but did they need to be? The first printing-press, for example, was not created with any military application in mind, but was instead first used to print the first non-latin copies of the Holy Bible, doesn't that show that we can innovate without owing our future progress to those who profit off of war?[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but your logic is crap.
The fact that you are even making these posts proves the point that you don't even uphold your own beliefs. If you genuinely believe what you are typing, then you wouldn't be using either the computer or the internet (both invented for military purposes).
Tbh if a company builds 100% clean, enormously plentiful energy and then turns around and uses that tech to build highly efficient killing machines, as long as it finds its way into the rest of the world I dont have much of a problem because in the long run it probably will save more lives than it would ever kill.
I dont think that there is much of a point to wondering if we didnt need war as an incentive to technological progress, as it is still progress.
[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;46243128]well if the bugs get ironed out that means that the energy problems for powered armor are solved.[/QUOTE]
Except that it's the size of a shipping container
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46242946]I don't think you guys understand my point:
Businesses like these need conflict, or the very imminent risk of conflict, to survive. If there is none then such businesses are among the first with real incentive to create it.[/QUOTE]
You can't say that military R&D doesn't has any conflict of competitiveness. There's a reason why most technological advances made in the last 100 years came from the military. These guys [I]have[/I] to one-up everyone else in the world on a daily basis.
[QUOTE=Rastadogg;46243315]Except that it's the size of a shipping container[/QUOTE]
when they manage to miniaturize them enough I mean
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46241940]But in all seriousness; no one should celebrate that such an important step in mankind's energy development will be in the hands of a... defense contractor.
Regardless of your opinion on Russia and China.[/QUOTE]
Lockheed doesn't just make military vehicles and items you know... Anyway most things that start as Military projects end up in the civilian market.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;46243560]Lockheed doesn't just make military vehicles and items you know... Anyway most things that start as Military projects end up in the civilian market.[/QUOTE]
And the best part of the deal? The civilian market almost always gets the upgraded now-with-75%-less-issues version.
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46242946]I don't think you guys understand my point:
Businesses like these need conflict, or the very imminent risk of conflict, to survive. If there is none then such businesses are among the first with real incentive to create it. Almost like the bad guy from Tomorrow Never Dies but more subtle.
Rarely in the course of human history has a nation been presented with the choice of taking military action vs. not taking it and the former option being the correct choice. But with businesses whose bottom-line depends on demands for weapons technology it's the other way around; they need the use of force or threat of force and work subtly to ensure it exists. Case in point: [URL="http://www.wired.com/2013/09/syria-war-authorization-money/"]Senators who voted to authorize airstrikes on Syria last year received, on average 83% more campaign financing from defense contractors then those who were opposed to it.[/URL]
My point is: do we as a society really want to look back and know that it was these kinds of people who were responsible for bringing us this kind of advancement? Owing our development to some of the most unscrupulous amongst us?
I'm well aware that many advancements we today take for granted were the result of the military industrial complex, but did they need to be? The first printing-press, for example, was not created with any military application in mind, but was instead first used to print the first non-latin copies of the Holy Bible, doesn't that show that we can innovate without owing our future progress to those who profit off of war?[/QUOTE]
Religion is just as bad as, if not worse, than war.
This is terrible, haven't these people seen TDKR? Nuclear fusion reactors can only lead to a terrible movie
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46242946]
My point is: do we as a society really want to look back and know that it was these kinds of people who were responsible for bringing us this kind of advancement? Owing our development to some of the most unscrupulous amongst us?
I'm well aware that many advancements we today take for granted were the result of the military industrial complex, but did they need to be? The first printing-press, for example, was not created with any military application in mind, but was instead first used to print the first non-latin copies of the Holy Bible, doesn't that show that we can innovate without owing our future progress to those who profit off of war?[/QUOTE]
fucks given = 0
people work best under pressure.
[quote]do we as a society really want to look back and know that it was these kinds of people who were responsible for bringing us this kind of advancement? Owing our development to some of the most unscrupulous amongst us?[/quote]
[quote=Wiki]The idea of a TV guided bomb came out of discussions between an eclectic group of civilian engineers at the Naval Ordnance Test Center (later the Naval Weapons Center) at China Lake, California. One of the engineers, Norman Kay, built televisions in his home as a hobby. Kay built an iconoscope camera in 1958 that could do a “funny thing,” recalled fellow project engineer William H. Woodworth. “It occurred to him that he could build a little circuit into there that would put a little blip in the picture, and he could make the little blip track things that would move in the picture.” The two engineers, soon joined by Dave Livingston, Jack Crawford, George Lewis, Larry Brown, Steve Brugler, Bob (Sam) Cunningham and several others, decided to research the idea further and quickly secured some seed money from the Navy to advance the concept. Adopting some technology from the AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile project and developing other components from scratch, the group developed the bomb in just four years. Among other revolutionary breakthroughs, the group developed the world’s first solid-state television camera with no vacuum tubes and the first zero-input-impedance amplifier.
The team worked at nights and on weekends to keep the project on track and convince the Navy of its worth. Woodworth was the electronics expert and went so far as to take a year off from work and attend graduate school at his own expense to gain some additional theoretical knowledge needed for the project. Woodworth and Steve Brugler breadboarded the original tracking circuitry. Brugler then did the detailed analysis and design of the tracker for initial production. Larry Brown worked tirelessly to analyze the bomb’s flight traits, using an analog-computing instrument. Jack Crawford had an amazing “intuitive feel for physical phenomenon,” and could envision many of the flying traits of the bomb before it had even been built.[/quote]
seems like some pretty cool and smart guys to me. Would chill with them 10/10
Fuuuck I want a job at Lockheed Martin so bad. I'm working on getting my Aero and Astro degree, and am focusing on propulsion and plasmas (space propulsion, spacecraft design, fusion reactor fundamentals etc).
Now I need to graduate in time to help work on this :v:
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46242946]I don't think you guys understand my point:
Businesses like these need conflict, or the very imminent risk of conflict, to survive. If there is none then such businesses are among the first with real incentive to create it. Almost like the bad guy from Tomorrow Never Dies but more subtle.
Rarely in the course of human history has a nation been presented with the choice of taking military action vs. not taking it and the former option being the correct choice. But with businesses whose bottom-line depends on demands for weapons technology it's the other way around; they need the use of force or threat of force and work subtly to ensure it exists. Case in point: [URL="http://www.wired.com/2013/09/syria-war-authorization-money/"]Senators who voted to authorize airstrikes on Syria last year received, on average 83% more campaign financing from defense contractors then those who were opposed to it.[/URL]
My point is: do we as a society really want to look back and know that it was these kinds of people who were responsible for bringing us this kind of advancement? Owing our development to some of the most unscrupulous amongst us?
I'm well aware that many advancements we today take for granted were the result of the military industrial complex, but did they need to be? The first printing-press, for example, was not created with any military application in mind, but was instead first used to print the first non-latin copies of the Holy Bible, doesn't that show that we can innovate without owing our future progress to those who profit off of war?[/QUOTE]
what?
again, lockheed is doing this out of their own pocket, military applications are so far on the horizon that it doesn't matter that it will eventually be put to work powering stuff, plus a powerplant this small will undoubtably be the heart of some future interplanetary space craft
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46242946]
I'm well aware that many advancements we today take for granted were the result of the military industrial complex, but did they need to be? The first printing-press, for example, was not created with any military application in mind, but was instead first used to print the first non-latin copies of the Holy Bible, doesn't that show that we can innovate without owing our future progress to those who profit off of war?[/QUOTE]
So you want all the benefits of technological advancement throughout history without any of the circumstances which actually created the demand for these advancements. If it wasn't for the advancement of metallurgy created by the demand of steels for military use the printing press likely never would have existed. If it weren't for military campaigns like the crusades and the conquer of regions by Christian forces there likely never would have been demand for copies of the Holy Bible.
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46242946]Waffling idiocy[/QUOTE]
War is a catalyst for technological advancements; Get use to it.
"Hey defense company, please stop trying to make the world a better place for everyone"; you're forgetting that these defense companies breakthroughs also lead to less civilian casualties.
Threat of war will always be the ultimatum between countries.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
