Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Re: Russian subs all set to help

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Russian subs all set to help

 
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2010
hwf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news(E-Mail Removed) :

> Too bad "D'OH " bama wont put politics aside to accept their help. They
> have the technology, they can rebuild it
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_a...t/10564798.stm
>
> FFS, they're working at depth in Lake Baikal!
>

Another point.

Subs don't *go* to 5,000' depth. Ever. Except to die.


--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2010
chucktard wrote:

> §¤£f wrote:
>> Too bad "D'OH " bama wont put politics aside to accept their help. They
>> have the technology, they can rebuild it
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_a...t/10564798.stm
>>
>> FFS, they're working at depth in Lake Baikal!

>
> Another point.
>
> Subs don't *go* to 5,000' depth. Ever. Except to die.


Let's start with this: the unit at Lake Baikal is a "sub" but not a
"submarine," it is a "submersible." There's a difference -- look it up.
Then find google.com and look around for how deep a submersible can go.

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarc...mersibles.html

Check out the first one for example, the Shinkai 6500:
Maximum operation depth: 6.500 meters (21,345 feet)

A couple days ago I had predicted you would begin to do research before
posting. Gawd, I was wrong!

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Yetto
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2010
chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)> writes and having writ moves on.
> §ñühw¤£f <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>> Too bad "D'OH " bama wont put politics aside to accept their help. They
>> have the technology, they can rebuild it
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_a...t/10564798.stm
>>
>> FFS, they're working at depth in Lake Baikal!
>>

> Another point.
>
> Subs don't *go* to 5,000' depth. Ever. Except to die.
>


The Alvin was recovered from 5,000' by the Aluminaut. No crew or
subs died during the incidents (sinking of the Alvin and recovery
by the Aluminaut)

Unmanned subs work at that depth on a routine basis.

Mike "your fact checker still on vacation?" Yetto
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice they are not.
 
Reply With Quote
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2010
Mike Yetto <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:

> chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)> writes and having writ moves on.
>> §ñühw¤£f <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news(E-Mail Removed) :
>>
>>> Too bad "D'OH " bama wont put politics aside to accept their help. They
>>> have the technology, they can rebuild it
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_a...t/10564798.stm
>>>
>>> FFS, they're working at depth in Lake Baikal!
>>>

>> Another point.
>>
>> Subs don't *go* to 5,000' depth. Ever. Except to die.
>>

>
> The Alvin was recovered from 5,000' by the Aluminaut. No crew or
> subs died during the incidents (sinking of the Alvin and recovery
> by the Aluminaut)
>
> Unmanned subs work at that depth on a routine basis.
>
> Mike "your fact checker still on vacation?" Yetto


He said sub. That means submarine. *Not* submersible. And besides, I've got
fed up with the twisted version reality that always seems to be involved
with snow kids posts anyways.

However, I just bothered to notice that he actually posted a BBC link, so
perhaps there's some purpose in reading the damn thing. Doubtful, but
everything's possible once.

Now then, they *had* submersibles at the problem point a month ago, So how
is a Russian one going to do any good anyways? Hell, they have a live web
cam *showing* the damn thing, so getting to it is *not* the problem. My
*guess* is that the russians never heard about any of that that and/or the
reporter suggested the leak in the gulf to them without saying anything
else Thereby creating the story to write. Hardly a unique event in the
press.

And as for it being only one of three that can go to 6,000', I find
that questionable as well. The Trieste got to the bottom of the
Mariana Trench. And two others did it since. That's almost double that
depth and it first was done 50 years ago.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2010
chuckcar wrote:

> Mike Yetto wrote:
>> chucktard wrote:
>>> hwf wrote:
>>>> Too bad "D'OH " bama wont put politics aside to accept their help.
>>>> They have the technology, they can rebuild it
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_a...t/10564798.stm
>>>>
>>>> FFS, they're working at depth in Lake Baikal!
>>>>
>>> Another point.
>>>
>>> Subs don't *go* to 5,000' depth. Ever. Except to die.

>>
>> The Alvin was recovered from 5,000' by the Aluminaut. No crew or
>> subs died during the incidents (sinking of the Alvin and recovery by
>> the Aluminaut)
>>
>> Unmanned subs work at that depth on a routine basis.
>>
>> Mike "your fact checker still on vacation?" Yetto

>
> He said sub. That means submarine. *Not* submersible. And besides, I've got
> fed up with the twisted version reality that always seems to be involved
> with snow kids posts anyways.


"Sub" can mean either.

> However, I just bothered to notice that he actually posted a BBC link,
> so perhaps there's some purpose in reading the damn thing.


DOH!!

> And as for it being only one of three that can go to 6,000', I find
> that questionable as well.


Is that in response to my post with the link to submersibles? Do you
know the difference between meters and feet?

> The Trieste got to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. And two others
> did it since. That's almost double that depth and it first was done
> 50 years ago.


Do you know how deep the Marianas Trench really is?
http://www.marianatrench.com/mariana...eanography.htm
"The Mariana Trench is 11,033 meters (36,201 feet), (6033.5) fathoms
deep."

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
 
Reply With Quote
 
joevan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2010
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 03:00:49 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Mike Yetto <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed) l-september.org:
>
>> chuckcar <(E-Mail Removed)> writes and having writ moves on.
>>> §ñühw¤£f <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> news(E-Mail Removed) :
>>>
>>>> Too bad "D'OH " bama wont put politics aside to accept their help. They
>>>> have the technology, they can rebuild it
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_a...t/10564798.stm
>>>>
>>>> FFS, they're working at depth in Lake Baikal!
>>>>
>>> Another point.
>>>
>>> Subs don't *go* to 5,000' depth. Ever. Except to die.
>>>

>>
>> The Alvin was recovered from 5,000' by the Aluminaut. No crew or
>> subs died during the incidents (sinking of the Alvin and recovery
>> by the Aluminaut)
>>
>> Unmanned subs work at that depth on a routine basis.
>>
>> Mike "your fact checker still on vacation?" Yetto

>
>He said sub. That means submarine. *Not* submersible. And besides, I've got
>fed up with the twisted version reality that always seems to be involved
>with snow kids posts anyways.
>
>However, I just bothered to notice that he actually posted a BBC link, so
>perhaps there's some purpose in reading the damn thing. Doubtful, but
>everything's possible once.
>
>Now then, they *had* submersibles at the problem point a month ago, So how
>is a Russian one going to do any good anyways? Hell, they have a live web
>cam *showing* the damn thing, so getting to it is *not* the problem. My
>*guess* is that the russians never heard about any of that that and/or the
>reporter suggested the leak in the gulf to them without saying anything
>else Thereby creating the story to write. Hardly a unique event in the
>press.
>
>And as for it being only one of three that can go to 6,000', I find
>that questionable as well. The Trieste got to the bottom of the
>Mariana Trench. And two others did it since. That's almost double that
>depth and it first was done 50 years ago.

I thought sub was a sandwich.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Yetto
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2010
Beauregard T. Shagnasty <(E-Mail Removed)> writes and having writ moves on.
> chuckcar wrote:
>
>> Mike Yetto wrote:
>>> chucktard wrote:
>>>> §ñühw¤£f wrote:
>>>>> Too bad "D'OH " bama wont put politics aside to accept their help.
>>>>> They have the technology, they can rebuild it
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_a...t/10564798.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> FFS, they're working at depth in Lake Baikal!
>>>>>
>>>> Another point.
>>>>
>>>> Subs don't *go* to 5,000' depth. Ever. Except to die.
>>>
>>> The Alvin was recovered from 5,000' by the Aluminaut. No crew or
>>> subs died during the incidents (sinking of the Alvin and recovery by
>>> the Aluminaut)
>>>
>>> Unmanned subs work at that depth on a routine basis.
>>>
>>> Mike "your fact checker still on vacation?" Yetto

>>
>> He said sub. That means submarine. *Not* submersible. And besides, I've got
>> fed up with the twisted version reality that always seems to be involved
>> with snow kids posts anyways.

>
> "Sub" can mean either.
>


Or even: a large sandwich on a long split roll with any of a
variety of fillings (as meatballs or cold cuts, cheese, lettuce,
and tomato) —called also grinder, hero, hoagie, Italian sandwich,
po'boy, submarine, torpedo

>> However, I just bothered to notice that he actually posted a BBC link,
>> so perhaps there's some purpose in reading the damn thing.

>
> DOH!!
>
>> And as for it being only one of three that can go to 6,000', I find
>> that questionable as well.

>
> Is that in response to my post with the link to submersibles? Do you
> know the difference between meters and feet?
>
>> The Trieste got to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. And two others
>> did it since. That's almost double that depth and it first was done
>> 50 years ago.

>


The Trieste was a bathyscape not a self propelled submersible.
Submarines are self-propelled submersible vehicles. Not that
we're arguing semantics or the like.

> Do you know how deep the Marianas Trench really is?
> http://www.marianatrench.com/mariana...eanography.htm
> "The Mariana Trench is 11,033 meters (36,201 feet), (6033.5) fathoms
> deep."
>


Well 11,033 meters is about double 5,000' relatively speaking.

Mike "with small values for meters" Yetto
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice they are not.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Buffalo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2010


joevan wrote:
> I thought sub was a sandwich.


DUH!! Only an Italian Sub is a sandwich, not a Russian Sub!!
Buffalo


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Russian subs all set to help Buffalo Computer Support 0 07-10-2010 12:49 AM
Re: Russian subs all set to help chuckcar Computer Support 3 07-09-2010 11:19 PM
Re: Russian subs all set to help Whiskers Computer Support 0 07-09-2010 09:09 PM
Re: Russian subs all set to help Ctrl/Alt/Del Computer Support 1 07-09-2010 08:01 PM
Linux in all Russian schools by 2009 Au79 Computer Support 0 09-24-2007 03:53 PM



Advertisments