Re: Russian subs all set to help

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by chuckcar, Jul 10, 2010.

  1. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    §ñühw¤£f <> wrote in
    news:p:

    > 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_and_environment/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) )
     
    chuckcar, Jul 10, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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_and_environment/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/bismarck/expeditions/submersibles.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
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jul 10, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. chuckcar

    Mike Yetto Guest

    chuckcar <> writes and having writ moves on.
    > §ñühw¤£f <> wrote in
    > news:p:
    >
    >> 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_and_environment/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.
     
    Mike Yetto, Jul 10, 2010
    #3
  4. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    Mike Yetto <> wrote in
    news:-september.org:

    > chuckcar <> writes and having writ moves on.
    >> §ñühw¤£f <> wrote in
    >> news:p:
    >>
    >>> 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_and_environment/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) )
     
    chuckcar, Jul 10, 2010
    #4
  5. 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_and_environment/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_trench-oceanography.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
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jul 10, 2010
    #5
  6. chuckcar

    joevan Guest

    On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 03:00:49 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    wrote:

    >Mike Yetto <> wrote in
    >news:-september.org:
    >
    >> chuckcar <> writes and having writ moves on.
    >>> §ñühw¤£f <> wrote in
    >>> news:p:
    >>>
    >>>> 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_and_environment/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.
     
    joevan, Jul 10, 2010
    #6
  7. chuckcar

    Mike Yetto Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty <> 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_and_environment/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_trench-oceanography.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.
     
    Mike Yetto, Jul 10, 2010
    #7
  8. chuckcar

    Buffalo Guest

    joevan wrote:
    > I thought sub was a sandwich.


    DUH!! Only an Italian Sub is a sandwich, not a Russian Sub!! :)
    Buffalo
     
    Buffalo, Jul 10, 2010
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Hans Bremler

    Linux Forced Subs?

    Hans Bremler, Jun 4, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    570
    Hans Bremler
    Jun 4, 2004
  2. Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤

    Re: Russian subs all set to help

    Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤, Jul 9, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    419
    OldGringo38
    Jul 9, 2010
  3. chuckcar

    Re: Russian subs all set to help

    chuckcar, Jul 9, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    430
    chuckcar
    Jul 10, 2010
  4. Whiskers

    Re: Russian subs all set to help

    Whiskers, Jul 9, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    461
    Whiskers
    Jul 9, 2010
  5. Buffalo

    Re: Russian subs all set to help

    Buffalo, Jul 10, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    457
    Buffalo
    Jul 10, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page