Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | LorenPechtel's commentslogin

Assuming identical weapons.

But if your weapons outrange your enemy you will want to keep the range long. And if your weapons suffer less range penalty than theirs do you will want to keep the range long. The flip side being that if you're on the other side of either of these scenarios you want to keep the range short. And that's before you consider the effects of shielding--most universes with shields make them more effective against weaker attacks. This would mean that if you're facing lighter weapons than your own you keep the range open, if you're facing heavier ones you close.


The problem is that the planets aren't standing still.

You want to do an optimum burn for Earth -> Mars? Compute an ellipse such that one end touches Earth's orbit, one end touches Mars' orbit. Oops, Mars isn't going to be there, you wait. Once every 26 months you will find that half an orbit later Mars will be there, then you burn. We call this a launch window.

26 months later they will line up again, but neither Earth nor Mars are where they were before. A spacecraft in this second window will never pass anywhere near a crippled spacecraft that flew in the first window. Nor could they do anything but send a report if it did happen--if you're doing efficient burns you don't have the fuel to go to somebody's aid.


I believe such data exists--examine the movement of all galactic objects you can. That will give you a center of mass, the galactic plane is the plane such as to minimize the total distance from objects to the plane.

It's not like the Dollar is the only worthwhile currency.

Convert it into Euros. Or Yen. Or Yuan.


It lets people not look up. And given the slightest opportunity an awful lot of people will take the don't look up answer.

We are quite incapable of dealing with a mass attack by Iranian small boats with bombs.

They are not, they updated their tactics to account for that so they destroyed a lot of Iranian small boats with bombs trying to attack the vessels. If they were incapable of countering that we would have seen American casualties in these skirmishes but only Iranians died.

The original ship channel was in Omani waters, not Iranian. It is entirely unreasonable to consider it reasonable for Iran to mine Omani waters.

It is reasonable for Iran to do things that hurt the US (and the world) when the US hurts them.

> It is reasonable for Iran to do things that hurt the US

Yes

> (and the world)

No


It is not the world. Only Israel, USA and their direct allies are explicitly banned. Most of the world is not.

They shot at neutral ships when they closed the strait, where do you get your info from?

If it was just USA and Israel and Nato even then you'd see a ton of ships go through and the world wouldn't be very affected, since almost all ships that go through the strait are not Nato aligned.


Because neutral ships also need permission to cross the strait, even if they have not been explicitly banned. Because the status of the blockade has changed and continues to change according to tensions in the region. Several countries have obtained permission to cross: China, Russia, India, Iraq, Pakistan, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines. Even so, it is understandable that ships are hesitant to pass through there and are seeking less uncertain routes, because of the tensions, risk of war and because in addition to Iran, the United States also claims to have imposed a blockade and has attacked ships.

Oman was not neutral and did not bar it's airspace to Israel/US planes/troops/ships, so it's a legitimate target.

Definitely. I used to live in a place where the main streets would flood in any heavy storm, they effectively were the flood channel. Safe to enter? Completely impossible to determine by looking at the water, the only way I could decide was comparing what I was looking at to normal, especially looking at the curbs; or by looking at what was happening to cars on the road.

I would expect any of those to be possible in a doctor's office.

But is it driven by a desire for the diet, or a desire against things that provoke an undesirable reaction?

I am forced into an extremely limited diet to avoid provoking my body any more than I have to. And, notably, one of the first reactions used to be something not tasting as good as it used to (or in one case tasting worse than it had.) It doesn't always happen but when it does it's a near 100% accurate test--the only time it ever fooled me the actual culprit turned out to be something my wife put on her face.

I saw what happened to my mother (very similar path, but started much later in life), I already knew how to isolate what was giving me trouble before it ever happened. Most people don't, though, especially when dealing with things where it isn't high on the ingredients list (or, sometimes, not at all--they are strong about requiring manufacturers to list what they put in, but there is no such requirement about noting what they fail to take out from a natural source. Not to mention being allowed to specify that most evil of ingredients "artificial flavors". The second most evil being "natural flavors.")


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: