Comments by "Bob thebomb" (@bobthebomb1596) on "Curious Droid" channel.

  1. If they can build an improved, cheaper and more efficient version, why would they want to build an original F1 now?
    109
  2. Or Russia, China.......... anyone with military technology sells it to their allies.
    27
  3. I may be wrong, but I always believed that was the intent of the original flat earthers, to encourage people to look into the background science.
    6
  4.  @whatthefuck1011  Without those spooks you would be crapping your pants every time you heard a bang in a public space.
    6
  5.  @jasondashney  I don't want to make this a flat earth discussion. As I said I think the early "proponents" saw it more as a thought exercise.
    3
  6. The problems associated with depleted uranium relate more to its form and means of entry to into the body than its inherant radioactivity. As a round it is pretty safe to handle, however when it penetrates armour it emerges as a fine pyrophoric mist and is converted to breathable uranium oxide dust. It is the radioactive dust which represents the greatest hazard.
    3
  7. 24, 14, 32, 3, 8.... :D
    3
  8. Excellent video. Question is, does LabPadre have the funding to get his cameras into space so we can all watch?
    3
  9.  @utubeape  If they ever announce that we have been visited by aliens the LAST thing we want to do is fight them.
    3
  10.  @utubeape  If they are here they have likely found a way to exceed the speed of light. You are not "preparing for war" with races that far ahead of you, you are preparing to die.
    3
  11. Many people belong to both camps.
    3
  12. Everyone likes explosions.
    3
  13.  @brynclarke1746  Until they try to go up against the same defender using non-stealth jets. Stealth does not make an aircraft invisible, or invulnerable, just a lot harder to counter.
    3
  14. Doesn't have to be thorium based, but does need to be liquid fuelled.
    2
  15. You can't work in either?
    2
  16. Talk about taking a comment out of context!
    2
  17. Already here http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/sd-no-drone-killer-20180403-story.html
    2
  18. Good point, I,ve noticed this a lot recently. The Russian and Chinese bot factories are slipping.
    2
  19.  @qwadratix  I have seen it a lot on the BBC forums here in the UK recently, which is why I wonder if there is more to it.
    2
  20. Agreed
    2
  21.  @utubeape  lol
    2
  22. Nope. The US would not sell them helium.
    2
  23. Typical long range load for a B17 was 4000lb.
    2
  24.  @L3gionMusic  Hopefully yes; though I suspect others will end up commercialising the technology :(
    2
  25.  @marc_frank  Humans are very inventive full stop. Sometimes we find new ways to kill, sometimes to cure. Spy satellites were pretty neutral; on the one hand they allowed for improved targeting, on the other they lowered tension by reducing fear.
    2
  26. Depends on the pilots.
    1
  27.  @rpbajb Ah yes, I agree with you. Renewable s will undoubtedly play a significant part in future electricity generation, however I believe that nuclear still has a place. Thorium is an option, but the technology behind it (liquid fuel, molten salt) is more significant. My guess is that availability will be the deciding factor when it comes to actual fuel choice.
    1
  28. They don't really "evade" it, they break its lock.
    1
  29. Excellent video as ever.
    1
  30. I would tend to agree. Convert aircraft to run on methane. Use waste methane or produce it using the excess (when generated) energy from renewable energy sources, molten salt nuclear reactors or algae. Methane is much easier to handle than hydrogen.
    1
  31. You can't attribute a geographical location to an epidemic. It's racist apparently.
    1
  32.  @ergohack  Or when people act sensibly and don't try to attribute their own views to other people's words? My comment was meant to be "tongue in cheek" for clarity.
    1
  33.  @ergohack  I didn't say everyone was sensible, that was my point.
    1
  34. Excellent video.
    1
  35. What about it?
    1
  36.  @ToroidalX  The point of the F-35 is to kill rather than being killed. How would Europe have looked if the RAF had not adopted the Hurricane and Spitfire and entered WW2 with Fury and Gladiator biplanes?
    1
  37.  @ToroidalX  You can die for even less. Why is the 21st century any different than the previous twenty? People want stuff that belongs to others. If NASA fails then science is set back a few years, if the US military fails so does the whole of western democracy.
    1
  38.  @ToroidalX  I do not "fail to understand" the US defence budget. The US spends so much because it has been the only superpower and operates worldwide. In Europe it has effectively subsidised NATO; most of whose nations were unwilling to pay their agreed share. It maintains the capability to fight in two or more theatres of operation simultaneously, all while defending CONUS. The US has no direct land border with any of the theatres to which it provides security and must therefore maintain the capability to reinforce those theatres by air and sea. The US military is already failing because it continues to try to do too much. Why do you think material availability is so low? The USAF bomber force has worn out aircraft, the USN can not afford to replace it's Ticonderoga class cruisers. The land based nuclear arsenal is ancient. There are many other examples where it has either lost its edge or fallen behind.
    1
  39.  @ToroidalX  You want an arsenal of nuclear weapons that are seen as a credible threat, the US Minuteman III system is fifty years old and ABM systems are improving all the time. Both Russia and China are close to fielding far more advanced systems using hypersonic glide bodies to evade such missile defence systems. In fact this technology is probably the most dangerous yet devised given that it has a huge potential for misunderstandings leading to all out war. China already has the largest army in the world and the largest surface fleet. It is building a nuclear arsenal, ships and submarines at an unprecedented rate. It is openly threatening Taiwan and any country that tries to defend it; including first use of nuclear weapons.
    1
  40.  @ToroidalX  The only point you have made so far that is correct is that they are inefficient.
    1
  41.  @ToroidalX  How do you think China managed to "Do all that" with 1/3 of the budget? Same with the USSR, let the people live in hovels.
    1
  42. Agreed.
    1
  43. Not if the hydrogen was generated from water in the first place. Might have to find a technology to increase the size of the water vapour though - cause the plane to "pee" as it flew along :)
    1
  44. That's true enough. Now I am going to visualise vast solar powered airships sucking water and CO2 from the atmosphere and manufacturing hydrogen or methane for aviation fuel :D
    1
  45. Just click further along the timeline. It even shows you a preview so you know when to start again.
    1
  46.  @benchapple1583  What hypocrisy? No advertisement, no money. No money, no content.
    1
  47. ​ @benchapple1583  He did not waste your time; you did, when you chose not to exercise your option to skip forward.
    1
  48. ​ @benchapple1583  It would only be hypocrisy if you were forced to waste time watching the ad in order to view the content.
    1
  49. If they kept us from fighting WWIII then it wasn't wasted.
    1
  50. Agreed. Not an answer in itself, but why do we have to pitch our tents on one solution? Use ALL of the technologies available now and give ourselves time to decide which is the best long-term solution.
    1