TheMightyEthan Posted October 9, 2014 Report Share Posted October 9, 2014 It's always seemed weird to me that the urethra runs along the under side instead of right down the center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted October 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2014 It'd be crushed/closed when you get an erection through, kinda negating the whole point of the erection in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 9, 2014 Report Share Posted October 9, 2014 Not if the spongy part was a hollow tube instead of two distinct shafts, which has also always seemed weird to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted October 9, 2014 Report Share Posted October 9, 2014 I can't not see that cross section as a guy's face with massive fly-eyes a goatee and it is super disturbing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 9, 2014 Report Share Posted October 9, 2014 Oh god, what has been seen... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalCaveman Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project "Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 That's badass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Praise the Sun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted October 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Worth noting that "initial work" is computer simulation. There's word that the reason they're coming out with this is to try and score some publicity and funding, less that they've actually got something worth showing the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Well they say they should have a working prototype running next year, so it'll be fairly quick that we'll see. And it makes sense that it would be a major military contractor like Lockheed that would figure it out, since the military, especially the navy, has an interest in small but powerful power sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted October 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 I think the current problem at the moment however is getting the big versions to work (well, produce more than they consume, nuclear fusion isn't something out of our grasp, just effective fusion) before shrinking it down. (Also I know America leans more towards military than most other nations but I'm not seeing the sense in a military contractor figuring it out over energy companies and everyone else that's been ploughing billions into the tech over the years making fusion reactors. Especially when Lockheed say they've only been at it 4 years) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 The DoD is almost a quarter of the total US budget, and more than half of discretionary spending. They have a LOT of money to throw around. I'm not saying it's definitely not marketing BS, just that it's plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecha Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Sometimes I wonder what it would be like in the us if even a third of the funding from military went to education instead. I feel teaching students coding and the like would do a lot more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted November 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2014 There's a thing on a comet. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted November 14, 2014 Report Share Posted November 14, 2014 an ultralight aerogel has been invented that is 7 times lighter than air. It's the lightest material in the world, but... if it's seven times lighter than air why doesn't it float? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecha Posted November 15, 2014 Report Share Posted November 15, 2014 an ultralight aerogel has been invented that is 7 times lighter than air. It's the lightest material in the world, but... if it's seven times lighter than air why doesn't it float? I remember reading about that...supposedly Graphene will one day be used for phones and screens.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted November 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 Dat math. God damn. Even botched this is incredible. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 As you can see, that's the easy part. Having the probe and especially the lander working 100% is the tougher part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 Dat math. God damn. Even botched this is incredible. Yeah, watching that blew my fucking mind. Like, this thing is basically just a rifle bullet fired in such a way as to exactly hit a target 10 years later and millions of miles away. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted December 5, 2014 Report Share Posted December 5, 2014 (edited) Someday I will see a launch of this in person as it heads (With people) to an asteroid and beyond. Now in Kerbal Space Program. Edited December 5, 2014 by MaliciousH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 Five years old, but still cool: As a celebration of their 50th anniversary the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash tested a 1959 Chevy Bel Air vs. a 2009 Chevy Malibu. The most amazing thing to me is how much better the passenger compartment holds together in the newer car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted January 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 My colleague was in a car crash end of last year. Was surprised how little damage (beyond shaken up) she took, when the front side of the car was totally caved in. I was trying to explain to her that being the point of modern car design, sacrifice the car and keep harm to a minimum for the passenger (not that the car above has fair too well either, though I know some older car designs made the car very solid, thus passing all shock and damage to the spongy passengers within) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 Yeah, the energy's got to go somewhere, so you direct it to fucking up the car instead of the passengers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRevanchist Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 What a waste of a Bel Air. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.