|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 29 2017 05:40 doomdonker wrote:Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in the document you listed is anything over and above mandatory training. The issue he's bringing up with American policing is the mandatory training. From the Greater Manchester Police Force is an example of basic training for a British police officer. I seems similar to what Australian police officers go through, its definitely not a walk in the park from what I know: Show nested quote +The initial training is divided into three phases, and lasts for 20 weeks with one week built into the programme for annual leave. Leave at this stage will be taken as directed. Following this you will have a period of workplace assessment. Successful completion at this point will make you eligible for independent patrol. Over the following 18 months, you will continue to be assessed and will return to Sedgley Park, or other training venues for further legislative training.
Weeks 1 – 10
You will be based at the Sedgley Park complex. This incorporates a general induction into GMP or your new role if you are an internal candidate; an introduction to the main policies and procedures, including professional standards and expectations; ethics and values; decision making and problem solving; communication skills training, the assessment process for the probationary period and some basic legislation. You will also attend other sites to undertake Personal Safety Training and on your Borough for a Community Engagement week incorporating partnership awareness. You will have your Attestation ceremony in this period of training.
Weeks 11 – 20
This is the main section of the legislative training programme. You will work aligned to an Area Training Base, of which there are 5 across the force. They are currently located at Rochdale, Bury, Stretford, Leigh and Wythenshawe. It includes public protection training, crime scene preservation and investigation and training on roads policing. You will also undergo victim and suspect interview and search technique training.
Assessment
During your initial training you will be assessed by way of knowledge checks, multiple choice question formal assessment, and taking part in simulated exercises designed to test your practical application of knowledge.
You will also be enrolled on the Level 3 Diploma in Policing which is a nationally recognised qualification and equivalent to ‘A’-level standard on the Qualifications Credit Framework. The City and Guilds are our current providers for the award.
You will be assessed by trained assessors both in the learning environment and also in the workplace. You will work toward completion of the award within your two-year probationary period and is essential for you to achieve confirmation in the rank of Constable. You will use an electronic portfolio to record evidence of competence.
Tutor Phase. Weeks 22-32
Following the initial training programme, you will commence a period of 10-weeks workplace assessment with a trained tutor constable. This will be on your posted borough and you are likely to be on shifts during this period. You will be assessed against some of the basic skills required for an officer to achieve independent patrol.
Independent Patrol/Phase 4. Weeks 33 - 104
During this time you will be on independent patrol on your Borough and are likely to be a Neighbourhood Police Office. You will be continually assessed during this period by trained Borough staff and your line manager who will complete assessment documentation. You will return to a training venue for 3 additional developmental courses throughout this period covering more complex legislation.
Completion
At the successful completion of this two-year probation period, you will be confirmed in the rank of Constable.
I was being generous and giving the US a pass for the initial basic training, and just comparing continuing education which is where I think we are severely lacking.
|
Trump’s strength and prowess has caused North Korea to capitulate, rather than doing the exact opposite of capitulating.
This ICBM is on republican voters. They gave us Trump but I wonder if they grasp the consequences.
|
Am I the only one thinking we're gonna end up a situation of "woops, turned out they really upped their game and we are now totally within their range"
|
Its the same deal as with Iran (then Bush)
US President threatens country with invasion. Country accelerates nuclear program as only means to stay safe.
|
On November 29 2017 06:01 Doodsmack wrote:Trump’s strength and prowess has caused North Korea to capitulate, rather than doing the exact opposite of capitulating. https://twitter.com/willripleycnn/status/935605893084803072This ICBM is on republican voters. They gave us Trump but I wonder if they grasp the consequences.
What is the reason for going to such a high altitude? Is it just like they didn't want to shoot it far away so to properly test the thrust amount they have to shoot it very high into the air?
|
On November 29 2017 06:14 Logo wrote:What is the reason for going to such a high altitude? Is it just like they didn't want to shoot it far away so to properly test the thrust amount they have to shoot it very high into the air?
I just assumed part of the competitive advantage is that you prefer your missile to be traveling through as low a pressure environment as possible and that it is also harder to defend against something coming straight down out of the sky rather than coming at you head on.
But I don't know shit.
|
On November 29 2017 06:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 06:14 Logo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:01 Doodsmack wrote:Trump’s strength and prowess has caused North Korea to capitulate, rather than doing the exact opposite of capitulating. https://twitter.com/willripleycnn/status/935605893084803072This ICBM is on republican voters. They gave us Trump but I wonder if they grasp the consequences. What is the reason for going to such a high altitude? Is it just like they didn't want to shoot it far away so to properly test the thrust amount they have to shoot it very high into the air? I just assumed part of the competitive advantage is that you prefer your missile to be traveling through as low a pressure environment as possible and that it is also harder to defend against something coming straight down out of the sky rather than coming at you head on. But I don't know shit.
nah, the missile is basicly just going straight up and covering almost no distance aside from vertical one at that. It is like he said, they want to test or show off the range without having to shoot it over a large .... horizontal? ... distance
The implication is that if they were to shoot it normally it could reach XXXX amounts of km away from N.Korea
|
On November 29 2017 06:14 Logo wrote:What is the reason for going to such a high altitude? Is it just like they didn't want to shoot it far away so to properly test the thrust amount they have to shoot it very high into the air?
I also wondered about scale and such and found this gem!
|
On November 29 2017 06:25 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 06:19 Mohdoo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:14 Logo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:01 Doodsmack wrote:Trump’s strength and prowess has caused North Korea to capitulate, rather than doing the exact opposite of capitulating. https://twitter.com/willripleycnn/status/935605893084803072This ICBM is on republican voters. They gave us Trump but I wonder if they grasp the consequences. What is the reason for going to such a high altitude? Is it just like they didn't want to shoot it far away so to properly test the thrust amount they have to shoot it very high into the air? I just assumed part of the competitive advantage is that you prefer your missile to be traveling through as low a pressure environment as possible and that it is also harder to defend against something coming straight down out of the sky rather than coming at you head on. But I don't know shit. nah, the missile is basicly just going straight up and covering almost no distance aside from vertical one at that. It is like he said, they want to test or show off the range without having to shoot it over a large .... horizontal? ... distance The implication is that if they were to shoot it normally it could reach XXXX amounts of km away from N.Korea
I'm about as far from an aeronautical engineer as it gets. But from my perspective, doesn't testing the way it goes up not necessarily reflect how it will go sideways? Do we basically ignore gravity for horizontal launches?
This is a pretty specialized question, but I guess I am curious why this is considered an appropriate approximation. I can't imagine they'd be comfortable targeting an actual enemy based on purely vertical data. You gotta have some "actual" data, right?
Also, for those too lazy to google: Oregon and South Korea are 5300 miles apart. So if they were able to do 2800 miles, they are about 53% of the way there? I wonder how difficult that last 45% would be. In pretty much every engineering stuff I've worked on, hitting 80% of your target is usually trivial. Hitting 90% is challenging. That last 5% takes longer than the rest of the entire project.
|
On November 29 2017 06:25 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 06:19 Mohdoo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:14 Logo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:01 Doodsmack wrote:Trump’s strength and prowess has caused North Korea to capitulate, rather than doing the exact opposite of capitulating. https://twitter.com/willripleycnn/status/935605893084803072This ICBM is on republican voters. They gave us Trump but I wonder if they grasp the consequences. What is the reason for going to such a high altitude? Is it just like they didn't want to shoot it far away so to properly test the thrust amount they have to shoot it very high into the air? I just assumed part of the competitive advantage is that you prefer your missile to be traveling through as low a pressure environment as possible and that it is also harder to defend against something coming straight down out of the sky rather than coming at you head on. But I don't know shit. nah, the missile is basicly just going straight up and covering almost no distance aside from vertical one at that. It is like he said, they want to test or show off the range without having to shoot it over a large .... horizontal? ... distance The implication is that if they were to shoot it normally it could reach XXXX amounts of km away from N.Korea
Well, once you hit 4,500km gravity is much lower and air resistance is basically non-existent, so horizontal movement should be easier (discounting loss of lift and such).
I'd think intercepting a missile that's in the exosphere is much more difficult.
|
On November 29 2017 06:28 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 06:14 Logo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:01 Doodsmack wrote:Trump’s strength and prowess has caused North Korea to capitulate, rather than doing the exact opposite of capitulating. https://twitter.com/willripleycnn/status/935605893084803072This ICBM is on republican voters. They gave us Trump but I wonder if they grasp the consequences. What is the reason for going to such a high altitude? Is it just like they didn't want to shoot it far away so to properly test the thrust amount they have to shoot it very high into the air? I also wondered about scale and such and found this gem!
Awesome site! Only complaint is they didn't include the bug highway at ~1-3km.
|
On November 29 2017 05:19 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 04:57 Gorsameth wrote:On November 29 2017 04:47 Danglars wrote:
This thing being the tax plan? The one with a gutting of the ACA? I would be extremely surprised considering the resistance to the last several times The vote from the senate budget committee. As in this report claims they’ve found a compromise that will pass that committee and possibly go on to pass the senate, entering reconciliation. As I was typing this, it just passed the budget committee 12-11. Corker/Johnson on board. It’s interesting because the prospects of all the factions coming together was on something was close to nil, and now it seems like there’s more hope. Does this version the full Senate will be voting on later this week include the ACA mandate repeal?
Yes, but I don’t expect that to survive senate amendment process. The key here was budgetary impact compromises for both “it doesn’t cut enough” and “it cuts too much” people. I expected more aspects to die in committee.
|
On November 29 2017 06:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 06:25 Toadesstern wrote:On November 29 2017 06:19 Mohdoo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:14 Logo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:01 Doodsmack wrote:Trump’s strength and prowess has caused North Korea to capitulate, rather than doing the exact opposite of capitulating. https://twitter.com/willripleycnn/status/935605893084803072This ICBM is on republican voters. They gave us Trump but I wonder if they grasp the consequences. What is the reason for going to such a high altitude? Is it just like they didn't want to shoot it far away so to properly test the thrust amount they have to shoot it very high into the air? I just assumed part of the competitive advantage is that you prefer your missile to be traveling through as low a pressure environment as possible and that it is also harder to defend against something coming straight down out of the sky rather than coming at you head on. But I don't know shit. nah, the missile is basicly just going straight up and covering almost no distance aside from vertical one at that. It is like he said, they want to test or show off the range without having to shoot it over a large .... horizontal? ... distance The implication is that if they were to shoot it normally it could reach XXXX amounts of km away from N.Korea I'm about as far from an aeronautical engineer as it gets. But from my perspective, doesn't testing the way it goes up not necessarily reflect how it will go sideways? Do we basically ignore gravity for horizontal launches? This is a pretty specialized question, but I guess I am curious why this is considered an appropriate approximation. I can't imagine they'd be comfortable targeting an actual enemy based on purely vertical data. You gotta have some "actual" data, right? Also, for those too lazy to google: Oregon and South Korea are 5300 miles apart. So if they were able to do 2800 miles, they are about 53% of the way there? I wonder how difficult that last 45% would be. In pretty much every engineering stuff I've worked on, hitting 80% of your target is usually trivial. Hitting 90% is challenging. That last 5% takes longer than the rest of the entire project.
i'm pretty sure that's not how the math/physics is gonna work; best to wait for some news source that knows the data on how far such a thing can reach.
|
On November 29 2017 06:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 06:25 Toadesstern wrote:On November 29 2017 06:19 Mohdoo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:14 Logo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:01 Doodsmack wrote:Trump’s strength and prowess has caused North Korea to capitulate, rather than doing the exact opposite of capitulating. https://twitter.com/willripleycnn/status/935605893084803072This ICBM is on republican voters. They gave us Trump but I wonder if they grasp the consequences. What is the reason for going to such a high altitude? Is it just like they didn't want to shoot it far away so to properly test the thrust amount they have to shoot it very high into the air? I just assumed part of the competitive advantage is that you prefer your missile to be traveling through as low a pressure environment as possible and that it is also harder to defend against something coming straight down out of the sky rather than coming at you head on. But I don't know shit. nah, the missile is basicly just going straight up and covering almost no distance aside from vertical one at that. It is like he said, they want to test or show off the range without having to shoot it over a large .... horizontal? ... distance The implication is that if they were to shoot it normally it could reach XXXX amounts of km away from N.Korea I'm about as far from an aeronautical engineer as it gets. But from my perspective, doesn't testing the way it goes up not necessarily reflect how it will go sideways? Do we basically ignore gravity for horizontal launches? This is a pretty specialized question, but I guess I am curious why this is considered an appropriate approximation. I can't imagine they'd be comfortable targeting an actual enemy based on purely vertical data. You gotta have some "actual" data, right? Also, for those too lazy to google: Oregon and South Korea are 5300 miles apart. So if they were able to do 2800 miles, they are about 53% of the way there? I wonder how difficult that last 45% would be. In pretty much every engineering stuff I've worked on, hitting 80% of your target is usually trivial. Hitting 90% is challenging. That last 5% takes longer than the rest of the entire project.
I don't think they're using it to confirm distance themselves. More like a show of strength that lets the US and other people roughly eyeball and have a guess of what the missile would be capable if shot on a ballistic trajectory.
Assuming it doesn't break apart when comming down again.
So long story short, it's more than enough to get the message "this thing can shoot plenty far!" across, which really is all that N.Korea wants to get across.
|
On November 29 2017 05:41 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 03:25 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 03:00 Artisreal wrote:On November 29 2017 02:15 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:44 Artisreal wrote:On November 29 2017 01:27 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 00:28 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Your evaluation of what’s repugnant lol. You’re way too willing to settle things with violence for me. Go find a police officer or something to get your rocks off.
You’ve always seen racism in everything and I don’t expect it to change soon. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead. I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats. You're sitting here defending advocating genocide on the principle that it will take too long to get from where we are today to actually committing genocide without a shred of irony. As for the rest, I already said that in the first place... But in reality I have friends with wildly different politics. I'm the leftiest though. They run all the way to "voted for Trump" you seem not to appreciate how absurd the ground you're standing on is as displayed by the first part. You're sitting here unaware that intruding on the free speech rights of some imperils the free speech rights of all. And then you make the absurd leap that neonazis protected when they do their stupid marches is one short step to "actually committing genocide." We have laws. You can say what you like politically with great freedom. You can't start killing people based on skin color. These laws have held up thus far. I'm glad you haven't put your stated rules for socking people into practice with your friend group. Casually assuming you're part of all and he's part of some. :Thinking: How much worth is a law that is not abided by? Nothing. By that standard it suffices to have the law. We have the law of not punching you so punching you is fine. But go on please. What are you on about? Law against genocide? Keep on thinking about free speech rights. You even have a sheriff that's been pardoned by your president as a prime example how fucking meaningless laws can be when the people enforcing them are confronted with a non white person. Your failure to see that is on you. Are you really ducking to Arpaio? Was Obama black and did he have pardon power over everyone black and white? You're on fire today! What is Obamas connection to a racist lawbreaker that has been exempt from punishment by your President? Two things come apparent with Arpaio. 1) Racist policies are in place and breaking the law, entirely voiding your "there's a law against genocide" argument. Just because we have a law there's no fucking way to be sure it is enforced when needed, especially concerning POCs 2) It takes a long time of that being public knowledge and a little luck for the justice system to finally fuck him over 2b) then comes the Cavalry and ruins justice for a little diversion during Hurricane troubles
You made very little case connecting the free speech rights of neonazis to the presidential pardon. I’d love to indulge your subject hop, because it makes me chuckle and smile, but you really do need to show more connecting strings. Still waiting on the original whether toleration if free speech leads to genocide answer. I didn’t even understand what you were trying to say afterwards.
|
Also worth noting Guam is 2131 miles from North Korea, so if we were to approximate vertical=horizontal, they've got a guam buster.
|
I both want this stunt to die quickly but I also want it to stick around to display the problems with this bureau.
|
On November 29 2017 06:53 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 06:31 Mohdoo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:25 Toadesstern wrote:On November 29 2017 06:19 Mohdoo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:14 Logo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:01 Doodsmack wrote:Trump’s strength and prowess has caused North Korea to capitulate, rather than doing the exact opposite of capitulating. https://twitter.com/willripleycnn/status/935605893084803072This ICBM is on republican voters. They gave us Trump but I wonder if they grasp the consequences. What is the reason for going to such a high altitude? Is it just like they didn't want to shoot it far away so to properly test the thrust amount they have to shoot it very high into the air? I just assumed part of the competitive advantage is that you prefer your missile to be traveling through as low a pressure environment as possible and that it is also harder to defend against something coming straight down out of the sky rather than coming at you head on. But I don't know shit. nah, the missile is basicly just going straight up and covering almost no distance aside from vertical one at that. It is like he said, they want to test or show off the range without having to shoot it over a large .... horizontal? ... distance The implication is that if they were to shoot it normally it could reach XXXX amounts of km away from N.Korea I'm about as far from an aeronautical engineer as it gets. But from my perspective, doesn't testing the way it goes up not necessarily reflect how it will go sideways? Do we basically ignore gravity for horizontal launches? This is a pretty specialized question, but I guess I am curious why this is considered an appropriate approximation. I can't imagine they'd be comfortable targeting an actual enemy based on purely vertical data. You gotta have some "actual" data, right? Also, for those too lazy to google: Oregon and South Korea are 5300 miles apart. So if they were able to do 2800 miles, they are about 53% of the way there? I wonder how difficult that last 45% would be. In pretty much every engineering stuff I've worked on, hitting 80% of your target is usually trivial. Hitting 90% is challenging. That last 5% takes longer than the rest of the entire project. I don't think they're using it to confirm distance themselves. More like a show of strength that lets the US and other people roughly eyeball and have a guess of what the missile would be capable if shot on a ballistic trajectory. Assuming it doesn't break apart when comming down again. So long story short, it's more than enough to get the message "this thing can shoot plenty far!" across, which really is all that N.Korea wants to get across.
Yep. Shooting higher = your missiles are improving. The alternative to see if your missiles were improving would be actually launching them at targets which is a preeeeetty suicidal move that even NK doesn't want to do unless it has a military objective.
|
On November 29 2017 06:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 06:25 Toadesstern wrote:On November 29 2017 06:19 Mohdoo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:14 Logo wrote:On November 29 2017 06:01 Doodsmack wrote:Trump’s strength and prowess has caused North Korea to capitulate, rather than doing the exact opposite of capitulating. https://twitter.com/willripleycnn/status/935605893084803072This ICBM is on republican voters. They gave us Trump but I wonder if they grasp the consequences. What is the reason for going to such a high altitude? Is it just like they didn't want to shoot it far away so to properly test the thrust amount they have to shoot it very high into the air? I just assumed part of the competitive advantage is that you prefer your missile to be traveling through as low a pressure environment as possible and that it is also harder to defend against something coming straight down out of the sky rather than coming at you head on. But I don't know shit. nah, the missile is basicly just going straight up and covering almost no distance aside from vertical one at that. It is like he said, they want to test or show off the range without having to shoot it over a large .... horizontal? ... distance The implication is that if they were to shoot it normally it could reach XXXX amounts of km away from N.Korea I'm about as far from an aeronautical engineer as it gets. But from my perspective, doesn't testing the way it goes up not necessarily reflect how it will go sideways? Do we basically ignore gravity for horizontal launches? This is a pretty specialized question, but I guess I am curious why this is considered an appropriate approximation. I can't imagine they'd be comfortable targeting an actual enemy based on purely vertical data. You gotta have some "actual" data, right? Also, for those too lazy to google: Oregon and South Korea are 5300 miles apart. So if they were able to do 2800 miles, they are about 53% of the way there? I wonder how difficult that last 45% would be. In pretty much every engineering stuff I've worked on, hitting 80% of your target is usually trivial. Hitting 90% is challenging. That last 5% takes longer than the rest of the entire project.
legal can probably give some good deets based on his posts about rockets.
i would guess that you could run some rough math to calculate the total range of a ICBM based on it going up and down. using physics 101 (or 104, my uni had weird numbers), it's a relatively straightforward to estimate the energy needed to get a rocket up to a height of x based on mass and height, then you see how far you can get the rocket to travel with the amount of energy when you point it in a different not-straight-up direction. you factor in gravity as "pulling down" while the rocket engine is "pushing up". this is a pretty staple physics class homework or test problem, though actual rocket science likely adjusts for all sorts of variables like air resistance, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
