|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 17, 2008 1:07:57 GMT -4
SAP.... <shudder> You're bring back nightmares of last years work changing the systems of my old workplace from Immpower to SAP.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 17, 2008 9:09:30 GMT -4
I've never used it, but I have observed how many companies that have implemented that type of program can integrate acquisitions into their current systems with relative ease. Like a lot of other automation of business processes, it is one of the big factors in transforming the way companies do business that allows them to gain economies from expansion.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Sept 3, 2008 0:27:09 GMT -4
I have never seen a single photo or video of anyone walking on water… yet some just expect me to believe it happened. There's a pretty good depiction of it near the end of "Being There", one of Peter Sellers' last movies. As the dim-witted Chauncy Gardner, he walks out on a lake, stops and probes the lake depth around him with his umbrella. And it all looked pretty convincing. So walking on water would be much easier to fake than walking on the moon. The recent brilliant Mythbusters show demonstrated that a convincing simulation of 1/6 g could NOT be done with either slow motion or a wire support rig. The only test that fully matched the Apollo videos was in true 1/6 g on an airplane flying parabolic arcs.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Sept 3, 2008 9:16:17 GMT -4
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 3, 2008 13:38:27 GMT -4
Zod can walk on water too.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 3, 2008 15:53:03 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 4, 2008 0:29:05 GMT -4
So can Joel Grey. He just has to move his legs very fast.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Sept 4, 2008 1:13:59 GMT -4
I have had dreams where i could run on water, like Dash from the Incredibles. Does anyone know how fast a creature of human weight and surface area would have to move to accomplish such a feat?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 4, 2008 5:16:09 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Sept 4, 2008 7:47:36 GMT -4
I have had dreams where i could run on water, like Dash from the Incredibles. Does anyone know how fast a creature of human weight and surface area would have to move to accomplish such a feat? Ask a waterskier.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Sept 4, 2008 14:48:31 GMT -4
I have had dreams where i could run on water, like Dash from the Incredibles. Does anyone know how fast a creature of human weight and surface area would have to move to accomplish such a feat? Ask a waterskier. Probably a bit faster then even a barefoot water skier goes, because they have a rope to keep them from falling , but likely somewhere in that ball park. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by hyundisonata on Jul 16, 2009 14:35:36 GMT -4
The LM descent engine should have gouged out a crater on landing
The Hawker Harrier is heavier than the LM, generates more thrust than the LM, and uses four much smaller outlets to direct this thrust. It does not routinely gouge craters out of the ground every time it lands or takes off vertically.
That's it for now. Any more for any more?
That is the worst defence off the crater conspiracy I have heard as of yet lol, the harrier will throw up dust in a dusty sandy area it lands on also the dust it throws up has to contend with air pressure and a stronger gravity so not the best comparison .as for the Lander it is in a vacuum so the dust would travel a fair distance and not settle on or near the point of origin
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Jul 16, 2009 15:04:37 GMT -4
That is the worst defence off the crater conspiracy I have heard as of yet lol, the harrier will throw up dust in a dusty sandy area it lands on also the dust it throws up has to contend with air pressure and a stronger gravity so not the best comparison .as for the Lander it is in a vacuum so the dust would travel a fair distance and not settle on or near the point of origin How much pressure would you need to create a crater with the LM engine on the moon?
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Jul 16, 2009 15:33:04 GMT -4
the harrier will throw up dust in a dusty sandy area it lands on Yes, it will, but it doesn't gouge a hole in the ground, which is the main point of the comparison.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 16, 2009 15:55:20 GMT -4
The LM descent engine should have gouged out a crater on landing The Hawker Harrier is heavier than the LM, generates more thrust than the LM, and uses four much smaller outlets to direct this thrust. It does not routinely gouge craters out of the ground every time it lands or takes off vertically. That's it for now. Any more for any more? That is the worst defence off the crater conspiracy I have heard as of yet lol, the harrier will throw up dust in a dusty sandy area it lands on also the dust it throws up has to contend with air pressure and a stronger gravity so not the best comparison .as for the Lander it is in a vacuum so the dust would travel a fair distance and not settle on or near the point of origin Have you read the Clavius page about this issue? www.clavius.org/techcrater.html
|
|