This is a thread for discussing education.

Created to avoid derailing the Post election thread.

Keep it civil and be high in openness. 
 

I found this quite interesting, and I would like people to share their opinion on this:

In short, magnetic gearing. Zero contact between the two "gears" meaning "no friction", no need for lubricant, very reliable and claimed efficiency of 99% at high speeds and "much higher at lower speeds compared to conventional gearing. 

What this means is that you can have a final drive with almost no wear and a very long lifespan, if we do no count the bearings. It also has a side effect of slipping when the torque goes past the rated torque. This means that the drive would disengage instead of breaking itself. I think this works well with electric motors, considering their long lifespan, which often needs a gearbox to optimize the torque. 

The company realized this and apparently made a Psuedo-direct drive, integrating it into the motor and claim a much better torque density. I think this would be quite useful for AFVs to reduce the size of the engine bay. 

They also made a magnetic CVT:

Should be self explanatory for anyone that knows what a CVT is. Claims to be 32% more efficient that a conventional gearbox.

The only disadvantages I can think of is higher price and needing to keep the magnets below their Curie point. 

And we have magnetic bearings too:

Simply, they are like magnetic gears, only as bearings. They can support a theoretically infinite RPM, with no friction. They can operate in a vacuum and in very hostile environments. 

They come in two types, active and passive. Active bearings use sensors and electromagnets in a feedback loop does a "tug of war" to keep the object in the center. A passive system uses permanent magnets. 

Some include a backup bearing in case of a failure. Same disadvantages as above. 

This could make for a system with almost zero friction, no lubricant and a very long lifespan. In theory, non of these parts would ever need to be replaced, some maintenance would be needed to remove pill up of dirt and dust.

With a magnetic coupling, you could also have a sprocket that does need to compromise the armor, as it can transfer the power through it magnetically. 

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearing

http://www.magnomatics.com/pages/technology/pseudo-direct-drive.htm

http://www.magnomatics.com/pages/technology/low-ratio-magnetic-gears.htm

http://www.magnomatics.com/pages/technology/magsplit.htm

http://www.magnomatics.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_coupling

Heard this on the Radio today:
"The a armed police response has been sent to Stavanger Hospital university after a man with a carrying a "knife-like object" was spotted in the university. The police are currently searching for the man"

I guess the police don't have much to do here in Norway. 

On 1.12.2017 at 8:25 PM, Collimatrix said:

... Good lord that is some bad journalism.

 

Nowhere, absolutely nowhere in that article does it say how much energy this battery stores.  You know, the thing that actually matters.

 

Energy is the amount of electricity in the battery.  Energy is measured in joules (or ergs if you are a Shiite or BTUs or calories if you are a kaffir).  Power is how fast the battery can discharge that energy.  Power is measured in watts (or... ergs per second if you are a Shiite or horsepower if you are a kaffir).

Not sure what the measurements are in the US. But in Europe we measure battery size by Kwh. The power divided by the amounts of hours. One kwh is equal to 1kw*3600s (1 hour).   

This means that a 1 Kwh battery could run a 1Kw load  for one hour, or a 2Kw load for 30 minutes, or a 4Kw load for 15 minutes. 

The exception being power banks and computer batteries, which are measured in Ah.  The reason being that the voltage is constant (5V), also manufacturers usually use mA so that they can make the numbers look big, like 10 000mAh, instead of simply 10Ah. 

On 1.12.2017 at 8:25 PM, Collimatrix said:

When cells are wired in series, it increases the power.  There are certain practical limits to this which I don't understand well because I am not an electrical engineer, but in principle it is possible to have absurdly high power with very little energy.  It's just a question of how fast the energy gets dumped out.  There are capacitor banks in labs that produce more power than the entire US power grid, but only for tiny fractions of a second.  Their impact on the power grid isn't that important because, relative to the entire thing, they are consuming very little energy.

I think you are mistaking voltage and power here.  It is true that wiring cells in series increases the power, but so does wiring them in parallel. Ohm's law explains this:

Take a 12V 1A cell, if we use Ohm's law, we will see that:
V*I=P
12V*1A=12w

So we know this cell has a power of 12w.

By wiring it in series we double the voltage.

Now the cell is 24V 1A, by using the same equation:
24V*1A=24w

By wiring it in parallel we double the amps but the voltage stays the same.
This cell is 12V 2A, and what do we get?
12V*2A=24w

Now you talk about stupidly high power with no energy. I am assume you meant stupidly high voltage with no amps. This is easily possible, just take a sweater and rub around a bit to make static electricity. Now touch anything conductive. GASP, you just discharged up to around 12 000 000 volts! Now why did the room not explode and the conductors vaporize? Because the current is minuscule, 0,00001mA maybe.  This is around 0,12w. Absolutely nothing. You can see this is tasers. You only need 12 000 volts to have a very effective taser, at around 20mA. 

Voltage is the pressure in a water pipe.
Current is the amount of water flowing through the pipe.
Resistance is the inside diameter of the pipe.
Power is the amount of well, power in the water. Like the power in a motor, it does not matter if the motor is 6V 1000A or 6000V 1A, they both have a power of 6Kw. (It does impact motor design and such, but that is off topic).

What limits engineers from simply wiring a million cells in series and parallel is the heat generation and BMS.  Example of a Tesla battery pack:

On 1.12.2017 at 8:25 PM, Collimatrix said:

 

So, what we really want to know, the amount of megajoules that this giant battery stores, is completely absent from the article.  Because journalists are stupid and don't understand anything.  Fuck 'em all.

Yes, they could have simply hooked a super capacitor to the grid that lasts for 0,1 second like you mentioned. 

On 25.11.2017 at 1:38 AM, Alzoc said:

 

The fun part is that our system was intended to be a meritocracy by all mean, and still is to some extent.

Progressiveism and meritocracy does not mix well. They almost oppose each other. 
I presume that France is alike to the rest of the west in terms of progressive-ism, maybe not as high as in Scandinavia, but still prominent. 

On 25.11.2017 at 1:38 AM, Alzoc said:

During your primary and secondary education a very important parameter to asses your capacity will be your maths grades since it was believed that it is the subject that is the least affected by your socio-cultural background.

The assumption is that, even if you don't have a great general knowledge because your parents didn't took you often to a museum, that they were immigrant and couldn't  help with learning French, etc. Anybody who was intelligent enough and hard working could achieve proficiency in maths, thus it is a fair way to asses people capability.

Plus they allow to grade objectively and to assess things like reasoning, abstraction capability, conceptualization, etc.

 

 

It worked rather well when mass education started, when most parents were uneducated or had a low education and couldn't help their kids at home, but the more time passed the more social reproductivity grew.

Parents that were good at schools could help their kids to do their homework, since they got a good job, they had enough money to pay for extra lessons for their kids (and maths are particularly sensitive to practising).

Same happened with schools where the disparity between them grew bigger over time (more renowned school often mean bigger budget and more graduates in the industry which mean more partnership with said industry).

I agree here, except at one thing. Though grades strongly correlate with intelligence, they are not a sign of intelligence. Simply repeating lines from a book is not intelligence, it is just a memory game. Take the same person, and put them in a situation where they have to solve a completely new equations. They will fall short, even if they aced every test up til then. A lesser intelligent person can practice very hard to achieve the same result as a genius. 

This is why I prefer IQ, since it is not affected by practice, socio-economic status, parents, or renowned schools. 

You can be a homeless poor immigrant with no parents and no education, no tutoring and not know the language of your country.  And you can still score 160IQ, which makes you a genius, while a person growing up in a perfect environment could score 100, the average IQ. The only thing that affects IQ is genetics. Well, you can lower your IQ by heavy drinking, drug use, poising, brain damage etc, but that is obvious. 

On 25.11.2017 at 1:38 AM, Alzoc said:

 

The idea nowadays is to try to correct the bias created by social reproductivity.

Limiting the influence of family education level by allocating teacher time to do the homework at school after class and not at home.

Allocating more teaching staff to poor area.

Allocating scholarship based on financial resources of the parents and ofc the merits of the student.

Having a free education was also part of that.

 

All those systems are in place to ensure that a capable and working student can go up in the social ladder even with the odds stacked against him.

The problem with such a system is quite simple. Either you make all education government controlled and outlaw all private education, tutoring and such. 
Or you can give school vouchers to students, so that the school can compete between themselves, but force them not to be able to take more than the school voucher. 

Both systems are to a point impossible to do perfectly because students can simply study abroad. And the education would be too expensive unless you dramatically innovate. 

Or you can use a completely meritocratic system, where the smart are put in the good schools, and the average go to average schools, and those in need gets special education to help them catch up.
Let people go to private school, do tutoring, and everything.  The two earlier mentioned are a by-product of a bad educational system. 

On 25.11.2017 at 1:38 AM, Alzoc said:

 

Where all of this backfire is that with a system seen as meritocratic with mechanism to help with inequalities  the society suppose that you will aim as high as possible: an education level as high as possible, the most renowned school possible.

And if you didn't go that way for various reason (not interested, not the right kind of mindset for science or maths), in the eyes of the society you are only amounting to as much as your highest/most prestigious degree: "In the end he could only go that far."

 

The core problem is that we value degree as a perfect representation of skills and capability (which they are not, they only certify a minimum of knowledge and skill sets) and that graduating from the most prestigious "Grandes Ecoles" is seen as the pinnacle of climbing in the social ladder.

 

While it is true that they do overlap, there is a confusion with the merits and the "value" of an individual with the value of his degrees.

 

The other problem is that since every parent is certain that their kids are genius, they push them to go as far as they can with their study so that they can obtain a good social standing and what's supposed to be a rewarding life.

A lot of people do study (at least in the beginning when they don't have a clear choice of what they want to do) simply to go as far they can in their study, and to do that the easiest way is to have a scientific background (Hence the "classification" being S > ES > L > Pro). Disregarding if the person have the capability to do so or even if it's what they want to do.

 

And the gap being huge between the last year of secondary education and the first year of higher education (both in the level of the class and the way of working/learning), a lot of people that were doing "ok" in secondary get into university automatically (since the university does not have the right to select the candidates) and end up failing badly because the expectation were too high.

 

And they do that because what people tell them is "go through the general path, it won't close any door to you and allow you to chose" instead of "Go through that path if you want to do that kind of job". They go as far as they can get and eventually end up failing at some point and having wasted time.

A lot of them fail during their first year in university because it's the hardest step up in our system (a lot less in schools and degree that can select their applicants on their supposed ability to cope with the increased expectations).

 

Finishing your secondary education (getting your bac) used to be the exam allowing you to go in higher education. But now that most people of an age class get it (78% in 2015) it has no value as a selective tool anymore, hence the idea to allow university to select their students as well. But that is seen as a denial of rights by our SJW and is a highly polemical topic.

 

The idea is that if we manage to have selective university, the teachers in the secondary will be able to tell, "you most likely won't be accepted in university, so you better look for a professional formation leading to a job you would like to do" Ofc people would still be free to apply, but the university would also be free to refuse.

Hopefully those peoples will be happier learning a job that suit them rather than trying to pursue an unattainable dream and over time the view on professional formation may improve.

I like this idea. But I think schools would oppose this. At least here in Norway, school are payed by how many students they educate. So by taking in as many as possible and lowering requirements, they can make a bigger profit. 

1 hour ago, Alzoc said:

 

Well I pretty much agree with what you said, but so is the society.

Without a degree you will have a hard time (or at least a much harder time) finding a job in France.

And not only because there is a correlation between being "intelligent" and doing long study, but also because there is a certain mindset (and a bad one) in France which make that even awesome skills acquired on the job are worthless without a degree for a job interview.

 

Even at higher education level the degree you get has still a huge impact. Depending on which engineering school you did there will be a huge disparity on wages regardless of the skills.

Like I said most people coming from "Grandes Ecoles" know each other, and it makes things smoother in the industry (just call your old prom friend working in another company and that will accelerate a deal greatly).

The other side of the coin is that it create corporatism, if you're not from the same school or from a school with a lower reputation you will be seen as inferior. It's to the point that PhD holders (8 year of study) were seen as worse than Engineers (5 years of study), BS like "Yeah those guys don't know shit about the real world and all, they can't work in an effective manner".

Hopefully this kind of thinking is recessing, but it's still there.

 

It's often said that France in an Engineers Nation, and it is somewhat true. They have one of the highest social standing in the society (much like being a teacher was a most respected position in the past) and are effectively everywhere in key organisations.

It allow for big industrial achievement on the scope of the country (like building and putting 58 nuclear reactors in service in the span of 22 years), but also make the population see them as a kind of mafia controlling every important decision regardless of democracy (Don't know if you can find some critics on the "Corps des Mines" or "Les énarques" in english, but it's pretty salty).

 

Regardless of the bias of the society, our industry, much like Norway's is also in dire need of qualified workers but there is not enough of them because the society have a bad view on technical formations.

This is why I like the idea meritocracy.  Your skill is examined through exams and achievements and you are judged as such.

Same reason I am for legalizing IQ requirements for jobs and having a mandatory IQ test for the population.

You might call it unfair, since a person with a IQ of 100 won't get a engineering job in a firm because they set the requirement to 130 IQ. But let me put it this on the edge: Who would you want to oversee the construction of  a nuclear powerplant, a man with the IQ of 80 or a IQ of 160? Also, isn't it inherently unfair to the people of higher IQ that they are unable to use their talent?  And pushing people that are simple incapable to do too hard tasks?

By examining people's IQ, personality types and aspects we can figure out what job suits them the most.  And we can massively increase productivity of workers. 

This might spawn elitism, but honestly, doesn't western society already have a lot of elitism? 

In my perfect world view, everyone would be judged fairly and be able to use their potential to the fullest, with social mobility of 20%. Hard work would equal good pay. And anyone would have to ability to make their fortune if they set their minds to it, equal opportunity for all. 

And this might spawn urgency, which is a big motivator for wealth accumulation. And as they say, wealth only lasts 3 generations. 

So in my opinion, a large survey should be started. To analyze school systems around the world to reform the current educational system. The focus should be on getting people a job and being productive.  Not giving them a long vacation and enslaving them on debt, and using that money to push a political agenda. 

59 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

Not the workers themselves since anybody who has worked as a white collar in the industry (and isn't a total ass) will recon that the skills of qualified workers are an absolute necessity and that it itsn't the kind of skills that can be acquired quickly but require extensive practice.

 

But most parents push their kids to do long study because it make them feel better about their kid future.

A degree is, factually, still a huge help to get a job (2016 data):

 

Unemployment rate after 1 to 4 year after the end of the degree or stopping school:

 

No degree (dropping school at 16) : 52 %

Baccalauréat (Finishing secondary education but no higher education): 25,5 %

Any higher education degree (age 20 and above): 11%

Those are overall stats, number will vary depending on the field and and various socio-cultural factors

So it's easy to understand why parent want their kids to go on higher education

 

And indeed a lot of people get a degree of higher education (data 2012, people between 25 and 29 yo)

 

Long study : 26% total (Licence/Bachelor 10% ; Master 14% ; PhD 1% number rounded up)

Short study (DUT, BTS 2 year study): 15% total (DUT 2% ; Paramedical formation 3% ; BTS 11%)

Secondary degree (Bac of any kind) : total 41%

No degree: 18%

Like I said most people go on higher education, doesn't mean everybody manage to get a degree.

 

Back to the topic, since parent don't want their kids to be unemployed, they push them to study as much as possible, and since taking the professional path doesn't allow you to continue your study for long they tend to push their kids on the section that give you the widest array of opportunity : general scientific section.

 

But some kids don't like science or simply don't have the right mindset for it so they often come to dislike school, lose self confidence and sometimes behave like shit at school. By default they are sent to a random professional formation (since they can't study in the mind of educators) and the professional section get filled with kid with trash behaviour and who think that everybody look down upon them (and they aren't totally wrong about it) and that the society is their enemy.

All of that create a feedback loop that degrade the society's image of professional formation more and more.

 

But they are sector where the industry can't find any new qualified workers while the old ones are retiring (The average wages of a welder became huge to attract the few available on the job market, companies are fighting over a good welder).

 

On the other hand we train more psychologist each year than the needs of the country.

 

So some people with a master degree won't get a job in their sector because they are too many graduates, while some specialization in the industry are in dire need of qualified workers.

That's why the government want to increase the number of people going through part time training, it give a break from school to those who don't like it, show them the purpose of what they learn and allow them to make some money for starting in life while the industry can have qualified workers that already have some experience.

 

I really find the statement that "getting a Phd, higher education or alike gets you a job" is pretty much bullshit. Job opportunity gets you a job.

I does not matter if one spends 3-8 years extra on education if there is no work.  

Here in Norway, if you go get a certificate as a welder, industrial mechanic, carpenter, construction worker, electrician ect, you are guaranteed a job. Why is that? Because the industry is in need of these workers, a job opportunity. And because you do 2,5 years of apprenticeship at one of the companies, they will most likely hire you when you are done.

Compare this with a person following their parents wishes and goes for higher education, but have no idea what they want to do in life, just that higher education gets them a job. They will do general studies, take the most fun and effortless subjects, giving them the least amount of possibilities. Then when they finish high school they are forced to take a choice, they extend the time with people's college. Then finally they are forced to take a choice and they do some field they find fun, like community economics or psychology. Both which we have in such a huge demand that they will have a really hard time getting a job.  Or in the worst case scenario, they take something like music and philosophy, which makes them seem really cool during their campus years, but won't accomplish anything.

This is the reason the Norwegian government introduced the Y-way. Because the industry really disliked having engineers designing things  they had no idea how worked. This often caused cases of what we called "quality engineering", when a bolt is only able to be turned 1 degree at the time with a weird angle with a wrench, or a time when the engineers have a great idea of putting a air compressor under a train, causing it to continuously break down because of dirt and wear.

For clarification, I do see the statistics. But that is more because of signal theory and the tendency for more intelligent people to take higher education than average.  Some of the main reasons the industry cares about phds and such is because if is a sign of intelligence, the best pointer after IQ, which is illegal to put as a job requirement. 

6 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

Good luck with your PhD!

 

 

In the UK, it mostly doesn't

 

All this is for england, the other nations have their own systems.

 

Formal schooling starts at 5 years old, and continues till you're 16. In most regions this is in two schools, one for 5-11 and one for 11-16, but some areas of england have 3 schools (5-9, 9-13, 13-16) just because they can. There are tests spread out throughout all of the education, starting at age 7, although these are just for comparing schools rather than students. The last two years are devoted to studying for your GCSE's, and as long as you passed at least 5 subjects (including english and maths) they're generally ignored in later life. At this stage you're allowed to leave school, but must remain in some kind of education until you're 18 - either at college, in an apprenticeship, or part time education.

 

College covers the ages 16-18, and is spent working towards your A-levels. This is where you start specialising, which I've heard is very different to the US system. Typically students will do just 3-4 subjects, chosen to meet the requirements for the university courses they're interested in, and most students choose a very narrow range (I did just physics, maths and further maths). This is where you'll start encountering calculus in maths, and I have no idea what it's like in non-STEM subjects. The international baccalaureate is offered by some colleges, but I avoided it because I wanted to specialise/hide from essays.

 

Apprenticeships are very varied depending on what local industry is available, and they're looked down on as a rule - I gather this is a universal western thing.

 

After A-levels, about 30% of all young people go on to university. Courses cost £9000 per year, not including accommodation, and typically take 3 years for a bachelors degree (some unis offer foundation years, for students who didn't meet the grade requirements - basically an easy way to get extra money from students). It is possible on some courses to go straight to a masters degree (commonly engineering, as you need a masters to apply to be a chartered engineer in many fields - eg iMechE) and those take 4 years; converting a bachelors to a masters (unusual, as student finance only covers your first degree - this is generally only people who are getting paid to do it) takes a year. This helps us attract international students, as they can upgrade their degree relatively quickly.

 

PhD's are what you'd expect - nominally they take 3-4 years.

Are blue-collar workers looked down upon in the west? 

25 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Well, in the US, our educational institutions center around fleecing the next generation for all they're worth, while keeping them largely copacetic by turning campus life into a sort of 4-to-10-year debt-funded vacation.

Sounds like a huge waste of money. 

So since we are on the subject of education, how does education work in the US, and any other country for that matter?

Here in Norway we first have primary school, from age 6-13,  but you can begin at age 5 if you request it.
Then middle school, from age 13-16. Here you begin getting grades, these are needed to get the school or line you want.
From here on out, you have several options:

First, you could join the army, but you need to apply and get approved for that.
Second, you can go straight to becoming a apprentice if you want get a contract with a company.
Third, in a extreme case, you can take all your subjects as a external candidate during middle school and go straight to University or college.
Fourth, you can go to high school and do general studies, these come in a million variants. With this you can go to university or college, if you have good enough grades that is.
And fifth and lastly, you can go to trade school, where you will spend on average 5 years learning a trade and getting a certificate, and in theory a job. Usually it is 2 years of school, and 2,5 years as a aprentice. Though some fields are exceptions, but the overall time is still 5 years.  When entering trade school, you can chose between about 8 lines for the first year. These are electricity and electronics, Technic and industrial production, Construction, Restaurant and service, design and health. In the second year you specialize into a specific trade, like plumber, healthcare worker or electrician. Since you have 5 years of potential free high school, you can also in the fourth year do add-on, which gives you general studies and allows you to go to university or college. If you want to be a engineer we got the Y-course, which allows people that got a trade certificate to take a pre-course over the summer, instead of add-on, to become a engineer or civil engineer. 

If you have no idea what you want to be, you can go to a people's college for 1-2 years, which is basically just paying to have fun and get a few points. Or you can apply for a free year were you can work. Alternatively, you will be called in for military service as a conscript for 18 months. Here you technically got no choice, but since we got way to many applicants, the army simple can't pay for them all, and has to be very picky, and will rule out uninterested people.

If you do decide to do higher education, you have 3 choices. You can go to a trade college, and become a trade worker or whatever it is called, basically a more educated tradesman.   This requires you do have 5 years in the field or a trade certificate of the same trade.
Alternatively, you can get another trade certificate, and as long as it is inside you area of work, you only need about 2,5 years as a apprentice and to pass 2 exams. 
Or, you can go to university and take a bachelor degree, which is 3 years, or a master degree which is 5.  To give a example: engineers take bachelor, civil engineers take master. Even longer educations can happen as you build on your trade, like a surgeon.  Or become a scientist. 

All of this is free, except around 300 USD a year for campus fee, and living costs. And books, the books can easily cost 2000 USD. 

This education system has worked out well for Norway, considering we rank at the 11. highest amount of billionaires per capita in the world. For comparison, the US is the 10.  And this is a pretty good feat considering the extremely high labor costs and the very poor environment for companies here in Norway. 

7 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

These mortar-carriers with muzzle-loading mortars puzzle me.  I would think that a breech-loading mortar could provide a much more compact and better protected installation.  Is it really that outrageously expensive to develop a breech-loading mortar?

2 hours ago, Serge said:

Both solutions are interesting. 

Here, the CV-90 Multivogn is universal carrier. It can performe as a mortar carrier, but as a cargo carrier, an APC too. At a low price. 

It seems commonality and price is the answer. The CV90BK is simply a CV90 MultiC with a L16 81mm mortar and a FCS. 

You should not underestimate the Norwegian armies wish for cost cutting in the weirdest places, besides, we burnt all our money on the F-35s. 

MUCH cheaper solution than the AMOS:

"Bombekaster på belter

6 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Nope, these are people my age (Millenials).

Alright, Sufficient English* then. 

18 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I've spoken with Norwegians before, and this isn't true.

17 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

I went to a random fishery north of Bergen and the locals spoke enough English for me to buy some incredibly cheap (at least for Norway) fresh fish. The guy at the gas station also spoke sufficient English, although he didn't feel like explaining how the bottle refund machine worked and glumly watched me get about a dozen receipts of 10 ore each until I figured out how to make it process more than one bottle at a time.

You two probably ended up speaking with the older generation, which English is very bad honestly. 

12 hours ago, EnsignExpendable said:

 

Quite poorly?

Depends on the person, but yes, a 13 year old Norwegian does about as well as a average adult American. 

On 21.1.2016 at 5:19 AM, Vanagandr said:

Fun ancedote; I had some very specific problems when I tried to learn Spanish. I know German well, and I know some Swedish, and there are a surprising number of false friends. 'Es' means 'it' in German, and 'it is' in Spanish. 'En' means 'the' in Swedish or 'in' in Spanish. 'Og', pronounced 'oh, means 'and' in Swedish, while 'o' in Spanish, pronounced the same, means 'or'. 'Y', in Spanish is pronounced the same as 'i' in Swedish; the former means 'and', the latter means 'in'. 'De' means 'of', in Spanish, and means 'they' in Swedish, but it is pronounced 'dome'. It took several weeks before I could reliably keep myself from pronouncing 'de' Swedishly. I still use 'es' in Spanish as the German 'es', which fortunately is fairly interchangeable, at least to the point that I'm understood.

 

Another interesting thing is that whenever I learn languages now, I tend to relate them to German. IE Spanish first person's -o conjugation to German -e, second person -as to -st, third person plural -en to -en, etc.

Not to discredit you or anything, but "the" does not exist in Scandinavian languages. 

"En" means specifically one, singular, only one.  In Swedish/Norwegian/Danish  "En bil" translates to "One car" or "A car" in English.  

However, "The car" translates to "Bilen".

And because we Scandinavians hate consistency, this does not even necessarily carry over to other words. Example: "Bilen, døra, huset, dama, og hode" translates into "The car, the house, the lady (or girlfriend), and the head"

And to make matters worse, we have loads and loads of dialects. Oslo-, Østlendings-, Telemarks-, Agders-, Stavangers-, Sørlendings-, Bergens-, Sogner-, Sogn og Fjordanenes-, Sunnmørs-, Ålesunders-, Moldensers-, Nordals-, Trønders-, midtlendings-, Nordlendings-, and immigrant speak dialects. 

And this is only the few most commonly known ones. I could probably write a page or two. 

Most likely, if you learn Norwegian, you will learn the Eastener dialect and bokmål, the governments most used written language. You might learn nynorsk, which is more akin to a compound of the dialects of Norway, and if you are a hipster, you could learn blandingnorsk, which is a mix of both. But you might end up with a "foreigner dialect" since many people that try to learn Norwegian without speaking with Norwegians end up with no dialect, making them sound very stale. 

I dunno how close Germans and Dutch are, but Norwegians and Danish share basically the same written language, since those bastards only wanted danish to be though at universities and to be used by the government, and since the Black death pretty much killed everyone, wiping out Norse. Our verbal language is closer to Swedish though, so we can easily communicate, though with some errors. Danish is a bit harder, and but we can still understand each other if we have to, but most of the time we prefer English.  Icelandic is a bit harder, which is old Norse. Takes a bit for me to understand, but I still understand them. 

The finish sounds like this for us" Hakka paka, pelite mitrta makke", basicly a lot of "akka, pelite", same goes for Sami. 

When it comes to German, we can communicate very basically. 

And English you may ask? Well, pretty much every kids past primary school speaks and writes English as well as a American. 

On 2.11.2017 at 5:23 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

Once or twice.

 

Bloody kids.

Then you I assume you understand how a monitor makes no difference. 

12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

You know how you sometimes notice something out of the corner of your eye.....Not sure you'd get that with optics. 

 

On the other hand, I suppose, you don't get thermal imaging with the Mk.I eyeball.

You can still notice something at the corner of your eye on a flat screen. Ever played FPS? 

Humans are good at tracking moving objects at the edge of their vision, be at on a screen or physical object. 

On 30.10.2017 at 2:22 PM, LoooSeR said:

 

I remember seeing a video on liveleak of a identical SVBIED during the Coalition siege of Mosul. 

Pretty sure it is the same one, so I think this information is wrong, at least the "biggest ever produced" part. 

22 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

 

About the MCT-30: yeah, it can. The vehicle down below is an Indian Tata Motors Kestrel, topped with a Kongsberg Protector MCT-30 and Spike launchers; it's definitely doable though the arrangement looks a bit haphazard.

 

 

As for the MCT-30-equipped Bradley, I guess budget constraints are the reason why we aren't hearing much about it. The Stryker Dragoon upgrade was probably deemed more important and must've cannibalized a lot of the Bradley funding (both development and procurement).

 

EDIT: now I can't decide whether those are Spikes or Javelins, since the launchers and their foam covers look so damn similar to each other, especially seen from that angle.

The two ATGMs are identical, and considering the RWS does only mount a javelin, it means the MCT-30 in this picture has two Javelins. 

Never heard about the MCT-30 using anything else than Javelins. 

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

They say their current upgrade program for the Leopard 2A4 is insufficient. 

So now the modular solutions for the 2A4 are out, and the Leopard 2A7 is too heavy (according to @SH_MM). But I can't see them acquiring a new tank. And to keep an old and soon outdated fleet of Leopard 2A4 until at least 2025 is too much of a risk. And I thought they were the reasonable ones when they decided to dump the Javelin and go for an anti-APS oriented solution. 

Used up all our money on the F35s. And yes, in short it says that the modernization is insufficient in combating the Armata series (The Armata series is not mentioned, but EVERY Norwegian knows what they mean when they say potential enemies.)  

They are not saying that we will use the old Leos until 2025 though:
"Konsekvenser ved denne utsettelsen vil bli søkt redusert gjennom ulike tiltak for videreføring av stridsvognkapasiteten og kompetansen frem til nye stridsvogner er på plass."

"The consequences of this delay will be reduced by searching through different alternatives for continuation of tank capacity and competence until new tanks are acquired".

Not a perfect translation because the wording was quite strange, but it gets through the point. 

4 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

This article actually made me get a little emotional.

This is actually really good, and I REALLY hope feminists don't latch on to this and distorts this. And as mentioned by Jeep, a male role model is extremely important for a child's development, the higher risk of crime, drop out and poverty is extreme.  

This is what gangs thrive on, as they act as a "male role model" for the young men seeking a masculine role model. 

Honestly I feel like this entire gun control thing has went off the rails. People have no idea what they want. They want it black and white. 

So why don't we try and map out what people want and how this can be accomplished with gun control. 

First off, gun control activist want to reduce the deaths and damage caused by guns every year I presume. 

Let's take take the 11 000 figure rounded down because I am lazy. This is the biggest and easiest problem to fix, as the others are user faults and requires prohibitively expensive and complex solutions. Suicides are irrelevant since the reason of suicide is not the gun, take the Netherlands where 40% are done with death by tram, are trams the issue here? No.

Ok, now, what type of guns kill people the most? According to you guys, 90% deaths are caused by handguns. This equates to 9 900 deaths, the only way to reduce this by removing guns is the ban all gun sales, which is not doable, since I am pretty sure no country has ever done this, and since we are talking about Murica, the land of guns, this is in practice impossible. 

What about banning all other guns? Machineguns, ARs, shotguns, etc. You would then reduce deaths by 10%, or 1100 deaths. Honestly, not really a impressive figure, and lets think about this realistically, how did actually a more powerful firearm aid the killer in these 10%? Not much, and the actual reduction would be much lower.

What other solutions do we have? Licence regulations. Most mass shootings are caused by unstable or mentally ill individuals, scrubbing them out of the system would make a impact, banning semi-automatic guns, not sure how.  A license regulation if properly done should be happily accepted by gun rights activist, since it still allows legal gun owners to own almost anything they want, if they qualify for it.  Yes, licenses could be regulated like cars. A hunting licence for a proper rifle, either semi or bolt action depending on hunting regulations, and regulations regarding magazine size, since you do not need a 100 rounds drum mag to shot that one bullet through the dear's heart and lungs. Sub classes would exist, like small game and large game.  
A self defense carry license, for handguns only. Why? Because out of practicality, you want something small with enough power to scare away the attacker, a  semi 9mm pistol (or 45. ACP  and similar) should do, having a MG3 on your back that you want to deploy and cock before use is not. For target shooting, shotguns, rifles and pistols manufactured for this purpose would be allowed in a target shooting licence, with sub classes for each type of weapon. For joy shooters, basically the people that buy a MG with a ammunition back pack just for the joy of shooting it downrange, you could have a collectors licence. It would again come in sub classes depending on the type of weaponry. 

Licences would be renewed every so often, require membership in a club, allow random check ups, regular use and to be revoked by the club or government if the individual is not deemed fit to operate the firearm. 

In a very pro gun activist version of this, we could reduce gun related deaths, and allow gun owners to own machine guns, rifles, shotguns, ect. 

If we legalize many banned guns, we could effectively kill the black market. Though, some guns should be soft banned, no using a 14,5mm HMG to hunt, or a anti-material rifle for self-defense, or a automatic AR as something you can carry around on your back anywhere.  This is honestly up to you guys, since you know what type of guns people want. 

Lastly, i have to say this biometric safety thing sounds like bullshit. How is the sensor supposed to stop the owner from firing the gun? With a small lock or restricting the firing pin? This can easily be bypassed by removing the lock. The only reason this works in cars is because they have a computer inside that requires a specific code, or else they won't unlock the steering wheel, spray fuel into the engine, open the throttle body, and such.  I have maintained a few rifles and they are simply too simple to have such a system, it could work on a railgun or a coilgun, but not on a chemically operated gun. 

23 minutes ago, Toxn said:

 

Isn't the discussion about cars eliding the fact that they're massively regulated? I don't know how things work in the US; but I assume that driver's licences are a thing, speed limits are a thing, emissions limits are a thing, mandatory safety devices are a thing, and so on. Translate all that to guns and you guys would flip out.

 

My impression of computer games and violence is that it's a bit like porn - with both positive and negative effects which vary depending on what group you fall into. My guess is that a lot of people are made slightly less violent by getting to burn off steam, but that some people discover and refine a taste for violence in themselves by exposure. The effect probably also differs depending on your age and your specific life issues.

The point is, cars provide economic growth. They allow people to travel, earn and spend money. Transport goods and such. 

A gun does not, since they not the same. 

Of course, this is not how it is represented, because saying to the public "Yes, we are going to kill more people a year because we want more economic growth in this area" does not really catch on well. 

I am not sure what the problem is with automatic weapons and semi-automatics. The problem is not the weapon, it is the shooter. Why not just improve the licence process? 

In Norway, you have to store the weapon in a weapons locker, separate from the ammunition, remove the bolt when storing it. You have to be a in a hunting club to have a hunting rifle, a shooting club to have a shooting rifle. And you have random checkups, mandatory tests. Mental issue tests and criminal background check.  If you stop hunting or shooting, you lose your licence. 

Gun murders here are very rare. 

Basically, you need a reason to own a firearm here. This makes it hard however to own ridicules weapons like a AR15 for hunting. But you can legally own a MG42 and shoot with it, but those needs a collectors licence. My friend got one. 

The claim that videogame violence desensitize you is complete bullshit. Actually, statistics actually show a reduction in aggression and violent behavior.  Videogames are a medium that people can act out their fantasies in, meaning they are not incentivzed to do it in real life.  Want to go on a killing spree? Do it in a videogame for the same rush, with no downsides.

Videogames tend actually to show humanities dark sides.  Take a game DayZ, a a horror shooter about surviving a zombie apocalypse.  People kidnap people, break their legs, make them bleed, force feeds them rotten food, poisons them and dumps them in the wilderness. They force people to fight for their life, or they are shot. And the average player also tends to go on a killing spree, killing newly spawned people that have no way of defending themselves.  Basically a heavily armed soldier with hundreds of rounds mowing down people with just their fists or a shovel. 

These same people are perfectly working people that live normal lives and don't hurt a fly. 

About why politicians ban guns, but don't care about automobiles? Simple, money.  Automobiles makes a lot of  money directly for the country, guns make a small sum. This is how road speed is regulated, how much profits you want to earn, compared to how lethal you want the road.