Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yet you contradicted yourself again, and again. Taking some basic English classes could only benefit you. If you were trying to imply that China has the means to develop the Virgilous but has not yet done so you could have said it the way I just said it. There is a big difference between your spelling and mine, and that is your spelling is vague and simply unacceptable.
^^ Look at the above sentence, how can I not blame you? It is a catastrophe and an abomination to the English language. Dont is a compound word and needs to be treated as such, the word on, is simply out of place, ppl isnt even a word and everything after ppl does not make any sense.
I write: china has "r&d capability" to develop virgilius.Or you could do everyone the favor of writing a coherent sentence, how does that sound?
Ur excuse is funny.... u sound like robotAgain you make no sense, by anything, I can only assume that you mean everything. And you saying China has the capability does not make it so.
Above examples??I gave you plenty of examples, even in this very post.
Yes china could produce without doing r&d, and it is not only china but other country could do the same.You have made the ridiculous claim that China, can merely produce even without R&D. I would love an explanation to that.
Wow, really? Are you that slow? I never stated that China does not intend to conduct research and development I asked you how China is able to produce defensive suits if they do not plan on spending time on r&d. Remember it was you that stated that a product can be produced without research and development.
No.. u misunderstood as alwaysI only quoted you a half dozen times on it.
I doubt ur claim.After a public spanking over the internet you, of all people, have the audacity to question my verbal skills and reading comprehension? I aced English reading and writing in college. You would be lucky to pass an ESL class.
Besides inconsistency, ur explanation is not making sense at all.China is not capable of produce the Vergilous, as I stated it is unique and would be very difficult if not impossible to replicate it and not just for China. The Virgilous is an ECM, China can produce ECMs, just not a Virgilous. You understand? Are will you try twist my sentence around again?
I said: r&d capability is not the same as production capability.Dont lecture me on research and development and producing a system. It is not possible to produce anything without research and development unless someone transfers the technology and know how.
Nope. u only prove ur failure to comprehend other ppl's argumentYes, it is very much proven. You are a liar.
My argument clearly explained why it would be nearly impossible for anyone to replicate something to have identical capabilities and performance. There was even an engineer on this forum that had worked with military equipment that claimed it would be very difficult to copy something to exact specification. If it is difficult to copy something than how do you plan to copy or replicate the performance of a system that you do not posses? And as stated earlier even if two systems look very similar and on paper have similar performance it does not mean they will perform similarly. Again lets take radars for an example, lets say we have two x band radars with 1,500 TR modules. One may think that they are similar in performance because they have identical specifications yet one may change frequencies at a much greater rate, while the other may have overheating issues and be forced to run on a fraction of the available TR modules.
Typhoon Virgilius? And you believe China doesn't have the capacity to build a comparable system?
Which one I contradict myself?
I have shown you your idiocy and verbal problem that make u could not distinguish "r&d capability" and "capability in production"
In what part of my explanation that u dont understand?
And again I ask you: which spelling or grammatical mistake that make u not understand my explanation?
Oh really??? is it really catastrophe? or it is your english and poor comprehension problem? cmon.. dont make this up.
Talking about grammar, you have made many mistakes, but I dont want to bother to show them to you because it is not point of my arguments; despite ur grammatical mistake I still have logic and comprehension capability to understand ur writing.
I write: china has "r&d capability" to develop virgilius.
Now show me which mistaken grammar/sentence that I've made that cause you to think that r&d capability = production capability!
Pathetic excuse
Ur excuse is funny.... u sound like robot
Yes china could produce without doing r&d, and it is not only china but other country could do the same.
That's why many US company do r&d in silicon valey and give their design to china for production.
I wonder if u are from engineering background?
I give u one example:
Do u know Foxconn produce Ipad 2 tablet for Apple?
Ipad 2 is not the result of Foxconn r&d, but Apple's r&d, however Apple doesnt produce Ipad at all. Apple give their design to foxconn for production.
It is surprising to know U have no clue about that
I dont say that china could produce virgilius without r&d. I said r&d capability was not the same as production capability, because u were mixing both;
Besides inconsistency, ur explanation is not making sense at all.
Why the Typhoon Virgilous is so unique that science & technology superpower like China or USA cannot develop? it is ridiculous.
There is no rule in this universe that the "uniqueness of a technology" would prevent a country especially country like china or usa with strong r&d capability to develop it.
Again u are demonstrating ur comprehension problem.
I never said china will 100% copy virgilius, I said: "china has r&d capability to develop it!"
Why are you guys debating with an Asian-Russian? His opinions does not reflect those of white Russia. He is descriminated in Russia.
It is like debating with a Vietnamese/Indian-American. They will hate you no matter what; and they're not Americans.
You still keep ranting on my grammar as your excuse for your incapability in comprehension, it is shameful excuse and demonstrating your low Intellectual capability.Once again you keep ranting on about verbal problems but you still can not compile a half coherent sentence. It was also you that claimed that it is possible to produce something without research and development which is possibly one of the stupidest things I have heard thus far. For example, you need research and development to produce a simple cup. You will need to know the dimensions, the geometry, and what type of material it will be made from (foam, plastic, ect,).
Stop ranting on my grammar, coz it is not acceptable excuse for your failure to understand my simple and clear arguments that I have repeated many times.Yes your English is a catastrophe. My English is fine, in fact I was an English tutor. And I don’t make things up, your sentences have no flow, poor punctuation, you misspell words, and in general your English is very poor, with poor word choices that render your sentences confusing and incoherent. In any kind of higher level English college writing class you would fail. And I’m not saying my English is perfect, but for a forum it is exceptional.
I dont want to be out of topic by discussing your grammar mistake found in your writing here, as it will distract you farther from understanding my simple and logical point.Really? Point those mistakes out. Any mistakes I have possible made have been few and rare. You, on the other hand, keep embarrassing yourself with your writing skills, despite the fact that it was you that brought up the “verbal” debate and told me I had the “intellectual” problems, so really it was you that started it. You just so happen to be out of your league.
Nope....Another one of your problems is that you can not stay focused on a particular subject and instead try to divert attention from your failed arguments by ranting, crying and bitching about anything and everything.
This is the blatant idiocy of yours.As I said I have quoted you multiple times, in your quotes you claimed China has the capability to produce the Virgilous and then you retracted your claim based on the fact that you said China may sell their Virgilous to Russia one day, which you than interpreted it as, China does not yet have the capability to produce the Virgilous. As I stated before your language is vague and can be interpreted in many ways.
But you don't understand when I said: we could produce without our own r&d LOLMore proof you’re slow, I clearly stated that certain things can be produced under license or technology transfer, but we are not talking about technology transfer, we are talking about ECM’s, more specifically the Virgilous, which no one will give to China to copy. Get it?
Again... if u don't understand or not clear, ask!Once again you used vague language which you conveniently than interpret in any way you chose. You clearly stated China can produce items without research and development , but nowhere did you imply it was technology transfer, nor did you mention anything specifically. Sometime I wonder if I’m arguing with a 12 year old.
How does my explanation not make sense? As I explained even radars with the same TR module count have radically different performance. And if you do not except my explanation of TR modules than you can not argue about turbofan engines. Chinese engines still lack in MTBO’s, service life and T/W ratio even though China has had access to foreign engines. If China can not make anything even remotely close to the F-135 turbo fan than why do you think it would be easy to make a Virgilous?
It is only a matter of "name".That is impossible, how can you develop a Virgilous system if it will not be 100% similar. I can see you hardly know what the Virgilous is. It is an internal ECM system, so perhaps China can develop an internal ECM but it will not be a Vergilous since that is a unique system and no one is going to give it to China for study purposes.
Oh really??? is it really catastrophe? or it is your english and poor comprehension problem? cmon.. dont make this up.
verbal capability require some logic and iq.
You still keep ranting on my grammar as your excuse for your incapability in comprehension, it is shameful excuse and demonstrating your low Intellectual capability.
I never said r&d is not required at all for production, I said: we can produce without doing r&d (as r&d could be done by other party/country). Again u with ur verbal problem can't distinguish and understand the difference.
I have given u explanation and example of foxconn produce Ipad without their own r&d, which obviously you fail to understand as usual
I said we could produce without doing r&d to show you that r&d and production is 2 different things, which obviously it is still difficult for you to comprehend.
Dont lecture me on research and development and producing a system. It is not possible to produce anything without research and development unless someone transfers the technology and know how.
You clearly don’t read anything I post and then look like a fool on a public forum, I posted this in post #77:
Not only have we established that you can not compile a coherent sentence but that you also can not read. Do you see that part that i highlighted about technology transfer? Or can you not read?
Again... if u don't understand or not clear, ask!
I am not responsible with your intellectual capability to catch my point.
U should understand other ppl argument' context, they may not stated the context clearly in a long sentence like in textbook or communication letter, but u could ask! that's why it is called: "DISCUSSION".
If you are smart enough and not narrow minded, you should be able to see that possibility (of product design transfer) in my arguments which you obviously failed to see.
As a matter of fact, the way you see other people's argument and the way you discuss make me curious if you are about 12 year old
The fact that you even mentioned producing something under license shows that you are running out of arguments. The argument here is producing an ECM suit, obviously no one will let China copy their designs, so what is the point of your rant? Clearly you have none. All of your arguments are rants that try to deviate from the real matter, heck you even mock my near perfect grammar while you have the writing skills of a 6 year old.
Again u are demonstrating ur comprehension problem.
I never said china will 100% copy virgilius, I said: "china has r&d capability to develop it!"
Why it is so difficult for you to understand simple sentence?
maybe they are not identical in specification, but could have the same or even better performance.
I have shown u about how china develop the fastest bullet train and the fastest supercomputer to you many times, remember?
Oh...I have responded that very well
See again bellow:
You obviously did not see that possibility in my argument, that's why you are slow and come later with argument about "product design transfer / sort of" which stupidly is self explanatory to your previous counter (that production will always need r&d).
The problem in comprehension and IQ belongs to u, not mine.
Thats why I said you are stupid as you answer your own questionAnd the only thing this proves is that you are still slow in the head. I have clearly and explicitly stated that under certain circumstances the ability to manufacture something without research and development is possible such as license manufacturing. You, on the other hand, start ranting of seeing the possibility in your argument--which is ironic because your argument is as empty as the universe. Moreover, you have yet to answer my question regarding the subject, and this is----what is your point?
What I rant is very clear from the beginning, that : "China has r&d capability to develop so called virgilous; and it is much related to the topic.Besides ranting about manufacturing something without research and development you have yet to justify your rants--and before you go jumping up and down calling me stupid, let me again remind you that I, myself stated what you have been yelling, so what was your rant about? How does it apply to the topic?
You have stated the same thing/argument that I have replied/answered/broken multiple times. It means you have failed to understand my very simple reply, and it demonstrate your ignorance and idiocy.Remember no one is going to let China copy or license produce a Virgilous type system, and yes I know you stated the same thing multiple times which only makes your argument look even more foolish. Foolish as in you brought up manufacturing something under license but then conceded the fact that no one will allow China to copy something under license---are things starting to clear up now or are you still in a confused haze?
I have, but from your ignorance and repeating the things that I have answered many times, it is obvious that you haven't read my passage carefully.And before you respond read the above passage one more time because clearly it is you that has been having the problems in deciphering my clearly written responses, so once again, read carefully, then think, then post.
And yes production is different from reseach and development, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out, but that is not an appropriate argument in the context of the Virgilous.
New Recruit