Speeder 2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 2,391
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
Yes it is identical. If a final product is exactly identical to the product then it is called "copy". You can give it any glorified name however it will remain a copy.
Nonsense, even though it's not entirely your fault as most people say the similar things due to the lack of abilities to forge an independent thought process, but blindly COPY others' remarks.
If go by book, it seems right to say that as along as it's a replica, it's a copy. In reality however, it's far from correct.
That was the whole gist of my previous post, which is: the more sophiticated the target system is, weapon tech or any tech, the more deviated the replication process will be to a point of seperating themselves entirely from simple process of copy, but becoming reverse-engineering, which is re-reinventing to a large entent.
In my analogy, one can copy a booklet; one cant "copy" a F-22A, which is called reverse-engineering.
It doesn't matter how big or small systems are, if the intention is to produce an exact replica without taking permission from an owner, then it is copying.
Nonsensical!
In an extreme example, can a country copy the Moon, or planet Earth? And why not?
Keep correcting the "newbies" but you never know one of these newbie is a scientist and working on defence research projects.
it doesn't matter. There are plenty of stupid scientists out there doing defence research projects, for example in India. I know little about defence but can still tear them apart , easily, in most debates in which intellect is required more than some specific skills or knowledge!
See my first post then you will know what I do or check introduction.
I'am not interested. Sorry.
It is very easy to copy mouser, as you already said one need to have access for tools and more importantly money.
Nonsense! You can't copy a mouser on your own, because you can't BUY those machines/material, knowhow and IP rights cuz no one will sell them to you ! before you want to copy a mouser, firstly you have to invent those machines, machine tools, material, koowhow, skills youself, alone. You'll not allowed to access to a third-part to teach you how! You can however be given a room load of cash in your house. But you are on youw own, understand ? That's the whole point of my previous anology!
Reverse engineering a fighter jet is funmentally different from Copying a mouse which is still a relatively very easy though because its not too sophiticated as what you see is what you get. For a fighter jet, or any sophiticated machine such as Ferrari auto engine, what you see is usually not what you get; one can't see them all and can't understand them all.
How many non-Ferrari ppl have Ferrari in their garages? how many of them are able to make a copy of it ( including its engine, etc)? NIL !
Am i wasting my time on you or what?
Chinese government spending billions for that and it is doing for several decades and now they have perfected the art of copying. As I wrote before it is a superb capability and requires great technical capabilities. However the end product is unfortunatly a "copy".
One's IQ level is the ultimate measure, not others.
Even being improverished to the extrem, North Korea can "copy" a nuclear bomb all by themselves without ANY access to ANY outside assistance, materials or kownhow. Is that bomb a "copy", even though it looks the same as some bomb made in USA or China? Is North Korea "copying" US or China's technologies without onwers' permission? Utter Bullock.
It was basically a re-invention process. Likewise so are most of what China is doing.
It seems you got confused between a person and a nation willing to be #1 in technology by copying.
This remark is so dumb that worths no response.
We are not talking about me or you here or our garage. It is countries we are talking about.
an individual( e.g. to "copy" a mouser, a computer), or a group of individuals( to "copy" a Ferrari engine), or a country( to "copy" a F-22A) , or entire population of the mankind ( to "copy" the Moon).... they are THE SAME as along as the analogy goes.
The only difference is the size of group (from 1 to whatever) , along with how sophisticated the target system is. Got it? My examples stand.
If someone have thousands of capable engineers/scientists working for them with virtually unlimited money, well give these things to any country and a original product, they will have their copy sooner or later.
That's right, depending on how capable those engineers/scientists really are!
So what measures how capable those engineers/scientists really are? ------->> their IQ
See, you are supporting my analysis subconciously ?? I thought you were against it?
Are we talking about copying from photos? Yes. Provide one production model of F-22A/P and then Why not?? It will take time, billions of dollors and thousands of manpower.
Again, nonsense.
Some systems are so advanced that even put it in front, you won't figure out how they work, let alone how to produce them in another 100 years or more.
Not anyone can copy F-22A. In fact probably not even China could do it perfectly even with a F-22 sample parked in PLA's backyard.
there are millilons combi of special materials makeups, one needs super-advanced fast computers to analyse them; there are parts made only by special high-precision and special utility machinaries that no way one is capable to make without; to make those machinaries needed is a huge task in its own right, possiblely as sophiticated as making F-22a itself....etc, etc.
A country is to "copy" F-22A, is the same in a nutshell as North Korea is to "copy" a N-bomb; or as an individual is to copy a mouser , a computer; etc. it's reverse-engineering as one can't copy in this stage. My analogies still stand. China is NOT copying in this stage, but reverse-engineering. The goal is the same, the process are drastically different! Finanlly got it?
they ( India) decided to work in old fashion way of R&D...
Every country chooses their own path. Your country have chosen one, so as mine.
Sorry, there is no "old fashion way of R&D" to begine with.
There aren't 2 paths on this.
There is only 1 path! Don't kid yourself and create dumb excuses here. Everyone is trying to emulate the previous seccessful samples. There is no one in this world, even a donkie, being stupid enough not to follow the previous successful path, but going for proven unsucceessful alternatives.
It is always the SAME path to start with. The difference only starts when the level of sophitication of copying required reached high enough to the entire new horizon of Reverse-Engineering and Reverse-Engineering-based innovating ( not copying any more) , some still succeeded in this path while others failed.
Last edited: