Oh, this is a much nicer way of understanding what's going on.
Though... you could also think of the sails in a tacking sailboat as being able to extract more energy from the air because they can bring the air to a full stop relative to the water underneath the boat. The keel is necessary to keep the air from pushing the boat sideways instead of coming to a stop.
If a boat had a paddle or propellor in the water to extract energy from its motion relative to the water it could use this to accomplish the same thing with a propellor above the water.
Propellors do not magically generate negative drag. They require energy input to do it. But that energy comes from the wheels interacting with the ground. But the fact they can extract energy this way is because the wind is moving faster than the ground.
Oh, and a simple sail has another problem. It can only extract energy from the kinect energy potential difference of the atoms in the wind and the atoms in the thing the sail itself. There is no connection the ground, and so no way to extract energy from the kinetic energy potential difference between the wind and the ground.
You are just adding a complicated energy storage mechanism and then having the energy collection mechanism disable itself for part of the time. It would be slower.
You could get the car up to speed faster by having a sail that folded itself as soon as the amount of energy it was extracting dropped off. Maybe a triangle sail with the base of the triangle along the bed of the vehicle and the tip at the propellor axis. Then have it spring loaded in such a way that when wind was pushing into the sail it also resisted the spring that was trying to fold it up.
It extracts energy from the potential energy difference between kinetic energy of the atoms in the wind and the atoms on the ground. A sail does this too, but a sail has a lot of drag. In fact, it has so much drag that you will never end up going faster than the wind.
A propellor has very little drag. That's the whole point of a propellor. In fact, a propellor can provide negative drag (aka thrust). So the cart's speed stabilizes when the total drag of the cart exceeds the thrust on the cart from the wind and the propellor.
That's why the treadmill example works perfectly. The energy is no longer being extracted from the air, it's being extracted from the treadmill. If you were to measure the total work being done by the treadmill when the cart is moving forward on it, you would discover it was doing a lot more work when the cart was moving than when it wasn't. With a treadmill that has no extra power capacity this will result in the treadmill slowing down when the cart is moving forward.
The bus driver's in the south didn't make the policy about where black people sat either, but the place where that battle did, and should've happened is on the seats of the bus. Forcing the screeners to humiliate people in public and making sure it's obvious they're doing it and that it IS humiliating is just as, or more important than any policy battle you could fight with the higher-ups. It's what tells people who make policy that their policy isn't being calmly accepted, much more so than a suit by some civil liberties outfit.
Yes, yet another means of control. "We'll get your family if you don't comply!". How worthwhile is a marker of having been under 'state protection' when everybody has one? Besides, I think you are way overstating how detrimental it can be for one of your parents to have something like that on their record.
It might matter for jobs requiring a security clearance, but that's a very small minority of jobs out there.
or having you genitals felt up. Seriously that's their policy. They think if they subject everybody to public humiliation that people will opt for private humiliation instead.
Personally, I'll go for the public. If they're going to be obnoxious, authoritarian jerks, they should be forced to do it where everybody can see them. I'll act like I'm gay and I enjoy it. I will act like I think they're gay, and they enjoy it. I will turn the humiliation tables around and ask them if they like feeling people's balls and vaginas up in public, if it turns them on.
If enough people take my stance on it, they will quit this garbage in a hurry.
Yeah, all you scaredy cat cowards people who think that somehow this will come back on me and make my life miserable. You know what, up yours. It's people like you that've gotten us where we are, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. For once in your life, show a little backbone and self-respect.
In this system each person can go look at a big published list of all the votes and see that their vote is indeed on the list. The person can see that indeed all the votes add up to be a particular value. The person can ask one of a few authorities, each with opposing interests, to decrypt that value and show them the resulting vote totals.
I don't understand how you can get any more verifiable than that. In my opinion, this is even better than paper because with paper nobody can tell their vote was counted. It all goes in a big box, and a lot of things can happen to their piece of paper in that box before it ever sees the light of day again.
You don't understand the technology. This is a technology that allows you better verification than any paper ballot can offer while still preserving anonymity. It's not vote by proxy. You get a receipt that you can use to prove to anybody that you voted, but can't be used to prove who you voted for. That proof comes in the pollbooth and while you can be confident enough in what happens there to know your vote was recorded correctly, the proof cannot be exported to outside the pollbooth to prove it to third parties.
It's a very neat system, and I was quite impressed when I participated in a demonstration. The only problem is that it does not handle write-in candidates very well.
I saw something like this presented at a hacker conference. Basically, you can do math on encrypted values and decrypt the result without decrypting the original values. This, in combination with a couple of other techniques indeed gives you hard anonymity and verifiability at the same time. Aside from the fact that it doesn't handle write-in candidates very well, it's currently actually even better than paper voting.
No, but the ideas in their heads are, and the employees don't own them even if the employees themselves created them. The IP system has increasingly in recent years been used by our aristocracy to maintain their position at the expense of everybody else.
Thinking about this is going to take me some time. The analogy is not perfect, the power to quit is a great equalizer (and I'm not saying it makes things equal, just much, much less skewed), but the fact this spawned so much debate makes me think that it's not so flawed as to be totally useless.
Maybe they didn't want to be Facebook employees. Maybe the name on the paycheck matters to them. Maybe what they were working on matters to them. I know that both of those things matter for me.
I'd say it acknowledges the fact that the people in a company are worth more than some moronic idea about an imaginary intellectual property their lawyers concocted.
While I would agree with you, why couldn't Facebook then just hire them? Why did their need to be a transaction between the company's purported owners and Facebook? Facebook is basically buying the company to buy its employment contracts, its relationship with its workers. That treats those employment contracts as a fungible commodity, and that doesn't sit very well with me.
My objection is to treating people as assets. That's what serfs were. They were considered a part of the land. When you brought the land, you got the serfs.
Buying a company for its employees seems so much like a recapitulation of the feudal system. I've already felt that America has basically become a feudal state with the federal government playing the role of king, and large corporations playing the role of feudal vassals. But this just throws that into sharp relief.
Well, it depends on which Chinese people you ask.:-) But yes, I get your point, and you're right. I once thought Google mistakenly felt they were making a decision that was in everybody's best interests, and I no longer do in that case.
Fact is, being selfish turns out, in many cases, to decrease chances of said reproduction. It may be indirect (i.e. people figure out they can't trust you, you lose friends, you don't find a spouse, you don't have anyone to help you out when bad things happen to you, etc)
I agree with you completely. So many people completely misunderstand this. I blame it on the idea that our moral sense is given to us from a deity or creator rather than being a product of evolution. There is a survival reason that we behave in a moral fashion.
Well, not completely. But there is absolutely no other agency I trust the way I trust Google. I trust that the only bias Google intentionally applies to their results has the best interests of everybody at heart. I most certainly do NOT trust Bing to do this. They would in a heartbeat and tell me they were completely justified in doing so, and most of you here would agree with them and tell me that corporations aren't even supposed to have a moral compass.
I would like some diversity here. I would like a distributed solution to this problem. Unfortunately one doesn't exist, I can't think of a good way to make one right now. But Google's centralized nature and the amount of trust I'm required to have for them is very worrisome to me.
I actually think its cowardice that gave him that agenda. Maybe he was lying during the campaign, but what I really think happened is that he cut deals during the Democratic National Convention to toe the party line a bit more in exchange for full support.
He was just barely edging out Hillary in the popular vote, so he probably felt he really needed to do something to get the entire party behind him. For example, health care was Hillary's pet issue, not his, but he wasted tons of political capital pushing it through.
But, perhaps he was all pretty rhetoric and lies right from the beginning.
I'm not saying that Americans were directly responsible. If you read the article, I believe it says that while the majority of cases were prisoners in Iraqi hands, that a few cases were for prisoners in our hands. It also talks about misreported and underrepresented civilian casualty counts when those casualties were caused by US troops, and a specific case in which US troops were ordered to fire on someone trying to surrender.
And I disagree that we can't be held at all responsible for what the Iraqi police and military did. We were supposedly rebuilding their country after toppling their existing government. The behavior of their police and military are our responsibility during that time. I fully agree with you that in other cases sovereignty issues take precedence, but Iraq is a special case (like Japan was for a few years after we won WWII).
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, this is a much nicer way of understanding what's going on.
Though... you could also think of the sails in a tacking sailboat as being able to extract more energy from the air because they can bring the air to a full stop relative to the water underneath the boat. The keel is necessary to keep the air from pushing the boat sideways instead of coming to a stop.
It extracts energy from the fact the ground is moving faster than the air.
If a boat had a paddle or propellor in the water to extract energy from its motion relative to the water it could use this to accomplish the same thing with a propellor above the water.
Propellors do not magically generate negative drag. They require energy input to do it. But that energy comes from the wheels interacting with the ground. But the fact they can extract energy this way is because the wind is moving faster than the ground.
Oh, and a simple sail has another problem. It can only extract energy from the kinect energy potential difference of the atoms in the wind and the atoms in the thing the sail itself. There is no connection the ground, and so no way to extract energy from the kinetic energy potential difference between the wind and the ground.
You are just adding a complicated energy storage mechanism and then having the energy collection mechanism disable itself for part of the time. It would be slower.
You could get the car up to speed faster by having a sail that folded itself as soon as the amount of energy it was extracting dropped off. Maybe a triangle sail with the base of the triangle along the bed of the vehicle and the tip at the propellor axis. Then have it spring loaded in such a way that when wind was pushing into the sail it also resisted the spring that was trying to fold it up.
It extracts energy from the potential energy difference between kinetic energy of the atoms in the wind and the atoms on the ground. A sail does this too, but a sail has a lot of drag. In fact, it has so much drag that you will never end up going faster than the wind.
A propellor has very little drag. That's the whole point of a propellor. In fact, a propellor can provide negative drag (aka thrust). So the cart's speed stabilizes when the total drag of the cart exceeds the thrust on the cart from the wind and the propellor.
That's why the treadmill example works perfectly. The energy is no longer being extracted from the air, it's being extracted from the treadmill. If you were to measure the total work being done by the treadmill when the cart is moving forward on it, you would discover it was doing a lot more work when the cart was moving than when it wasn't. With a treadmill that has no extra power capacity this will result in the treadmill slowing down when the cart is moving forward.
They don't have to take the job.
The bus driver's in the south didn't make the policy about where black people sat either, but the place where that battle did, and should've happened is on the seats of the bus. Forcing the screeners to humiliate people in public and making sure it's obvious they're doing it and that it IS humiliating is just as, or more important than any policy battle you could fight with the higher-ups. It's what tells people who make policy that their policy isn't being calmly accepted, much more so than a suit by some civil liberties outfit.
Yes, yet another means of control. "We'll get your family if you don't comply!". How worthwhile is a marker of having been under 'state protection' when everybody has one? Besides, I think you are way overstating how detrimental it can be for one of your parents to have something like that on their record.
It might matter for jobs requiring a security clearance, but that's a very small minority of jobs out there.
or having you genitals felt up. Seriously that's their policy. They think if they subject everybody to public humiliation that people will opt for private humiliation instead.
Personally, I'll go for the public. If they're going to be obnoxious, authoritarian jerks, they should be forced to do it where everybody can see them. I'll act like I'm gay and I enjoy it. I will act like I think they're gay, and they enjoy it. I will turn the humiliation tables around and ask them if they like feeling people's balls and vaginas up in public, if it turns them on.
If enough people take my stance on it, they will quit this garbage in a hurry.
Yeah, all you scaredy cat cowards people who think that somehow this will come back on me and make my life miserable. You know what, up yours. It's people like you that've gotten us where we are, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. For once in your life, show a little backbone and self-respect.
I have absolutely no trust whatsoever that my mail in ballot is ever counted. Nobody can prove to me that it is. I think paper is untrustworthy.
In this system each person can go look at a big published list of all the votes and see that their vote is indeed on the list. The person can see that indeed all the votes add up to be a particular value. The person can ask one of a few authorities, each with opposing interests, to decrypt that value and show them the resulting vote totals.
I don't understand how you can get any more verifiable than that. In my opinion, this is even better than paper because with paper nobody can tell their vote was counted. It all goes in a big box, and a lot of things can happen to their piece of paper in that box before it ever sees the light of day again.
You don't understand the technology. This is a technology that allows you better verification than any paper ballot can offer while still preserving anonymity. It's not vote by proxy. You get a receipt that you can use to prove to anybody that you voted, but can't be used to prove who you voted for. That proof comes in the pollbooth and while you can be confident enough in what happens there to know your vote was recorded correctly, the proof cannot be exported to outside the pollbooth to prove it to third parties.
It's a very neat system, and I was quite impressed when I participated in a demonstration. The only problem is that it does not handle write-in candidates very well.
I saw something like this presented at a hacker conference. Basically, you can do math on encrypted values and decrypt the result without decrypting the original values. This, in combination with a couple of other techniques indeed gives you hard anonymity and verifiability at the same time. Aside from the fact that it doesn't handle write-in candidates very well, it's currently actually even better than paper voting.
Yeah, that word didn't seem right. I'm not sure what the right word is.
No, but the ideas in their heads are, and the employees don't own them even if the employees themselves created them. The IP system has increasingly in recent years been used by our aristocracy to maintain their position at the expense of everybody else.
Thinking about this is going to take me some time. The analogy is not perfect, the power to quit is a great equalizer (and I'm not saying it makes things equal, just much, much less skewed), but the fact this spawned so much debate makes me think that it's not so flawed as to be totally useless.
Maybe they didn't want to be Facebook employees. Maybe the name on the paycheck matters to them. Maybe what they were working on matters to them. I know that both of those things matter for me.
I'd say it acknowledges the fact that the people in a company are worth more than some moronic idea about an imaginary intellectual property their lawyers concocted.
While I would agree with you, why couldn't Facebook then just hire them? Why did their need to be a transaction between the company's purported owners and Facebook? Facebook is basically buying the company to buy its employment contracts, its relationship with its workers. That treats those employment contracts as a fungible commodity, and that doesn't sit very well with me.
My objection is to treating people as assets. That's what serfs were. They were considered a part of the land. When you brought the land, you got the serfs.
Buying a company for its employees seems so much like a recapitulation of the feudal system. I've already felt that America has basically become a feudal state with the federal government playing the role of king, and large corporations playing the role of feudal vassals. But this just throws that into sharp relief.
Well, it depends on which Chinese people you ask. :-) But yes, I get your point, and you're right. I once thought Google mistakenly felt they were making a decision that was in everybody's best interests, and I no longer do in that case.
I agree with you completely. So many people completely misunderstand this. I blame it on the idea that our moral sense is given to us from a deity or creator rather than being a product of evolution. There is a survival reason that we behave in a moral fashion.
Well, not completely. But there is absolutely no other agency I trust the way I trust Google. I trust that the only bias Google intentionally applies to their results has the best interests of everybody at heart. I most certainly do NOT trust Bing to do this. They would in a heartbeat and tell me they were completely justified in doing so, and most of you here would agree with them and tell me that corporations aren't even supposed to have a moral compass.
I would like some diversity here. I would like a distributed solution to this problem. Unfortunately one doesn't exist, I can't think of a good way to make one right now. But Google's centralized nature and the amount of trust I'm required to have for them is very worrisome to me.
I actually think its cowardice that gave him that agenda. Maybe he was lying during the campaign, but what I really think happened is that he cut deals during the Democratic National Convention to toe the party line a bit more in exchange for full support.
He was just barely edging out Hillary in the popular vote, so he probably felt he really needed to do something to get the entire party behind him. For example, health care was Hillary's pet issue, not his, but he wasted tons of political capital pushing it through.
But, perhaps he was all pretty rhetoric and lies right from the beginning.
Where do you think I'm advocating that due legal process be abandon?
I'm not saying that Americans were directly responsible. If you read the article, I believe it says that while the majority of cases were prisoners in Iraqi hands, that a few cases were for prisoners in our hands. It also talks about misreported and underrepresented civilian casualty counts when those casualties were caused by US troops, and a specific case in which US troops were ordered to fire on someone trying to surrender.
And I disagree that we can't be held at all responsible for what the Iraqi police and military did. We were supposedly rebuilding their country after toppling their existing government. The behavior of their police and military are our responsibility during that time. I fully agree with you that in other cases sovereignty issues take precedence, but Iraq is a special case (like Japan was for a few years after we won WWII).