No they're exactly the same thing, they just have different operating environments. Different airspeed. Wings are shaped differently to enhance efficiency at different airspeeds.
They wouldn't face the wind but would go downwind, aligning the blades to flow with the wind instead of fighting it.
What the fuck does that mean? How does a blade "flow"? It is a rigid object. It sits in the wind flow. And if a wind turbine fights the wind, then it isn't really a turbine, is it? A blade has a length, width, and thickness. Which is aligned with the wind? Is the windflow axially aligned or radially aligned? What is aligned? If a typical wind turbine faces the wind, and you rotate it 180 degrees is it now facing downwind? No. It is still facing the wind, because the blades are shaped to only move in one direction in a windflow. You have just put the blades on the other side of the mast and generator house. Go back to reporting on firearms, you do a better job with that.
We don't really ever reduce trade barriers. Democrats like to make trade "deals" which really mean hamstringing American business, giving away the farm to nations "in need", and fucking over American companies that just want to easily sell their products overseas while keeping the company in the US.
Yes the reason it was passed was to supposedly combat corruption. How did that work out? It was a canard for consolidating power in Washington, which was the major goal and accomplishment of Wilson's presidency. He set us on the course to where we are today.
Why are you laughing? Look at all the moderates on the court for the last 30 years. Almost all of them were nominated by Republican presidents. You sound like an idiot.
Bork, Thomas, alito. Republicans have a long history or nominating moderates to the SC. And confirming liberal nominations. No more. Fuck you very much.
Look, if the left is going to constantly use argument like 97% percent of scientists agree, and the economy is great because 5%, or women only make 5% of what men make doing the same job, or 1 out of 5 dogs will be raped in doggy daycare, or machine guns kill millions of children in the US every day, the time for letting them get away with those methods is over.
Fine, if you're going to down vote that, then it's Charles Hill's ghost looking for some payback, saying that if BART is going to shutdown cell service to prevent protests, then he'll shut down the trains.
Unfortunately for you, who is president has very little to do with the economy. Who is in control of the house and the senate, on the other hand, does make a significant difference. Using that information, why don't you go back and look at our economic history for the last 35 years or so.
We all know that. But if the idiotic left is going to continue to use that number, we are going to throw it back in their faces during arguments. Use it when it is advantageous, use the other numbers when it is advantageous.
Very true, and I agree with everything you said. That works very well in a free(ish) market. But when government thinks it can centrally command the economy and set artificially high wages, then that breaks down. People won't be rehired until employers see it as sensible, and artificially high wages raise the bar as to what is still sensible.
Well there's an unanswered question in all of this. How did classified information get from SCIF to hrc's email server? She requested secure blackberries for herself and her staff and was denied. Hrc doesn't like being denied. It doesn't take a leap of the imagination to suppose that she and her staff brought their personal bb's into SCIF and used them to take pictures of classified info on SCIF displays, or copied classified info right off the screen.
Slashdot Mirror
C'mon, you can use google for just a quick verification before you post a statement like that.
For the lazy, who think that having the highest corporate tax rates in the world won't have negative repercussions
No they're exactly the same thing, they just have different operating environments. Different airspeed. Wings are shaped differently to enhance efficiency at different airspeeds.
...describe a physical object?
They wouldn't face the wind but would go downwind, aligning the blades to flow with the wind instead of fighting it.
What the fuck does that mean? How does a blade "flow"? It is a rigid object. It sits in the wind flow. And if a wind turbine fights the wind, then it isn't really a turbine, is it? A blade has a length, width, and thickness. Which is aligned with the wind? Is the windflow axially aligned or radially aligned? What is aligned? If a typical wind turbine faces the wind, and you rotate it 180 degrees is it now facing downwind? No. It is still facing the wind, because the blades are shaped to only move in one direction in a windflow. You have just put the blades on the other side of the mast and generator house. Go back to reporting on firearms, you do a better job with that.
Actually, contrast sucks compared to amoled.
Started? They have been doing that for 75 years.
We don't really ever reduce trade barriers. Democrats like to make trade "deals" which really mean hamstringing American business, giving away the farm to nations "in need", and fucking over American companies that just want to easily sell their products overseas while keeping the company in the US.
We don't have crumbling infrastructure. Obama spent a trillion dollars to fix the infrastructure just a few years ago.
It's amazing that you can substitute Obama for Trump in your statement and it still makes total sense.
I don't think monopoly means what you think it's means. Mono means one. You can't have multiple drug monopolies.
You're right. Hillary Clinton is the true Savior.
Bwahahhaaaahahahag!!!!! That's a good one!
Where's your argument? I haven't seen one yet.
Yes the reason it was passed was to supposedly combat corruption. How did that work out? It was a canard for consolidating power in Washington, which was the major goal and accomplishment of Wilson's presidency. He set us on the course to where we are today.
Why are you laughing? Look at all the moderates on the court for the last 30 years. Almost all of them were nominated by Republican presidents. You sound like an idiot.
Bork, Thomas, alito. Republicans have a long history or nominating moderates to the SC. And confirming liberal nominations. No more. Fuck you very much.
Look, if the left is going to constantly use argument like 97% percent of scientists agree, and the economy is great because 5%, or women only make 5% of what men make doing the same job, or 1 out of 5 dogs will be raped in doggy daycare, or machine guns kill millions of children in the US every day, the time for letting them get away with those methods is over.
Fine, if you're going to down vote that, then it's Charles Hill's ghost looking for some payback, saying that if BART is going to shutdown cell service to prevent protests, then he'll shut down the trains.
Unfortunately for you, who is president has very little to do with the economy. Who is in control of the house and the senate, on the other hand, does make a significant difference. Using that information, why don't you go back and look at our economic history for the last 35 years or so.
I nobody can buy how are you going to get rich and live in mansion by selling food to poor people?
As well as making labor more productive, you get the double whammy of lower prices. As long as regulators stay out of it, that is.
We all know that. But if the idiotic left is going to continue to use that number, we are going to throw it back in their faces during arguments. Use it when it is advantageous, use the other numbers when it is advantageous.
People have been saying we are about to enter that era for 150 years.
Very true, and I agree with everything you said. That works very well in a free(ish) market. But when government thinks it can centrally command the economy and set artificially high wages, then that breaks down. People won't be rehired until employers see it as sensible, and artificially high wages raise the bar as to what is still sensible.
Are you nuts? Why would the governor of Alaska have top secret info in her personal gmail account?
Well there's an unanswered question in all of this. How did classified information get from SCIF to hrc's email server? She requested secure blackberries for herself and her staff and was denied. Hrc doesn't like being denied. It doesn't take a leap of the imagination to suppose that she and her staff brought their personal bb's into SCIF and used them to take pictures of classified info on SCIF displays, or copied classified info right off the screen.