An wing on a plane generates lift in a very simple way: It is moving forward in the air. Note that the wing is moving here, while the air is (generally) not, and only tends to be accelerated as a result of the forces imparted upon it by the wing. The shape of the wing is such that molecules of air are relatively easily pushed above and below the wing. The masses of air pushed both up and down here is the same, so no lift is actually generated from this.
The asymmetrical shape of the wing, however, in no small part thanks to the coanda effect, causes air moving tangent to the surface of the wing above it to be moving faster than the plane's net lateral velocity, while the air below the wing is only moving at (roughly) the same speed that the plane's lateral velocity is. Bernoulli's principle states that faster moving fluids have lower pressure, and this pressure differential is responded to by pushing the plane in the directlon of the lower pressure.
Without bernoulli, no lower pressure area above the wing would exist in the first place, so the lift wouldn't happen. At no point, however, is any more air ever actually pushed down than pushed up.
No, a plane flies by the Bernoulli principle. The mass of air that would have to be pushed down to oppose the force of gravity on a full sized airplane is immense. There is some downward vectoring of air in airplane flight, but it is not significant.
A planet of earth's size is far too tiny to qualify as any kind of brown dwarf, not even a sub brown dwarf (the lower limit for which is approximately 1 jupiter mass). No formal name has been given to such an object because none have ever been discovered. Colloquially, it is might be referred to as a rogue or interstellar planet. If we do ever discover one (and it's quite likely they exist), then I imagine the ICU will settle on a formal name at that time.
The accepted definition of a double planet system is one where the the barycenter, the point around which both bodies orbit, lies outside of both bodies.
The reason that they think the IAU's definition of a planet is ambiguous is because they have the definition wrong. A planet does not have to completely clear its neighborhood of all other objects (the earth would not qualify if that were the case, since it shares its orbit with Luna, its moon). What makes it a planet is when it has cleared the neighborhood of all similarly sized objects.
So yes, Earth would not be a planet if it shared an orbit with a planet like mars or venus, and would be considered either a moon or possibly even an asteroid if it shared an orbit with Jupiter or Saturn, depend on whether it was gravitationally captured by the gas giant or not.
Because presumably places of businesses get obviously recorded spam calls like everyone else...
Exactly.... so there's no difference. Even if it *was* a person on the other end of the phone, they are spamming you and not actually interested in any honest communication.
There can, in fact, be legitimate reasons why they may not be permitted to take blood from you unless the person doing it is a licensed physician and more advanced immediate medical attention is available in the event of any complications. I know people like this. I don't know the name of the condition, but they have to wear a tag on their arm when they go out just like a person with diabetes.
And for that matter, I've known a handful of people who completely abstain from alchohol, but will quite consistently blow over the legal limit in a breathalyzer, although blood analysis shows there's no alchohol present.
Although I don't know anyone with both conditions, I can fairly easily imagine a situation where both circumstances apply to a single person.
If that's the case, then why are they so worried that people would just hang up if the voice was more obviously robotic sounding?
If they are reasonably expecting people to hang up if they know that the call is from a machine, then unless they have programmed the machine to deliberately lie (in which case you don't want to do business with them anyways, since they will deliberately engage in deceptive practices in order to acquire business), then why is it somehow different if you hang up on what seems to be machine that won't directly answer even your questions?
If it doesn't answer a direct question or otherwise evades it, assume it's a robot, and hang up. It has already demonstrated no interest an actually attempting to communicate with you, so there's no point in giving it any more time than if it had the obviously robotic voice that would likely make most people hang up right away.
Actually, they take the CO2 from the air and use both the C and the O2, to make sugars. They also take the hydrogen from H2O as part of this, and release the oxygen from every two molecules of water as O2. This can be verified by using water with a particular isotope of oxygen that is not in the CO2, and observing which isotype of oxygen is in the O2 produced by the plant.
But that aside, most of carbon dioxide that is removed by plants is by plants that are not crops, and while more crops would make some difference to that cycle, I do not think it would be significant enough to keep humans as truly carbon neutral.
... All kind of stuff happen, fast forward and we are in the court room....
And why would you assume that I wouldn't have been asking for a lawyer as soon as they arrested me, if not as soon as I realized that they were unnecessarily continuing to question me, regardless of the validity of the answers that I had already given?
I could have asked for a lawyer initially, obviously.... and had every right to reasonably expect that the request would have been granted, but that 2 or 3 minutes of answering a couple of questions would have turned into 2 or 3 hours of doing absolutely dick-all, and for no reason.
If they go and arrest me anyways for something that they believe I had something to do with, even though I answer their questions honestly, then I'm still inconvenienced anyways.... what's the difference at that point if it's because they are arresting me for something I didn't do vs having to wait for my lawyer if that's the first thing I say? Either way I'm at least sitting around waiting for the time it takes to speak to my lawyer, so unless I *really* wanted to spend that time waiting around doing nothing instead of going on with my life, the most expedient thing to do is to be transparent, and my own personal experiences in this regard validate this assumption.
Leaving aside your estimate of my intelligence, your evaluation of my political leanings is so far removed from reality that it boggles the mind that one who would appear to conclude such a thing is doing anything other than putting random sentences together in the blind hope that they might appear coherent.
And perhaps ironically, playing chess and go are areas where human players are more desirable than computer opponents, despite the latter being technically superior.
Well yes... as I said, it might be quite a wait for the lawyer, and at no point did I suggest that the wait would be a pleasant one, only that they would generally honor the request. If you think otherwise, I expect you've watched one too many fictional police dramas.
Depends on how much your time is worth to you. Under my original post I pictured that you are already chained to a desk in a gray room waiting for a detective to grace you with his time. If that is the case it is safe to assume your ass is under arrest and anything else you have to do is going to be of less importance.
Yes, in that case, I would definitely be asking for my lawyer.... but in my admittedly few experiences with being questioned by police it has always been thankfully brief, lasting only 2 or 3 minutes at most, and always outdoors.
Not entirely true, actually.... but on the occasions where I have been stopped and interrogated by cops for no reason connected with anything I did and requested to answer some questions, it has always been quite expedient, because I've provided them with the information they wanted, and was free to go. It's happened three times in my life, actually. Once while I was a teen, once in my twenties, and the last time was just a few years ago.
Had they said anything to me to suggest that I was being placed under arrest, you can sure as bet that the first thing out of my mouth would have been to speak to my lawyer. But if they are asking quick and straightforward questions like my name, where I live, or what I'm doing in the area (in my experience always because of some recent criminal activity in the area that the police were investigating), then I don't have a problem with it. I'm pretty sure that if I had instead opened with the line that I wanted to speak with my lawyer, while this request would certainly not have been denied, I know for a fact I would have been waiting a whole shitpile longer than the 2 or 3 minutes that the questioning has taken.
Trust me, answering their questions almost always just leads to trouble.
I imagine that must depend heavily on what the questions are, because it's never happened in my experience.
It's not that one may think they may reasonably win as much as they think that the chance of winning is still not zero.
They may realize their chances are negligible, but play anyways because they figure that the cost of buying the number of tiickets that they do is not any more significant to them.
That depends if your time is worth the inconvenience of having to wait for the lawyer.
If you are needing to be somewhere and the annoyance of having to comply for a few minutes is worth missing your appointment in addition to waiting for 2 or 3 hours for your lawyer to arrive, then sure...
Personally, I'd rather just do what they say.... barring being placed under arrest, I don't think I'd be saying I want to speak with my lawyer unless they gave me a real indication that my life was about to get a whole lot more complicated than I'd like it to be.
Javascript, by itself, is about on par with safety as any other scripting language such as scheme or Lua. Any lack of safety lies entirely in what underlying operating system frameworks are exposed to the api of the script language by the language embedder. By default, there is nothing that stands out to my knowledge in the javascript core library that would be considered unsafe.
That said, I won't argue that there are a few characteristics of javascript that might make it undesirable as a programming language or even prone to certain types of programmer errors, especially with newcomers, but they do not make the language particularly unsafe to use.
To be fair, javascript is no more unsafe than lisp is. What makes javascript unsafe is any vulnerability in auxiliary frameworks that are exposed to script writiers, none of which are part of the actual core language or standard frameork library.
I didn't suggest that this would make the system as a whole any safer, I said that JS, in this respect, is less likely to be successfully used as an attack vector than VB because the end user can vet javascript source code themselves if they are so inclined, and possibly spot any dangerous code, while VB has the option of being distributed as pre-compiled byte code.
But of course, if they are keeping VB (and I expect that they are), then obviously the system isn't any safer at all, because attacks can still be obscured from that angle anyways,
Slashdot Mirror
An wing on a plane generates lift in a very simple way: It is moving forward in the air. Note that the wing is moving here, while the air is (generally) not, and only tends to be accelerated as a result of the forces imparted upon it by the wing. The shape of the wing is such that molecules of air are relatively easily pushed above and below the wing. The masses of air pushed both up and down here is the same, so no lift is actually generated from this.
The asymmetrical shape of the wing, however, in no small part thanks to the coanda effect, causes air moving tangent to the surface of the wing above it to be moving faster than the plane's net lateral velocity, while the air below the wing is only moving at (roughly) the same speed that the plane's lateral velocity is. Bernoulli's principle states that faster moving fluids have lower pressure, and this pressure differential is responded to by pushing the plane in the directlon of the lower pressure.
Without bernoulli, no lower pressure area above the wing would exist in the first place, so the lift wouldn't happen. At no point, however, is any more air ever actually pushed down than pushed up.
No, a plane flies by the Bernoulli principle. The mass of air that would have to be pushed down to oppose the force of gravity on a full sized airplane is immense. There is some downward vectoring of air in airplane flight, but it is not significant.
Sarcasm detected.... but it was still an honest question.
The martian atmosphere is pretty damn thin.
IAU, damnit.... I saw the typo literally the very second I hit "submit".
A planet of earth's size is far too tiny to qualify as any kind of brown dwarf, not even a sub brown dwarf (the lower limit for which is approximately 1 jupiter mass). No formal name has been given to such an object because none have ever been discovered. Colloquially, it is might be referred to as a rogue or interstellar planet. If we do ever discover one (and it's quite likely they exist), then I imagine the ICU will settle on a formal name at that time.
The accepted definition of a double planet system is one where the the barycenter, the point around which both bodies orbit, lies outside of both bodies.
The reason that they think the IAU's definition of a planet is ambiguous is because they have the definition wrong. A planet does not have to completely clear its neighborhood of all other objects (the earth would not qualify if that were the case, since it shares its orbit with Luna, its moon). What makes it a planet is when it has cleared the neighborhood of all similarly sized objects.
So yes, Earth would not be a planet if it shared an orbit with a planet like mars or venus, and would be considered either a moon or possibly even an asteroid if it shared an orbit with Jupiter or Saturn, depend on whether it was gravitationally captured by the gas giant or not.
Exactly.... so there's no difference. Even if it *was* a person on the other end of the phone, they are spamming you and not actually interested in any honest communication.
What would they do if your lawyer was in the car with you?
There can, in fact, be legitimate reasons why they may not be permitted to take blood from you unless the person doing it is a licensed physician and more advanced immediate medical attention is available in the event of any complications. I know people like this. I don't know the name of the condition, but they have to wear a tag on their arm when they go out just like a person with diabetes.
And for that matter, I've known a handful of people who completely abstain from alchohol, but will quite consistently blow over the legal limit in a breathalyzer, although blood analysis shows there's no alchohol present.
Although I don't know anyone with both conditions, I can fairly easily imagine a situation where both circumstances apply to a single person.
If that's the case, then why are they so worried that people would just hang up if the voice was more obviously robotic sounding?
If they are reasonably expecting people to hang up if they know that the call is from a machine, then unless they have programmed the machine to deliberately lie (in which case you don't want to do business with them anyways, since they will deliberately engage in deceptive practices in order to acquire business), then why is it somehow different if you hang up on what seems to be machine that won't directly answer even your questions?
If it doesn't answer a direct question or otherwise evades it, assume it's a robot, and hang up. It has already demonstrated no interest an actually attempting to communicate with you, so there's no point in giving it any more time than if it had the obviously robotic voice that would likely make most people hang up right away.
But that aside, most of carbon dioxide that is removed by plants is by plants that are not crops, and while more crops would make some difference to that cycle, I do not think it would be significant enough to keep humans as truly carbon neutral.
And why would you assume that I wouldn't have been asking for a lawyer as soon as they arrested me, if not as soon as I realized that they were unnecessarily continuing to question me, regardless of the validity of the answers that I had already given?
I could have asked for a lawyer initially, obviously.... and had every right to reasonably expect that the request would have been granted, but that 2 or 3 minutes of answering a couple of questions would have turned into 2 or 3 hours of doing absolutely dick-all, and for no reason.
If they go and arrest me anyways for something that they believe I had something to do with, even though I answer their questions honestly, then I'm still inconvenienced anyways.... what's the difference at that point if it's because they are arresting me for something I didn't do vs having to wait for my lawyer if that's the first thing I say? Either way I'm at least sitting around waiting for the time it takes to speak to my lawyer, so unless I *really* wanted to spend that time waiting around doing nothing instead of going on with my life, the most expedient thing to do is to be transparent, and my own personal experiences in this regard validate this assumption.
Leaving aside your estimate of my intelligence, your evaluation of my political leanings is so far removed from reality that it boggles the mind that one who would appear to conclude such a thing is doing anything other than putting random sentences together in the blind hope that they might appear coherent.
And perhaps ironically, playing chess and go are areas where human players are more desirable than computer opponents, despite the latter being technically superior.
Well yes... as I said, it might be quite a wait for the lawyer, and at no point did I suggest that the wait would be a pleasant one, only that they would generally honor the request. If you think otherwise, I expect you've watched one too many fictional police dramas.
Yes, in that case, I would definitely be asking for my lawyer.... but in my admittedly few experiences with being questioned by police it has always been thankfully brief, lasting only 2 or 3 minutes at most, and always outdoors.
Not entirely true, actually.... but on the occasions where I have been stopped and interrogated by cops for no reason connected with anything I did and requested to answer some questions, it has always been quite expedient, because I've provided them with the information they wanted, and was free to go. It's happened three times in my life, actually. Once while I was a teen, once in my twenties, and the last time was just a few years ago.
Had they said anything to me to suggest that I was being placed under arrest, you can sure as bet that the first thing out of my mouth would have been to speak to my lawyer. But if they are asking quick and straightforward questions like my name, where I live, or what I'm doing in the area (in my experience always because of some recent criminal activity in the area that the police were investigating), then I don't have a problem with it. I'm pretty sure that if I had instead opened with the line that I wanted to speak with my lawyer, while this request would certainly not have been denied, I know for a fact I would have been waiting a whole shitpile longer than the 2 or 3 minutes that the questioning has taken.
I imagine that must depend heavily on what the questions are, because it's never happened in my experience.
It's not that one may think they may reasonably win as much as they think that the chance of winning is still not zero.
They may realize their chances are negligible, but play anyways because they figure that the cost of buying the number of tiickets that they do is not any more significant to them.
That depends if your time is worth the inconvenience of having to wait for the lawyer.
If you are needing to be somewhere and the annoyance of having to comply for a few minutes is worth missing your appointment in addition to waiting for 2 or 3 hours for your lawyer to arrive, then sure...
Personally, I'd rather just do what they say.... barring being placed under arrest, I don't think I'd be saying I want to speak with my lawyer unless they gave me a real indication that my life was about to get a whole lot more complicated than I'd like it to be.
Javascript, by itself, is about on par with safety as any other scripting language such as scheme or Lua. Any lack of safety lies entirely in what underlying operating system frameworks are exposed to the api of the script language by the language embedder. By default, there is nothing that stands out to my knowledge in the javascript core library that would be considered unsafe.
That said, I won't argue that there are a few characteristics of javascript that might make it undesirable as a programming language or even prone to certain types of programmer errors, especially with newcomers, but they do not make the language particularly unsafe to use.
To be fair, javascript is no more unsafe than lisp is. What makes javascript unsafe is any vulnerability in auxiliary frameworks that are exposed to script writiers, none of which are part of the actual core language or standard frameork library.
I didn't suggest that this would make the system as a whole any safer, I said that JS, in this respect, is less likely to be successfully used as an attack vector than VB because the end user can vet javascript source code themselves if they are so inclined, and possibly spot any dangerous code, while VB has the option of being distributed as pre-compiled byte code.
But of course, if they are keeping VB (and I expect that they are), then obviously the system isn't any safer at all, because attacks can still be obscured from that angle anyways,