This is a very common misconseption. In reality, the main limiting point of turboprops is speed of sound for the propeller edges. They have slightly better performance at altitudes commonly used by modern airliners as long as speed stays at levels where its propeller edges and surrounding air flow doesn't go supersonic significantly increasing drag and reducing efficiency. That was one of the main reasons why Airbus chose turboprops instead of turbofans to power its military transporter. And if you add contra-rotating propellers, even the best modern turbofans are left in the dust at these altitudes.
Implementation of this kind of engine in civil aviation is mainly limited by extreme noise emitted by contra-rotating turboprop engine as well as the speed limitations for efficiency. Hence turbofans on all larger aircraft and a mix of turboprops and turbofans on medium sized ones.
What we have right now is a perfect storm of multiple factors.
1. US aggressive foreign policy against Russia, Venezuela and now IS. This is seen in situation in Georgia, Ukraine et al against Russia and with Cuba against Venezuela and is an extremely important tool. Timing of fracking's peak in US is a little too perfect to have been intentionally arranged, but it's certainly helpful to the extreme and is receiving significant political support from military wing of governing forces in the country.
2. Gulf state interests against IS. Essentially all Gulf states, from Saudi Arabia to Iran have been threatened by IS both directly and indirectly. IS gains overwhelming amount of income from oil trade: http://www.spiegel.de/internat... This is likely the real reason why OPEC doesn't cut the quotas. They see a chance to starve IS, and in absence of any better means to do so they go for it. Even traditionally anti-Saudi and anti-US Iran is on board here with IS's main message being anti-Shiite to the extreme threatening their allied shiite-lead Iraq
3. Corporate interests across many countries, including Western countries and some large importing developing countries like China and India. These have invested in significant amount of current and future production of carbohydrates including oil and natural gas to ensure access in the short and medium turn, and combat over long term security is being covertly fought out in South China Sea, Arctic, Mediterranean basin, Black Sea and several other important regions. But in short term everyone has abundant supplies secured and in medium term we have fracking projects across both Americas and Europe being pushed through while Russia is pushing for diversification to East Asian states like China, South-Korea, Japan and India giving them significant energy security boost. Brazil's growing economy is likewise more or less energy secure with largely successful massive shift to domestically sourced ethanol and access to Venezuelan oil. This inevitably drives the price down as the risk factor in the futures diminishes.
4. Fear in oil producing countries of becoming irrelevant for the next decade or two if hydraulic fracturing becomes more commonplace in Northern America, Europe and East Asian states. Right now much of their internal stability depends on stable output and sales and essentially the "current world order" where they produce and sell oil and rich countries buy oil and sell them products produced with that energy. Should rich and upcoming developing countries like China, India and Brazil become completely independent of their oil production for ten to twenty years that hydraulic fracturing can extract oil for before available oil runs out, they would simply go bankrupt and become easy pickings for said rich countries to take over as we have seen being done in the past. This fear is likely another factor in why OPEC doesn't dare to reduce extraction quotas, through a lesser one than threat of IS.
None of these factors alone would account for a significant reduction in oil price, but all of them together are causing the current free fall.
There's another problem. Turboprops are in fact more efficient for long range and are capable of only marginally slower speeds than modern turbofan aircraft but they are comparatively very noisy. As a result, they are far less comfortable to travel in and often incur additional penalties due to noise on take off.
You would have to be mathematically inept to even suspect such a thing.
They would want to have such a system yes. They would not be ABLE to have it, because mathematics of reality dictate the capability, not wishful thinking.
Not quite. Under Finnish law, overwhelming personal debt expires in three years after entering a mandated debt repayment agreement. There are also significant limits to what can be taken from him to repay such a debt.
These laws were put in place after a massive disaster in the 1990s when Finnish economy suffered a crisis similar in magnitude to that of 2007 in US which pushed a lot of small business owners into scenario you describe. Current system is designed to allow these people to get back on their feet and start business again.
It may come as a shock to you, but a lot of people confess to crimes they don't commit.
That's why we have courts of law that have high standard for evidence they accept, instead of lynching mobs that require "this guy looks different enough" to get the rope out.
That is the exact opposite of how actual crime prevention works, and the best way to ensure a lot of crime through recidivism and institutionalization of crime.
Real approach here is involving social workers and psychologists to get the guy sorted out.
But not to extinction or near extinction, which is the point I'm making. Humans hunting animals to near extinction is a sum of animal being valuable (for it meat, bones, imaginary values like alternative medicine uses and so on) vs how easy it is to hunt the said animal.
Same is true for bitcoin. This is why bitcoins value is so volatile - there's very little trust in it and every time news come out that shake the investor confidence, price dives.
As a result, while your argument is correct, it's far more damning for bitcoin than any major state-backed currency in use today.
To be fair, semi-fiat systems have been de facto (if not de jure) in place since days of colonialism. The important thing that served as the need for moving to de facto fiat currencies has been the need to expand beyond what current monetary system could offer. It goes hand in hand with rise of lending to finance such endeavours, i.e. assigning value to "future work not yet done" and giving money with expectation of better return.
Back then there was not enough gold in the coffers of states and local lords to cover the total currency on the market. Then there was the whole issue with coining and dilution of silver and gold used in coins below stated values to inflate the economy.
What does communism have to do with monetary system? Even if you don't have property, you still need something to denominate value of objects, tasks and so on.
The problem is that even the undisputed kings of surface to air interception, soviets, pretty much admitted that it was hopeless. NATO speciality was air to air interception, and they pretty much admitted the same thing when they retired AIM-54. Anti ship missile interception against a credible enemy is a futile task.
Navy isn't naive here either, and most Navy specialists readily concede the point. Their counter argument is that if US ever gets in a shooting war against a credible enemy, this will be irrelevant because any such enemy is a MAD club member.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the current situation in monopoly land of US internet. True that future may not change it, because it's not an anti-monopolistic action.
But nice red herring.
This is a very common misconseption. In reality, the main limiting point of turboprops is speed of sound for the propeller edges. They have slightly better performance at altitudes commonly used by modern airliners as long as speed stays at levels where its propeller edges and surrounding air flow doesn't go supersonic significantly increasing drag and reducing efficiency. That was one of the main reasons why Airbus chose turboprops instead of turbofans to power its military transporter. And if you add contra-rotating propellers, even the best modern turbofans are left in the dust at these altitudes.
Implementation of this kind of engine in civil aviation is mainly limited by extreme noise emitted by contra-rotating turboprop engine as well as the speed limitations for efficiency. Hence turbofans on all larger aircraft and a mix of turboprops and turbofans on medium sized ones.
And get owned by intel's illegal monopolistic deals with OEMs?
Been there, done that. Signed: AMD.
Your order of things that happen in hydraulic fracturing is hilariously wrong.
What we have right now is a perfect storm of multiple factors.
1. US aggressive foreign policy against Russia, Venezuela and now IS. This is seen in situation in Georgia, Ukraine et al against Russia and with Cuba against Venezuela and is an extremely important tool. Timing of fracking's peak in US is a little too perfect to have been intentionally arranged, but it's certainly helpful to the extreme and is receiving significant political support from military wing of governing forces in the country.
2. Gulf state interests against IS. Essentially all Gulf states, from Saudi Arabia to Iran have been threatened by IS both directly and indirectly. IS gains overwhelming amount of income from oil trade:
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
This is likely the real reason why OPEC doesn't cut the quotas. They see a chance to starve IS, and in absence of any better means to do so they go for it. Even traditionally anti-Saudi and anti-US Iran is on board here with IS's main message being anti-Shiite to the extreme threatening their allied shiite-lead Iraq
3. Corporate interests across many countries, including Western countries and some large importing developing countries like China and India. These have invested in significant amount of current and future production of carbohydrates including oil and natural gas to ensure access in the short and medium turn, and combat over long term security is being covertly fought out in South China Sea, Arctic, Mediterranean basin, Black Sea and several other important regions. But in short term everyone has abundant supplies secured and in medium term we have fracking projects across both Americas and Europe being pushed through while Russia is pushing for diversification to East Asian states like China, South-Korea, Japan and India giving them significant energy security boost. Brazil's growing economy is likewise more or less energy secure with largely successful massive shift to domestically sourced ethanol and access to Venezuelan oil. This inevitably drives the price down as the risk factor in the futures diminishes.
4. Fear in oil producing countries of becoming irrelevant for the next decade or two if hydraulic fracturing becomes more commonplace in Northern America, Europe and East Asian states. Right now much of their internal stability depends on stable output and sales and essentially the "current world order" where they produce and sell oil and rich countries buy oil and sell them products produced with that energy. Should rich and upcoming developing countries like China, India and Brazil become completely independent of their oil production for ten to twenty years that hydraulic fracturing can extract oil for before available oil runs out, they would simply go bankrupt and become easy pickings for said rich countries to take over as we have seen being done in the past.
This fear is likely another factor in why OPEC doesn't dare to reduce extraction quotas, through a lesser one than threat of IS.
None of these factors alone would account for a significant reduction in oil price, but all of them together are causing the current free fall.
There's another problem. Turboprops are in fact more efficient for long range and are capable of only marginally slower speeds than modern turbofan aircraft but they are comparatively very noisy. As a result, they are far less comfortable to travel in and often incur additional penalties due to noise on take off.
You would have to be mathematically inept to even suspect such a thing.
They would want to have such a system yes. They would not be ABLE to have it, because mathematics of reality dictate the capability, not wishful thinking.
Not quite. Under Finnish law, overwhelming personal debt expires in three years after entering a mandated debt repayment agreement. There are also significant limits to what can be taken from him to repay such a debt.
These laws were put in place after a massive disaster in the 1990s when Finnish economy suffered a crisis similar in magnitude to that of 2007 in US which pushed a lot of small business owners into scenario you describe. Current system is designed to allow these people to get back on their feet and start business again.
It may come as a shock to you, but a lot of people confess to crimes they don't commit.
That's why we have courts of law that have high standard for evidence they accept, instead of lynching mobs that require "this guy looks different enough" to get the rope out.
That is the exact opposite of how actual crime prevention works, and the best way to ensure a lot of crime through recidivism and institutionalization of crime.
Real approach here is involving social workers and psychologists to get the guy sorted out.
And that is why US is a shithole in terms of crime rates, while Finland isn't.
Criminal immunity up to age of 15. 15 to 18 you get incremental increase to full criminal responsibility.
You remain liable financially however, so you can incur an impressive debt from damage you cause
But not to extinction or near extinction, which is the point I'm making. Humans hunting animals to near extinction is a sum of animal being valuable (for it meat, bones, imaginary values like alternative medicine uses and so on) vs how easy it is to hunt the said animal.
This is quite irrelevant to the point he was making. We were talking about what makes a fiat currency volatile.
Thanks for explaining the joke.
Well trolled.
Two year old eating bats. Right. He was probably hunting them too. With guns.
Or harder to hunt in relation to meat that can be sourced from them.
Just like you never hear about rabies problem of bats either. Just the dogs and humans.
Which is typically sourced from bats.
Standard procedure for finding a treatment for a new strain of infectious disease is to find the source of the outbreak.
Are you suggesting that other races rather die of hunger than eat animals?
Must be a weird vegan community you were raised in.
Same is true for bitcoin. This is why bitcoins value is so volatile - there's very little trust in it and every time news come out that shake the investor confidence, price dives.
As a result, while your argument is correct, it's far more damning for bitcoin than any major state-backed currency in use today.
To be fair, semi-fiat systems have been de facto (if not de jure) in place since days of colonialism. The important thing that served as the need for moving to de facto fiat currencies has been the need to expand beyond what current monetary system could offer. It goes hand in hand with rise of lending to finance such endeavours, i.e. assigning value to "future work not yet done" and giving money with expectation of better return.
Back then there was not enough gold in the coffers of states and local lords to cover the total currency on the market. Then there was the whole issue with coining and dilution of silver and gold used in coins below stated values to inflate the economy.
What does communism have to do with monetary system? Even if you don't have property, you still need something to denominate value of objects, tasks and so on.
The problem is that even the undisputed kings of surface to air interception, soviets, pretty much admitted that it was hopeless. NATO speciality was air to air interception, and they pretty much admitted the same thing when they retired AIM-54. Anti ship missile interception against a credible enemy is a futile task.
Navy isn't naive here either, and most Navy specialists readily concede the point. Their counter argument is that if US ever gets in a shooting war against a credible enemy, this will be irrelevant because any such enemy is a MAD club member.