That is not a correct interpretation of the figure. Nominally engine under load should be at 600RPM. "Can provide propulsion" is not the same as "should provide propulsion". You'll find this in chapter 3, where engine's technical specs for hooking it into auxiliaries is shown.
And in all other modes, such as almost ubiquitous electric drive, the engine sits at 600 RPM. The engine can be revved down all the way to 380, but operation in lower end RPM is time limited (chapter 2.3).
These are, for all bits and purposes, constant RPM diesels. It's how it operates with everything but direct mechanical link to the propeller, which is very rare in the days of electric propulsion. It's how the naval diesels evolved with it, because engine heavily optimized for constant RPM is much more efficient than one optimized for a wide range of RPM when operating in overwhelming majority of conditions.
Did I cost you your bonus or something when you failed to troll me? You seem to be unable to stop yourself from mindlessly spamming every reply I make with this mindless garbage.
Get over it. I use "aristocracy" in the exactly same context as I did in my parent post.
The desperation, lies, misleading and just plain false claims in this thread are truly entertaining at this point.
It's like looking at where Russians probably were with their trolling efforts a decade ago, if they were ever this bad at it. Please keep it up. Not even too much karma among you, considering you can't even manage to push my initial statement into negative score in spite of your massive -1 troll brigading.
Good luck! I wish you'll actually get on their level quickly, because frankly, all of us Europeans will probably need it in a few years, when we'll need any and all means available to keep people believing that Central European banks are even remotely solvent. Because without confidence in them, most of the states in Europe and genuinely and truly fucked.
Until then, I'll continue being thoroughly entertained by these low effort trolling attempts and help you get better at them.
You're missing the point. The document presents a pretty tale, as is common in EU documentation. Cut through the romanticised and irrelevant bullshit and distil the facts. What can parliament actually do that can legally compel action?
And you'll arrive at the facts. Parliament has only one actually compelling power: vote on legislation package passed to it from Commission, as is. It cannot do anything else that is legally binding. If it so much as chances a comma in any package sent by Commission, it can no longer have a vote on the package that is legally compelling. The vote becomes just a pointless declaration with no ability to compel anyone to follow it.
Which is exactly like this declaration, which it seems was written in one of those many romantic and utterly pointless committees that European Parliament has. It sounds pretty, makes for good pro-EU PR, and it has absolutely no ability to compel anyone to do anything. As I posted above, it's not worth the paper its printed on.
Which is sadly exactly how the system works today. Something that even many of the most pro-EU elites in the Commission readily agree is a major problem. But in the previous negotiations for how EU should work, they essentially used this as an ultimatum to get nation state sovereignty removed and moved to parliament to even greater extent than it is today. This obviously didn't pass, because EU is under increasing pressure to repatriate sovereignty from EU, rather than cede even more of it.
So essentially, it came down to an ultimatum. If you want something other than aristocratic rule in EU, you have to cede more power to the EU aristocracy. Then they'll agree to more oversight by the parliament. Sovereign nation states had enough people who could read the writing on the wall for such demands, and EU aristocracy was unwilling to concede that their project may not be in the interests of European sovereign nations they wanted to rule over. So we ended up with what EU is infamous for. An agreement that everyone could sorta, kinda afford to sign and not utterly lose support among their own, that satisfied no one and made a lot of things much worse. We can see this structural problem with EU in most of the other major crises its suffering from today. EU aristocracy will not accept anything but sovereign power over nations states they wish to rule over. Nation states can no longer afford to cede any more sovereignty without facing a massive popular revolt.
Basically, to get all those things, all you need to do is to be a microstate committing wide scale tax fraud on all your neighbours as a matter of state policy.
Then you'll be rich enough to give workers high level benefits.
Yet they nuked jetpack addons even before the "addon apocalypse" of firefox, and now they're blacklisting some addons because "we can't be bothered to provide support, and we don't trust you to be smart enough not to ask for support".
I.e. the noscript being blacklisted by palemoon devs in browser.
Pale Moon development is just weird. At some points, they genuinely seem to try to work to meet existing demand. And then there are other points, where they make mozilla's worst actions look user-friendly by comparison.
Wow I must've hit the nerve. This trolling is getting utterly desperate. "Parliament full of democratically elected politicians doesn't have expertise to pass laws, also they don't speak enough languages to do so".
Please ignore the whole translation budget of the parliament which allows even for the things like instant translation to all European langauges during sessions, also please ignore the fact that unelected Commission apparently has no problems with languages.
Seriously. Russians do trolling way better than you. And my opinion of EU as a system that has any ability to employ competent people sinks even further. Well done.
>To ensure that smaller States don't have too much power, legislation must be approved by the European Parliament which has representation based on population, just like the U.S Congress
US Congress represents the state sovereign. States themselves are not sovereign in US.
EU is not sovereign, nor does its parliament represent state sovereignty. National parliaments do. Making the statement you made requires you to be anti state-sovereignty. This has nothing to do with Trump, just like it has nothing to do with US.
Anti state sovereignty, Pan-European supremacists however are well documented for using US systems as an example of how they want EU to supercede and consume the sovereignty of European nation states in the future.
Desperation on part of EU troll factory crew is getting real. "If Commission sends package to Council, which then sends it to Parliament, it didn't originate from Commission" according to your BS.
The hilarity is real.
And second, no, Parliament cannot modify the package and vote on it. All it can do is veto it, after which it goes back to the Commission. Which was my entire point. They have no ability to modify and vote. Whatever modification that are done must be done by the Commission. It can also whine, cry and beg Commission for "how to draft the law" as much as it wants. It's exactly what it's doing here. There's zero legal obligation for Commission to care about this whining, crying and begging in any way, which is why most of these irrelevant resolutions are filed in the nearest trash bin at the low level bureaucracy of the Commission.
Where they belong. Alongside your desperately cringy trolling attempts.
Crypto-boom is still felt. Prices are going down slowly from being much higher than MSRP. Additionally there's a large amount of unsold stock, because higher prices blocked people who were planning to update from updating. And now, the same people are waiting for the next gen and not updating. All while no manufacturer wants to sell at a much lower price than everyone else and crash the market for everyone.
I guess Commission folks weren't kidding when they said that they're going to need a disinformation body of their own to counter Russian propaganda a few days back. You're far less competent than Russians though. Russians aren't dumb enough to post links which confirm the position of people you're trolling and fully debunk your position, and then just keep doubling down on pretending that contents of your links aren't debunking your bullshit.
I know EU bureaucracy is generally known for being among the more inept in terms of their organisational efficiency, but you could at least try being more competent than people you're supposed to compete with and defeat. Fuck's sake, you're being paid from my tax money. You could at least pretend to have some basic competence in trolling.
Each major ruling family got a senator in the early Roman Senate. Hence the comparison. Please stop pretending that this is somehow "undemocratic but fair". Especially considering that you follow up is that "sovereign states cannot have too much power" which indicates that you are anti-sovereignty of the states in addition to being anti-democratic.
A common view for Pan-European supremacists.
For those ignorant of history, people who are against sovereignty of the European states are the people who drowned continent in blood every time they managed to rise to power in a significantly powerful power structure.
Which is why you are now desperately trying to spin this the way you are. First you lied about what your links said. Second you tried to pretend that I said something different.
Now you're trying to pretend that "everyone can reject legislation" is somehow relevant to the point I made. It is not.
So literally, you again agree with everything I said, while pretending to disagree, then pretend extra hard that adding an extra step of European Council between Commission and Parliament constitutes a meaningful difference.
Even if language was "musts", no company would give a fuck. It's European Parliament's resolution. It has no legal power to compel anything, and is worth less than paper it's printed on.
That's why it states in the OP that they're now going to beg and plead that Commission notices Parliament for once. Because unless it's something Commission proposes, there's nothing compelling that Parliament can do. At all. It's literally the way system is set. Which is why Parliament passes these "resolutions", which are nothing more than proverbial getting on their knees and begging for unelected aristocrats of the Commission to give them some legislative package that would even remotely meet what they're begging for. It's a desperate attempt of elected MPs who have no practical legislative power in spite of the big name of the organisation they're elected to, to pretend they have some actual legislative ability for the public.
Which usually ends up filed in the nearest trash bin in the Commission bureaucracy, because why on earth would Commission care about pathetic whining of elected and utterly powerless plebs at the Parliament. It has no power to compel them. And once Parliament is done posturing in the media, no one will remember it, just like no one remembers countless other similar Parliament resolutions on various topics.
Those links confirm everything I said, as does your preface. Literally, every single point I made. How the fuck did you start your statement with "this is wrong" and then go to agree with every single point I made, just dressing them up to be slightly better sounding?
Literally, the headline. European Parliament has no actual legislative power. It just has a power of veto. All legislation must come from European Commission, which European Parliament gets to vote on. It's a "yes/no" vote with no right to modify the package and vote on the modified legislation. This is a power comparable to a veto power, and by definition is not a legislative power as the name "Parliament" and its supposedly being a "legislative branch" would imply. In most states, this is a power comparable to one of the powers held by the executive, who gets to veto legislative packages or approve them by signing.
It's also the only actual power European Parliament has, and of the key issues with EU's legislative system and why EU is routinely criticised for being undemocratic. It's something closer to an early Roman Senate, where unelected aristocrats selected by other members of aristocracy similar to the current state of European Commission gets to decide on what legislation to run through, and the plebeian Tribune of the latter days of Roman Republic (the European Parliament) can either block the legislative package or accept it, but has no legal ability to change the contents of the legislation.
As a result, unless it's a Commission's legislative initiative, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
Yes, this one. You literally speak of "capitalist extremists" and then went to dismiss it with "I advocate for marxist ideology, but you can't say that without being an extremist".
So I'm sure that in your mind, this is "an example to reinforce your point". Because the way you set up the narrative, to point out the issue with your opinion is "to be an extremist capitalist".
Funniest part of this entire discussion? I have almost two decades of voting history in my native Finland. I voted for social democratic party candidates every time, because they are the closest to my political views.
And I find your views reprehensible. Don't even remotely think that what you advocated for is something even remotely similar to social democracy we have, or that libelous claims of americans about "Nordic countries are socialist" have any ground in reality. Socialist parties here are on the political fringe, polling typically between 5-10%. In other words, they're barely above the legal limit for getting into the legislative assemblies, and in some cases, they even fail to do that.
There's just one problem with this. All relevant numbers are generated by facebook itself. So if facebook is defrauding you, you have no real numbers that you can trust to check it.
There's no transparency. Everything hinges on advertiser trust in facebook and numbers it generates for advertiser. That's why this is a very dangerous lawsuit for facebook. It threatens the very trust that underpins their entire business model, even if it doesn't succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Your trolling quality across two posts got WORSE. I believe I clearly instructed you to try to IMPROVE.
Get cracking.
>Until then, I'll continue being thoroughly entertained by these low effort trolling attempts and help you get better at them.
Yes, I'm just terribly, awfully upset about them. Just like I don't know what powers various institutions of EU have.
You truly are entertaining in being so damnably awful at trolling.
That is not a correct interpretation of the figure. Nominally engine under load should be at 600RPM. "Can provide propulsion" is not the same as "should provide propulsion". You'll find this in chapter 3, where engine's technical specs for hooking it into auxiliaries is shown.
And in all other modes, such as almost ubiquitous electric drive, the engine sits at 600 RPM. The engine can be revved down all the way to 380, but operation in lower end RPM is time limited (chapter 2.3).
These are, for all bits and purposes, constant RPM diesels. It's how it operates with everything but direct mechanical link to the propeller, which is very rare in the days of electric propulsion. It's how the naval diesels evolved with it, because engine heavily optimized for constant RPM is much more efficient than one optimized for a wide range of RPM when operating in overwhelming majority of conditions.
This is already the case. Typical Wärtsilä diesel engine, which is used pretty much all over the maritime business is constant RPM diesel.
See:
https://www.wartsila.com/produ...
Select engine, click "technical data" and you'll see the RPM engine operates at.
Did I cost you your bonus or something when you failed to troll me? You seem to be unable to stop yourself from mindlessly spamming every reply I make with this mindless garbage.
Get over it. I use "aristocracy" in the exactly same context as I did in my parent post.
P.S. What's "express"? Your business competitor?
The desperation, lies, misleading and just plain false claims in this thread are truly entertaining at this point.
It's like looking at where Russians probably were with their trolling efforts a decade ago, if they were ever this bad at it. Please keep it up. Not even too much karma among you, considering you can't even manage to push my initial statement into negative score in spite of your massive -1 troll brigading.
Good luck! I wish you'll actually get on their level quickly, because frankly, all of us Europeans will probably need it in a few years, when we'll need any and all means available to keep people believing that Central European banks are even remotely solvent. Because without confidence in them, most of the states in Europe and genuinely and truly fucked.
Until then, I'll continue being thoroughly entertained by these low effort trolling attempts and help you get better at them.
You're missing the point. The document presents a pretty tale, as is common in EU documentation. Cut through the romanticised and irrelevant bullshit and distil the facts. What can parliament actually do that can legally compel action?
And you'll arrive at the facts. Parliament has only one actually compelling power: vote on legislation package passed to it from Commission, as is. It cannot do anything else that is legally binding. If it so much as chances a comma in any package sent by Commission, it can no longer have a vote on the package that is legally compelling. The vote becomes just a pointless declaration with no ability to compel anyone to follow it.
Which is exactly like this declaration, which it seems was written in one of those many romantic and utterly pointless committees that European Parliament has. It sounds pretty, makes for good pro-EU PR, and it has absolutely no ability to compel anyone to do anything. As I posted above, it's not worth the paper its printed on.
Which is sadly exactly how the system works today. Something that even many of the most pro-EU elites in the Commission readily agree is a major problem. But in the previous negotiations for how EU should work, they essentially used this as an ultimatum to get nation state sovereignty removed and moved to parliament to even greater extent than it is today. This obviously didn't pass, because EU is under increasing pressure to repatriate sovereignty from EU, rather than cede even more of it.
So essentially, it came down to an ultimatum. If you want something other than aristocratic rule in EU, you have to cede more power to the EU aristocracy. Then they'll agree to more oversight by the parliament. Sovereign nation states had enough people who could read the writing on the wall for such demands, and EU aristocracy was unwilling to concede that their project may not be in the interests of European sovereign nations they wanted to rule over. So we ended up with what EU is infamous for. An agreement that everyone could sorta, kinda afford to sign and not utterly lose support among their own, that satisfied no one and made a lot of things much worse. We can see this structural problem with EU in most of the other major crises its suffering from today. EU aristocracy will not accept anything but sovereign power over nations states they wish to rule over. Nation states can no longer afford to cede any more sovereignty without facing a massive popular revolt.
And so, we have the status quo.
Basically, to get all those things, all you need to do is to be a microstate committing wide scale tax fraud on all your neighbours as a matter of state policy.
Then you'll be rich enough to give workers high level benefits.
Yet they nuked jetpack addons even before the "addon apocalypse" of firefox, and now they're blacklisting some addons because "we can't be bothered to provide support, and we don't trust you to be smart enough not to ask for support".
I.e. the noscript being blacklisted by palemoon devs in browser.
Pale Moon development is just weird. At some points, they genuinely seem to try to work to meet existing demand. And then there are other points, where they make mozilla's worst actions look user-friendly by comparison.
Reading further tells you that they actually blacklisted the addon in browser. You must disable addon blocklist in about:config to make it work.
Wow I must've hit the nerve. This trolling is getting utterly desperate. "Parliament full of democratically elected politicians doesn't have expertise to pass laws, also they don't speak enough languages to do so".
Please ignore the whole translation budget of the parliament which allows even for the things like instant translation to all European langauges during sessions, also please ignore the fact that unelected Commission apparently has no problems with languages.
Seriously. Russians do trolling way better than you. And my opinion of EU as a system that has any ability to employ competent people sinks even further. Well done.
>To ensure that smaller States don't have too much power, legislation must be approved by the European Parliament which has representation based on population, just like the U.S Congress
US Congress represents the state sovereign. States themselves are not sovereign in US.
EU is not sovereign, nor does its parliament represent state sovereignty. National parliaments do. Making the statement you made requires you to be anti state-sovereignty. This has nothing to do with Trump, just like it has nothing to do with US.
Anti state sovereignty, Pan-European supremacists however are well documented for using US systems as an example of how they want EU to supercede and consume the sovereignty of European nation states in the future.
Desperation on part of EU troll factory crew is getting real. "If Commission sends package to Council, which then sends it to Parliament, it didn't originate from Commission" according to your BS.
The hilarity is real.
And second, no, Parliament cannot modify the package and vote on it. All it can do is veto it, after which it goes back to the Commission. Which was my entire point. They have no ability to modify and vote. Whatever modification that are done must be done by the Commission. It can also whine, cry and beg Commission for "how to draft the law" as much as it wants. It's exactly what it's doing here. There's zero legal obligation for Commission to care about this whining, crying and begging in any way, which is why most of these irrelevant resolutions are filed in the nearest trash bin at the low level bureaucracy of the Commission.
Where they belong. Alongside your desperately cringy trolling attempts.
Crypto-boom is still felt. Prices are going down slowly from being much higher than MSRP. Additionally there's a large amount of unsold stock, because higher prices blocked people who were planning to update from updating. And now, the same people are waiting for the next gen and not updating. All while no manufacturer wants to sell at a much lower price than everyone else and crash the market for everyone.
So we end up in status quo.
"Days" was supposed to be "years" in original. Statement was from 2014 or so.
I guess Commission folks weren't kidding when they said that they're going to need a disinformation body of their own to counter Russian propaganda a few days back. You're far less competent than Russians though. Russians aren't dumb enough to post links which confirm the position of people you're trolling and fully debunk your position, and then just keep doubling down on pretending that contents of your links aren't debunking your bullshit.
I know EU bureaucracy is generally known for being among the more inept in terms of their organisational efficiency, but you could at least try being more competent than people you're supposed to compete with and defeat. Fuck's sake, you're being paid from my tax money. You could at least pretend to have some basic competence in trolling.
Each major ruling family got a senator in the early Roman Senate. Hence the comparison. Please stop pretending that this is somehow "undemocratic but fair". Especially considering that you follow up is that "sovereign states cannot have too much power" which indicates that you are anti-sovereignty of the states in addition to being anti-democratic.
A common view for Pan-European supremacists.
For those ignorant of history, people who are against sovereignty of the European states are the people who drowned continent in blood every time they managed to rise to power in a significantly powerful power structure.
The source is literally in your links.
Which is why you are now desperately trying to spin this the way you are. First you lied about what your links said. Second you tried to pretend that I said something different.
Now you're trying to pretend that "everyone can reject legislation" is somehow relevant to the point I made. It is not.
So literally, you again agree with everything I said, while pretending to disagree, then pretend extra hard that adding an extra step of European Council between Commission and Parliament constitutes a meaningful difference.
Ok. Nice trolling.
Even if language was "musts", no company would give a fuck. It's European Parliament's resolution. It has no legal power to compel anything, and is worth less than paper it's printed on.
That's why it states in the OP that they're now going to beg and plead that Commission notices Parliament for once. Because unless it's something Commission proposes, there's nothing compelling that Parliament can do. At all. It's literally the way system is set. Which is why Parliament passes these "resolutions", which are nothing more than proverbial getting on their knees and begging for unelected aristocrats of the Commission to give them some legislative package that would even remotely meet what they're begging for. It's a desperate attempt of elected MPs who have no practical legislative power in spite of the big name of the organisation they're elected to, to pretend they have some actual legislative ability for the public.
Which usually ends up filed in the nearest trash bin in the Commission bureaucracy, because why on earth would Commission care about pathetic whining of elected and utterly powerless plebs at the Parliament. It has no power to compel them. And once Parliament is done posturing in the media, no one will remember it, just like no one remembers countless other similar Parliament resolutions on various topics.
Those links confirm everything I said, as does your preface. Literally, every single point I made. How the fuck did you start your statement with "this is wrong" and then go to agree with every single point I made, just dressing them up to be slightly better sounding?
I'm pretty sure "you" does not equal "everyone" anywhere outside your mind.
But it's good to know where you stand on this issue as well.
Literally, the headline. European Parliament has no actual legislative power. It just has a power of veto. All legislation must come from European Commission, which European Parliament gets to vote on. It's a "yes/no" vote with no right to modify the package and vote on the modified legislation. This is a power comparable to a veto power, and by definition is not a legislative power as the name "Parliament" and its supposedly being a "legislative branch" would imply. In most states, this is a power comparable to one of the powers held by the executive, who gets to veto legislative packages or approve them by signing.
It's also the only actual power European Parliament has, and of the key issues with EU's legislative system and why EU is routinely criticised for being undemocratic. It's something closer to an early Roman Senate, where unelected aristocrats selected by other members of aristocracy similar to the current state of European Commission gets to decide on what legislation to run through, and the plebeian Tribune of the latter days of Roman Republic (the European Parliament) can either block the legislative package or accept it, but has no legal ability to change the contents of the legislation.
As a result, unless it's a Commission's legislative initiative, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
Yes, this one. You literally speak of "capitalist extremists" and then went to dismiss it with "I advocate for marxist ideology, but you can't say that without being an extremist".
So I'm sure that in your mind, this is "an example to reinforce your point". Because the way you set up the narrative, to point out the issue with your opinion is "to be an extremist capitalist".
Funniest part of this entire discussion? I have almost two decades of voting history in my native Finland. I voted for social democratic party candidates every time, because they are the closest to my political views.
And I find your views reprehensible. Don't even remotely think that what you advocated for is something even remotely similar to social democracy we have, or that libelous claims of americans about "Nordic countries are socialist" have any ground in reality. Socialist parties here are on the political fringe, polling typically between 5-10%. In other words, they're barely above the legal limit for getting into the legislative assemblies, and in some cases, they even fail to do that.
There's just one problem with this. All relevant numbers are generated by facebook itself. So if facebook is defrauding you, you have no real numbers that you can trust to check it.
There's no transparency. Everything hinges on advertiser trust in facebook and numbers it generates for advertiser. That's why this is a very dangerous lawsuit for facebook. It threatens the very trust that underpins their entire business model, even if it doesn't succeed.