That's kinda the point. Personal photos and posts are cherry picked to present a narrative that cause some protests MAY turn bad, that means all protests are potentially bad. Thus any potential protests should be preemptively banned.
From TFA:
The material was submitted to support the companies' case that campaigners intended to illegally disrupt their activities or trespass on their land. The companies all stress they do not seek to restrict lawful forms of protest, but argue that activists should not be allowed to unduly disrupt their lawful business activity.
He tells the court that "a common tactic" by "activist individuals/organisations" is to: "...use social media to announce a 'call to arms' by publicising the details of a 'peaceful' protest on Twitter or Facebook or their own organisation's website." The resulting "mass of protestors" - many of whom are "law abiding citizens who wish to exercise their legal right to protest" - is, Fellows alleges, exploited by "a small hard core group of activists... to slow the police down and to prevent them from retaining the security of a site."
One of the most worrying things about the oil and gas companies' injunctions is that they are against "persons unknown." That means that anyone who could reasonably expect to know about the injunctions is covered by them. Given the wide remit of the injunctions, that could be anyone who visits the fracking sites.
By applying for injunctions against "persons unknown," the fracking companies prevent individual protesters from being able to defend their case in court as individuals. This potentially gives the companies a litigious advantage. By continuing to pursue "persons unknown" while closely surveilling individuals, the companies are potentially bypassing the protesters' democratic rights by preventing them putting across a defense in the injunction hearings.
Since social media surveillance reveals the identities of many people likely to participate in such protests; the companies can go to the court and provide a List of Names and Pre-Emptively ask the courts for an Injunctive order that the named individuals Not set foot on our land, Or participate in any activity to disrupt the business operation of one of our fracking sites.
From TFA:
One of the most worrying things about the oil and gas companies' injunctions is that they are against "persons unknown."
That means that anyone who could reasonably expect to know about the injunctions is covered by them. Given the wide remit of the injunctions, that could be anyone who visits the fracking sites.
This is important given Eclipse's statement to the courts that the majority of the protestors are "law abiding." But instead of targeting alleged "hard core activists" accused of disrupting peaceful protests, the oil and gas firms' approach can justify the wholesale prohibition of protests.
INEOS has a temporary injunction in place, which is currently going through the appeal process. UKOG is due in court in early July, while Europa's injunction is currently in place. The UK's most high profile fracking company, Cuadrilla Resources, was just granted an injunction for its site in Lancashire.
By applying for injunctions against "persons unknown," the fracking companies prevent individual protesters from being able to defend their case in court as individuals. This potentially gives the companies a litigious advantage.
Basically, they are managing to convince the courts that though these potential protesters may be lawful, some others may be not, so let's just ban anyone from protesting right now and be done with it.
Or, to put it in American, lawyers made courts ban all guns cause while some guns may be legal, some others may not be - so let's just ban all guns and let god sort 'em out.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
Or, as it is used in the article:
One of the activists subject to surveillance, Jon O'Houston, who has been part of the Broadford Bridge Protection Camp, said he felt it was equivalent to the phone hacking cases, which led to the Leveson review.
"What's said in the groups is generally taken either out of context or cherry-picked", O'Houston told Motherboard. "When taken out of context, you can make anything look bad or good."
And the procedure goes something like this:
The material was submitted to support the companies' case that campaigners intended to illegally disrupt their activities or trespass on their land. The companies all stress they do not seek to restrict lawful forms of protest, but argue that activists should not be allowed to unduly disrupt their lawful business activity.
...
In one witness statement on behalf of INEOS, CEO of Eclipse Raymond Fellows describes his company as having been "retained" by INEOS "to provide security services." He tells the court that "a common tactic" by "activist individuals/organisations" is to:
"...use social media to announce a 'call to arms' by publicising the details of a 'peaceful' protest on Twitter or Facebook or their own organisation's website."
The resulting "mass of protestors" - many of whom are "law abiding citizens who wish to exercise their legal right to protest" - is, Fellows alleges, exploited by "a small hard core group of activists... to slow the police down and to prevent them from retaining the security of a site."
...
Injunction progress
One of the most worrying things about the oil and gas companies' injunctions is that they are against "persons unknown."
That means that anyone who could reasonably expect to know about the injunctions is covered by them. Given the wide remit of the injunctions, that could be anyone who visits the fracking sites.
This is important given Eclipse's statement to the courts that the majority of the protestors are "law abiding." But instead of targeting alleged "hard core activists" accused of disrupting peaceful protests, the oil and gas firms' approach can justify the wholesale prohibition of protests.
INEOS has a temporary injunction in place, which is currently going through the appeal process. UKOG is due in court in early July, while Europa's injunction is currently in place. The UK's most high profile fracking company, Cuadrilla Resources, was just granted an injunction for its site in Lancashire.
By applying for injunctions against "persons unknown," the fracking companies prevent individual protesters from being able to defend their case in court as individuals. This potentially gives the companies a litigious advantage.
By continuing to pursue "persons unknown" while closely surveilling individuals, the companies are potentially bypassing the protesters' democratic rights by preventing them putting across a defense in the injunction hearings. And they're using Facebook to do it.
All I mentioned above is what he wrote. AND MORE... Like how the motivation for human traitors who contact the aliens to come and exterminate the humanity is that they are extreme treehuggers, trying to practice inter-species communism. Or how "our heroes" surprise-kill everyone on a ship (boat, not star-) by stringing up nanowires in ship's path, which then silently slice everyone on the ship in two, before anyone has a chance to destroy any data. Which works because apparently ships move through the Panama canal faster then one can see and react to people in front of them being sliced in half.
Also, feel free to read the articles I linked above. "Ken Liu, a Hugo Award-winning author and the translator of the popular Chinese science-fiction novel 'The Three-Body Problem'" works for a SciFi shop which produces "corporate visioning" - "customized stories for the likes of Visa, Ford, Pepsi, Samsung, and NATO." And Chinese ARE actively pushing for more Chinese SciFi. Have been for a while now. At least since the tenth 5-year plan (2001-2005).
We need to disseminate scientific knowledge, combat ignorance and superstition, and encourage healthy lifestyles. We need to further develop various cultural undertakings, such as literature and art, journalism and publishing, and radio, film and television. We should adhere to the principles of serving the people and socialism and of "letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend." We need to produce more and better cultural and intellectual works. We need to maintain the correct orientation of public opinion, and place strong emphasis on the establishment and management of new information media. We need to build more libraries, cultural centers, science and technology centers, museums, archives, and recreation centers for juveniles and senior citizens. Mass participation activities should be continued to promote cultural and ethical progress. We need to deepen reform of the system for managing cultural undertakings, improve the economic policies concerning cultural undertakings, and promote the development of industries related to culture.
Also... this part...
We must use legal means to combat ethnic separatist activities, religious extremist forces, violent and terrorist activities, cults, and illegal activities carried out under the guise of religion. We need to continue our campaign against the Falungong cult, and further expose and condemn the anti-human, anti-social and anti-science nature of the cult, which has become a tool for domestic and overseas forces hostile to our socialist government. We need to mete out severe punishment to the small number of criminals while making unremitting efforts to unite, educate and rescue the vast majority of people who have been taken in.
Is it surprising, after reading all that about cults, that those traitors of the human race in the books act very much like a cult?
The exact effect of caffeine by itself seems problematic since the same trends in reducing mortality, albeit to a lesser degree, was true for those who drank decaffeinated coffee.
Not really.
Decaffeinated coffee is NOT caffeine-free coffee. Often it's not even really decaffeinated.
A controlled study of ten samples of prepared decaffeinated coffee from coffee shops showed that some caffeine remained.[1] Fourteen to twenty cups of such decaffeinated coffee would contain as much caffeine as one cup of regular coffee.[1] The 16-ounce (473-ml) cups of coffee samples contained caffeine in the range of 8.6 mg to 13.9 mg. In another study of popular brands of decaf coffees, the caffeine content varied from 3 mg to 32 mg.[18] An 8-ounce (237-ml) cup of regular coffee contains 95-200 mg of caffeine,[19] and a 12-ounce (355-milliliter) serving of Coca-Cola contains 36 mg.[20]
Both of these studies tested the caffeine content of store-brewed coffee, suggesting that the caffeine may be residual from the normal coffee served rather than poorly decaffeinated coffee.
It's happened over and over and will keep happening. The only real hope is that people become more aware of how these toxic groups form and avoid becoming part of them.
Oh come on...
Let's not pretend that Big Brother-like surveillance and punishment would not fix that. Along with other things. Some of which may not need fixing. Like freedom of speech.
And let's not pretend that some people wouldn't mind those other things being collateral "fixes". After all, we MUST do SOMETHING before it's TOO LATE. Think of the children!
Liu Cixin is a poor writer with a limited imagination and knowledge regarding technology and ZERO understanding of even human psychology, let alone ability to imagine a properly alien one. Also, when he DOES imagine something - he fails to connect the dots.
He imagines an alien race which can "unfold" a proton across 8 dimension, in order to create movable-at-speed-of-light proton-sized computer-robots which can block all particle research on Earth at will. They can also create spaceships with which said race will invade Earth in 400 years. Because their planet is doomed and they need breeding space. Oh... and it's doomed because every random number of years the surface of their planet becomes unsustainable for life, so among other things, they've evolved the ability to hibernate for thousands of years.
So... Not only is it a race with applied string-theory tech (basically magic), quantum-entanglement interstellar communication, spaceships which can reach another star in a reasonable time (and other even faster spaceships) AND biological hibernation... basically ideal explorer-colonist race... with magic tech... But they can't dig holes. Or build orbital space stations. Not even after seeing humans doing EXACTLY that.
On top of that... his outlook of life and geopolitics peaked at "doom and gloom world" and "mutually assured destruction". And less is said about his "my perfect waifu database" ideas the better.
But he does have a lot of PR pushing him as the next Asimov or Clarke, which he is not in any shape or form. It's almost as if there's something connecting his writing with aggressive marketing or a Chinese government program to promote science fiction.
Evolution is the process, not the distance. Not being able to breed makes it a different species, but "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth" (or "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form") covers the intermediate generations too.
It's not EXACT nor finite distance. For the "process" to be taking place, there has to be genetic change. Not just expression of different genes, already present. Distance has to be covered, but just covering the distance is not what it is all about. Nor is the "quality" of covering those distances related to speed (i.e. time) one spends during the process or at any particular location in it.
A better analogy would be journey vs. distance. Going from 1 to 47 (and beyond) one passes locations of 12, 15, 25, 37 and 41. So while at 12 one is "on a journey" just like one is "on a journey" while moving from point 15 to point 37.
But it's a process whose every step is a distance from which there's no going back. If two animals can produce non-sterile offspring which can continue to breed with the species of of its progeny - they're all the same species. Same chromosomes. Both sides in the process providing one side of the MATCHING pair.
You know that thing about humans and chimps sharing 90-something percent of genes? Yeah... well... that's the thing. Our chromosomes don't contain the same genes. Nor the same number of chromosomes - we have 23 pairs and they have 24. THAT'S the product of the process of evolution. Different SETS of genes - not just a difference in recessive and dominant genes, and whether a particular gene is active or not. Without that difference... we'd be the same species. And it wouldn't be an evolution.
What the PP is talking about is simple breeding. Giving ataxia to German Shepherds and various other illnesses to other dog breeds. Still the same species. You could still mate it with wolves or breed a wolf from a poodle. You can still go back. Cause it's not evolution but simply gene expression. If you could turn genes on and off like throwing switches, you could get a pair of poodles to give birth to a wolf or a bulldog. No new genes, no mutation... same old poodle wolf.
Have you ever seen a purebred dog? Humans applied selective breeding and can develop a completely new breed of dog with just a few generations. Evolution CAN happen slowly but it does not have to. It can happen quite quickly given the proper evolutionary pressures.
You don't seem to understand the difference between selection for traits and evolution. Hint: Look up dog. Now scroll down to "species". In the parlance of the times - when you see it, you'll shit bricks.
E.g. How do you think they created a labradoodle? You're thinking of breeds, buy you think that you're thinking of species. You know... as in the title of the book. Which is not "On the Origin of Breeds".
Same goes for your ideas about "evolutionary pressure".
The ones that prefer the locations where they do not get hunted (the reasons why don't matter) are the ones that will be selected to breed again. Small fish that don't prefer the deep get removed from the gene pool before they reproduce and so they never become big fish. Do this enough times and you will have selected for fish that prefer deeper waters. That my friend is an evolutionary pressure at work and it happens all the time.
You should lay off of those ideas that sound like you probably picked up from X-men movie intros. You sound like Trofim Lysenko - the leading cause of death from starvation under Stalin and Mao.
Besides... you're clearly uninformed about the topic you're trying to argue about. There are no two species of fish in the tale. Bigger, deeper-living fish, are OLDER shallow(er)-living fish. Get it? Same fish. Same species. You do understand that evolution is NOT something which takes place as a creature ages? Neither apples, flies, birds, cats or humans evolve as they age. But they do grow.
You wouldn't call bulls a different species of cow just because we slaughter most of the male calves while they're still babies? Same with the fish. We're fishing for baby fish. Well... teenagers.
BTW, that quote I made... about ontogenetic response... you might wanna look up that word. Ontogenetic. The reason WHY you might wanna look up that word is... that "suggestive of an ontogenetic response" bit... that's a quote from THE STUDY.
Them egghead scientists took a detailed look at the situation and it's THEIR WORDS that it is NOT EVOLUTION. But hey... who am I to stand in your way of proving your own ignorance.
Or in the way of all those other "experts" modding you up while modding me down. But at least they still get to hide THEIR ignorance. While exposing yours.
That's not evolution. That's selection for traits.
Hint: If they can still breed with the "original" - it's not evolution. Evolution is a branching - not a straight line. That's why humans can't breed with other primates, nor can those other primates breed with each other.
Oh look... Someone doesn't agree with reality, choosing to downmod it instead, like a little bitch. What ever do we do about it? I know! How about repeating what was said? It's not like there's a shortage of copy/paste?
But the way the experiment was manipulated makes it inadvertently join a large body of evidence supporting a different hypothesis - that people can be manipulated by authority figures into doing things they normally would consider immoral.
Your claim is the equivalent of saying that a staged case of rape, despite being proven fake, "proves" that women are teasing sluts who cause rapes by dressing like sluts. I.e. Disregarding proof that there's no scientific merit to the "experiment" and choosing instead to view it as a valid proof of a foregone conclusion based on personal bias.
Also, it's not about pleasing authority figures. Nor being manipulated by said figures. You'll find no valid studies supporting that. It's about people being pushed and badgered. And not even by "authority figures". It's just about people being pushed and badgered into doing something by a person doing the pushing. That's why PEER pressure works.
In fact, given familiarity with the "authority figure", most people will start feeling superiority over said "authority figure", distrust towards it and will start to act out in rebellion when ordered to follow the rules. Hint: Consider the general public opinion of bosses, politicians, police, doctors (those know-nothings), teachers they had in school, their own parents...
That's why soldiers have to be conditioned to follow orders. They don't just start obeying the uniform in the room. They have to go through grueling, personality breaking, physical and psychological torture-course until it is drilled into them to conform to the group and obey orders - or face punishment. That's why they all come out singing praises to their "band of brothers". They were conditioned through shared abuse into bonding with the group.
It's just that Zimbardo and Milgram were biased against exactly that kind of authority - so they decided to stage a costumed play with lab coats and prison uniforms to "prove" their point. In both cases concentrating on supposed proof that manipulation by authority figures works, making people ignore their own moral beliefs. While ignoring the necessary level of badgering and emotional breakdowns of those who were being pushed, in order to achieve that.
"The guards have to know that every guard is going to be what we call a tough guard," Jaffe told one such guard [skip to 8:35]. "[H]opefully what will come out of this study is some very serious recommendations for reform... so that we can get on the media and into the press with it, and say 'Now look at what this is really about.... [T]ry and react as you picture the pigs reacting."
Now there's just evidence that Zimbardo was doing MORE faking than it was previously known.
Evolution takes place over thousands of generations. Heck... it's hardly migration. "Deepening" differences are measured in ranges from 60 to 120 meters deep.
It's simply the fact that fish live longer lives if they don't get caught. And they don't get caught cause nets don't reach that deep. In fact, study explicitly states that it's most probably not evolution - but a part of a normal development instead.
Observations of depth distributions of older cod during a moratorium on fishing supported this prediction; however, younger cod exhibited low-amplitude deepening (10-15 m) suggestive of an ontogenetic response.
I.e. Young and inexperienced fish don't know how to hide from the nets OR the easy picking food (bottom dwelling crabs and crustaceans) they're munching on isn't available that deep. Older, more experienced, fish-munching fish, know how deep they need to swim to avoid getting caught in a net.
You are confusing difficulty of early detection based on symptoms alone with severity and the nature of the disease.
Protein which does damage to the tissue is necessary for multiplication of the influenza virus. Rhinovirus doesn't do that as it has a completely different structure.
But the way the experiment was manipulated makes it inadvertently join a large body of evidence supporting a different hypothesis - that people can be manipulated by authority figures into doing things they normally would consider immoral.
Your claim is the equivalent of saying that a staged case of rape, despite being proven fake, "proves" that women are teasing sluts who cause rapes by dressing like sluts. I.e. Disregarding proof that there's no scientific merit to the "experiment" and choosing instead to view it as a valid proof of a foregone conclusion based on personal bias.
Also, it's not about pleasing authority figures. Nor being manipulated by said figures. You'll find no valid studies supporting that. It's about people being pushed and badgered. And not even by "authority figures". It's just about people being pushed and badgered into doing something by a person doing the pushing. That's why PEER pressure works.
In fact, given familiarity with the "authority figure", most people will start feeling superiority over said "authority figure", distrust towards it and will start to act out in rebellion when ordered to follow the rules. Hint: Consider the general public opinion of bosses, politicians, police, doctors (those know-nothings), teachers they had in school, their own parents...
That's why soldiers have to be conditioned to follow orders. They don't just start obeying the uniform in the room. They have to go through grueling, personality breaking, physical and psychological torture-course until it is drilled into them to conform to the group and obey orders - or face punishment. That's why they all come out singing praises to their "band of brothers". They were conditioned through shared abuse into bonding with the group.
It's just that Zimbardo and Milgram were biased against exactly that kind of authority - so they decided to stage a costumed play with lab coats and prison uniforms to "prove" their point. In both cases concentrating on supposed proof that manipulation by authority figures works, making people ignore their own moral beliefs. While ignoring the necessary level of badgering and emotional breakdowns of those who were being pushed, in order to achieve that.
"The guards have to know that every guard is going to be what we call a tough guard," Jaffe told one such guard [skip to 8:35]. "[H]opefully what will come out of this study is some very serious recommendations for reform... so that we can get on the media and into the press with it, and say 'Now look at what this is really about.... [T]ry and react as you picture the pigs reacting."
Now there's just evidence that Zimbardo was doing MORE faking than it was previously known.
Unless there is something VERY special about Norway, a wide-spread trend that cannot be attributed to education, gender, religion, or other environmental factor has pretty good predictive qualities, since the sample size is large, and unbiased (Only males tested most likely, but the service is compulsory, not voluntary.
About 60,000 Norwegians are available for conscription every year, but only 8,000 to 10,000 are conscripted.[2] In earlier times, up until at least the early 2000s, all men aged 19â"44 were subject to mandatory service, with good reasons required to avoid becoming drafted.
Besides that decline in conscription, actual numbers of conscripts are around 14% of eligible Norwegian males, cause "the number of applicants each year exceeds the needs of the Armed Forces".
Further, researchers aren't showing a decline of IQ in Norway, nor anywhere else. They are working with a presumption of a decline in IQ and trying to hammer their "observation" peg into that presumed roundish hole.
Using administrative register data with information on family relationships and cognitive ability for three decades of Norwegian male birth cohorts, we show that the increase, turning point, and decline of the Flynn effect can be recovered from within-family variation in intelligence scores. This establishes that the large changes in average cohort intelligence reflect environmental factors and not changing composition of parents, which in turn rules out several prominent hypotheses for retrograde Flynn effects.
I.e. They claim that they can explain presumed IQ decline by extrapolating measured in-family IQ decline. Problem is - they don't actually have the data to show that. And they are blind to their own biases regarding all the preconceptions they are juggling.
From study's appendix it's pretty obvious that the IQ sample was both changing in structure AND reducing in sample size over the years. Number of recruits born between 1964 and 1972 varied between 30440 and 32148. 1973-1980 we see a drop from 29159 down to 23900. 1981-1989 rises slowly from 23317 up to 26484.
But far more important is the fact that they are NOT ACTUALLY FINDING THE IQ DECLINE AMONG THE NORWEGIAN CONSCRIPTS. All that they ARE accurately finding is that the number of IQ tests among conscripts has declined by 10 percentage points, over a decade.
Conscription test coverage declined substantially for cohorts born after 1980, with coverage rates falling from 93% in 1980 to 83% in 1991 (Fig. 3A).
So not only is the number of conscripts declining, number of conscripts taking IQ tests has declined even more. Which they then take to consideration - and pull the following nonsense out of the thin air.
Focusing on families with sons in the first two parities and plotting the share of unscored younger siblings by the observed IQ score of the older brother, lower scoring firstborns were more likely to have unscored younger brothers (Fig. 3B). The problem is exacerbated toward the end of our data window: Among the 198-1991 birth cohorts, fully 30% of those whose older sibling scored in the bottom IQ bracket have missing IQ scores. As sibling scores are correlated, this implies that low-ability males are less likely to be scored, and that the selection was stronger for the cohorts born in the late 1980s than for those from the 1960s and 1970s.
I.e. Not only are they ASSUMING correlation between IQs of sibli
These tech-seeking dogs are helping law enforcement find child pornography stashed in hidden hard drives, uncover concealed phones, nab white-collar evidence kept on hard drives and track calls stored on SIM cards.
ALL strains of influenza do actual damage to the tissue. Cold doesn't. That's why you can get back to work in a week or less after a cold - but you might end up in a hospital or dead when you catch the flu.
It's actually that most people THINK they have the flu when all they have is a bad cold.
Actual influenza, not common cold which most people confuse for flu, is deadly. 500k to million people die from it every year, globally.
Even if it doesn't kill you, the toll on your immune system is enormous. You are very likely to end up with secondary infections, pneumonia and various inflammations including but not limited to heart and brain. It really does a number on your immune system, and unless you're taking NSAIDs like ibuprofen, you can also expect joint and muscle pain during AND after you're virus-free. On top of that, the effect on your immune system lingers for weeks and even months - you are more prone to infections cause your body is too busy fixing all that tissue damage the virus caused.
Oh and... maybe you remember that movie Awakenings? Well... all those people ended up in a comatose-like state most probably as a consequence of the 1918 influenza epidemic. No penicillin or ibuprofen back then to fight all those secondary infections and inflammations. Not to mention actual antiviral drugs.
I never said it guarantees anything, in fact I specifically said the opposite. The thing about making stupid big bets is that its self-limiting, you lose a couple of those stupid bets and you can't afford to make any more of them.
You declared them "generally a lot better informed" BECAUSE of "a much greater incentive to get it right". I.e. You gave reasoning for WHY they are "better informed" - which is a case of arguing for an unproven assumption, on the premise that said assumption is actually true.
And in general... based on your own argument of "the future... not [being] deterministic" - it is also a false assumption.
If you read the patent instead of just looking at the pictures, he explains that
And if you had read the patent OR my entire post you'd notice that the steam engine thing I mention is a QUOTE from the patent. "External firing of a steam boiler" is a quote from the patent.
As for his turbines "that can operate at much higher speeds than traditional gas turbine engines"... that is not true either. His turbine HAD higher efficiency vs the axial turbines OF THAT ERA - on account of axial turbines' low efficiency AT THE TIME. Later test have shown that Tesla's turbine had lower efficiency compared to contemporary turbines.
Tesla claimed that a steam version of his device would achieve around 95 percent efficiency.[14][15] Actual tests of a Tesla steam turbine at the Westinghouse works showed a steam rate of 38 pounds per horsepower-hour, corresponding to a turbine efficiency in the range of 20%, while contemporary steam turbines could often achieve turbine efficiencies of well over 50%.
Again... outdated. And with the patent running out almost a century ago - if it was better it would be used everywhere today. It's not.
Also, it is not about the gyroscopic torque. It's about the fact that should a propeller have enough force to lift the machine vertically it would also create enough thrust for that fixed wing to start tilting the machine backward. I.e. The same forces which lift a plane that takes off horizontally, would flip over this machine during vertical takeoff. It would stall at liftoff.
He lacked understanding how it is that the plane flies. He thought it was similar to propellers of a boat pushing at the water. He didn't understand that it was the shape of the wings - yet he drew them with an airfoil curve. The only, sorta, working tail-sitters had contra-rotating propellers for a reason - one prop is not enough and in a fixed wing it would destabilize the plane at liftoff.
Tesla was not a wizard. He was a clever, educated and obsessive genius at the time when a lot of technology was new and inefficient and when most people lacked the will or ability to do the necessary experimentation or calculations. He was a human computer programmed for engineering and physics of the time. Then the time passed him by.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not AI. That's not machine learning. It's statistical analysis on a large scale.
Haven't you heard?
AI is the new Serverless Quantum Internet of Agile Blockchain Mobile Things Architecture.
...about it.
That's kinda the point.
Personal photos and posts are cherry picked to present a narrative that cause some protests MAY turn bad, that means all protests are potentially bad.
Thus any potential protests should be preemptively banned.
From TFA:
The material was submitted to support the companies' case that campaigners intended to illegally disrupt their activities or trespass on their land.
The companies all stress they do not seek to restrict lawful forms of protest, but argue that activists should not be allowed to unduly disrupt their lawful business activity.
He tells the court that "a common tactic" by "activist individuals/organisations" is to:
"...use social media to announce a 'call to arms' by publicising the details of a 'peaceful' protest on Twitter or Facebook or their own organisation's website."
The resulting "mass of protestors" - many of whom are "law abiding citizens who wish to exercise their legal right to protest" - is, Fellows alleges, exploited by "a small hard core group of activists... to slow the police down and to prevent them from retaining the security of a site."
One of the most worrying things about the oil and gas companies' injunctions is that they are against "persons unknown."
That means that anyone who could reasonably expect to know about the injunctions is covered by them.
Given the wide remit of the injunctions, that could be anyone who visits the fracking sites.
By applying for injunctions against "persons unknown," the fracking companies prevent individual protesters from being able to defend their case in court as individuals.
This potentially gives the companies a litigious advantage.
By continuing to pursue "persons unknown" while closely surveilling individuals, the companies are potentially bypassing the protesters' democratic rights by preventing them putting across a defense in the injunction hearings.
Since social media surveillance reveals the identities of many people likely to participate in such protests; the companies can go to the court and provide a List of Names and Pre-Emptively ask the courts for an Injunctive order that the named individuals Not set foot on our land, Or participate in any activity to disrupt the business operation of one of our fracking sites.
From TFA:
One of the most worrying things about the oil and gas companies' injunctions is that they are against "persons unknown."
That means that anyone who could reasonably expect to know about the injunctions is covered by them.
Given the wide remit of the injunctions, that could be anyone who visits the fracking sites.
This is important given Eclipse's statement to the courts that the majority of the protestors are "law abiding."
But instead of targeting alleged "hard core activists" accused of disrupting peaceful protests, the oil and gas firms' approach can justify the wholesale prohibition of protests.
INEOS has a temporary injunction in place, which is currently going through the appeal process. UKOG is due in court in early July, while Europa's injunction is currently in place.
The UK's most high profile fracking company, Cuadrilla Resources, was just granted an injunction for its site in Lancashire.
By applying for injunctions against "persons unknown," the fracking companies prevent individual protesters from being able to defend their case in court as individuals.
This potentially gives the companies a litigious advantage.
Basically, they are managing to convince the courts that though these potential protesters may be lawful, some others may be not, so let's just ban anyone from protesting right now and be done with it.
Or, to put it in American, lawyers made courts ban all guns cause while some guns may be legal, some others may not be - so let's just ban all guns and let god sort 'em out.
"how exactly are those leading to protest bans?"
Ah... you know...
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
Or, as it is used in the article:
One of the activists subject to surveillance, Jon O'Houston, who has been part of the Broadford Bridge Protection Camp, said he felt it was equivalent to the phone hacking cases, which led to the Leveson review.
"What's said in the groups is generally taken either out of context or cherry-picked", O'Houston told Motherboard.
"When taken out of context, you can make anything look bad or good."
And the procedure goes something like this:
The material was submitted to support the companies' case that campaigners intended to illegally disrupt their activities or trespass on their land.
The companies all stress they do not seek to restrict lawful forms of protest, but argue that activists should not be allowed to unduly disrupt their lawful business activity.
...
In one witness statement on behalf of INEOS, CEO of Eclipse Raymond Fellows describes his company as having been "retained" by INEOS "to provide security services."
He tells the court that "a common tactic" by "activist individuals/organisations" is to:
"...use social media to announce a 'call to arms' by publicising the details of a 'peaceful' protest on Twitter or Facebook or their own organisation's website."
The resulting "mass of protestors" - many of whom are "law abiding citizens who wish to exercise their legal right to protest" - is, Fellows alleges, exploited by "a small hard core group of activists... to slow the police down and to prevent them from retaining the security of a site."
...
Injunction progress
One of the most worrying things about the oil and gas companies' injunctions is that they are against "persons unknown."
That means that anyone who could reasonably expect to know about the injunctions is covered by them.
Given the wide remit of the injunctions, that could be anyone who visits the fracking sites.
This is important given Eclipse's statement to the courts that the majority of the protestors are "law abiding."
But instead of targeting alleged "hard core activists" accused of disrupting peaceful protests, the oil and gas firms' approach can justify the wholesale prohibition of protests.
INEOS has a temporary injunction in place, which is currently going through the appeal process. UKOG is due in court in early July, while Europa's injunction is currently in place.
The UK's most high profile fracking company, Cuadrilla Resources, was just granted an injunction for its site in Lancashire.
By applying for injunctions against "persons unknown," the fracking companies prevent individual protesters from being able to defend their case in court as individuals.
This potentially gives the companies a litigious advantage.
By continuing to pursue "persons unknown" while closely surveilling individuals, the companies are potentially bypassing the protesters' democratic rights by preventing them putting across a defense in the injunction hearings. And they're using Facebook to do it.
Feel free to read the books.
All I mentioned above is what he wrote. AND MORE...
Like how the motivation for human traitors who contact the aliens to come and exterminate the humanity is that they are extreme treehuggers, trying to practice inter-species communism.
Or how "our heroes" surprise-kill everyone on a ship (boat, not star-) by stringing up nanowires in ship's path, which then silently slice everyone on the ship in two, before anyone has a chance to destroy any data.
Which works because apparently ships move through the Panama canal faster then one can see and react to people in front of them being sliced in half.
Also, feel free to read the articles I linked above.
"Ken Liu, a Hugo Award-winning author and the translator of the popular Chinese science-fiction novel 'The Three-Body Problem'" works for a SciFi shop which produces "corporate visioning" - "customized stories for the likes of Visa, Ford, Pepsi, Samsung, and NATO."
And Chinese ARE actively pushing for more Chinese SciFi. Have been for a while now.
At least since the tenth 5-year plan (2001-2005).
http://www.gov.cn/english/offi...
We need to disseminate scientific knowledge, combat ignorance and superstition, and encourage healthy lifestyles. We need to further develop various cultural undertakings, such as literature and art, journalism and publishing, and radio, film and television. We should adhere to the principles of serving the people and socialism and of "letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend." We need to produce more and better cultural and intellectual works. We need to maintain the correct orientation of public opinion, and place strong emphasis on the establishment and management of new information media. We need to build more libraries, cultural centers, science and technology centers, museums, archives, and recreation centers for juveniles and senior citizens. Mass participation activities should be continued to promote cultural and ethical progress. We need to deepen reform of the system for managing cultural undertakings, improve the economic policies concerning cultural undertakings, and promote the development of industries related to culture.
Also... this part...
We must use legal means to combat ethnic separatist activities, religious extremist forces, violent and terrorist activities, cults, and illegal activities carried out under the guise of religion. We need to continue our campaign against the Falungong cult, and further expose and condemn the anti-human, anti-social and anti-science nature of the cult, which has become a tool for domestic and overseas forces hostile to our socialist government. We need to mete out severe punishment to the small number of criminals while making unremitting efforts to unite, educate and rescue the vast majority of people who have been taken in.
Is it surprising, after reading all that about cults, that those traitors of the human race in the books act very much like a cult?
The exact effect of caffeine by itself seems problematic since the same trends in reducing mortality, albeit to a lesser degree, was true for those who drank decaffeinated coffee.
Not really.
Decaffeinated coffee is NOT caffeine-free coffee. Often it's not even really decaffeinated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A controlled study of ten samples of prepared decaffeinated coffee from coffee shops showed that some caffeine remained.[1]
Fourteen to twenty cups of such decaffeinated coffee would contain as much caffeine as one cup of regular coffee.[1]
The 16-ounce (473-ml) cups of coffee samples contained caffeine in the range of 8.6 mg to 13.9 mg.
In another study of popular brands of decaf coffees, the caffeine content varied from 3 mg to 32 mg.[18]
An 8-ounce (237-ml) cup of regular coffee contains 95-200 mg of caffeine,[19] and a 12-ounce (355-milliliter) serving of Coca-Cola contains 36 mg.[20]
Both of these studies tested the caffeine content of store-brewed coffee, suggesting that the caffeine may be residual from the normal coffee served rather than poorly decaffeinated coffee.
It's happened over and over and will keep happening. The only real hope is that people become more aware of how these toxic groups form and avoid becoming part of them.
Oh come on...
Let's not pretend that Big Brother-like surveillance and punishment would not fix that.
Along with other things. Some of which may not need fixing. Like freedom of speech.
And let's not pretend that some people wouldn't mind those other things being collateral "fixes".
After all, we MUST do SOMETHING before it's TOO LATE. Think of the children!
Nah, not really.
Liu Cixin is a poor writer with a limited imagination and knowledge regarding technology and ZERO understanding of even human psychology, let alone ability to imagine a properly alien one.
Also, when he DOES imagine something - he fails to connect the dots.
He imagines an alien race which can "unfold" a proton across 8 dimension, in order to create movable-at-speed-of-light proton-sized computer-robots which can block all particle research on Earth at will.
They can also create spaceships with which said race will invade Earth in 400 years.
Because their planet is doomed and they need breeding space.
Oh... and it's doomed because every random number of years the surface of their planet becomes unsustainable for life, so among other things, they've evolved the ability to hibernate for thousands of years.
So...
Not only is it a race with applied string-theory tech (basically magic), quantum-entanglement interstellar communication, spaceships which can reach another star in a reasonable time (and other even faster spaceships) AND biological hibernation... basically ideal explorer-colonist race... with magic tech...
But they can't dig holes. Or build orbital space stations.
Not even after seeing humans doing EXACTLY that.
On top of that... his outlook of life and geopolitics peaked at "doom and gloom world" and "mutually assured destruction".
And less is said about his "my perfect waifu database" ideas the better.
But he does have a lot of PR pushing him as the next Asimov or Clarke, which he is not in any shape or form.
It's almost as if there's something connecting his writing with aggressive marketing or a Chinese government program to promote science fiction.
Evolution is the process, not the distance. Not being able to breed makes it a different species, but "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth" (or "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form") covers the intermediate generations too.
It's not EXACT nor finite distance.
For the "process" to be taking place, there has to be genetic change. Not just expression of different genes, already present.
Distance has to be covered, but just covering the distance is not what it is all about.
Nor is the "quality" of covering those distances related to speed (i.e. time) one spends during the process or at any particular location in it.
A better analogy would be journey vs. distance. Going from 1 to 47 (and beyond) one passes locations of 12, 15, 25, 37 and 41.
So while at 12 one is "on a journey" just like one is "on a journey" while moving from point 15 to point 37.
But it's a process whose every step is a distance from which there's no going back.
If two animals can produce non-sterile offspring which can continue to breed with the species of of its progeny - they're all the same species. Same chromosomes.
Both sides in the process providing one side of the MATCHING pair.
You know that thing about humans and chimps sharing 90-something percent of genes? Yeah... well... that's the thing.
Our chromosomes don't contain the same genes. Nor the same number of chromosomes - we have 23 pairs and they have 24.
THAT'S the product of the process of evolution. Different SETS of genes - not just a difference in recessive and dominant genes, and whether a particular gene is active or not.
Without that difference... we'd be the same species. And it wouldn't be an evolution.
What the PP is talking about is simple breeding.
Giving ataxia to German Shepherds and various other illnesses to other dog breeds.
Still the same species. You could still mate it with wolves or breed a wolf from a poodle. You can still go back.
Cause it's not evolution but simply gene expression.
If you could turn genes on and off like throwing switches, you could get a pair of poodles to give birth to a wolf or a bulldog.
No new genes, no mutation... same old poodle wolf.
Have you ever seen a purebred dog? Humans applied selective breeding and can develop a completely new breed of dog with just a few generations. Evolution CAN happen slowly but it does not have to. It can happen quite quickly given the proper evolutionary pressures.
You don't seem to understand the difference between selection for traits and evolution.
Hint: Look up dog. Now scroll down to "species".
In the parlance of the times - when you see it, you'll shit bricks.
E.g. How do you think they created a labradoodle? You're thinking of breeds, buy you think that you're thinking of species.
You know... as in the title of the book. Which is not "On the Origin of Breeds".
Same goes for your ideas about "evolutionary pressure".
The ones that prefer the locations where they do not get hunted (the reasons why don't matter) are the ones that will be selected to breed again. Small fish that don't prefer the deep get removed from the gene pool before they reproduce and so they never become big fish. Do this enough times and you will have selected for fish that prefer deeper waters. That my friend is an evolutionary pressure at work and it happens all the time.
You should lay off of those ideas that sound like you probably picked up from X-men movie intros.
You sound like Trofim Lysenko - the leading cause of death from starvation under Stalin and Mao.
Besides... you're clearly uninformed about the topic you're trying to argue about. There are no two species of fish in the tale.
Bigger, deeper-living fish, are OLDER shallow(er)-living fish. Get it? Same fish. Same species.
You do understand that evolution is NOT something which takes place as a creature ages?
Neither apples, flies, birds, cats or humans evolve as they age.
But they do grow.
You wouldn't call bulls a different species of cow just because we slaughter most of the male calves while they're still babies?
Same with the fish. We're fishing for baby fish. Well... teenagers.
BTW, that quote I made... about ontogenetic response... you might wanna look up that word. Ontogenetic.
The reason WHY you might wanna look up that word is... that "suggestive of an ontogenetic response" bit... that's a quote from THE STUDY.
Them egghead scientists took a detailed look at the situation and it's THEIR WORDS that it is NOT EVOLUTION.
But hey... who am I to stand in your way of proving your own ignorance.
Or in the way of all those other "experts" modding you up while modding me down.
But at least they still get to hide THEIR ignorance. While exposing yours.
That's not evolution. That's selection for traits.
Hint: If they can still breed with the "original" - it's not evolution.
Evolution is a branching - not a straight line.
That's why humans can't breed with other primates, nor can those other primates breed with each other.
Oh look... Someone doesn't agree with reality, choosing to downmod it instead, like a little bitch.
What ever do we do about it? I know! How about repeating what was said?
It's not like there's a shortage of copy/paste?
But the way the experiment was manipulated makes it inadvertently join a large body of evidence supporting a different hypothesis - that people can be manipulated by authority figures into doing things they normally would consider immoral.
Your claim is the equivalent of saying that a staged case of rape, despite being proven fake, "proves" that women are teasing sluts who cause rapes by dressing like sluts.
I.e. Disregarding proof that there's no scientific merit to the "experiment" and choosing instead to view it as a valid proof of a foregone conclusion based on personal bias.
Also, it's not about pleasing authority figures. Nor being manipulated by said figures. You'll find no valid studies supporting that.
It's about people being pushed and badgered. And not even by "authority figures".
It's just about people being pushed and badgered into doing something by a person doing the pushing.
That's why PEER pressure works.
In fact, given familiarity with the "authority figure", most people will start feeling superiority over said "authority figure", distrust towards it and will start to act out in rebellion when ordered to follow the rules.
Hint: Consider the general public opinion of bosses, politicians, police, doctors (those know-nothings), teachers they had in school, their own parents...
That's why soldiers have to be conditioned to follow orders. They don't just start obeying the uniform in the room.
They have to go through grueling, personality breaking, physical and psychological torture-course until it is drilled into them to conform to the group and obey orders - or face punishment.
That's why they all come out singing praises to their "band of brothers". They were conditioned through shared abuse into bonding with the group.
It's just that Zimbardo and Milgram were biased against exactly that kind of authority - so they decided to stage a costumed play with lab coats and prison uniforms to "prove" their point.
In both cases concentrating on supposed proof that manipulation by authority figures works, making people ignore their own moral beliefs.
While ignoring the necessary level of badgering and emotional breakdowns of those who were being pushed, in order to achieve that.
"The guards have to know that every guard is going to be what we call a tough guard," Jaffe told one such guard [skip to 8:35].
"[H]opefully what will come out of this study is some very serious recommendations for reform... so that we can get on the media and into the press with it, and say 'Now look at what this is really about....
[T]ry and react as you picture the pigs reacting."
Now there's just evidence that Zimbardo was doing MORE faking than it was previously known.
Evolution takes place over thousands of generations.
Heck... it's hardly migration. "Deepening" differences are measured in ranges from 60 to 120 meters deep.
It's simply the fact that fish live longer lives if they don't get caught. And they don't get caught cause nets don't reach that deep.
In fact, study explicitly states that it's most probably not evolution - but a part of a normal development instead.
Observations of depth distributions of older cod during a moratorium on fishing supported this prediction; however, younger cod exhibited low-amplitude deepening (10-15 m) suggestive of an ontogenetic response.
I.e. Young and inexperienced fish don't know how to hide from the nets OR the easy picking food (bottom dwelling crabs and crustaceans) they're munching on isn't available that deep.
Older, more experienced, fish-munching fish, know how deep they need to swim to avoid getting caught in a net.
You are confusing difficulty of early detection based on symptoms alone with severity and the nature of the disease.
Protein which does damage to the tissue is necessary for multiplication of the influenza virus.
Rhinovirus doesn't do that as it has a completely different structure.
But the way the experiment was manipulated makes it inadvertently join a large body of evidence supporting a different hypothesis - that people can be manipulated by authority figures into doing things they normally would consider immoral.
Your claim is the equivalent of saying that a staged case of rape, despite being proven fake, "proves" that women are teasing sluts who cause rapes by dressing like sluts.
I.e. Disregarding proof that there's no scientific merit to the "experiment" and choosing instead to view it as a valid proof of a foregone conclusion based on personal bias.
Also, it's not about pleasing authority figures. Nor being manipulated by said figures. You'll find no valid studies supporting that.
It's about people being pushed and badgered. And not even by "authority figures".
It's just about people being pushed and badgered into doing something by a person doing the pushing.
That's why PEER pressure works.
In fact, given familiarity with the "authority figure", most people will start feeling superiority over said "authority figure", distrust towards it and will start to act out in rebellion when ordered to follow the rules.
Hint: Consider the general public opinion of bosses, politicians, police, doctors (those know-nothings), teachers they had in school, their own parents...
That's why soldiers have to be conditioned to follow orders. They don't just start obeying the uniform in the room.
They have to go through grueling, personality breaking, physical and psychological torture-course until it is drilled into them to conform to the group and obey orders - or face punishment.
That's why they all come out singing praises to their "band of brothers". They were conditioned through shared abuse into bonding with the group.
It's just that Zimbardo and Milgram were biased against exactly that kind of authority - so they decided to stage a costumed play with lab coats and prison uniforms to "prove" their point.
In both cases concentrating on supposed proof that manipulation by authority figures works, making people ignore their own moral beliefs.
While ignoring the necessary level of badgering and emotional breakdowns of those who were being pushed, in order to achieve that.
"The guards have to know that every guard is going to be what we call a tough guard," Jaffe told one such guard [skip to 8:35].
"[H]opefully what will come out of this study is some very serious recommendations for reform... so that we can get on the media and into the press with it, and say 'Now look at what this is really about....
[T]ry and react as you picture the pigs reacting."
Now there's just evidence that Zimbardo was doing MORE faking than it was previously known.
Unless there is something VERY special about Norway, a wide-spread trend that cannot be attributed to education, gender, religion, or other environmental factor has pretty good predictive qualities, since the sample size is large, and unbiased (Only males tested most likely, but the service is compulsory, not voluntary.
Service in Norway is NOT compulsory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
About 60,000 Norwegians are available for conscription every year, but only 8,000 to 10,000 are conscripted.[2] In earlier times, up until at least the early 2000s, all men aged 19â"44 were subject to mandatory service, with good reasons required to avoid becoming drafted.
Besides that decline in conscription, actual numbers of conscripts are around 14% of eligible Norwegian males, cause "the number of applicants each year exceeds the needs of the Armed Forces".
Further, researchers aren't showing a decline of IQ in Norway, nor anywhere else.
They are working with a presumption of a decline in IQ and trying to hammer their "observation" peg into that presumed roundish hole.
Using administrative register data with information on family relationships and cognitive ability for three decades of Norwegian male birth cohorts, we show that the increase, turning point, and decline of the Flynn effect can be recovered from within-family variation in intelligence scores.
This establishes that the large changes in average cohort intelligence reflect environmental factors and not changing composition of parents, which in turn rules out several prominent hypotheses for retrograde Flynn effects.
I.e. They claim that they can explain presumed IQ decline by extrapolating measured in-family IQ decline.
Problem is - they don't actually have the data to show that. And they are blind to their own biases regarding all the preconceptions they are juggling.
From study's appendix it's pretty obvious that the IQ sample was both changing in structure AND reducing in sample size over the years.
Number of recruits born between 1964 and 1972 varied between 30440 and 32148.
1973-1980 we see a drop from 29159 down to 23900.
1981-1989 rises slowly from 23317 up to 26484.
But far more important is the fact that they are NOT ACTUALLY FINDING THE IQ DECLINE AMONG THE NORWEGIAN CONSCRIPTS.
All that they ARE accurately finding is that the number of IQ tests among conscripts has declined by 10 percentage points, over a decade.
From TFS:
Conscription test coverage declined substantially for cohorts born after 1980, with coverage rates falling from 93% in 1980 to 83% in 1991 (Fig. 3A).
So not only is the number of conscripts declining, number of conscripts taking IQ tests has declined even more.
Which they then take to consideration - and pull the following nonsense out of the thin air.
Focusing on families with sons in the first two parities and plotting the share of unscored younger siblings by the observed IQ score of the older brother, lower scoring firstborns were more likely to have unscored younger brothers (Fig. 3B).
The problem is exacerbated toward the end of our data window: Among the 198-1991 birth cohorts, fully 30% of those whose older sibling scored in the bottom IQ bracket have missing IQ scores.
As sibling scores are correlated, this implies that low-ability males are less likely to be scored, and that the selection was stronger for the cohorts born in the late 1980s than for those from the 1960s and 1970s.
I.e. Not only are they ASSUMING correlation between IQs of sibli
On WiFi, nobody knows you're a dog.
These tech-seeking dogs are helping law enforcement find child pornography stashed in hidden hard drives, uncover concealed phones, nab white-collar evidence kept on hard drives and track calls stored on SIM cards.
Track calls? That's SOME nose on them dogs.
You don't need a shovel. They already got one. Probably a ready hole in the ground too.
And if you're a dedicated axe murderer, you don't even need an axe. At least back then you didn't need to own one.
Just to add an extra touch of incompetence, the only link is to a story that you can't read unless you're a WSJ subscriber.
Many a dyslexic just got triggered. On both sides.
There is something to be said to similarities between cruises and torture prisons.
Psychological pain is still pain...
Nah... If it feels like a bad cold - it's a cold.
ALL strains of influenza do actual damage to the tissue. Cold doesn't.
That's why you can get back to work in a week or less after a cold - but you might end up in a hospital or dead when you catch the flu.
It's actually that most people THINK they have the flu when all they have is a bad cold.
Actual influenza, not common cold which most people confuse for flu, is deadly. 500k to million people die from it every year, globally.
Even if it doesn't kill you, the toll on your immune system is enormous.
You are very likely to end up with secondary infections, pneumonia and various inflammations including but not limited to heart and brain.
It really does a number on your immune system, and unless you're taking NSAIDs like ibuprofen, you can also expect joint and muscle pain during AND after you're virus-free.
On top of that, the effect on your immune system lingers for weeks and even months - you are more prone to infections cause your body is too busy fixing all that tissue damage the virus caused.
Oh and... maybe you remember that movie Awakenings?
Well... all those people ended up in a comatose-like state most probably as a consequence of the 1918 influenza epidemic.
No penicillin or ibuprofen back then to fight all those secondary infections and inflammations. Not to mention actual antiviral drugs.
I never said it guarantees anything, in fact I specifically said the opposite. The thing about making stupid big bets is that its self-limiting, you lose a couple of those stupid bets and you can't afford to make any more of them.
You declared them "generally a lot better informed" BECAUSE of "a much greater incentive to get it right".
I.e. You gave reasoning for WHY they are "better informed" - which is a case of arguing for an unproven assumption, on the premise that said assumption is actually true.
And in general... based on your own argument of "the future... not [being] deterministic" - it is also a false assumption.
If you read the patent instead of just looking at the pictures, he explains that
And if you had read the patent OR my entire post you'd notice that the steam engine thing I mention is a QUOTE from the patent.
"External firing of a steam boiler" is a quote from the patent.
As for his turbines "that can operate at much higher speeds than traditional gas turbine engines"... that is not true either.
His turbine HAD higher efficiency vs the axial turbines OF THAT ERA - on account of axial turbines' low efficiency AT THE TIME.
Later test have shown that Tesla's turbine had lower efficiency compared to contemporary turbines.
Tesla claimed that a steam version of his device would achieve around 95 percent efficiency.[14][15]
Actual tests of a Tesla steam turbine at the Westinghouse works showed a steam rate of 38 pounds per horsepower-hour, corresponding to a turbine efficiency in the range of 20%, while contemporary steam turbines could often achieve turbine efficiencies of well over 50%.
Again... outdated.
And with the patent running out almost a century ago - if it was better it would be used everywhere today. It's not.
Also, it is not about the gyroscopic torque.
It's about the fact that should a propeller have enough force to lift the machine vertically it would also create enough thrust for that fixed wing to start tilting the machine backward.
I.e. The same forces which lift a plane that takes off horizontally, would flip over this machine during vertical takeoff.
It would stall at liftoff.
He lacked understanding how it is that the plane flies. He thought it was similar to propellers of a boat pushing at the water.
He didn't understand that it was the shape of the wings - yet he drew them with an airfoil curve.
The only, sorta, working tail-sitters had contra-rotating propellers for a reason - one prop is not enough and in a fixed wing it would destabilize the plane at liftoff.
Tesla was not a wizard.
He was a clever, educated and obsessive genius at the time when a lot of technology was new and inefficient and when most people lacked the will or ability to do the necessary experimentation or calculations.
He was a human computer programmed for engineering and physics of the time.
Then the time passed him by.