What are you talking about? Your statement is the opposite of what happened.
The court basically said "Yeah, that's basically like money" - meaning it's not a product itself but can be used to acquire other products. *Those* products are still subjected to VAT, as should be, but bitcoin itself isn't.
Even though the guy is "just" an AC, he's right. You have a right to an opinion. But I also have the right to tell you that your opinion is based on incorrect assumptions.
Seriously, don't put words in other people's mouths.
You're wrong != You're an idiot
You are an idiot, as demonstrated above, but not because you're wrong.
Now you're clearly being argumentative because you can't accept the possibility that the idea you defended was a bad one.
And that's fine because the argument against me at the time was "you don't have an aeronautical degree so you can't say anything about the issue that is not 100 percent in line with the status quo"...
So I cited that actually the ideas had been proposed initially by people with such degrees. Which is now causing you to goal post move.
Now the issue is "money". Which is a different consideration. We're talking about economics, business models, existing production lines, etc.
No such argument was made. It was an observation. Another observation I'll make is that you seem unable to grasp that more weight = less money made at the end of the day (in one way or another).
Weight itself is irrelevant, from an engineering standpoint. We can make the whole thing bigger to match the capacity of the lighter option. The problem is that it's crazy expensive all around! It costs more to produce, costs more to operate, costs more to maintain, costs more to land (airport fees are often based on maximum takeoff weight)... Less weight = more money.
Ultimately you're going to argue "this is bad because it isn't the way we do things right now. Only status quo policies are good"... You are not currently making that argument... but you've already painted yourself into that corner. Its just a matter of time.
I will put the final nail in your argument's coffin by making the obvious counter argument that nothing would ever change or improve if we didn't challenge the status quo and have a willingness to try new things.
Damn, you're full of yourself.
Nobody is arguing for the "status quo". What is being argued is that the status quo is the status quo for good reason and that your alternative is worse than the status quo. Changing things just because is not engineering. It's throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Seriously, here's some advice for life:
When somebody says you're wrong, don't reply by accusing them of "moving the goalposts" or employing a "strawman" (curiously, that's what you've been doing). Don't act like a prick because some people share your opinion. And, most importantly, don't play the victim card when somebody makes a statement about you. There's nothing wrong with not having an aerospace degree, but there is something wrong with pretending to know more about the subject than the people who do.
Feel free to respond above with arguments against my point, but remember: "Aerospace engineers looked at the problem" is not an argument. It's their fucking job to investigate alternatives. It's also their job to discard the bad alternatives - including the one you're so strongly defending, for some mysterious reason.
There is no way in hell this idea would not massively increase aircraft weight, since the new, removable parts cannot be structural. So you're always adding substantial weight.
That is also questionable, given the complex process involved: Open door, Airbus Beluga style. Remove cabin Check for debris/damage Insert cabin Ensure all systems are properly connected (power, water, infotainment, wastewater...). These are going to be more problematic, too. Close the door (which is also much heavier...) Make sure it's properly closed (probably a wash, if you're checking several regular doors on a regular plane).
The idea being original or not has no bearing on its quality.
I'm sure people have tried to design such concepts. And I'm sure their thoughts when they finished were along the lines of "Yeah, this is never going to work better than what we have now."
Also, no need to be a rude asshole. There's nothing wrong with being clueless about structural engineering, but there is something wrong with being a rude asshole.
You clearly have no idea about airplane structural engineering, or you wouldn't even consider what you just suggested. The only realistic solution would require a massive weight increase and the added failure scenarios, which need to be carefully examined and worked around. Furthermore, refueling an airplane does not take less than two minutes. That's the time you need just to plug in the fuel line.
Not to mention the absurd ground complexity. Airports would need several cabins per flight per aircraft model, plus room to store them, plus machinery to handle them...
The big difference is that the degree Celsius (and thus the Kelvin) are defined by a reproducible measurement that can be done in a laboratory.
Bottom line is that all imperial units are defined relative to SI units, which says a lot about them. It says that they're just different - and being different for the sake of being different is a profoundly idiotic way of approaching any problem involving measurements.
A weird size is not going to keep a factory in China from making millions of screws of that size, dumping them on a boat and flooding the US market. It makes it marginally more difficult, but the added difficulty is only an issue for low-volume stuff.
Celsius and Kelvin are defined around a phenomenon that basically defines life on Earth. Given that they're related to the other units by some constant in any case, I'd say it's an acceptable solution.
"More resolution" has to be the silliest argument anyone could come up with for Rankine vs Kelvin. If you really need that little bit of extra precision, it's trivial to use fractional parts. If you don't need it, why the hell are you arguing about it?
Seriously, fuck this silly argument already. "day-to-day life" works best with what's used, since all systems of measurements are arbitrary to some degree.
The important thing is consistency. Within the system (12 inches in a foot? 3 feet in a yard? 1 760 yards in a mile??? At least be patriotic and do 1 776 yards, it would make more sense than 1760! At least it's fucking divisible by 3, unlike 1 760!) and within the set of people that you need to communicate with (The rest of the world has pretty much settled this one).
The "range of habitable temperatures" argument is very lame. You wouldn't map an abstract range into something like [-18;38], you'd do [-20;40], for instance. Furthermore Touareg might shrug at 35 degrees Celsius while the Russian next to him finds it unbearably hot, as an example - what kind of point is there in basing a unit off such a personal view? Added resolution is irrelevant. If you absolutely must, use fractional parts, not that you could tell the difference in a realistic scenario.
Your foot is a foot long? How convenient for those situations in life where you need accuracy but not *too* much accuracy (none).
If too much rounding of a value expressed in a certain unit is silly, don't do it. If you'd given this argument a little bit of thought, you'd have realized that 5ish feet is a *very* short adult and 6ish feet is just tall enough for it to be a somewhat meaningful end of the range of what's "typical". So, you end up in a similar situation - 7 feet.
Base units aren't "easier". Nothing is perfect for all scales. So you need something which can quickly be adapted to whatever scale you need. You just need a single reference to quickly understand how big or small the quantity you're dealing with is, with no need for stupid moments like "I know how much a foot is, so how does a mile compare to that?" A more practical problem. You're told you can plant a tree every 3 meters and you have a 3 kilometer stretch to fill. How many would you need? 1 000, no real thought necessary. What about one every 9 feet and a 3 mile stretch? 586.7 - you'd need patience or a calculator to get that one.
Sounds like they're damned near ready to release Windows 10.
My Surface Pro 3 (so not random OEM PoS) often needs a reboot because its sensors crapped out when the thing woke up from sleep. Wi-Fi is a semi-stable solution that could use some serious polishing. The keyboard frequently gets a key logically stuck, which isn't fixable without a reboot and precludes any productivity (try doing *anything* with CTRL held down and you'll see what I mean).
In all seriousness, I hope they decide to polish first, release later for a change
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? Your statement is the opposite of what happened.
The court basically said "Yeah, that's basically like money" - meaning it's not a product itself but can be used to acquire other products. *Those* products are still subjected to VAT, as should be, but bitcoin itself isn't.
I think that everything posted so far speaks for itself.
Anyone who bothered to read all this unnecessary crap will have surely figured out by now who's trolling and who isn't.
Even though the guy is "just" an AC, he's right. You have a right to an opinion. But I also have the right to tell you that your opinion is based on incorrect assumptions.
Seriously, don't put words in other people's mouths.
You're wrong != You're an idiot
You are an idiot, as demonstrated above, but not because you're wrong.
Now you're clearly being argumentative because you can't accept the possibility that the idea you defended was a bad one.
And that's fine because the argument against me at the time was "you don't have an aeronautical degree so you can't say anything about the issue that is not 100 percent in line with the status quo"...
So I cited that actually the ideas had been proposed initially by people with such degrees. Which is now causing you to goal post move.
Now the issue is "money". Which is a different consideration. We're talking about economics, business models, existing production lines, etc.
No such argument was made. It was an observation.
Another observation I'll make is that you seem unable to grasp that more weight = less money made at the end of the day (in one way or another).
Weight itself is irrelevant, from an engineering standpoint. We can make the whole thing bigger to match the capacity of the lighter option. The problem is that it's crazy expensive all around! It costs more to produce, costs more to operate, costs more to maintain, costs more to land (airport fees are often based on maximum takeoff weight)...
Less weight = more money.
Ultimately you're going to argue "this is bad because it isn't the way we do things right now. Only status quo policies are good"... You are not currently making that argument... but you've already painted yourself into that corner. Its just a matter of time.
I will put the final nail in your argument's coffin by making the obvious counter argument that nothing would ever change or improve if we didn't challenge the status quo and have a willingness to try new things.
Damn, you're full of yourself.
Nobody is arguing for the "status quo". What is being argued is that the status quo is the status quo for good reason and that your alternative is worse than the status quo. Changing things just because is not engineering. It's throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Seriously, here's some advice for life:
When somebody says you're wrong, don't reply by accusing them of "moving the goalposts" or employing a "strawman" (curiously, that's what you've been doing). Don't act like a prick because some people share your opinion.
And, most importantly, don't play the victim card when somebody makes a statement about you. There's nothing wrong with not having an aerospace degree, but there is something wrong with pretending to know more about the subject than the people who do.
Feel free to respond above with arguments against my point, but remember: "Aerospace engineers looked at the problem" is not an argument. It's their fucking job to investigate alternatives. It's also their job to discard the bad alternatives - including the one you're so strongly defending, for some mysterious reason.
Keyword here being "proposed", instead of "accepted as a cost-effective solution".
On aircraft, the issue is ALWAYS weight.
There is no way in hell this idea would not massively increase aircraft weight, since the new, removable parts cannot be structural. So you're always adding substantial weight.
Oh well, misread that.
Still, fuel is generally not the limiting factor (even ignoring boarding).
That is also questionable, given the complex process involved:
Open door, Airbus Beluga style.
Remove cabin
Check for debris/damage
Insert cabin
Ensure all systems are properly connected (power, water, infotainment, wastewater...). These are going to be more problematic, too.
Close the door (which is also much heavier...)
Make sure it's properly closed (probably a wash, if you're checking several regular doors on a regular plane).
The idea being original or not has no bearing on its quality.
I'm sure people have tried to design such concepts. And I'm sure their thoughts when they finished were along the lines of "Yeah, this is never going to work better than what we have now."
Also, no need to be a rude asshole. There's nothing wrong with being clueless about structural engineering, but there is something wrong with being a rude asshole.
You clearly have no idea about airplane structural engineering, or you wouldn't even consider what you just suggested. The only realistic solution would require a massive weight increase and the added failure scenarios, which need to be carefully examined and worked around.
Furthermore, refueling an airplane does not take less than two minutes. That's the time you need just to plug in the fuel line.
Not to mention the absurd ground complexity. Airports would need several cabins per flight per aircraft model, plus room to store them, plus machinery to handle them...
Never, ever going to work.
You seem to be missing the concept of supply and demand.
Ideally, both sides would fight to the death while a proper alternative rises to put them both in their place. /wishful thinking
Why not the real Keepass?
Why bother with a relatively fragile disc if you can carry much more with equivalent quality (for car stereo purposes) on a single flash drive?
Only because it piggybacks on the degree Celsius.
The big difference is that the degree Celsius (and thus the Kelvin) are defined by a reproducible measurement that can be done in a laboratory.
Bottom line is that all imperial units are defined relative to SI units, which says a lot about them. It says that they're just different - and being different for the sake of being different is a profoundly idiotic way of approaching any problem involving measurements.
1/3 of a meter is one third of a meter.
What's 1/3 of an inch? Exact same scenario, just as likely to happen.
Spare the bullshit cherry picking and admit it's out of stubbornness, inertia and/or a feeling of superiority.
A weird size is not going to keep a factory in China from making millions of screws of that size, dumping them on a boat and flooding the US market. It makes it marginally more difficult, but the added difficulty is only an issue for low-volume stuff.
Celsius and Kelvin are defined around a phenomenon that basically defines life on Earth. Given that they're related to the other units by some constant in any case, I'd say it's an acceptable solution.
"More resolution" has to be the silliest argument anyone could come up with for Rankine vs Kelvin. If you really need that little bit of extra precision, it's trivial to use fractional parts. If you don't need it, why the hell are you arguing about it?
Seriously, fuck this silly argument already. "day-to-day life" works best with what's used, since all systems of measurements are arbitrary to some degree.
The important thing is consistency. Within the system (12 inches in a foot? 3 feet in a yard? 1 760 yards in a mile??? At least be patriotic and do 1 776 yards, it would make more sense than 1760! At least it's fucking divisible by 3, unlike 1 760!) and within the set of people that you need to communicate with (The rest of the world has pretty much settled this one).
The "range of habitable temperatures" argument is very lame. You wouldn't map an abstract range into something like [-18;38], you'd do [-20;40], for instance. Furthermore Touareg might shrug at 35 degrees Celsius while the Russian next to him finds it unbearably hot, as an example - what kind of point is there in basing a unit off such a personal view?
Added resolution is irrelevant. If you absolutely must, use fractional parts, not that you could tell the difference in a realistic scenario.
Your foot is a foot long? How convenient for those situations in life where you need accuracy but not *too* much accuracy (none).
If too much rounding of a value expressed in a certain unit is silly, don't do it. If you'd given this argument a little bit of thought, you'd have realized that 5ish feet is a *very* short adult and 6ish feet is just tall enough for it to be a somewhat meaningful end of the range of what's "typical". So, you end up in a similar situation - 7 feet.
Base units aren't "easier". Nothing is perfect for all scales. So you need something which can quickly be adapted to whatever scale you need. You just need a single reference to quickly understand how big or small the quantity you're dealing with is, with no need for stupid moments like "I know how much a foot is, so how does a mile compare to that?"
A more practical problem. You're told you can plant a tree every 3 meters and you have a 3 kilometer stretch to fill. How many would you need? 1 000, no real thought necessary.
What about one every 9 feet and a 3 mile stretch? 586.7 - you'd need patience or a calculator to get that one.
Careful. That will generate incessant 3 * 1/3 != 1 discussions.
I'm not in the drug dealing business, but shipping awfully close to weight limits sounds a bit fishy.
Sounds like they're damned near ready to release Windows 10.
My Surface Pro 3 (so not random OEM PoS) often needs a reboot because its sensors crapped out when the thing woke up from sleep. Wi-Fi is a semi-stable solution that could use some serious polishing. The keyboard frequently gets a key logically stuck, which isn't fixable without a reboot and precludes any productivity (try doing *anything* with CTRL held down and you'll see what I mean).
In all seriousness, I hope they decide to polish first, release later for a change
If you're so sure, why don't you rent a Tesla and try out the nice little "fake" battery swap station?
Oh, right, because that would go against your theory.
FOSS doesn't really apply in Android's case, given the significant barriers imposed by Google's proprietary extras...