So what about if a Christian cake-baker gets asked by a customer to bake a cake for an interracial marriage? Do you think they should refuse to do that too? After all, just a few decades ago, and still today in Mississippi, Christians believed that interracial marriage was sinful.
WTF are you talking about? Trump is not a favorite of the Religious Right, he's not even religious himself, though he claims to be now in order to get votes. Did you forget that he couldn't even name his favorite bible verses when ask?
Ted Cruz is the one who's a far-far-right Christian theocratist who's an adherent of Dominionism. Why liberals can't seem to understand this and keep attacking Trump, I have no idea. It's almost like they want to have Cruz as President by getting Trump out of the way and putting Cruz up against Hillary, while refusing to believe that Millenials won't bother showing up at the polls for Hillary. If you thought 8 years of W. was a horror show, you're in for horrors you can't even imagine with Cruz in the White House.
However, LNG vehicles are land-based, not aircraft. I've never heard of anyone using CNG or LNG for aircraft. CNG would probably be pretty hard because it's a gas; the tank would be huge and heavy. LNG wouldn't be much better: the tank would be really heavy to keep it compressed and keep it from gasifying.
Yeah, I didn't say that he did what he did publicly, I was just pointing out how having your personal beliefs aired can get you in trouble if they don't match up with whatever crowd you're trying to hang with.
The deal is pretty simple: the more broad visibility you have, the more you need to try to not offend anyone.
So if you want to be part of some weird religious sect and convince people to join it, that's fine, but you're probably not going to do well if you're also trying to be the head of a multinational corporation, or a famous celebrity (unless you're Tom Cruise). But if you just work at the 7-11 or you work as a self-employed handyman in your small town, then no one's going to care.
There's plenty of people who still have weird beliefs, follow various weird religions, etc. You don't know about them because they don't have a highly public profile. You do, however, know about what religion various high-visibility political figures are.
So if you're going to have non-mainstream beliefs, go ahead, but don't expect for everyone to like it and want to vote for you or choose you for a high-level position.
And less travel??? Yeah, if you're some kind of asshole that needs to travel to far-off places then try to force your weird beliefs on people there, maybe you shouldn't do that. Most people have no trouble traveling; they go, they visit, they're respectful of the natives there, and they don't intentionally antagonize them.
I was glad that Eich stepped down, because he had turned into a lighting rod for Mozilla. But that incident definitely showed why you have to be careful about protecting your privacy, and about why letting your employer or the whole world know about your private life, your beliefs, your political positions, etc. is extremely dangerous and will bite you in the ass one day. No matter what your position is, someone's going to have a problem with it, and if they have power, they're likely to use it against you.
Or the police. They'll happily tell you that any police officer who shoots a fleeing black guy in the back did the right thing, that the black guy deserved it, shouldn't have run, etc.
Except that it's run by Google, so you're guaranteed that they're going to data-mine the hell out of it and use it to advertise to you in some creepy way.
Honestly, trusting any of these corporations to protect your privacy is sheer lunacy.
We already have something like that, and it's completely decentralized too so you're not reliant on one big corporation to run it. It's called "Diaspora".
Of course, it'll never go anywhere because it isn't being run by some giant for-profit corporation whose interests don't align with the users', because regular people aren't smart enough to understand this and are too lazy to put in the little bit of work needed to use it.
Yep, this is why I plan to vote for Trump if the general election is between Trump and Hillary. Hitler isn't as bad as Satan, so Trump is the obvious choice. Gotta pick the lesser of two evils.
It'd be nice if we had an election system where we could pick the candidates we actually like, but the American People don't want that, they like the system we have.
A lot of the weight of motors comes from the copper windings.
It makes me wonder what kind of motor you could make if you used superconducting wire for the windings. Of course, the liquid nitrogen cooling could be a bit of a problem, but on a large aircraft that's probably doable.
Don't forget electric boats and electric dump trucks and construction equipment.
Many boats now are electric; cruise ships are a good example here. They use things called "azipods" for propulsion, which are giant pods on the bottom of the ship which have a giant motor and a propeller, and which can rotate a full 360 degrees for maneuvering. The motor of course is driven by electricity generated by diesel generators on the ship.
Extremely large construction equipment (like dump trucks) are the same: they have motors driving the wheels, powered by a diesel engine/generator.
The main reason we use motors for trains and dump trucks is because of torque: motors generate peak torque at stall, which is great for moving huge loads. It's actually rather curious that we haven't moved to this for semi-tractors yet, because those also need huge torque and not so much horsepower. By contrast, fossil-fuel-burning ICEs generate peak torque at rather high speeds, which isn't all that useful when the engine is coupled to the drive wheels and you need the most torque to get the load moving.
Trains and dump trucks and ships don't need really high power-to-weight ratios because they aren't trying to fly, so the extra weight penalty of serial hybrid powertrains isn't much of a disadvantage compared to their advantages.
You're forgetting how inefficient turbofan engines are at part-throttle conditions. You're assuming they run at full throttle all the time, and that isn't true. They run at full throttle on takeoff only, and then part throttle for cruising, but the worst is when they're idling on the runway: airlines waste a huge amount of fuel at that time.
Is the energy density per kg of batteries really that much better than the energy density of methane gas, or liquid hydrogen?
No, but it doesn't have to be. When you burn (oxidize) fuel to run an engine and create rotational energy, you're only getting somewhere between 30-60% efficiency, and the rest is simply wasted as heat. (The 60% number is for really big power plant turbines, you won't see that on any vehicle; it's more like 40% or so there in the best case.)
With an electric motor, it's very different. Instead of wasting most of the energy as heat, almost all of it is used for rotational force: good electric motors are 98% efficient or more. Of course, you also lose a bit of efficiency in the batteries when you discharge them, but that's still probably in the 90+% range.
So to equal fossil-fuel-powered engines, you just need to get a little less than half the energy density per kg.
As for liquid hydrogen, that isn't a practical fuel. To make that work, you have to carry liquid oxygen with you and use a rocket engine. The storage requirements are pretty ridiculous. It works OK on spacecraft because they need an insanely-high thrust-to-weight ratio for a short time and can afford the ridiculous costs in both money and safety factor that are inherent in using it. Aircraft don't work that way: fuels have to be relatively safe and relatively cheap. Liquid hydrogen is neither.
And methane gas? When has anyone ever used that in any kind of engine? Methanol != methane.
If I upgrade any time soon, it'll be to an S5 (I have the S4). But after that, I don't see how I'd want a newer Samsung than that, unless the S8 is the next S5.
I don't need to technically disprove it. I can dismiss it as drivel and move on; it's my right, just as I don't need to technically disprove that the drunk hobo on the corner wasn't really abducted by aliens.
I'm not a fan of video articles either. However, with some things, it's worth it. I haven't looked at this video yet, but I've seen similar ones on YouTube and they can be definitely worth the viewing. For a phone teardown, the video format can prove really useful because you can actually show how the phone is taken apart, instead of just writing about it. A picture's worth 1000 words and all that...
Whenever I want to see how to take something apart to fix it, YouTube videos showing the process is definitely my first avenue of search.
Where video is really useless is when it's just some talking head talking about something, such as with news reports. Those should be specifically banned. But when the video is showing you **how to do something**, that's invaluable and not easily replaced by text.
Truth be told, the majority of my fellow Brazilians have shit between the ears (is the origin of the "HUEHUEBR"), so a tool that allows me to take no notice of their comments is an absolute must.
They can't be any worse than the majority of my fellow Americans.
Yep, and not only that, if another drunk hobo starts telling you how he was abducted by aliens, you have a responsibility to hear him out and determine if you think he's telling the truth too!
Although there is a facsimile of technical sub-reddits, most of that site is just mindless garbage so there really isn't a position to defend with any real facts.
Oh please, that's a bunch of crap. There's over a quarter-million subreddits last I heard, and most of *every* site is just mindless garbage, this site included. But with that many subreddits, it's easy to find interesting conversation, and about specialized topics. There's a subreddit about my car, for instance, if I just want to chat with people about that; a lot of posts are fairly useless, but there's some real gems here and there. It's just like anyplace else: "95% of everything is crap." (Sturgeon's Law)
People on that site don't want to "discuss" anything, they want a place where they can go to feel popular or accepted, regardless of any actual social ability.
Oh, BS. You're looking in the wrong place. Maybe you were browsing/r/HillaryClinton. Yeah, if you say anything negative about her on there, you'll be banned immediately. Go someplace else like/r/politics and you'll see all kinds of debate (and frequently not friendly...).
Every subreddit is different. They have different mods, different topics, different rules. Some are complete drivel (like Hillary's fan club subreddit), some are full of nasty arguing (/r/politics, but that's understandable given the topic and what's at stake), some are just places where people post pictures of stuff, some are really silly (like/r/PhotoshopBattles) but fun if you're into that kind of thing.
What a stupid post. Basically, you're saying that I should read all of APK's drivel, as well as all the other countless trolls, such as the loser AC on here who keeps posting about "n****rs". No, I don't need to waste my time reading such garbage.
Slashdot desperately needs this feature, as well as banning ACs.
Well, in theory an artificial satellite like that should be able to maintain an almost perfectly stable orbit because it can use thrust to do corrections. (Of course, the fuel for the thrusters will run out eventually...)
Natural bodies can't do that, so eventually they're either going to collide or spin away.
What kind of "engineering"? Usually, when I hear the words "engineering consulting firm", I think of civil engineering, structural engineering, etc. That's not "tech". Stuff like that tends to be spread out more because you need civil engineers everywhere that civilization exists; it isn't usually as concentrated as tech stuff is.
Slashdot Mirror
So what about if a Christian cake-baker gets asked by a customer to bake a cake for an interracial marriage? Do you think they should refuse to do that too? After all, just a few decades ago, and still today in Mississippi, Christians believed that interracial marriage was sinful.
WTF are you talking about? Trump is not a favorite of the Religious Right, he's not even religious himself, though he claims to be now in order to get votes. Did you forget that he couldn't even name his favorite bible verses when ask?
Ted Cruz is the one who's a far-far-right Christian theocratist who's an adherent of Dominionism. Why liberals can't seem to understand this and keep attacking Trump, I have no idea. It's almost like they want to have Cruz as President by getting Trump out of the way and putting Cruz up against Hillary, while refusing to believe that Millenials won't bother showing up at the polls for Hillary. If you thought 8 years of W. was a horror show, you're in for horrors you can't even imagine with Cruz in the White House.
Whoops, you got me there.
However, LNG vehicles are land-based, not aircraft. I've never heard of anyone using CNG or LNG for aircraft. CNG would probably be pretty hard because it's a gas; the tank would be huge and heavy. LNG wouldn't be much better: the tank would be really heavy to keep it compressed and keep it from gasifying.
Yeah, I didn't say that he did what he did publicly, I was just pointing out how having your personal beliefs aired can get you in trouble if they don't match up with whatever crowd you're trying to hang with.
I don't think so.
The deal is pretty simple: the more broad visibility you have, the more you need to try to not offend anyone.
So if you want to be part of some weird religious sect and convince people to join it, that's fine, but you're probably not going to do well if you're also trying to be the head of a multinational corporation, or a famous celebrity (unless you're Tom Cruise). But if you just work at the 7-11 or you work as a self-employed handyman in your small town, then no one's going to care.
There's plenty of people who still have weird beliefs, follow various weird religions, etc. You don't know about them because they don't have a highly public profile. You do, however, know about what religion various high-visibility political figures are.
So if you're going to have non-mainstream beliefs, go ahead, but don't expect for everyone to like it and want to vote for you or choose you for a high-level position.
And less travel??? Yeah, if you're some kind of asshole that needs to travel to far-off places then try to force your weird beliefs on people there, maybe you shouldn't do that. Most people have no trouble traveling; they go, they visit, they're respectful of the natives there, and they don't intentionally antagonize them.
I was glad that Eich stepped down, because he had turned into a lighting rod for Mozilla. But that incident definitely showed why you have to be careful about protecting your privacy, and about why letting your employer or the whole world know about your private life, your beliefs, your political positions, etc. is extremely dangerous and will bite you in the ass one day. No matter what your position is, someone's going to have a problem with it, and if they have power, they're likely to use it against you.
Or the police. They'll happily tell you that any police officer who shoots a fleeing black guy in the back did the right thing, that the black guy deserved it, shouldn't have run, etc.
Except that it's run by Google, so you're guaranteed that they're going to data-mine the hell out of it and use it to advertise to you in some creepy way.
Honestly, trusting any of these corporations to protect your privacy is sheer lunacy.
We already have something like that, and it's completely decentralized too so you're not reliant on one big corporation to run it. It's called "Diaspora".
Of course, it'll never go anywhere because it isn't being run by some giant for-profit corporation whose interests don't align with the users', because regular people aren't smart enough to understand this and are too lazy to put in the little bit of work needed to use it.
Yep, this is why I plan to vote for Trump if the general election is between Trump and Hillary. Hitler isn't as bad as Satan, so Trump is the obvious choice. Gotta pick the lesser of two evils.
It'd be nice if we had an election system where we could pick the candidates we actually like, but the American People don't want that, they like the system we have.
A lot of the weight of motors comes from the copper windings.
It makes me wonder what kind of motor you could make if you used superconducting wire for the windings. Of course, the liquid nitrogen cooling could be a bit of a problem, but on a large aircraft that's probably doable.
Don't forget electric boats and electric dump trucks and construction equipment.
Many boats now are electric; cruise ships are a good example here. They use things called "azipods" for propulsion, which are giant pods on the bottom of the ship which have a giant motor and a propeller, and which can rotate a full 360 degrees for maneuvering. The motor of course is driven by electricity generated by diesel generators on the ship.
Extremely large construction equipment (like dump trucks) are the same: they have motors driving the wheels, powered by a diesel engine/generator.
The main reason we use motors for trains and dump trucks is because of torque: motors generate peak torque at stall, which is great for moving huge loads. It's actually rather curious that we haven't moved to this for semi-tractors yet, because those also need huge torque and not so much horsepower. By contrast, fossil-fuel-burning ICEs generate peak torque at rather high speeds, which isn't all that useful when the engine is coupled to the drive wheels and you need the most torque to get the load moving.
Trains and dump trucks and ships don't need really high power-to-weight ratios because they aren't trying to fly, so the extra weight penalty of serial hybrid powertrains isn't much of a disadvantage compared to their advantages.
You're forgetting how inefficient turbofan engines are at part-throttle conditions. You're assuming they run at full throttle all the time, and that isn't true. They run at full throttle on takeoff only, and then part throttle for cruising, but the worst is when they're idling on the runway: airlines waste a huge amount of fuel at that time.
Is the energy density per kg of batteries really that much better than the energy density of methane gas, or liquid hydrogen?
No, but it doesn't have to be. When you burn (oxidize) fuel to run an engine and create rotational energy, you're only getting somewhere between 30-60% efficiency, and the rest is simply wasted as heat. (The 60% number is for really big power plant turbines, you won't see that on any vehicle; it's more like 40% or so there in the best case.)
With an electric motor, it's very different. Instead of wasting most of the energy as heat, almost all of it is used for rotational force: good electric motors are 98% efficient or more. Of course, you also lose a bit of efficiency in the batteries when you discharge them, but that's still probably in the 90+% range.
So to equal fossil-fuel-powered engines, you just need to get a little less than half the energy density per kg.
As for liquid hydrogen, that isn't a practical fuel. To make that work, you have to carry liquid oxygen with you and use a rocket engine. The storage requirements are pretty ridiculous. It works OK on spacecraft because they need an insanely-high thrust-to-weight ratio for a short time and can afford the ridiculous costs in both money and safety factor that are inherent in using it. Aircraft don't work that way: fuels have to be relatively safe and relatively cheap. Liquid hydrogen is neither.
And methane gas? When has anyone ever used that in any kind of engine? Methanol != methane.
I don't know what people are bitching about.
Maybe they've been burned too many times with shitty, useless videos. But yeah, done well and for the right applications, video is a great asset.
If I upgrade any time soon, it'll be to an S5 (I have the S4). But after that, I don't see how I'd want a newer Samsung than that, unless the S8 is the next S5.
You're not fooling anyone, APK. You really should seek mental help.
I don't need to technically disprove it. I can dismiss it as drivel and move on; it's my right, just as I don't need to technically disprove that the drunk hobo on the corner wasn't really abducted by aliens.
Fuck off, APK.
I'm not a fan of video articles either. However, with some things, it's worth it. I haven't looked at this video yet, but I've seen similar ones on YouTube and they can be definitely worth the viewing. For a phone teardown, the video format can prove really useful because you can actually show how the phone is taken apart, instead of just writing about it. A picture's worth 1000 words and all that...
Whenever I want to see how to take something apart to fix it, YouTube videos showing the process is definitely my first avenue of search.
Where video is really useless is when it's just some talking head talking about something, such as with news reports. Those should be specifically banned. But when the video is showing you **how to do something**, that's invaluable and not easily replaced by text.
Truth be told, the majority of my fellow Brazilians have shit between the ears (is the origin of the "HUEHUEBR"), so a tool that allows me to take no notice of their comments is an absolute must.
They can't be any worse than the majority of my fellow Americans.
Yep, and not only that, if another drunk hobo starts telling you how he was abducted by aliens, you have a responsibility to hear him out and determine if you think he's telling the truth too!
Although there is a facsimile of technical sub-reddits, most of that site is just mindless garbage so there really isn't a position to defend with any real facts.
Oh please, that's a bunch of crap. There's over a quarter-million subreddits last I heard, and most of *every* site is just mindless garbage, this site included. But with that many subreddits, it's easy to find interesting conversation, and about specialized topics. There's a subreddit about my car, for instance, if I just want to chat with people about that; a lot of posts are fairly useless, but there's some real gems here and there. It's just like anyplace else: "95% of everything is crap." (Sturgeon's Law)
People on that site don't want to "discuss" anything, they want a place where they can go to feel popular or accepted, regardless of any actual social ability.
Oh, BS. You're looking in the wrong place. Maybe you were browsing /r/HillaryClinton. Yeah, if you say anything negative about her on there, you'll be banned immediately. Go someplace else like /r/politics and you'll see all kinds of debate (and frequently not friendly...).
Every subreddit is different. They have different mods, different topics, different rules. Some are complete drivel (like Hillary's fan club subreddit), some are full of nasty arguing (/r/politics, but that's understandable given the topic and what's at stake), some are just places where people post pictures of stuff, some are really silly (like /r/PhotoshopBattles) but fun if you're into that kind of thing.
What a stupid post. Basically, you're saying that I should read all of APK's drivel, as well as all the other countless trolls, such as the loser AC on here who keeps posting about "n****rs". No, I don't need to waste my time reading such garbage.
Slashdot desperately needs this feature, as well as banning ACs.
Well, in theory an artificial satellite like that should be able to maintain an almost perfectly stable orbit because it can use thrust to do corrections. (Of course, the fuel for the thrusters will run out eventually...)
Natural bodies can't do that, so eventually they're either going to collide or spin away.
What kind of "engineering"? Usually, when I hear the words "engineering consulting firm", I think of civil engineering, structural engineering, etc. That's not "tech". Stuff like that tends to be spread out more because you need civil engineers everywhere that civilization exists; it isn't usually as concentrated as tech stuff is.