Kind of my point, too. They were never really OF the TEA Party, but it didn't become readily apparent until they got a chance to talk more. Once that happened....ooops!.
There are just too many people talking without any clue that I decided not to waste time trying to respond individually. I'm building an airplane using a 13B and have had to deal extensively with the pluses and minuses of the engine.
- Fuel efficiency: The design is inherently bad on fuel. The combustion chamber is sort of a flattened triangle that has been curved. Extremely large surface area to volume ratio compared to a typical piston engine. The combustion looses a lot of heat to this surface area, and the flame front will be quenched before it reaches the volume next to the apex seal. The mixture will re-ignite when the chamber opens at the exhaust port, dumping the combustion energy into the exhaust pipe. Some work is being done to work around this. It is hoped that direct injection will allow the fuel to be concentrated into the center of the chamber, but even that won't make up for the huge surface areas sucking away all the heat. Some investigations have looked at waste heat recovery with a turbo type system (basically, put the aft end of a jet engine on the exhaust), but I haven't seen any implementations.
-It's quieter that piston engines: This is stupid. The exhaust hits the header at supersonic speed. The REW and earlier models dealt with the blast with a HUGE cast iron header. The RX-8 made the exhaust a peripheral port, at the cost of dumping more heat into the cooling system. If not dealt with properly the rotary sounds like an extremely large, amplified weed eater.
-It burns oil: Yes, it does, by design. There is no way to scavenge oil from the rotor housings. The only option is to let it burn. In the airplane, most people mix 2-cycle oil with the gas. 2-cycle is designed to burn cleanly. Crankcase oil is designed to not burn at all. Some real messes were created by people trying to use synthetic oils. They create a real mess when you try to burn them. Mazda didn't think they could market a high-end sports car that required 2-cycle fuel. They were probably right on that one. In this case, an engineering decision had to pay homage to perception.
-Low end torque: Horsepower is an overused measure in most car circles. Less than 100Hp will suffice to do what most drivers want. What they should really be looking at is torque...How quickly can I get this car moving and out into traffic? Most piston engines are cammed to give a lot of power on the low end and then level out. This gives the torque where the driver wants it. The rotary has a very flat torque "line" (you can't really even call it a curve), that starts at zero and points straight at 250Hp or so at around 8 to 9000 RPM (for the 13B). This is crap for the driver, but there's really no way around it.
Why am I using it in an airplane? A host of reasons that don't mean much of anything to a car driver. The low weight is good for an airplane, and the 16B held even more promise on this front (Mazda was/is working on eliminating the cast iron housings). A reduction gearbox brings the prop down to the correct speed, and the low end power is not an issue (the power absorbtion curve of a propeller is asymptotic). It's cheap, easy to rebuild (takes a day in a moderately equipped home shop), but most importantly the design can be viewed as two separate engines running in parallel in many ways.
The rotary has some good applications. Unfortunately, a car isn't one of them.
The most venome you'll ever get in life will be when you point out that someone, who claims to deserve a high wage for being a professional, is worthless, by doing the same job off-handedly as a volunteer.
As a hobby, my dad used to go over the school playgrounds and athletic fields with a metal detector. He had some success finding rings and coins. He made some attempts to contact owners of a couple school rings that had identification marks, but ended up selling most of the stuff to a local jeweler for basically scrap prices. It was a popular hobby in the late 70's to early 80's.
I don't think you're sentiment is as cut and dry as you think.
Much like the tea party started with those legitimately concerned with fiscal mismanagement and an ever encroaching federal government and has subsequently been co-opted to some extent by republican social issues and republican party operatives. It will be interesting to see if the tea party can regain its original focus
Seen any polls of likely Republican voters lately? How's Bachman, Santorum and Perry doing lately? (may their political careers rest in peace).
None of the people who inflated credit ratings on subprime financial vehicles are getting punished.
Have you ever, or been asked to, co-signed for a loan? The person asked you to co-sign so that the bank would have the assurance that the loan got repaid. The bank bases the risk of the loan on the co-signer.
Well, the Feds wanted people to be able to buy homes, even people that couldn't afford them. They pushed the banks to make the loans, and they did that buy guaranteeing that they would be repaid. That is, the government officials wanted to make it look like more people could afford homes, so they had us taxpayers co-sign.
This increase demand, which resulted in a bubble. Then the bubble popped.
Then the bills came due. The politicians did what politicians do. They scrambled and, changed the names of things, and made deals. "We'll make good on the loan guarantees, but we'll call it a bailout. The people will be mad at the bankers, not us!!"
I was with it until Michelle Bachman starting saying that it was about not letting gays get married. WTF? Why do I give a flying flip about who is sleeping with who in the next state over!?! Why does the Feds get to have any say whatsoever in who marries who? Marriage is a religious institution. All the government should concern themselves with is who am I claiming as a dependent (because the government does have a interest in insuring that children are taken care of). Other than that....
Butt the fuck out, Michelle (and Perry and Obama).
There message was crystal clear from the very start. The Federal government had overflowed its Constitutional boundaries long ago, and their various high dollar programs simply did not work. It is time to balance the budget by cutting programs and spending, because we are Taxed Enough Already.
Capital is not a force in economics. It is an object. The forces are reward and loss. The interaction of those forces are modified by regulation, which is also propelled by risk and reward, just the ones driving politicians.
Our current situation has had the risks mitigated by politicians and their regulations, without a corresponding mitigation of the rewards.
Ask yourself, why would S&P give a AAA rating to bogus "mortgage backed securities"? Because those mortgage loans had the back of the Federal government. The banks wouldn't be fool enough to hand the money out to people with no money otherwise. The government guaranteed the loans, the bankers made them, then the government called it a "bailout" when they had to make good on the guarantees.
There in lies a suggestion that the people who know how to handle money don't believe that the current environment, where the country's leader constantly attacks those that try to be successful, is a good environment for starting a business.
I work as an electrician's helper one summer while in high school. I helped in the reconstruction of a house that burned down because the owner ran his own wiring. In the US, most house wiring is run with a cable made up of two plastic wrapped wires and an unsheathed ground wire, all wrapped in an additional plastic sheath. The homeowner ran the wire by nailing it to the houses wooden frame. He didn't put a nail in the wood and bend it over the frame, which has been known to cut the sheath and short the wires. He put the nails THROUGH THE CABLE!!
Picking on Solyndra because after the failure was clearly projected, White House operatives moved in to change the contract to move investors who happened to also be Democratic donors in front of the taxpayers in case of bankruptcy, in direct contradiction to standing law....and other such minor stuff.
If only more conservatives felt the same way. But American conservatives (and Republicans in particular) are about as far as it gets from "dealing in facts" these days and are more anti-science than the far left.
"Dealing in facts" means recognising evolution. That's unacceptable in the US Right. So something even mildly controversial, like climate change, has no hope.
This is where it gets funny. Republicans of the traditional stripe don't have any problem with evolution, but pretend it's in doubt for political expediency. But climate change denial is dear to their hearts, because they think it's going to cost rich people money to deal with it.
The Republican party put together a strategy that has served them superbly for 30-50 years, but now the chickens are coming home to roost.
And the Democrats have their own "War on Poverty" that has been raging for over 40yrs, and yet every policy they have implemented has worked to increase the pressures that actually increase poverty. Welfare, giving money to unwed mothers based upon the number of bastard children they produce, works to increase unwed motherhood, which is the number one indicator of early incarceration for young American males. The typical response to that from Democrats is "RACIST!!"
On the contrary, Republicans (in particular) have been looking for it for a long time. But even so, they have not been able to come up with much evidence of it.
How hard do you REALLY think they are looking? Keep in mind that if they look to hard, they might find their own. There were reports from the 2008 primaries of Ron Paul get zero votes out of specific precincts. The people that voted for him protested loudly, and the voting authorities said, "Oh, we must have missed those." Then there was all sorts of shenanigans going on with the recounts around the Alaskan senatorial seat.
Nope. Capitalism was never meant to give industry ownership of everything.
The problem is drawing the line between what is private property and what should be controlled by the government. Most of the politicoes try to avoid answering that question, because it sheds a clear light on the issue and exposes the hypocrisy of their political pandering.
If the infrastructure requires the power of eminent domain to implement, it should forever and always remain the property of the government.
Remember that Supreme Court decision that allowed cities to use eminent domain to take poor people's property, and then sell it to a mall developer? This simple statement fixes that problem.
How about California's deregulation of power? Electric companies not wanting to put up power lines, because you don't charge for lines. You charge for kilowatts. The government should own and maintain the lines, and then tax the providers to use them (tax the providers, who wrap the taxes up into charges to the consumer, 'cause it is easier).
The monopoly cable company got you down? They'll act different if the city owns the line's they're using. TW could be given a set of frequencies on the coax. Verizon would get another band. You would sign up with whichever plays more reasonable with you.
It wasn't the professor's door. He doesn't own that door. It is the university's door. You don't have the right to stick posters wherever you please. The professor would be perfectly within his rights to take it home and post it there, or to rent an office and post it there.
Slashdot Mirror
int *dmr;
void main() {
dmr = &(creator_computing_foundations());
free(dmr);
}
The first house I co-owned in conjunction with a bank, was wired with 2-wire, cotton wrapped wires. Leading edge stuff for its time 8*)
Kind of my point, too. They were never really OF the TEA Party, but it didn't become readily apparent until they got a chance to talk more. Once that happened....ooops!.
There are just too many people talking without any clue that I decided not to waste time trying to respond individually. I'm building an airplane using a 13B and have had to deal extensively with the pluses and minuses of the engine.
- Fuel efficiency: The design is inherently bad on fuel. The combustion chamber is sort of a flattened triangle that has been curved. Extremely large surface area to volume ratio compared to a typical piston engine. The combustion looses a lot of heat to this surface area, and the flame front will be quenched before it reaches the volume next to the apex seal. The mixture will re-ignite when the chamber opens at the exhaust port, dumping the combustion energy into the exhaust pipe. Some work is being done to work around this. It is hoped that direct injection will allow the fuel to be concentrated into the center of the chamber, but even that won't make up for the huge surface areas sucking away all the heat. Some investigations have looked at waste heat recovery with a turbo type system (basically, put the aft end of a jet engine on the exhaust), but I haven't seen any implementations.
-It's quieter that piston engines: This is stupid. The exhaust hits the header at supersonic speed. The REW and earlier models dealt with the blast with a HUGE cast iron header. The RX-8 made the exhaust a peripheral port, at the cost of dumping more heat into the cooling system. If not dealt with properly the rotary sounds like an extremely large, amplified weed eater.
-It burns oil: Yes, it does, by design. There is no way to scavenge oil from the rotor housings. The only option is to let it burn. In the airplane, most people mix 2-cycle oil with the gas. 2-cycle is designed to burn cleanly. Crankcase oil is designed to not burn at all. Some real messes were created by people trying to use synthetic oils. They create a real mess when you try to burn them. Mazda didn't think they could market a high-end sports car that required 2-cycle fuel. They were probably right on that one. In this case, an engineering decision had to pay homage to perception.
-Low end torque: Horsepower is an overused measure in most car circles. Less than 100Hp will suffice to do what most drivers want. What they should really be looking at is torque...How quickly can I get this car moving and out into traffic? Most piston engines are cammed to give a lot of power on the low end and then level out. This gives the torque where the driver wants it. The rotary has a very flat torque "line" (you can't really even call it a curve), that starts at zero and points straight at 250Hp or so at around 8 to 9000 RPM (for the 13B). This is crap for the driver, but there's really no way around it.
Why am I using it in an airplane? A host of reasons that don't mean much of anything to a car driver. The low weight is good for an airplane, and the 16B held even more promise on this front (Mazda was/is working on eliminating the cast iron housings). A reduction gearbox brings the prop down to the correct speed, and the low end power is not an issue (the power absorbtion curve of a propeller is asymptotic). It's cheap, easy to rebuild (takes a day in a moderately equipped home shop), but most importantly the design can be viewed as two separate engines running in parallel in many ways.
The rotary has some good applications. Unfortunately, a car isn't one of them.
Eventually, yes...
But will you have a business after the government has shut it down for several years while the process played out?
Ask Gibson how many guitars they've built and sold while the EPA has held their raw materials.
That, and all the wood you had legally shipped in from India.
But...but...it was a girl, and those were PEACEFUL protesters trying to force their way through a police barricade.
The most venome you'll ever get in life will be when you point out that someone, who claims to deserve a high wage for being a professional, is worthless, by doing the same job off-handedly as a volunteer.
As a hobby, my dad used to go over the school playgrounds and athletic fields with a metal detector. He had some success finding rings and coins. He made some attempts to contact owners of a couple school rings that had identification marks, but ended up selling most of the stuff to a local jeweler for basically scrap prices. It was a popular hobby in the late 70's to early 80's.
I don't think you're sentiment is as cut and dry as you think.
The car is stuck in the hot grits coming from Natalie Portman's pants.
Much like the tea party started with those legitimately concerned with fiscal mismanagement and an ever encroaching federal government and has subsequently been co-opted to some extent by republican social issues and republican party operatives. It will be interesting to see if the tea party can regain its original focus
Seen any polls of likely Republican voters lately? How's Bachman, Santorum and Perry doing lately? (may their political careers rest in peace).
The Democrats would do the same, but that's hard to do from your knees.
But, were they high risk if an extremely large entity with a AAA rating was guaranteeing them? Someone like, I dunno, the US Federal Government!!
None of the people who inflated credit ratings on subprime financial vehicles are getting punished.
Have you ever, or been asked to, co-signed for a loan? The person asked you to co-sign so that the bank would have the assurance that the loan got repaid. The bank bases the risk of the loan on the co-signer.
Well, the Feds wanted people to be able to buy homes, even people that couldn't afford them. They pushed the banks to make the loans, and they did that buy guaranteeing that they would be repaid. That is, the government officials wanted to make it look like more people could afford homes, so they had us taxpayers co-sign.
This increase demand, which resulted in a bubble. Then the bubble popped.
Then the bills came due. The politicians did what politicians do. They scrambled and, changed the names of things, and made deals. "We'll make good on the loan guarantees, but we'll call it a bailout. The people will be mad at the bankers, not us!!"
Nothing else even makes a lick of sense.
cooperative-styled meeting structure
Is that your euphamism for a drum-circle?
I was with it until Michelle Bachman starting saying that it was about not letting gays get married. WTF? Why do I give a flying flip about who is sleeping with who in the next state over!?! Why does the Feds get to have any say whatsoever in who marries who? Marriage is a religious institution. All the government should concern themselves with is who am I claiming as a dependent (because the government does have a interest in insuring that children are taken care of). Other than that....
Butt the fuck out, Michelle (and Perry and Obama).
For the billionth time...
Taxed
Enough
Already
There message was crystal clear from the very start. The Federal government had overflowed its Constitutional boundaries long ago, and their various high dollar programs simply did not work. It is time to balance the budget by cutting programs and spending, because we are Taxed Enough Already.
It has been the same message from the very start.
Capital is not a force in economics. It is an object. The forces are reward and loss. The interaction of those forces are modified by regulation, which is also propelled by risk and reward, just the ones driving politicians.
Our current situation has had the risks mitigated by politicians and their regulations, without a corresponding mitigation of the rewards.
Ask yourself, why would S&P give a AAA rating to bogus "mortgage backed securities"? Because those mortgage loans had the back of the Federal government. The banks wouldn't be fool enough to hand the money out to people with no money otherwise. The government guaranteed the loans, the bankers made them, then the government called it a "bailout" when they had to make good on the guarantees.
There in lies a suggestion that the people who know how to handle money don't believe that the current environment, where the country's leader constantly attacks those that try to be successful, is a good environment for starting a business.
I work as an electrician's helper one summer while in high school. I helped in the reconstruction of a house that burned down because the owner ran his own wiring. In the US, most house wiring is run with a cable made up of two plastic wrapped wires and an unsheathed ground wire, all wrapped in an additional plastic sheath. The homeowner ran the wire by nailing it to the houses wooden frame. He didn't put a nail in the wood and bend it over the frame, which has been known to cut the sheath and short the wires. He put the nails THROUGH THE CABLE!!
You CAN'T fix stupid.
Picking on Solyndra because after the failure was clearly projected, White House operatives moved in to change the contract to move investors who happened to also be Democratic donors in front of the taxpayers in case of bankruptcy, in direct contradiction to standing law....and other such minor stuff.
If only more conservatives felt the same way. But American conservatives (and Republicans in particular) are about as far as it gets from "dealing in facts" these days and are more anti-science than the far left.
"Dealing in facts" means recognising evolution. That's unacceptable in the US Right. So something even mildly controversial, like climate change, has no hope.
This is where it gets funny. Republicans of the traditional stripe don't have any problem with evolution, but pretend it's in doubt for political expediency. But climate change denial is dear to their hearts, because they think it's going to cost rich people money to deal with it.
The Republican party put together a strategy that has served them superbly for 30-50 years, but now the chickens are coming home to roost.
And the Democrats have their own "War on Poverty" that has been raging for over 40yrs, and yet every policy they have implemented has worked to increase the pressures that actually increase poverty. Welfare, giving money to unwed mothers based upon the number of bastard children they produce, works to increase unwed motherhood, which is the number one indicator of early incarceration for young American males. The typical response to that from Democrats is "RACIST!!"
Democrats don't want to deal with facts either.
On the contrary, Republicans (in particular) have been looking for it for a long time. But even so, they have not been able to come up with much evidence of it.
How hard do you REALLY think they are looking? Keep in mind that if they look to hard, they might find their own. There were reports from the 2008 primaries of Ron Paul get zero votes out of specific precincts. The people that voted for him protested loudly, and the voting authorities said, "Oh, we must have missed those." Then there was all sorts of shenanigans going on with the recounts around the Alaskan senatorial seat.
The Republicans are looking hard for fraud.
Nope. Capitalism was never meant to give industry ownership of everything.
The problem is drawing the line between what is private property and what should be controlled by the government. Most of the politicoes try to avoid answering that question, because it sheds a clear light on the issue and exposes the hypocrisy of their political pandering.
If the infrastructure requires the power of eminent domain to implement, it should forever and always remain the property of the government.
Remember that Supreme Court decision that allowed cities to use eminent domain to take poor people's property, and then sell it to a mall developer? This simple statement fixes that problem.
How about California's deregulation of power? Electric companies not wanting to put up power lines, because you don't charge for lines. You charge for kilowatts. The government should own and maintain the lines, and then tax the providers to use them (tax the providers, who wrap the taxes up into charges to the consumer, 'cause it is easier).
The monopoly cable company got you down? They'll act different if the city owns the line's they're using. TW could be given a set of frequencies on the coax. Verizon would get another band. You would sign up with whichever plays more reasonable with you.
You fixed it with a broken part, though.
It wasn't the professor's door. He doesn't own that door. It is the university's door. You don't have the right to stick posters wherever you please. The professor would be perfectly within his rights to take it home and post it there, or to rent an office and post it there.