The tip of the rotor stays still in the air. The rest of the rotor is swinging toward the rear of the aircraft more slowly than the tip, and therefore moving forward in the air.
However, it is _facing_ backward, as this is the retreating blade of the rotor we're talking about. The air therefore pushes against the _trailing_ edge of the rotor blade (except at the tip, which experiences an eerie calm). In a regular helicopter, the air only ever pushes against the _leading_ edge of the blade.
Thus, the blade moves backward relative to the surrounding air, though it is still travelling in the direction that is forwards for the helicopter.
Now, wash your mouth out with soap. You could have just said 'I don't understand' rather than making with the rudeness and attitude. WTF is up with American public schools??
Now, to be fair, London tube drivers only make about 30k GBP (50k USD) a year for their two weeks a month of work, and that's nothing to the amount of money made by contractors and the American shareholders who actually own most UK rail infrastructure.
But I take your point about cost -- my journeys can be 2 or 3 pounds per mile travelled (if and when I get there) and that's an area where Sri Lanka can't equal the UK. Rule Britannia!
While Japan Rail is indeed a ubiquitous state controlled company, the actual system is quite clever. Private enterprise is free to create rail lines on a route they think will be profitable, e.g. the toyoko-sen. Then, the government builds slow trains on the little routes that private enterprise doesn't want, to ensure that all areas are covered. Thus, everyone has rail service, and the most important routes are kept effective by competition. It also means that major factories and (in the past) stores could arrange their own private rail links for their own particular traffic needs. I think many other countries could learn a lot from this system, although like everything else in Japan it's getting a bit grubby now.
The bullet trains are an exception -- they're all-govt because, well, two competing bullet trains side by side would be silly.
The problem is lack of standardization. While libraries of congress, football fields, elephants, and Rhode Island (in the US) are standard for information, distance, weight and large areas, there is no standard for speed.
I propose that an international standard system of junk-science measures be used, and that the measurement of speed be 'thicknesses of a human hair per thousandth of the time it takes to blink'.
Try getting around the UK by train. It's about the equivalent of Sri Lanka in that respect, only not as cheerful.
It's really France and Germany who are of just the right size for train travel and with lots of money to put into it (and, in Germany at least, an unwillingness to cover the entire country in tarmac as the UK is doing).
So after being away for 4 years, Britain is still in the same place as far as broadband goes, and that's the Dark Ages!
It's not only as far as broadband goes that England is in the Dark Ages!
*babum-tsshh!!*
Disclaimer: I am well aware that during the Dark Ages England was one of the most sophisticated places in the world, and that the subsequent Norman Invasion plunged England into a backward period that kept it on the margins of European culture until the end of the Middle Ages. However, despite the relatively civilized nature of the period of time in question, the words 'Dark Ages' conjure up an image of poorly-educated people who live brutal and hopeless lives thrashing around in the mud and occasionally hitting each other with clubs, and this is so remarkably similiar to modern British culture that the analogy is irresistable.
Let me add my voice to those pointing out that it's not theft but copyright infringement.
I realize it won't do any good. I realize that there is a solid, stable population of people on/. who are simply unable to understand statements of that type. I realize that already someone has made this point only for some moron to reply 'It is theft and your evil word games don't make it stop being theft!'
Yet I persevere.
It's not theft. It's the more serious, and utterly unrelated, crime of copyright infringement, covered by a totally different area of law in both the US and UK.
The Pentagon would much rather have a healthy, full-strength, all-volunteer military force than an expensive, byzantine network of "independent contractors" doing more and more grunt work outside the scope of both military and civil law.
Very true. They'd also rather still be in charge of logistics, and they'd rather get the equipment they need rather than the equipment industry wants to build.
Unfortunately, letting the armed forces do things their own way doesn't create value for investors.
People talk of 'The Pentagon' and 'The Military/Industrial Complex' as if there was one giant organization, but there are two competing blocs -- the actual gun-carrying military, and the vast community of lobbyists and contractors around it. These days the military has been losing ground to the contractors.
Weird, because previously the Vietnamese were known for their choice of light, modifiable systems that proved very effective against monolithic, bloated American engineering.
Now it'll be the other way around -- take that, Charlie!
Yeah! They should have called it a "kitten parade"! Or possibly a "neutron-assisted aliveness readjustment"! Or a "celebration of freedom"!
I like "kitten parade" best.
You _do_ realize that it was, actually, an attack? Using an atomic weapon? Hence 'atomic attack'? With no big evil liberal conspiracy? If they'd called it an 'unneccessary atomic attack on a civilian target' _that_ might have been slanted. Just referring to 'the U.S. atomic attack' is simply a handy way of, well, referring to the U.S. atomic attack.
The Rest of the World will not deal with our stupidy much longer.
Much of this 'overgrown bully' stuff is true. The trouble is that the rest of the world is no better, indeed much of it is undeniably even worse. Don't expect that when America's luck runs out the next big kid will be nicer.
You believe that it is vital that information be free, but essential that the government not keep it free.
Were you perhaps hoping that the Good Fairy That Lives In The Sky will wave her magic Wand O' Libertarianism and suddenly make commercial organizations want to provide free access to scientific research? Personally, I'd rather that when the public has paid for research to be done it be made available to the public -- even if that does annoy large corporations and Libertarians.
OMG no no no MY EYES MY EYES
on
Star Wars 3D And TV
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A tv show depicting the life of young Luke, eh? How nice. I'm betting the content will be as follows:
--Luke faces many challenges and trials, but overcomes them with the support of his friends and family. --Luke has a band of about 4 multiracial, telegenic friends each with their own particular mannerism and area of expertise. --Comic relief is provided by a small robot or alien critter. Ha ha!m --Sometimes Luke feels lonely or insecure but by the end of the episode he has recovered his self worth, thanks to teamwork, sharing, and staying true to himself. --Serious themes (social injustice, the pain of being dumped) are sometimes raised, but at the end of each half-hour, a few wise words from Luke's aunt and uncle set it all to rights.
This is an absolute must-see! There's never been TV like this before! What a splendid use of the SW franchise!
WHAT THE FUCK ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING??
Haven't they heard about diluting a brand?
"Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix," De Raadt says.
Hating MS seems like a good idea -- I don't hate them but creating alternatives and competition is always good. Loving Unix, however, strikes me as a very inward-looking (indeed backward-looking) motivation indeed.
De Raadt's statement could almost be paraphrased as 'Linux people do what they do because they want to create diversity and challenge established systems. BSD people do what they do because they don't go out enough.'
Not that I'm saying anything about actual Linux and BSD developers -- but it does seem that De Raadt's values are far from universal.
I must have missed all the 'hateful things'. Where exactly are they in the article? He claims that Linux has a rapid development cycle (true) that the Linux community works for IBM for free (true) and that BSD's code quality is higher (hard to determine but hardly a hate-filled rant).
What on earth would a Linux zealot have to have in their minds in order to start yelling about 'hateful things' on reading that?
Simply put, a derivative is as security whose value is derived from that of another, underlying security.
For instance, a stock option is a derivative whose underlier is an option.
In practise, complex derivatives have values that are functions (often very, very difficult or indeed unknowable functions) of various aspects of a range of underliers.
For instance, a credit default swap is a derivative whose underlier is a debt obligation, but its value usually varies only with the creditworthiness of the underlier, not with the other aspects.
Another way of looking at derivatives (depending on what you do with them) is to call them a contract which deals with your rights pertaining to another contract.
For instance, a commodities rollover is a contract that gives you the right to buy and sell two underlying commodity futures contracts. These underliers are themselves derivatives of an actual commodity such as gold. Rollovers are also used in finance (as opposed to commodities trading); in that case, the underliers may well be index-tracking products.
None of this has ANYTHING to do with virtual commodities trading, except that people engaged in virtual commodities trading usually trade futures, which are simple derivatives. They trade futures because it's damn hard to actually take delivery of 1,000,000 tons of orange juice.
Now, how the hell did the parent post get +5 informative?
The parent poster goes on to say a lot of very inaccurate things about derivatives -- for actual information anyone interested should check out a financial website (not Wikipedia!) such as http://www.investorwords.com/
This has been a PSA. Don't do drugs! Stay in school! And FFS don't day trade if you are at the level of the parent poster!
Argh, you _really_ don't know anything about derivatives, and here's this Skippy guy actually being very helpful and reasonable, and you just aren't taking advantage of it to learn anything.
Hints:
"THEY AREN'T ANYTHING" is not a useful statement. They are financial instruments.
"There is no underlying commodity" is an odd thing to say, since derivatives must be derived from at least one underlying instrument, usually known as the 'underlier'.
Now listen to the nice Skippy guy, he knows more than you and he's much much nicer:)
How, exactly, do you propose I use mine to push for patent reform? By voting for a Bush? For a Democrat? For a no-hoper with a thousand other perfectly worthy lost causes to think about?
Perhaps if you figure out how you could patent the method -- there's no prior art that I can see. Failing that, wake the fuck up and smell the coffee.
While I am myself kind of lukewarm on Dvorak (as you can see from my other post), I do feel it should be pointed out that Liebowitz and Margolis were market-forces fanatics who were trying to show that market forces are never wrong and that 'path dependance' (ie an inferior solution becoming standard because it has early support) does not exist -- a rather questionable thesis to say the least.
How anyone managed to make a political/ideological discussion out of keyboard ergonomics is beyond me, but apparently at the Cato Institute you can find people who are just _that_ messed up:)
Slashdot Mirror
Is that a Goon Show reference?
The tip of the rotor stays still in the air. The rest of the rotor is swinging toward the rear of the aircraft more slowly than the tip, and therefore moving forward in the air.
However, it is _facing_ backward, as this is the retreating blade of the rotor we're talking about. The air therefore pushes against the _trailing_ edge of the rotor blade (except at the tip, which experiences an eerie calm). In a regular helicopter, the air only ever pushes against the _leading_ edge of the blade.
Thus, the blade moves backward relative to the surrounding air, though it is still travelling in the direction that is forwards for the helicopter.
Now, wash your mouth out with soap. You could have just said 'I don't understand' rather than making with the rudeness and attitude. WTF is up with American public schools??
Now, to be fair, London tube drivers only make about 30k GBP (50k USD) a year for their two weeks a month of work, and that's nothing to the amount of money made by contractors and the American shareholders who actually own most UK rail infrastructure.
But I take your point about cost -- my journeys can be 2 or 3 pounds per mile travelled (if and when I get there) and that's an area where Sri Lanka can't equal the UK. Rule Britannia!
While Japan Rail is indeed a ubiquitous state controlled company, the actual system is quite clever. Private enterprise is free to create rail lines on a route they think will be profitable, e.g. the toyoko-sen. Then, the government builds slow trains on the little routes that private enterprise doesn't want, to ensure that all areas are covered. Thus, everyone has rail service, and the most important routes are kept effective by competition. It also means that major factories and (in the past) stores could arrange their own private rail links for their own particular traffic needs. I think many other countries could learn a lot from this system, although like everything else in Japan it's getting a bit grubby now.
The bullet trains are an exception -- they're all-govt because, well, two competing bullet trains side by side would be silly.
Specially if they had cat ears.
The problem is lack of standardization. While libraries of congress, football fields, elephants, and Rhode Island (in the US) are standard for information, distance, weight and large areas, there is no standard for speed.
I propose that an international standard system of junk-science measures be used, and that the measurement of speed be 'thicknesses of a human hair per thousandth of the time it takes to blink'.
Try getting around the UK by train. It's about the equivalent of Sri Lanka in that respect, only not as cheerful.
It's really France and Germany who are of just the right size for train travel and with lots of money to put into it (and, in Germany at least, an unwillingness to cover the entire country in tarmac as the UK is doing).
Nice sig. The strange thing is, for a while I could read it but couldn't tell _why_ I could read it.
So after being away for 4 years, Britain is still in the same place as far as broadband goes, and that's the Dark Ages!
It's not only as far as broadband goes that England is in the Dark Ages!
*babum-tsshh!!*
Disclaimer: I am well aware that during the Dark Ages England was one of the most sophisticated places in the world, and that the subsequent Norman Invasion plunged England into a backward period that kept it on the margins of European culture until the end of the Middle Ages. However, despite the relatively civilized nature of the period of time in question, the words 'Dark Ages' conjure up an image of poorly-educated people who live brutal and hopeless lives thrashing around in the mud and occasionally hitting each other with clubs, and this is so remarkably similiar to modern British culture that the analogy is irresistable.
Let me add my voice to those pointing out that it's not theft but copyright infringement.
I realize it won't do any good. I realize that there is a solid, stable population of people on
Yet I persevere.
It's not theft. It's the more serious, and utterly unrelated, crime of copyright infringement, covered by a totally different area of law in both the US and UK.
The Pentagon would much rather have a healthy, full-strength, all-volunteer military force than an expensive, byzantine network of "independent contractors" doing more and more grunt work outside the scope of both military and civil law.
Very true. They'd also rather still be in charge of logistics, and they'd rather get the equipment they need rather than the equipment industry wants to build.
Unfortunately, letting the armed forces do things their own way doesn't create value for investors.
People talk of 'The Pentagon' and 'The Military/Industrial Complex' as if there was one giant organization, but there are two competing blocs -- the actual gun-carrying military, and the vast community of lobbyists and contractors around it. These days the military has been losing ground to the contractors.
The end of free internet content that is provided in order to make money might possibly come if all ads are blocked.
Free internet content that is funded by donation or by T-shirt sales or by publically-funded entities or requires no funding will be just fine.
Weird, because previously the Vietnamese were known for their choice of light, modifiable systems that proved very effective against monolithic, bloated American engineering.
Now it'll be the other way around -- take that, Charlie!
ountries where people can vote and they hold government accountable, like England or something.
:)
Now THAT is so naieve it's cute
I can't believe they call it an "atomic attack"
Yeah! They should have called it a "kitten parade"! Or possibly a "neutron-assisted aliveness readjustment"! Or a "celebration of freedom"!
I like "kitten parade" best.
You _do_ realize that it was, actually, an attack? Using an atomic weapon? Hence 'atomic attack'? With no big evil liberal conspiracy? If they'd called it an 'unneccessary atomic attack on a civilian target' _that_ might have been slanted. Just referring to 'the U.S. atomic attack' is simply a handy way of, well, referring to the U.S. atomic attack.
The Rest of the World will not deal with our stupidy much longer.
Much of this 'overgrown bully' stuff is true. The trouble is that the rest of the world is no better, indeed much of it is undeniably even worse. Don't expect that when America's luck runs out the next big kid will be nicer.
You believe that it is vital that information be free, but essential that the government not keep it free.
Were you perhaps hoping that the Good Fairy That Lives In The Sky will wave her magic Wand O' Libertarianism and suddenly make commercial organizations want to provide free access to scientific research? Personally, I'd rather that when the public has paid for research to be done it be made available to the public -- even if that does annoy large corporations and Libertarians.
A tv show depicting the life of young Luke, eh? How nice. I'm betting the content will be as follows:
--Luke faces many challenges and trials, but overcomes them with the support of his friends and family.
--Luke has a band of about 4 multiracial, telegenic friends each with their own particular mannerism and area of expertise.
--Comic relief is provided by a small robot or alien critter. Ha ha!m
--Sometimes Luke feels lonely or insecure but by the end of the episode he has recovered his self worth, thanks to teamwork, sharing, and staying true to himself.
--Serious themes (social injustice, the pain of being dumped) are sometimes raised, but at the end of each half-hour, a few wise words from Luke's aunt and uncle set it all to rights.
This is an absolute must-see! There's never been TV like this before! What a splendid use of the SW franchise!
WHAT THE FUCK ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING??
Haven't they heard about diluting a brand?
(pause)
NO, REALLY, WHAT THE FUCK??
There was something vaguely ominous about this:
"Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix," De Raadt says.
Hating MS seems like a good idea -- I don't hate them but creating alternatives and competition is always good. Loving Unix, however, strikes me as a very inward-looking (indeed backward-looking) motivation indeed.
De Raadt's statement could almost be paraphrased as 'Linux people do what they do because they want to create diversity and challenge established systems. BSD people do what they do because they don't go out enough.'
Not that I'm saying anything about actual Linux and BSD developers -- but it does seem that De Raadt's values are far from universal.
I must have missed all the 'hateful things'. Where exactly are they in the article? He claims that Linux has a rapid development cycle (true) that the Linux community works for IBM for free (true) and that BSD's code quality is higher (hard to determine but hardly a hate-filled rant).
What on earth would a Linux zealot have to have in their minds in order to start yelling about 'hateful things' on reading that?
Simply put, a derivative is as security whose value is derived from that of another, underlying security.
For instance, a stock option is a derivative whose underlier is an option.
In practise, complex derivatives have values that are functions (often very, very difficult or indeed unknowable functions) of various aspects of a range of underliers.
For instance, a credit default swap is a derivative whose underlier is a debt obligation, but its value usually varies only with the creditworthiness of the underlier, not with the other aspects.
Another way of looking at derivatives (depending on what you do with them) is to call them a contract which deals with your rights pertaining to another contract.
For instance, a commodities rollover is a contract that gives you the right to buy and sell two underlying commodity futures contracts. These underliers are themselves derivatives of an actual commodity such as gold. Rollovers are also used in finance (as opposed to commodities trading); in that case, the underliers may well be index-tracking products.
None of this has ANYTHING to do with virtual commodities trading, except that people engaged in virtual commodities trading usually trade futures, which are simple derivatives. They trade futures because it's damn hard to actually take delivery of 1,000,000 tons of orange juice.
Now, how the hell did the parent post get +5 informative?
The parent poster goes on to say a lot of very inaccurate things about derivatives -- for actual information anyone interested should check out a financial website (not Wikipedia!) such as http://www.investorwords.com/
This has been a PSA. Don't do drugs! Stay in school! And FFS don't day trade if you are at the level of the parent poster!
Argh, you _really_ don't know anything about derivatives, and here's this Skippy guy actually being very helpful and reasonable, and you just aren't taking advantage of it to learn anything.
Hints:
"THEY AREN'T ANYTHING" is not a useful statement. They are financial instruments.
"There is no underlying commodity" is an odd thing to say, since derivatives must be derived from at least one underlying instrument, usually known as the 'underlier'.
Now listen to the nice Skippy guy, he knows more than you and he's much much nicer
Oh, a ballot.
How, exactly, do you propose I use mine to push for patent reform? By voting for a Bush? For a Democrat? For a no-hoper with a thousand other perfectly worthy lost causes to think about?
Perhaps if you figure out how you could patent the method -- there's no prior art that I can see. Failing that, wake the fuck up and smell the coffee.
While I am myself kind of lukewarm on Dvorak (as you can see from my other post), I do feel it should be pointed out that Liebowitz and Margolis were market-forces fanatics who were trying to show that market forces are never wrong and that 'path dependance' (ie an inferior solution becoming standard because it has early support) does not exist -- a rather questionable thesis to say the least.
How anyone managed to make a political/ideological discussion out of keyboard ergonomics is beyond me, but apparently at the Cato Institute you can find people who are just _that_ messed up
Yes -- in fact, I use the kinesis footswitch to put {}[]() and operators like != in easy reach -- with a few macros to print
{
}
and so on. It really makes life easier.