Au contraire! Dadaists conciously reject the attachment of meaning to their art. Their art is meaningless, but they say so. They are silly, but not fradulent. I've no problem with meaningless art; just with claiming it is meaningful.
I predicted how evidence I did not yet have would turn out based on my theory. Then I checked, and it turned out that way. That is exactly how science works. Newton used his theory of gravity to predict that while the course of comets appeared to be a straight line, it would actually turn out to be a parabola, of which we could only see the fairly straight part. More sensitive mesurements were taken, and it turned out he was right. Was this science? Science does not demand the construction of an apparatus in a lab. It demands testing. Testing is done by observation; it does not matter whether the scientist causes the evidence to appear in an experiment, or whether the scientist must wait for it to appear on it's own, as Newton had to wait for a comet to come by close enough. (Actually, he stuck Flamsheed with the tedious waiting around for a comet part)
I'd never suggest evolution, or any scientfic theory was the last word. Proof happens in mathematics. Science asspires only to "well supported by the available evidence so far"; proof is impossible. Any scientific theory simply makes predictions more or less well. Evolution has made a lot of predictions very well. Gravity has made a lot of predictions very well; it's a good theory worth knowing, even though we have a better theory (relativity) that explains why gravity gets it not quite right in a very small number of extreme cases. Most of the time, gravity still makes excellent predictions.
So, I'll be more than happy to hear about a theory that makes better predictions than evolution. Heck, I'd be fascinated!
Creationism does not, and can not, make any predictions at all. No evidence could possibly agree, or disagree with it. Debating the possible truth or falsity of Creationism is not science; it is pointless solipsistic wanking. It's not that I beleive it or don't; it's that I don't wish to waste my time "considering" an idea with no posible arguments on either side. I can, after all, make up such theories every ten seconds forever. Making up theories that are actually subject to testing, and withstand it, is considerably more difficult. We call it Science.
"unlike abstract art or modern art (where very few understand it and very many say they do)"
Modern art, where there is nothing to be understood, yet many say they understand it, and a few understand that what matters is who claims to understand it. It is fashion, entirely freed from the restraints of functionality. If the right handful of gallery owners say something is great, it is great. The thing itself is irrelevant. It is the purest of con games.
Not "Why not maximize?" but "Why not allow maximizing?"
I too often have multiple windows open, but they are tiled, filling the screen. I don't see the advantage of a window mostly covered by another over just having a tab. And I certainly see the advantage of a tab over a window supposedly "open" but actually behind 3 other windows.
"Another is that a maximized window, even at 1280x1024, is still significantly less real estate than my physical desktop"
Surely you mean your virtual desktop.
"giving up a small amount of screen real estate to be able to grab different windows on my work is, for me, a good trade-off."
Sure. But I give up a single text-height horizontal row for tabs, and I can get to all my windows. When I worked non-maximized, I gave up a lot more spread around less efficiently, and still had windows getting hidden under a pile of others.
"It's just different work styles."
Oh, absolutely. I don't understand why people want non-maximized windows, but you're welcome to use them if that's what works for you. Heck, some people actually claim to prefer working from a command-line if you can beleive anything as crazy as that.
"What happens when you have, oh, say 15 different source files open?"
I get something like 15 tabs across my screen, but if you go beyond what fits, they continue off the screen and you get arrows to sroll the whole set left/right; you also get them all listed in a pull-down menu in any case. Certainly seems no worse than dragging 15 windows about hunting for the one hidden in back. Putting tabs in multiple rows should be considered criminal; having them change positions when selected even more so.
"Can you mix graphics edit windows and shell windows and external debugger windows and db GUI windows with the VS windows?"
Why would you use an external debugger in VS? Not that it matters, just curious. Anyway, no, the VS GUI is just VS windows; hence my wish that the entire Windows window manager actually had the behavior of the one internal to VS. Sadly, I don't see Windows as a whole ever supporting my dream of nothing but maximized/tiled windows.
"If there weren't any holes in it, it wouldn't still be a theory."
You do not seem to understand the meaning of "theory" in this context. Evolution will always be a theory. Just like the theory of gravity. Why is it you go after evolution and not gravity? Shouldn't we be teaching that gravity (or relativity) is just a theory, and that there are other possible explanations, such as "There is no gravity. God holds stuff down."?
"What has evolution predicted?"
No need for the past tense there! We can make some predictions right now! Evolution is a scientific theory; there are any number of things we would expect to be the case if it is correct, and expect to not necessarily be the case if it is false. They could all turn out to be the case just by chance, but the more that turn out the way evolution predicts, the more sure we can be. Anyway, let's see; if different species evolved from common ancestors, I'd expect that species that were similar in certain ways would also be similar in other, seemingly unrelated ways. For example, marine creatures that breate air using lungs have bony skeletons. Those that breathe water using gills do not. So, I'd theorize the air-breathers are descended from a common ancestor more recent than any ancestor they might share with the water-breathers. Having noticed this similarity amongst some marine creatures, and formed this theory to explain it, I can now predict that every marine air breather I find in the future will have a bony skeleton, and every water breather will not. This turns out to be the case. Sure it could be a coincidence. But there are now such a vast number of such coincidences, that it seems to me there are only two possible explanations: Either evolution is true, or the world was created by a super-powerful being who is trying extremely hard to trick me into thinking evolution is true. The latter could be the case, but if we're all in the hands of an omnipotent being bent on deception there's no point in doing science anyway.
I've looked at the available evidence, and decided evolution seems likely. Certain? No, nothing is ever certain in science.
Now, even if evolution is wrong, that doesn't make creationism right. Lets desist with your unconvincing attacks on evolution, and see some reason to think creationsim is worth consideration. I have not seen any evidence that makes creationism seem likely. Not only that, it seems inherently obvious to me that no such evidence could possibly exist. Give me one piece of evidence that, had it turned out differently, it would imply creationism was wrong. Anything? Even one peice of evidence at all? Why exactly am I supposed to take this seriously again?
"Many believe Neanderthals to be essentially the same as man"
Not anyone who has studied their bone structure, and has a clue what they are talking about.
"They just don't go for the Ape beget a person or a cat beget a dog"
Neither does evolution.
"There is no evidence whatsoever that one species has ever evolved into another one"
There are mountains of such evidence.
"Of coarse creationists can't prove that evolution is false"
If it were false, then it should be possible to prove it false. Of course, they can't prove it false if it's true.
"What creationists can show is that by interpreting the exact same evidence it is possible to draw a completely different -yet scientifically valid explanation of what is happening here."
Cretionists need not interpret evidence to assume a different, scientifically irrelevant non-explanation. Their ideas are not supported by evidence, because they could not be contradicted by different evidence.
"Evolution is a very good working theory, but there are a lot of holes in it as it is now"
Evolution is a fabulous, extensively supported theory. Like any scientific theory, there are plenty of interesting details we haven't worked out yet. Holes? No.
"All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation."
False.
"I, myself am not saying creation or evolution are right"
But you're implying they are both of similar nature, which is false. Evolution is a scientific theory which can be used to make predictions about things we don't know yet, and we can then go check those things out. Evolution has predicted correctly vast numbers of times. You need not have any faith at all; you can go check these predictions your very own self. "God did it that way" makes no predictions; it can not be contradicted by any evidence; it cannot be supported by any evidence. It is not science.
"Mac types assume it's not the role of the computer to be "helping" the user focus on the (single) task at the top of the pile on the screen"
Why in the world not? The vast majority of the time I'm using the computer I am focused on a single window. How often are you toggling between two different window sizes, and neither of those sizes is really big, filling most of the screen? Why not really fill the screen?
You mention Visual Studio, which actually lets you choose between the MDI you describe, and tabbed windows; essentially, all windows maximized, and you can freely create new tab groups, so you have tiled windows. I love this interface; I can get to any window via the tabs, but the window I'm using has as much space as possible; if I want to se two (or more) windows at once, they each get as much space as I give them, and use all of it. Oh, and all ancillary windows can be grouped however you like and floating or docked to any side, and auto-hiding or not. I only wish the whole windows gui could be made to work like Visual Studio. Any time I have windows visible but non-maximised I have them in some (generally poor) approximation of tiled.
For what it's worth, I've always thought the proximity of maximize/minimize to close was kind of dumb. But wouldn't you be just as annoyed if you accidentally toggled to your previous window size as if you maximized?
Anyway, I find it hard to imagine why you would never want to maximize, since to me it seems obviously best to have almost everything maximised almost all the time. But that's exactly why a window system should let you do it your way, and me do it mine. I'm just surprised to hear that it is Windows that achieves this, and not Mac.
Oh, of course you're correct; the "more than four" was hyperbole. Maybe we should say, ingredients don't count if they are available on their own in the produce section. Peppers don't mvoe you up my "probably junk" scale. Guar gum does. Come to think of it, I don't even know what guar gum is exactly, so it triggers my other standard. What I'm really getting at is I expect something is probably bad for me if I couldn't make it myself because it involves a big pile of ingredients not available in less than industrial quantities. This seems to me a better standard for deciding if it's good for me than whether the word "sugar" is there. Some perfectly healthy stuff might include moderate amounts of sugar.
Spend a few years reading every ingredient on every food that comes into your house, and worrying about whether your daughter will live to be old enough to do this for herself. Then maybe you'll understand that I'm a bit touchy on the topic...
"Are you sure, or do you just take your allergist's word for it?"
Yes, I'm F***ing sure. There are parents who think their kid has allergies because they get cranky or get a rash; they may be right or not. My kids throat swells shut, she vomits profusely, and everywhere the vomit hits her skin raises into a nasty red welt. I'm fairly sure I did not imagine these symptoms. They do not occur if certain foods are avoided. Smearing a small amount these foods on her skin will also produce a nasty welt. I'd say she's allergic, what's your diagnosis? Please don't be so quick to suggest allergies aren't to be taken seriously. You are suggesting it's not necessary to pay much attention to whether my young daughter lives or dies. If you did so in person when it might matter, I would... well, let's go with 'react accordingly'. I don't know where you get this quack allergist theory; mine won't beleive in an allergy until he gets the aforementioned nasty red welt from a double-blind skin test.
"You can't be 100% sure. They don't say 'corn free' or 'not made on shared equipment', do they?"
Nothing says 'corn free' or talks about corn-shared equiptment. They only do that for the top 5 or so allergens (nuts, peanuts, dairy, shellfish, wheat) Corn isn't a common enough allergy. No, you can't ever be 100% sure; but she's got to eat. We could become back-to-the-landers and raise all our own food, but luckily we don't have to, because people with your attitude don't entirely dominate the food industry. If you do everything you can to avoid the foods she is alletrgic to, she'll still get inexplicable rashes from time to time, some of which are probably attributable to trace amounts. But while trace amounts from cross-contamination will make her uncomfortable, it does not appear that they are life-threatening. "organic evaporated cane juice" gives you no more reason to think that there is corn than any other non-corn ingredient; it means "just sugar" but if it says just "sugar" it means "sugar along with various impurities, almost certainly some corn"
"cane juice == sugar" Yes, cane juice is sugar, thank you, but I knew that. The word "sugar" listed on an ingredients label means sugar that may have been grown & processed in any number of ways, and have any of various impurities; probably it was processed in the cheapest way, which introduces corn impurities. "organic evaporated cane juice" tells you how it was grown and processed; I'm not sure why you object to that.
"Oh, no, pyridoxine hydrochloride is going to kill us all!!! Run for the hills!" Vitamin B6 isn't lethal, but most processed foods, particularly junk food, will have several ingredients you can't identify without looking up. A large number of them are corn-derived, so I, by necessity, have looked them up. Almost all are somewhat bad for you, but probably fine in the quantities you'll be getting them. There are certainly some where the safe quantity is at least open to question. If you want to eat them anyway, feel free; you'll almost certainly be fine. But why exactly do you feel the need to ridicule people who want to actually know what they are putting in their mouth?
I used to eat all manner of junk food, and still would had circumstances not forced me to become an obsessive label-reader. I have no problem with people eating whatever they want. What's your problem with people eating healthy if they want? Do you just deride anyone different from you? More likely you've got the same complex as most "health food" deriders: You need to convince yourself eating well isn't really any better for you because you've got some weird guilt thing about your inability to lay off the Doritos. It's OK, eat the Doritos. It doesn't make you a bad person; but making fun of people who don't eat them doesn't make them any less bad for you.
Sorry, but I find your argument idiotic in the extreme. Arson seems a better analogy to his actions. Let's assume an unoccupied building, just to be fair.
Setting the fire causes trouble for people, but not for personal gain. It's like "I was only curious how fast the fire would spread, and how much would burn down before the fire department could respond."
Do you think arson is "Not good, and shouldn't go unpunished, but not something to get a prison sentence for."? Does a five year maximum sentence really seem unreasonable?
While we're at it, do you really think you're not going to be risking jail time if you try to see how close you can get to the nuclear missles? I'd assume there would certainly be jail time if you got close at all, assuming you don't do really well, and get close enough to just be shot on sight.
Before calling others "Fucking Morons", it is best to have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
My daughter is highly alergic to corn protiens, meaning that most processed food is out since it contains corn syrup which will make her quite sick. Products listing "sugar" will usually give her a nasty rash at least, because they contain traces of corn from processing. "organic evaporated cane juice" will not contain trace corn protiens from processing. I'm sorry you have a problem with packaging actually telling you what it contains and how it was produced, but some of us like to know. It doesn't have "sugar" in the ingredients, so you're rolling on the floor laughing? That's fine, but I'm a liitle more interested in the fact that since it doesn't have "sugar" on the ingredients, my daughter isn't rolling on the floor vomiting.
Expensive health food companies have a clue, and try to tell you as much as possible about what you're eating as they can. Good thing, since the FDA (who could require such disclosures) is busy enforcing the dairy industies wish to assure you that "Milk" is all you need to know. Wouldn't want someone to tell you about how they produced your food without requiring them to assure you that the FDA doesn't know if it makes a difference.
Looking for "sugar" in the ingredients is a poor way to identify junk food in any case. Read all the ingredients. If there are more than four, it's probably junk. If there are any you can't identify, probably junk, and do you really want to eat that? Are you sure that's not obscure scientific terminology for pig shit?
The average american food consumer is an apathetic idiot, but according to you it's those of us who actually want to know what we're eating that are "morons". Ignorant twit.
Wait a second, you can't maximize a window in OSX? Are you serious? WTF is that!?!? I mean, I hope you're aware that in Windows, you're not forced to maximize anything if you don't want to. But what possible reason could there be for forbidding users to maximize even when they do want to? Please tell me I'm misinterpretting this thread somehow; Apple isn't really that obnoxious, are they? I've always assumed I'd like Mac if I used it (obviously, I don't); but come on, maybe you and Steve Jobs don't like maximized windows, but that's hardly a reason they shouldn't be allowed ever.
I don't mean to suggest that the GPL prevents progress in all cases. I do beleive it slows progress in some cases by preventing many developers (like me) from contributing.
Most open source projects are not Linux. Linus could turn away 90% of the developers who want to help with his project, and still have all the help he wants. (From what I can tell, this is essentially the case.)
Most project maintainers would be thrilled if I called them up and told them I wanted to know how they liked changes submitted, because my boss had asked me to put a couple months of development time into making certain improvements to their project. That's not going to happen for a GPL project. I have made that call to a BSD maintainer.
No, no, I mean more developers are able to contribute in that developers such as myself, who do largely proprietary development, are able to contribute to BSD projects. The GPL does not gaurauntee that I will make contributions; rather it garauntees I will not. I can't use it, so I'm not going to improve it.
For example, lets say I write some (closed) software that does some complex statistical analysis. It does it better and faster than the competition, so I'm selling a bunch. Now one of my customers says "Hey, this is cool, but could you show the output on a graph?" Now, I'm not particularly interested in writing a graph-drawing library, so I go looking for one. There are various proprietary ones I could pay for, but I trust I don't have to explain why I'd rather use an open source one. So there's a nice one that's GPL licensed. But I really want to build graph-drawing ability right into my software, and I'm not going to open the stats part, so I can't use it. Hey, here's a nice BSD one. Great, I use that, compile the code right into my program, now I can draw graphs. But this lib doesn't support pie charts, and I'd really like it to. So I write some pie-chart code. Am I going to hoard my improved graph lib all to myself, cackling evily? Of course not. Nobody is choosing me over my competition because I've got nice pie charts. If I send my pie-chart code back to the maintainer, he'll roll it in, and next version I'll get that, plus some other guys bar-chart enhancements. Really, I think the fear that someone will take the whole thing and sell it as their own proprietary version is overrated. Their going to have to add a lot of their own work to make their product attractive vs. the free bsd version. Worst case, they make some money off my nice pie-charts. Who cares? I've lost nothing, still got the bsd version that does what I need, and I already decided I didn't want to be in the graph-drawing-software business.
Yeah, their are developers doing stuff on their own time and unwilling to take the chance that someone else will make a buck off their work (why, I don't know). But I'd argue their are many more like me who can't touch GPLd code, but will happily contribute to BSD projects; and we have more time to do so because we're getting paid for it.
"the comparison of GPL code to socialism (a comparison designed to equate the GPL with an idea many consider to be evil)"
Actually, I think the ideals behind the GPL do have a lot in common with the ideals behind socialism. Yes, many people (in the US) consider socialism to be evil. But they are ill-informed idiots. Compared to capitalism, Socialism is really bad at some things (e.g. emerging-technology development) and completely kicks capitalisms ass at other things (e.g. health care). Many are fortunate enough to live in countries that strike a better balance of socialism and capitalism than the US. They may be in a better position to judge when the GPL, or open source generally, is the way to go, because they can recognize that it is indeed socialism, but that may be a good thing.
I'm not suggesting that the GPL prevents progress; only that if your goal is maximum rate of progress, BSD might be a better choice, because more developers are able to contribute.
If you release your software under the BSD, and it does something that would make my (closed) software more useful, I might bundle the two of them together. If I do, and I decide your software could be more useful to my customers with some improvements, I'll make those improvements. Then I'll send the improvements back to you; not because I'm a nice guy (though I am), but because it will be better for me if my improvements are bundled together with those of others. I've no reason to close my improvements to your code, because your code isn't why customers come to me. They come for my closed code, which your code makes somewhat nicer.
On the other hand, if you release under BSD something that makes my closed code nicer, I will combine the two, sell it, and not give you any of the money. That might bug you. If you don't want to help me make money, don't use the BSD. If you don't care, but would like me to potentially contribute to your code, BSD may be a good choice.
Anyway, I think you give up hope of making money in software too easily. Microsoft is big, but the software industry as a whole is many times bigger. Sure, you'd probably have to be crazy to start a business based on going head to head with MS in operating systems or office suites. But OSes and office suites strike me as terminally boring in any case! But consider that what looks like a tiny niche to MS can look like a vast market to a 5 developer shop. I, and many others, do pretty well working for small software companies; and when we need some auxilarry library code to do something related to, but outside our core competency, we look first for something BSD.
"the second generation of programmers who want to build on what was built-on, are screwed. "
No. What was built on is still available. Those who want to build on the additions to that may or may not be able to. But if those improvements are going to be closed-source licensed, they'd just never get done if the original was GPL. I make additions to BSD licensed code, and release the results under the BSD. I don't make any improvements to GPL licensed code, because I can't use it (since I am not willing to open all code I might wish to link with it). I am far from alone in this. I'm dubious whether the BSD ever fosters a lack of progress; I know the GPL does. The person who would make improvements to BSD code and close them will not be forced to open them undcer the GPL; they just won't make them at all. And quite a few of us who would make improvements to BSD code an open them also won't make them at all to GPL code.
Of course, the other way around these issues is to use C++, where sort is a template so the comparison function can be inlined and the element size fixed at compile time. You always get a specialized implementation that only sorts whatever type you are sorting; but you never have to write it. The cannonical counterexample for people who think plain C should be used for performance.
OK, my final sentence, comparing the wind farms output to that of ITER was completely unfair. I understand that the point of ITER is not the power it itself will produce, but the knowledge. And I'm all in favor of researching new ways to help with the worlds aproaching energy crisis. But I think it's crazy to suggest that all research projects are worth doing, regardless of their costs. And you can't make a good assesment of whether ITER is worth doing based on assuming it will be the ultimate answer to all our energy problems. At best, getting fusion workable might let us build nuke plants that are considerably cleaner than the ones we've got. But we'll still need to build, maintain, and operate the plants, and they still won't be entirely clean. It's not boundless free energy, even assuming all the research bears fruit. And it's a long way off regardless.
I'm just saying it is not inherently unreasonable to suggest that spending the money on wind farms might be a better decision. It sure looks to me like energy demand vs. supply is going to reach a crisis point long before fusion is even potentially viable. Improving means of power production that currently work might well be a better call than trying to improve a means of power production that currently doesn't work at all. If ITER and a bunch more projects after that all work out spendidly, in several decades fusion might be as cost-effective an option as wind is today.
Fusion is sexier than wind, and Greenpeace is a left-wing enviro-nut org. But they still may be right about ITER.
Again, I have not looked at Greenpeace's position in any detail, so I'm not quallified to argue for or against it. My main point is that I think peoples analysis of the upside of ITER is hopelessly optimistic:
"ITER: Potentially solve the world's energy problems for a long time"
No, it won't. ITER might help us figure out how to use fusion to generate power. It will absolutely not produce an unlimited amount of power. And it will do nothing toward improving distribution of that power. Maybe, with a lot of work, we will figure out how to make a fusion power plant that produces significant amounts of power. Even then, we will have to go build a bunch of fusion plants all over the place. Maybe doing so will cost less up front per unit of capacity than current windfarms (seems unlikely, windfarms are pretty cheap up front). Maybe doing so will cost less per kW-hour generated than current windfarms (hopefully; wind farms are sucky on maintenance cost; certainly no reason to do fusion if it's not a lot cheaper) Maybe doing so will produce energy more "cleanly" than current windfarms (actually, no way. The results of fusion are non-radioactive only in textbooks). Maybe doing so will let us start adding significant new capacity twenty years from now (I'd guess fifty at a minimum; we can build windfarms now.)
The positive effect of spending 10B euros on windfarms is depressingly small, I'll readily agree. I'm just saying, spending 10B on ITER might not even be as good as that; best case, it gets you in a position to really start spending money on fusion somewhere way down the line.
10,000MW (sustained) does indeed sound like a lot. Especially when compared to 500MW for 8 minutes ten years from now: the hoped for output of ITER.
What "standards"? Is some standards body actually publishing standards on coding style? I know most such orgs are completely irrelevant, but they don't have to make it so obvious. Whether "{" should be preceded by a newline is one of the greatest pointless style debates of all time. Declaring one way or the other "standard" won't change anything. Those who like a newline there will put it there. Those who don't like the newline there won't put it there, and even if the "standard" agrees with them, they will still be wrong.
"it's more likely that we can develop a successful method sooner."
Greenpeace's argues that we have sucessful methods now. Fusion is such an advanced technology, that it doesn't actually exist (as a viable technology) yet. Hence we don't really know its limitations and drawbacks, and so its boosters assume there will be none.
"Besides, it's not like the money going into this project is going to be taking money away from other power plant construction, is it?"
Yes. Of course it is. Money that is spent on one thing can not be spent on another. If I say, "it is stupid to spend money on A, we need to be spending it on B" it is a poor argument to say "But we're not going to spend it on B in any case". because by my view you're saying, we're going to be stupid in any case, we may as well be stupid this way. Yeah, fusion might work out to be the energy source of the future. But that's not sufficient reason to spend massively on it. So might wind power. We must make some judgement about which is more likely to help and how soon. Greenpeace thinks it's no contest, and their policy making group probaly includes more hard-science PhDs than the energy policy making groups of the all the countries setting up this project put together.
All that said, I haven't really looked at Greenpeace's arguments on this specifically, and I don't know if I agree with them or not. I do know that their positions are typically carefully considered and have etremely sound scientific backing. And that many people routinely dismiss these positions without a moments thought, ironically calling Greenpeace "knee-jerk" environmentalists.
"Duct Tape" has become a generic term for tape more or less similar to that which was once used on ducts. "Duck Tape" is a term used by people who didn't hear "duct" right, and by one company who realized they could trademark this misnomer since it wasn't the actual generic term. The fact that they make a rather poor product is all the more reason to insist on calling the decent tapes of this genre "duct" tape. Of course, as you note this tape is no longer in use on actual ducts. But if you work at a hardware store, and somone asks you for "duct tape", you could, I suppose, inquire if they intended to use it on ducts, and if so direct them to the uber-sticky aluminum-backed stuff. But you could almost certainly safely assume that what they want is the medium-sticky, heavy-duty cloth-backed stuff.
"Tape for ducts" meets particular HVAC standards, and those who need it generally know what it is. "Duct Tape" is heavy-duty general-purpose tape, and "Duck Tape" is an inferior brand of same.
OK, I can see what you're proposing. At speeds near mu-1, part of the blade will be advancing and part retreating, so you're hosed at that point in any case. But once you get well beyond mu-1 you could theoretically tilt the blade in the oposite direction on one side vs. the other. It would be hard to design a blade that got much benefit from airfoil effect in this situation, but theoretically you could live without that.
But at that point, the retreating rotor is just a not so good wing whose efficiency is being further clobbered by it's being whipped backward all the time, even if not as fast as the craft is flying. i.e. continuing to rotate the rotor is actually hurting you; you'd be better of stopping it all together, and using the rotor as a fixed wing. Or, as the craft in question does, having a seperate set of wings for high-speed flight, and slowing down the rotor enough that it doesn't cause too much drag.
The article is pretty misleading in saying this is a helicopter that can reach mu-1, which many thought impossible. Flying a helicopter to mu-1 IS impossible. This is a very nifty machine that essentially transforms from helicopter into an airplane as it aproaches mu-1.
Right, you just need a blade that generates significant lift regardless of what direction it moves through the air. Umm, yeah. Good luck with that. Let me know when you've got a desk fan that blows air the same way no matter which direction it spins, then maybe we'll talk helicopters.
Slashdot Mirror
Au contraire! Dadaists conciously reject the attachment of meaning to their art. Their art is meaningless, but they say so. They are silly, but not fradulent. I've no problem with meaningless art; just with claiming it is meaningful.
I predicted how evidence I did not yet have would turn out based on my theory. Then I checked, and it turned out that way. That is exactly how science works. Newton used his theory of gravity to predict that while the course of comets appeared to be a straight line, it would actually turn out to be a parabola, of which we could only see the fairly straight part. More sensitive mesurements were taken, and it turned out he was right. Was this science? Science does not demand the construction of an apparatus in a lab. It demands testing. Testing is done by observation; it does not matter whether the scientist causes the evidence to appear in an experiment, or whether the scientist must wait for it to appear on it's own, as Newton had to wait for a comet to come by close enough. (Actually, he stuck Flamsheed with the tedious waiting around for a comet part)
I'd never suggest evolution, or any scientfic theory was the last word. Proof happens in mathematics. Science asspires only to "well supported by the available evidence so far"; proof is impossible. Any scientific theory simply makes predictions more or less well. Evolution has made a lot of predictions very well. Gravity has made a lot of predictions very well; it's a good theory worth knowing, even though we have a better theory (relativity) that explains why gravity gets it not quite right in a very small number of extreme cases. Most of the time, gravity still makes excellent predictions.
So, I'll be more than happy to hear about a theory that makes better predictions than evolution. Heck, I'd be fascinated!
Creationism does not, and can not, make any predictions at all. No evidence could possibly agree, or disagree with it. Debating the possible truth or falsity of Creationism is not science; it is pointless solipsistic wanking. It's not that I beleive it or don't; it's that I don't wish to waste my time "considering" an idea with no posible arguments on either side. I can, after all, make up such theories every ten seconds forever. Making up theories that are actually subject to testing, and withstand it, is considerably more difficult. We call it Science.
"unlike abstract art or modern art (where very few understand it and very many say they do)"
Modern art, where there is nothing to be understood, yet many say they understand it, and a few understand that what matters is who claims to understand it. It is fashion, entirely freed from the restraints of functionality. If the right handful of gallery owners say something is great, it is great. The thing itself is irrelevant. It is the purest of con games.
Not "Why not maximize?" but "Why not allow maximizing?"
I too often have multiple windows open, but they are tiled, filling the screen. I don't see the advantage of a window mostly covered by another over just having a tab. And I certainly see the advantage of a tab over a window supposedly "open" but actually behind 3 other windows.
"Another is that a maximized window, even at 1280x1024, is still significantly less real estate than my physical desktop"
Surely you mean your virtual desktop.
"giving up a small amount of screen real estate to be able to grab different windows on my work is, for me, a good trade-off."
Sure. But I give up a single text-height horizontal row for tabs, and I can get to all my windows. When I worked non-maximized, I gave up a lot more spread around less efficiently, and still had windows getting hidden under a pile of others.
"It's just different work styles."
Oh, absolutely. I don't understand why people want non-maximized windows, but you're welcome to use them if that's what works for you. Heck, some people actually claim to prefer working from a command-line if you can beleive anything as crazy as that.
"What happens when you have, oh, say 15 different source files open?"
I get something like 15 tabs across my screen, but if you go beyond what fits, they continue off the screen and you get arrows to sroll the whole set left/right; you also get them all listed in a pull-down menu in any case. Certainly seems no worse than dragging 15 windows about hunting for the one hidden in back. Putting tabs in multiple rows should be considered criminal; having them change positions when selected even more so.
"Can you mix graphics edit windows and shell windows and external debugger windows and db GUI windows with the VS windows?"
Why would you use an external debugger in VS? Not that it matters, just curious. Anyway, no, the VS GUI is just VS windows; hence my wish that the entire Windows window manager actually had the behavior of the one internal to VS. Sadly, I don't see Windows as a whole ever supporting my dream of nothing but maximized/tiled windows.
"If there weren't any holes in it, it wouldn't still be a theory."
You do not seem to understand the meaning of "theory" in this context. Evolution will always be a theory. Just like the theory of gravity. Why is it you go after evolution and not gravity? Shouldn't we be teaching that gravity (or relativity) is just a theory, and that there are other possible explanations, such as "There is no gravity. God holds stuff down."?
"What has evolution predicted?"
No need for the past tense there! We can make some predictions right now! Evolution is a scientific theory; there are any number of things we would expect to be the case if it is correct, and expect to not necessarily be the case if it is false. They could all turn out to be the case just by chance, but the more that turn out the way evolution predicts, the more sure we can be. Anyway, let's see; if different species evolved from common ancestors, I'd expect that species that were similar in certain ways would also be similar in other, seemingly unrelated ways. For example, marine creatures that breate air using lungs have bony skeletons. Those that breathe water using gills do not. So, I'd theorize the air-breathers are descended from a common ancestor more recent than any ancestor they might share with the water-breathers. Having noticed this similarity amongst some marine creatures, and formed this theory to explain it, I can now predict that every marine air breather I find in the future will have a bony skeleton, and every water breather will not. This turns out to be the case. Sure it could be a coincidence. But there are now such a vast number of such coincidences, that it seems to me there are only two possible explanations: Either evolution is true, or the world was created by a super-powerful being who is trying extremely hard to trick me into thinking evolution is true. The latter could be the case, but if we're all in the hands of an omnipotent being bent on deception there's no point in doing science anyway.
I've looked at the available evidence, and decided evolution seems likely. Certain? No, nothing is ever certain in science.
Now, even if evolution is wrong, that doesn't make creationism right. Lets desist with your unconvincing attacks on evolution, and see some reason to think creationsim is worth consideration. I have not seen any evidence that makes creationism seem likely. Not only that, it seems inherently obvious to me that no such evidence could possibly exist. Give me one piece of evidence that, had it turned out differently, it would imply creationism was wrong. Anything? Even one peice of evidence at all? Why exactly am I supposed to take this seriously again?
"Many believe Neanderthals to be essentially the same as man"
Not anyone who has studied their bone structure, and has a clue what they are talking about.
"They just don't go for the Ape beget a person or a cat beget a dog"
Neither does evolution.
"There is no evidence whatsoever that one species has ever evolved into another one"
There are mountains of such evidence.
"Of coarse creationists can't prove that evolution is false"
If it were false, then it should be possible to prove it false. Of course, they can't prove it false if it's true.
"What creationists can show is that by interpreting the exact same evidence it is possible to draw a completely different -yet scientifically valid explanation of what is happening here."
Cretionists need not interpret evidence to assume a different, scientifically irrelevant non-explanation. Their ideas are not supported by evidence, because they could not be contradicted by different evidence.
"Evolution is a very good working theory, but there are a lot of holes in it as it is now"
Evolution is a fabulous, extensively supported theory. Like any scientific theory, there are plenty of interesting details we haven't worked out yet. Holes? No.
"All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation."
False.
"I, myself am not saying creation or evolution are right"
But you're implying they are both of similar nature, which is false. Evolution is a scientific theory which can be used to make predictions about things we don't know yet, and we can then go check those things out. Evolution has predicted correctly vast numbers of times. You need not have any faith at all; you can go check these predictions your very own self. "God did it that way" makes no predictions; it can not be contradicted by any evidence; it cannot be supported by any evidence. It is not science.
"Mac types assume it's not the role of the computer to be "helping" the user focus on the (single) task at the top of the pile on the screen"
Why in the world not? The vast majority of the time I'm using the computer I am focused on a single window. How often are you toggling between two different window sizes, and neither of those sizes is really big, filling most of the screen? Why not really fill the screen?
You mention Visual Studio, which actually lets you choose between the MDI you describe, and tabbed windows; essentially, all windows maximized, and you can freely create new tab groups, so you have tiled windows. I love this interface; I can get to any window via the tabs, but the window I'm using has as much space as possible; if I want to se two (or more) windows at once, they each get as much space as I give them, and use all of it. Oh, and all ancillary windows can be grouped however you like and floating or docked to any side, and auto-hiding or not. I only wish the whole windows gui could be made to work like Visual Studio. Any time I have windows visible but non-maximised I have them in some (generally poor) approximation of tiled.
For what it's worth, I've always thought the proximity of maximize/minimize to close was kind of dumb. But wouldn't you be just as annoyed if you accidentally toggled to your previous window size as if you maximized?
Anyway, I find it hard to imagine why you would never want to maximize, since to me it seems obviously best to have almost everything maximised almost all the time. But that's exactly why a window system should let you do it your way, and me do it mine. I'm just surprised to hear that it is Windows that achieves this, and not Mac.
Oh, of course you're correct; the "more than four" was hyperbole. Maybe we should say, ingredients don't count if they are available on their own in the produce section. Peppers don't mvoe you up my "probably junk" scale. Guar gum does. Come to think of it, I don't even know what guar gum is exactly, so it triggers my other standard. What I'm really getting at is I expect something is probably bad for me if I couldn't make it myself because it involves a big pile of ingredients not available in less than industrial quantities. This seems to me a better standard for deciding if it's good for me than whether the word "sugar" is there. Some perfectly healthy stuff might include moderate amounts of sugar.
Spend a few years reading every ingredient on every food that comes into your house, and worrying about whether your daughter will live to be old enough to do this for herself. Then maybe you'll understand that I'm a bit touchy on the topic...
"Are you sure, or do you just take your allergist's word for it?"
Yes, I'm F***ing sure. There are parents who think their kid has allergies because they get cranky or get a rash; they may be right or not. My kids throat swells shut, she vomits profusely, and everywhere the vomit hits her skin raises into a nasty red welt. I'm fairly sure I did not imagine these symptoms. They do not occur if certain foods are avoided. Smearing a small amount these foods on her skin will also produce a nasty welt. I'd say she's allergic, what's your diagnosis? Please don't be so quick to suggest allergies aren't to be taken seriously. You are suggesting it's not necessary to pay much attention to whether my young daughter lives or dies. If you did so in person when it might matter, I would... well, let's go with 'react accordingly'. I don't know where you get this quack allergist theory; mine won't beleive in an allergy until he gets the aforementioned nasty red welt from a double-blind skin test.
"You can't be 100% sure. They don't say 'corn free' or 'not made on shared equipment', do they?"
Nothing says 'corn free' or talks about corn-shared equiptment. They only do that for the top 5 or so allergens (nuts, peanuts, dairy, shellfish, wheat) Corn isn't a common enough allergy. No, you can't ever be 100% sure; but she's got to eat. We could become back-to-the-landers and raise all our own food, but luckily we don't have to, because people with your attitude don't entirely dominate the food industry. If you do everything you can to avoid the foods she is alletrgic to, she'll still get inexplicable rashes from time to time, some of which are probably attributable to trace amounts. But while trace amounts from cross-contamination will make her uncomfortable, it does not appear that they are life-threatening. "organic evaporated cane juice" gives you no more reason to think that there is corn than any other non-corn ingredient; it means "just sugar" but if it says just "sugar" it means "sugar along with various impurities, almost certainly some corn"
"cane juice == sugar"
Yes, cane juice is sugar, thank you, but I knew that. The word "sugar" listed on an ingredients label means sugar that may have been grown & processed in any number of ways, and have any of various impurities; probably it was processed in the cheapest way, which introduces corn impurities. "organic evaporated cane juice" tells you how it was grown and processed; I'm not sure why you object to that.
"Oh, no, pyridoxine hydrochloride is going to kill us all!!! Run for the hills!"
Vitamin B6 isn't lethal, but most processed foods, particularly junk food, will have several ingredients you can't identify without looking up. A large number of them are corn-derived, so I, by necessity, have looked them up. Almost all are somewhat bad for you, but probably fine in the quantities you'll be getting them. There are certainly some where the safe quantity is at least open to question. If you want to eat them anyway, feel free; you'll almost certainly be fine. But why exactly do you feel the need to ridicule people who want to actually know what they are putting in their mouth?
I used to eat all manner of junk food, and still would had circumstances not forced me to become an obsessive label-reader. I have no problem with people eating whatever they want. What's your problem with people eating healthy if they want? Do you just deride anyone different from you? More likely you've got the same complex as most "health food" deriders: You need to convince yourself eating well isn't really any better for you because you've got some weird guilt thing about your inability to lay off the Doritos. It's OK, eat the Doritos. It doesn't make you a bad person; but making fun of people who don't eat them doesn't make them any less bad for you.
Sorry, but I find your argument idiotic in the extreme. Arson seems a better analogy to his actions. Let's assume an unoccupied building, just to be fair.
Setting the fire causes trouble for people, but not for personal gain. It's like "I was only curious how fast the fire would spread, and how much would burn down before the fire department could respond."
Do you think arson is "Not good, and shouldn't go unpunished, but not something to get a prison sentence for."? Does a five year maximum sentence really seem unreasonable?
While we're at it, do you really think you're not going to be risking jail time if you try to see how close you can get to the nuclear missles? I'd assume there would certainly be jail time if you got close at all, assuming you don't do really well, and get close enough to just be shot on sight.
Before calling others "Fucking Morons", it is best to have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
My daughter is highly alergic to corn protiens, meaning that most processed food is out since it contains corn syrup which will make her quite sick. Products listing "sugar" will usually give her a nasty rash at least, because they contain traces of corn from processing. "organic evaporated cane juice" will not contain trace corn protiens from processing. I'm sorry you have a problem with packaging actually telling you what it contains and how it was produced, but some of us like to know. It doesn't have "sugar" in the ingredients, so you're rolling on the floor laughing? That's fine, but I'm a liitle more interested in the fact that since it doesn't have "sugar" on the ingredients, my daughter isn't rolling on the floor vomiting.
Expensive health food companies have a clue, and try to tell you as much as possible about what you're eating as they can. Good thing, since the FDA (who could require such disclosures) is busy enforcing the dairy industies wish to assure you that "Milk" is all you need to know. Wouldn't want someone to tell you about how they produced your food without requiring them to assure you that the FDA doesn't know if it makes a difference.
Looking for "sugar" in the ingredients is a poor way to identify junk food in any case. Read all the ingredients. If there are more than four, it's probably junk. If there are any you can't identify, probably junk, and do you really want to eat that? Are you sure that's not obscure scientific terminology for pig shit?
The average american food consumer is an apathetic idiot, but according to you it's those of us who actually want to know what we're eating that are "morons". Ignorant twit.
Wait a second, you can't maximize a window in OSX? Are you serious? WTF is that!?!? I mean, I hope you're aware that in Windows, you're not forced to maximize anything if you don't want to. But what possible reason could there be for forbidding users to maximize even when they do want to? Please tell me I'm misinterpretting this thread somehow; Apple isn't really that obnoxious, are they? I've always assumed I'd like Mac if I used it (obviously, I don't); but come on, maybe you and Steve Jobs don't like maximized windows, but that's hardly a reason they shouldn't be allowed ever.
I don't mean to suggest that the GPL prevents progress in all cases. I do beleive it slows progress in some cases by preventing many developers (like me) from contributing.
Most open source projects are not Linux. Linus could turn away 90% of the developers who want to help with his project, and still have all the help he wants. (From what I can tell, this is essentially the case.)
Most project maintainers would be thrilled if I called them up and told them I wanted to know how they liked changes submitted, because my boss had asked me to put a couple months of development time into making certain improvements to their project. That's not going to happen for a GPL project. I have made that call to a BSD maintainer.
No, no, I mean more developers are able to contribute in that developers such as myself, who do largely proprietary development, are able to contribute to BSD projects. The GPL does not gaurauntee that I will make contributions; rather it garauntees I will not. I can't use it, so I'm not going to improve it.
For example, lets say I write some (closed) software that does some complex statistical analysis. It does it better and faster than the competition, so I'm selling a bunch. Now one of my customers says "Hey, this is cool, but could you show the output on a graph?" Now, I'm not particularly interested in writing a graph-drawing library, so I go looking for one. There are various proprietary ones I could pay for, but I trust I don't have to explain why I'd rather use an open source one. So there's a nice one that's GPL licensed. But I really want to build graph-drawing ability right into my software, and I'm not going to open the stats part, so I can't use it. Hey, here's a nice BSD one. Great, I use that, compile the code right into my program, now I can draw graphs. But this lib doesn't support pie charts, and I'd really like it to. So I write some pie-chart code. Am I going to hoard my improved graph lib all to myself, cackling evily? Of course not. Nobody is choosing me over my competition because I've got nice pie charts. If I send my pie-chart code back to the maintainer, he'll roll it in, and next version I'll get that, plus some other guys bar-chart enhancements. Really, I think the fear that someone will take the whole thing and sell it as their own proprietary version is overrated. Their going to have to add a lot of their own work to make their product attractive vs. the free bsd version. Worst case, they make some money off my nice pie-charts. Who cares? I've lost nothing, still got the bsd version that does what I need, and I already decided I didn't want to be in the graph-drawing-software business.
Yeah, their are developers doing stuff on their own time and unwilling to take the chance that someone else will make a buck off their work (why, I don't know). But I'd argue their are many more like me who can't touch GPLd code, but will happily contribute to BSD projects; and we have more time to do so because we're getting paid for it.
"the comparison of GPL code to socialism (a comparison designed to equate the GPL with an idea many consider to be evil)"
Actually, I think the ideals behind the GPL do have a lot in common with the ideals behind socialism. Yes, many people (in the US) consider socialism to be evil. But they are ill-informed idiots.
Compared to capitalism, Socialism is really bad at some things (e.g. emerging-technology development) and completely kicks capitalisms ass at other things (e.g. health care). Many are fortunate enough to live in countries that strike a better balance of socialism and capitalism than the US. They may be in a better position to judge when the GPL, or open source generally, is the way to go, because they can recognize that it is indeed socialism, but that may be a good thing.
I'm not suggesting that the GPL prevents progress; only that if your goal is maximum rate of progress, BSD might be a better choice, because more developers are able to contribute.
If you release your software under the BSD, and it does something that would make my (closed) software more useful, I might bundle the two of them together. If I do, and I decide your software could be more useful to my customers with some improvements, I'll make those improvements. Then I'll send the improvements back to you; not because I'm a nice guy (though I am), but because it will be better for me if my improvements are bundled together with those of others. I've no reason to close my improvements to your code, because your code isn't why customers come to me. They come for my closed code, which your code makes somewhat nicer. On the other hand, if you release under BSD something that makes my closed code nicer, I will combine the two, sell it, and not give you any of the money. That might bug you. If you don't want to help me make money, don't use the BSD. If you don't care, but would like me to potentially contribute to your code, BSD may be a good choice.
Anyway, I think you give up hope of making money in software too easily. Microsoft is big, but the software industry as a whole is many times bigger. Sure, you'd probably have to be crazy to start a business based on going head to head with MS in operating systems or office suites. But OSes and office suites strike me as terminally boring in any case! But consider that what looks like a tiny niche to MS can look like a vast market to a 5 developer shop. I, and many others, do pretty well working for small software companies; and when we need some auxilarry library code to do something related to, but outside our core competency, we look first for something BSD.
"the second generation of programmers who want to build on what was built-on, are screwed. "
No. What was built on is still available. Those who want to build on the additions to that may or may not be able to. But if those improvements are going to be closed-source licensed, they'd just never get done if the original was GPL.
I make additions to BSD licensed code, and release the results under the BSD. I don't make any improvements to GPL licensed code, because I can't use it (since I am not willing to open all code I might wish to link with it). I am far from alone in this. I'm dubious whether the BSD ever fosters a lack of progress; I know the GPL does.
The person who would make improvements to BSD code and close them will not be forced to open them undcer the GPL; they just won't make them at all. And quite a few of us who would make improvements to BSD code an open them also won't make them at all to GPL code.
Of course, the other way around these issues is to use C++, where sort is a template so the comparison function can be inlined and the element size fixed at compile time. You always get a specialized implementation that only sorts whatever type you are sorting; but you never have to write it. The cannonical counterexample for people who think plain C should be used for performance.
OK, my final sentence, comparing the wind farms output to that of ITER was completely unfair. I understand that the point of ITER is not the power it itself will produce, but the knowledge. And I'm all in favor of researching new ways to help with the worlds aproaching energy crisis. But I think it's crazy to suggest that all research projects are worth doing, regardless of their costs. And you can't make a good assesment of whether ITER is worth doing based on assuming it will be the ultimate answer to all our energy problems. At best, getting fusion workable might let us build nuke plants that are considerably cleaner than the ones we've got. But we'll still need to build, maintain, and operate the plants, and they still won't be entirely clean. It's not boundless free energy, even assuming all the research bears fruit. And it's a long way off regardless.
I'm just saying it is not inherently unreasonable to suggest that spending the money on wind farms might be a better decision. It sure looks to me like energy demand vs. supply is going to reach a crisis point long before fusion is even potentially viable. Improving means of power production that currently work might well be a better call than trying to improve a means of power production that currently doesn't work at all. If ITER and a bunch more projects after that all work out spendidly, in several decades fusion might be as cost-effective an option as wind is today.
Fusion is sexier than wind, and Greenpeace is a left-wing enviro-nut org. But they still may be right about ITER.
Again, I have not looked at Greenpeace's position in any detail, so I'm not quallified to argue for or against it. My main point is that I think peoples analysis of the upside of ITER is hopelessly optimistic:
"ITER: Potentially solve the world's energy problems for a long time"
No, it won't. ITER might help us figure out how to use fusion to generate power. It will absolutely not produce an unlimited amount of power. And it will do nothing toward improving distribution of that power. Maybe, with a lot of work, we will figure out how to make a fusion power plant that produces significant amounts of power. Even then, we will have to go build a bunch of fusion plants all over the place.
Maybe doing so will cost less up front per unit of capacity than current windfarms (seems unlikely, windfarms are pretty cheap up front).
Maybe doing so will cost less per kW-hour generated than current windfarms (hopefully; wind farms are sucky on maintenance cost; certainly no reason to do fusion if it's not a lot cheaper)
Maybe doing so will produce energy more "cleanly" than current windfarms (actually, no way. The results of fusion are non-radioactive only in textbooks).
Maybe doing so will let us start adding significant new capacity twenty years from now (I'd guess fifty at a minimum; we can build windfarms now.)
The positive effect of spending 10B euros on windfarms is depressingly small, I'll readily agree. I'm just saying, spending 10B on ITER might not even be as good as that; best case, it gets you in a position to really start spending money on fusion somewhere way down the line.
10,000MW (sustained) does indeed sound like a lot. Especially when compared to 500MW for 8 minutes ten years from now: the hoped for output of ITER.
What "standards"? Is some standards body actually publishing standards on coding style? I know most such orgs are completely irrelevant, but they don't have to make it so obvious. Whether "{" should be preceded by a newline is one of the greatest pointless style debates of all time. Declaring one way or the other "standard" won't change anything. Those who like a newline there will put it there. Those who don't like the newline there won't put it there, and even if the "standard" agrees with them, they will still be wrong.
"it's more likely that we can develop a successful method sooner."
Greenpeace's argues that we have sucessful methods now. Fusion is such an advanced technology, that it doesn't actually exist (as a viable technology) yet. Hence we don't really know its limitations and drawbacks, and so its boosters assume there will be none.
"Besides, it's not like the money going into this project is going to be taking money away from other power plant construction, is it?"
Yes. Of course it is. Money that is spent on one thing can not be spent on another. If I say, "it is stupid to spend money on A, we need to be spending it on B" it is a poor argument to say "But we're not going to spend it on B in any case". because by my view you're saying, we're going to be stupid in any case, we may as well be stupid this way. Yeah, fusion might work out to be the energy source of the future. But that's not sufficient reason to spend massively on it. So might wind power. We must make some judgement about which is more likely to help and how soon. Greenpeace thinks it's no contest, and their policy making group probaly includes more hard-science PhDs than the energy policy making groups of the all the countries setting up this project put together.
All that said, I haven't really looked at Greenpeace's arguments on this specifically, and I don't know if I agree with them or not. I do know that their positions are typically carefully considered and have etremely sound scientific backing. And that many people routinely dismiss these positions without a moments thought, ironically calling Greenpeace "knee-jerk" environmentalists.
"Duct Tape" has become a generic term for tape more or less similar to that which was once used on ducts. "Duck Tape" is a term used by people who didn't hear "duct" right, and by one company who realized they could trademark this misnomer since it wasn't the actual generic term. The fact that they make a rather poor product is all the more reason to insist on calling the decent tapes of this genre "duct" tape. Of course, as you note this tape is no longer in use on actual ducts. But if you work at a hardware store, and somone asks you for "duct tape", you could, I suppose, inquire if they intended to use it on ducts, and if so direct them to the uber-sticky aluminum-backed stuff. But you could almost certainly safely assume that what they want is the medium-sticky, heavy-duty cloth-backed stuff.
"Tape for ducts" meets particular HVAC standards, and those who need it generally know what it is. "Duct Tape" is heavy-duty general-purpose tape, and "Duck Tape" is an inferior brand of same.
OK, I can see what you're proposing. At speeds near mu-1, part of the blade will be advancing and part retreating, so you're hosed at that point in any case. But once you get well beyond mu-1 you could theoretically tilt the blade in the oposite direction on one side vs. the other. It would be hard to design a blade that got much benefit from airfoil effect in this situation, but theoretically you could live without that.
But at that point, the retreating rotor is just a not so good wing whose efficiency is being further clobbered by it's being whipped backward all the time, even if not as fast as the craft is flying. i.e. continuing to rotate the rotor is actually hurting you; you'd be better of stopping it all together, and using the rotor as a fixed wing. Or, as the craft in question does, having a seperate set of wings for high-speed flight, and slowing down the rotor enough that it doesn't cause too much drag.
The article is pretty misleading in saying this is a helicopter that can reach mu-1, which many thought impossible. Flying a helicopter to mu-1 IS impossible. This is a very nifty machine that essentially transforms from helicopter into an airplane as it aproaches mu-1.
Right, you just need a blade that generates significant lift regardless of what direction it moves through the air. Umm, yeah. Good luck with that.
Let me know when you've got a desk fan that blows air the same way no matter which direction it spins, then maybe we'll talk helicopters.