I'd regard the system more highly if they actually concentrated on catching and jailing more child _pornographers_. e.g. the ones creating all the child porn.... If he did pay for the porn, then follow the money and jail those involved too.
And information from the still-encrypted disks may help them find the people creating or distributing it, or who he paid to get it. That's why it is relevant to get that information.
Actually, they have "numerous" files, not just names.
File names are not going to be a solid case, they need the pictures themselves. So they suspect the pictures are on the other drives.
Actually, they suspect OTHER pictures are on the other drives. Perhaps they also suspect that those other pictures might help identify anyone who was victimized by the photographer, or help lead them to the photographer himself. In any case, there are good reasons to get access to those images.
Since they haven't arrested him that tells me they don't have a solid case.
The only thing you know from the fact that they haven't arrested him yet is that they haven't arrested him yet. You don't know they won't, and you don't know they don't have any evidence. They may very well be waiting until they have all the ducks lined up so they can go to trial quickly. Or they may be letting the guy sweat a bit, watching him to see if he leads them to anything else. There are examples of arrests that come a year or more after the crime, especially if it is the result of a long-term sting operation. You could apply your "they don't have a case if they haven't made an arrest during an ongoing investigation", but you'd be just a wrong then as now.
Any charges they can come up with to force him to decrypt those drives would be nothing compared to what he would get if they did find child porn on those drives.
They can already come up with possession of CP, and I'm not sure that those charges would be called "nothing", especially compared to "possession" based on files from another disk.
If your fears prevent constant recording of police,
You're creating a fictional "relationship issue" to use as an excuse, and that's your problem, not mine. My "fears" are called "the right to privacy", which includes privacy when I have a police officer in my house investigating a crime I've reported. That you're happy having every interaction with the cops uploaded to You Tube as soon as they happen, well, that's also your problem and should not become mine.
Assault is far more serious than an invasion of privacy.
You do realize that they'll simply do it with the camera lens obscured, while the invasion of privacy will happen any time they interact with a citizen in any way. Maybe you don't care. If you are that scared of the cops, maybe you should... I dunno. "Trod upon the rights of your fellow citizens" isn't the option I was looking for.
but I shouldn't be at risk of police beatings because of your relationship problems.
You aren't in danger based on any of your hypothetical musings about my relationships.
And I'm secure enough in my relationship that false allegations don't threaten me at all.
I'm a potential employer. I see the video of you being interrogated about the rape. I'm your child. My friends show me and laugh. I'm your lawyer and I thank you for helping me put my kids through college. And for a boat. Thanks for being secure.
I expect the slim chance of me getting my ass kicked by police is a lot fatter than the slim chance of me getting falsely accused of rape.
At the point the false accusation has been made, your chance of being falsely accused is now 100% and your chance of being beaten is still less than 1. I guess you being happy with your interrogation over a false charge being immediately available to the public should cancel out all my concerns about privacy.
When a cop pulls someone over for speeding, they should have to appear in front of a judge and then prove that the person they pulled over was indeed speed, and if they can do that, only then should the person be issued a ticket.
I don't see how that is a significant difference from what happens now. If you look at the ticket as your invitation to come before a judge and make the cop prove the charge, then it is identical.
1. You get an 'invitation' to come to court.
a. You decline and the cop wins by default.
b. You accept, and the cop wins. You get a "ticket".
c. You accept and the cop loses. You don't get a ticket, but you've still accepted the invitation to appear.
Most people choose option 'a' even though the invitation says you can appear. Some people choose to appear and 'c' is the outcome.
The problem with your interpretation is that you view the ticket as the end of the process, not the beginning. As a final outcome and not a starting position.
when the rape kit showed no signs of forced intercourse, the rape charges were dropped.
Here's a clue. Consensual sex would show up on a rape kit, too, and there's no way to know the difference. "I didn't protest or fight back because he said he'd kill me if I did... I did say 'no'..."
But congratulations, your interrogation is now on You Tube for everyone to watch, and the part about the charges being dropped, well, that didn't happen until later so it's not in that video. Still happy with the video being made public?
Personally, I prefer to let the rule of law prevail, and in our society accusations must be backed with evidence.
Actually, no, they don't. Accusations need only an accuser. Conviction is supposed to require evidence, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" depends a lot on who is accusing and how believable they are compared to you.
Your statement that you would laugh at the accusations of rape makes you look to the people investigating the accusation like you think rape is something funny, and that is how it would be presented to the jury if it got that far. "This person thinks that the rape of a woman is something to laugh at." "Uhh, no, wait, I was laughing at the thought that I would do such a thing... really, that's what I was laughing at."
As an American I have to ask, When was the last time we were defending ourselves?
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. The only reason for US involvement anywhere is if we ourselves are in personal danger. The hell with allies or the powerless who seek our aid in ridding themselves of oppression. We got ours, they should get theirs on their own.
It's a shame we didn't apply that isolationist policy in WWI and WWII. Japan would have been secure in knowing we would not interfere with their plans for China and we wouldn't have been drawn into defending ourselves in the Pacific. The equivalent to the exceptionally wonderful EU would have existed by 1945, and there would be no question of whether Turkey could join or not. They wouldn't want to, but they'd "join" anyway. Serves them right -- after all, who names an empire after a foot stool? There wouldn't have been decades of the "East/West Germany" problem. Greece wouldn't be allowed to go bankrupt. There would be no Israel to have to worry about, and Palestinians would have a true Motherland. The UN wouldn't be sucking up so much prime New York City land because we wouldn't be a part of that.
Yes. Isolationism is the way to go. We'll get off your front lawn as long as you stay off ours and we won't care whose front lawns you are on or what you do there.
Whether or not you think it's wrong that arrests are public record -... no, that's not a good reason to not allow public access to things that are publicly accessible.
I'm sorry, but when did "speaking to a citizen" (the language of the summary) become "arrests"? Do you really think that every interaction the police have with people is just to arrest them? How do they know who to arrest if they don't speak to the victims and witnesses, none of whom apparently deserve any privacy or respect from you. Why should the video of a knifing victim, for example, taken by the cop's helmet cam be made public? How about that fresh murder scene with the body still there? Would you say that the video of the cop delivering a baby, taken from the perspective of a helmet cam, also be made public? Would you want a video of your wife in such a situation out on the web?
And before you say "don't take the video", you better know that the video WILL be taken in such interactions just to protect the cop from later charges of improper or incorrect actions.
And if the cop didn't "kick your ass" but simply investigated the false charges, you'd be perfectly happy with your frank discussion of the night you spent with "that certain breed of woman", including details of who consented to what and when, appearing online for your current girlfriend/wife/children/employer/friends to see?
You're ok with that because of the slim chance that you'll get beaten up by police and want the video to prosecute that?
Is the video of the arrest any worse than the public record of your arrest permanently attached to your name?
Yes.
And the video of your questioning prior to the arrest is much worse than the report of that questioning that says only that "subject is not a person of interest due to alibi and lack of motive".
"Hey, look Martha, ain't that our next door neighbor sitting in the chair at the cop shop being in-terry-gated for those local robberies? I always said he was up to no good... let's go key his car to show him we don't want none of his kind around here..."
What government reveals should never be driven by what people want or don't want exposed,
In some parts of the world the government serves the people, not the other way around. At least, it is supposed to. To claim that what the people want is irrelevant is, well, pushing us further towards the upside down model that people here seem to dislike.
Since the police are often involved with people in ways that would be violations of privacy should a normal person do it (such as execution of a search warrant), then there are clear and compelling reasons why "all video of everything they do" should NOT be the rule regarding what is made public.
Even just allowing an officer into your house to discuss an issue would result in a video of the interior of your house available online for everyone to view. Now, I suppose you could take a hard line and say "if you don't want your privacy violated like that, don't allow officers into your house", but people who need a burglary investigated might call you callous and, frankly, a moron. The idea that private discussions with a cop need to be held in police headquarters if you don't want your personal space videod and online is also rather moronic.
and it's a simple way into it and has a clear defined goal
Simple is an opinion. I'd say a several month project that could result in what I saw (not) working at the faire isn't "simple" and isn't likely to help. While the goal is clearly defined, it doesn't match the stated goal and doesn't get him closer to it.
at least it's more interesting than buying a bionoid and having it go through motions to sit.
If your goal is to learn about doing something more than "move to position x,y, drop a dot of glue, rinse repeat", then I'd say a "bionoid" is a lot more interesting. Where is the ball? Where is the goal? How do I calculate the vector to push it? How do I avoid other opposing robots? What emergent behaviors appear with just a few simple action rules? How do two similar robots interact and what emergent behaviors appear from that? All of that is not what you learn from building someone else's kit.
Most people consider that sucking on a straw pulls the liquid up the tube. That's the common usage of the term. Yes, in a 100% technical discussion, which a simple explanation usually isn't, the other air is pushing and the air in the straw is less pushing, resulting in an upward force on the liquid in the straw.
With that in mind your are talking rubbish.
I'm sorry that my oversimplification and presentation in lay terms confused you.
Actually, you should understand that A) coinreturn made the claim
As did you. I quoted your words. And at the time, you apparently felt interested enough to play, but now you really don't care.
If you insist on playing, I look at what AuMatar wrote, and I see no explicit conversion into a right-left argument other than the fact that he used the work lockstep which would implicitly criticise two conservative judges for voting together too often.
Yes, other than using derogatory language about two conservatives, AuMatar is completely innocent of trying to make this a left/right issue. Yep. You win. If you ignore what he said, he didn't say it. If we ignore what you said, then coinreturn was the only one saying it. Yep again. You win. What a good game player you are for someone who isn't playing. Care to play a nice game of chess?
If it had been Kagan who had voted with the majority, and AuMatar had noted that it was one of the few times Kagan hadn't voted in lockstep with Sotomeyer, would you be this angry?
Yes, if you get caught failing at the politics game, project your own feelings onto others and try to deflect the blame. What "angry"? I'm not angry. Why would I be? Your failure to succeed at the game of politicizing SCOTUS doesn't make me angry, just amused. Your abdication of the game after you lose is, well, still not anger-inducing. Amusing, perhaps.
Thanks for helping to correct an erroneous belief I had of Bernoulli's principle. Not that he was wrong or anything just that the way in which it was taught to me.
If you're looking at this "air compression" and the wing pushing the air down as your new understanding of Bernoulli's principle, then you're worse off than you were before.
Bernoulli's principle is that air that is moving perpendicular to a surface exerts less pressure on that surface than static air, and the faster it moves the less pressure it exerts. A wing with a positive angle of attack has air moving over the upper surface faster than the air moves over the lower surface. That means there is less air pressure on the upper surface than on the lower surface. The result is... lift. The air pulls up on the wing because the pressure on top is less than the pressure on the bottom.
As a reaction, the wing pulls down on the air over it. This PULLS the air down at the back end of the wing, and it is this pressure differential that creates wingtip vortices.
There is a small region near the ground where the compressibility of the air plays a large role, and this is called "ground effect." Once you are more than a wing-length or so above ground, Bernoulli takes over and compression of air isn't the cause of the lift.
If you want an example of the principle, take a strip of light paper, maybe 1 inch wide by 6 inches long. Blow over the top surface and the paper should rise. You may have to help it get close enough to the airstream for the laminar flow to attach, so hold the paper up to start with. THAT's Bernoulli's principle. There is no compressed air involved other than in your lungs. No air being pushed down. Just a low pressure zone on top of the paper due to the perpendicular velocity. If you want to completely rule out air moving under the paper, glue the end of the paper to the bottom side of a straw, on just enough of the straw to hold the paper. Blow through the straw. The only moving air will be over the top of the paper.
This is like saying that raspberry pies baked with raspberries you go to the store to buy taste the same as raspberry pies baked with raspberries your spouse buys from the store. Same raspberries, same cook, just a different way of getting the starting ingredients.
I'd buy a dollar's worth of 1/4" dowel and cut to length. Heck, I'd make it a school-themed rack and use pencils cut to length, and leave the eraser part on. That's even faster than trying to print them out. Using a 3d printer for this would be even more overkill than using a 12" lathe to turn them out of stainless steel stock. Right tool for the job, eh?
Need a re-usable layout template for drilling holes? Just design and print!
This guy's printer wouldn't have made anything sturdy enough for one use, much less a reusable template. Punch holes in a piece of cardboard would have been more repeatable.
There's lots of uses for them...
When you're building things out of hot melt glue, you need to keep in mind that it flexes even when cold and doesn't create anything lasting. Like I said, his printer was not a very impressive toy. That doesn't say anything about printers that use UV cured plastics or scintered metals to make high resolution prints.
Turbofans, on the other hand, also have, well, the fan part in front.
Yes, turbofans have propellers. But the engine on this hypothetical aircraft is a jet, not just a generic turbine. And even if the hypothetical engine here is a turboprop, the lift is NOT provided by the air the propeller moves, it is provided by the air moving over the wing due to the forward motion of the aircraft.
They would also disagree on your poor choice of apostrophe placement.
Oh, goody, a grammar flame. How special.
Given enough thrust, that's exactly what they do.
No, that's not what they do. Not a single high-powered aircraft does this. And the reason you have to qualify your statement with "given enough thrust" is because you're making up for wing efficiency based on shape by providing more thrust than is necessary. That is a tacit admission that wing shape really does matter.
Your jet plane's engine will be pulling in air through its prop and pushing it out the back.
Jet planes don't have props. They have compressors.
This means the relative air movement through the engine and across the wings must exist in order for it to begin to roll forward on your treadmill.
The wings have nothing to do with the forward motion, only the air being pulled into the engine and thrust out the back does. In fact, before the aircraft starts the takeoff roll, there can be zero wind over the wings. But it isn't until there is a wind across the wings that the aircraft can actually fly. That "wind" comes from the forward motion of the aircraft created by the thrust.
It'll hover in mid air above the treadmill if it allowed to get up to speed and enough wind is moved across the wing,
If there is no static wind then there will be no wind over the wings of an aircraft that is not moving wrt the earth. It doesn't matter how much air the jet itself moves, if the aircraft is in some way prevented from moving forward to create an apparent wind, it will not fly. That includes having a surface below the aircraft providing sufficient friction through the wheels to balance the thrust from the engine.
If you do that experiment you will notice that as the helicopter's propeller spins up
The difference is that a helicopter's "propeller" provides lift, where a jet engine provides thrust. Lift is up. Thrust is whatever direction you point it. Yes, a Harrier can "fly" with zero airspeed because the jet engine thrust balances the weight. A helicopter can fly with zero airspeed because the blades provide sufficient lift to balance weight. But, a jet aircraft with a normal engine pointed the normal way will not fly just because the jet engine is running, it requires the lift generated by air moving across the wings. If the aircraft is not moving wrt the air, there is no lift.
As the helicopter hovers just above the scale's surface, but not touching it, examine the numbers on the scale -- They're the same as before the helicopter became airborn.
That's not true. Prior to starting the engine, the entire weight of the helicopter will be supported by the scale. After takeoff, and equivalent mass of air will be accelerated downward, but it will not be focussed on the scale, it will act on a larger area. Since the same mass occurs over a larger area, the "weight" will be less on the smaller area. And, of course, once the helicopter moves out of ground effect, the weight on the scale will be zero.
Additionally, the shape of a plane's wing does not cause much of the lift. It's the angle of attack.
NACA, and it's successor, NASA, would disagree. This is why there have been many studies on the most effective shapes for wings. True, at some angle of attack, any wing will have zero lift, but at any given angle of attack some shapes will have more lift than others. That's why they don't just use a flat slab of aluminum for a wing.
Our local library had a "Maker Faire" recently. Mostly not maker stuff, but one table where a guy brought in his home-built 3D printers. Two of them. One wasn't working. The other was busy making 3D gimcracks and geegaws. Very low resolution stuff.
While it was, indeed, cool (or 'hot', since it was a hot-melt glue based system), it wasn't impressive as anything more than a cool toy for making toys.
Many things are easy for people who already know what they are doing. If the question had been "I want to build a CNC mill..." I'd agree, a kit is the easiest way to do it. Note, I didn't say "easy", I said "easiest". "Easy" is calling the vendor and having a completed mill show up in a box ready to run.
But for someone who says "I want to play with a soccer playing robot...", then a mill kit isn't going to be the best place to start. When/if he finishes the kit, and it works, and he doesn't get distracted or disappointed or burned out or simply tired of the process, he'll have a CNC mill and will have learned how to put that kit together. That's not much closer to a soccer playing robot than when he started.
I don't think a "software guy" is really going to need to start milling his own robot parts until he gets to generation three, or maybe two if he's really into it, of the robot. Having to build your own parts detracts from the other necessary parts of the project, like "how do I detect the ball", and "what are the necessary steps in doing this task?" It isn't until he's at "how do I make the hardware better" that a mill comes into play, really. Maybe for a mechanical engineer it starts there, but not a "software guy".
I would be really slick if I could tell them the exact criteria I wanted, the best offer I had received so far, and when is my cut off for a final decision. Then they could tailor their offers to me.
But that would never happen. They aren't going to limit their offers to the specific details you give them simply because too many people think they want one thing when they want another, or would want another if they knew about it. If they don't have exactly what you want, or they tell you "here it is" and you don't buy, they don't make a sale. But if they say "here's something like what you asked for..." and you actually like it and buy, they win.
A very trivial anecdote. Two weeks ago I went to a new restaurant. I looked at the menu and based my decision on the descriptions I saw there. After I ordered, I walked by another table and saw what I really wanted. I didn't know I wanted it until I saw it (actually, I thought it was too expensive), and the waiter didn't show it to me based on what I told him I wanted. Had he done so, I'd have bought something that cost almost twice as much and I'd have liked three times better. That's what drives marketing, not trying to meet explicit statements of desire, it's creating desire.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen one just recently added to Portland International (PDX) DE gates security. I assume ABC has one, too.
I'd regard the system more highly if they actually concentrated on catching and jailing more child _pornographers_. e.g. the ones creating all the child porn. ... If he did pay for the porn, then follow the money and jail those involved too.
And information from the still-encrypted disks may help them find the people creating or distributing it, or who he paid to get it. That's why it is relevant to get that information.
All they have is the names now but no pictures.
Actually, they have "numerous" files, not just names.
File names are not going to be a solid case, they need the pictures themselves. So they suspect the pictures are on the other drives.
Actually, they suspect OTHER pictures are on the other drives. Perhaps they also suspect that those other pictures might help identify anyone who was victimized by the photographer, or help lead them to the photographer himself. In any case, there are good reasons to get access to those images.
Since they haven't arrested him that tells me they don't have a solid case.
The only thing you know from the fact that they haven't arrested him yet is that they haven't arrested him yet. You don't know they won't, and you don't know they don't have any evidence. They may very well be waiting until they have all the ducks lined up so they can go to trial quickly. Or they may be letting the guy sweat a bit, watching him to see if he leads them to anything else. There are examples of arrests that come a year or more after the crime, especially if it is the result of a long-term sting operation. You could apply your "they don't have a case if they haven't made an arrest during an ongoing investigation", but you'd be just a wrong then as now.
Any charges they can come up with to force him to decrypt those drives would be nothing compared to what he would get if they did find child porn on those drives.
They can already come up with possession of CP, and I'm not sure that those charges would be called "nothing", especially compared to "possession" based on files from another disk.
IE, we found stuff on one drive or in your apt or your browsing history, so your 5th amendment rights are void - give us the passwords.
Which is what the second judge said.
No, actually, it isn't. He was ordered to enter the passwords to decrypt the data. He wasn't ordered to reveal the passwords to anyone.
If your fears prevent constant recording of police,
You're creating a fictional "relationship issue" to use as an excuse, and that's your problem, not mine. My "fears" are called "the right to privacy", which includes privacy when I have a police officer in my house investigating a crime I've reported. That you're happy having every interaction with the cops uploaded to You Tube as soon as they happen, well, that's also your problem and should not become mine.
Assault is far more serious than an invasion of privacy.
You do realize that they'll simply do it with the camera lens obscured, while the invasion of privacy will happen any time they interact with a citizen in any way. Maybe you don't care. If you are that scared of the cops, maybe you should ... I dunno. "Trod upon the rights of your fellow citizens" isn't the option I was looking for.
but I shouldn't be at risk of police beatings because of your relationship problems.
You aren't in danger based on any of your hypothetical musings about my relationships.
And I'm secure enough in my relationship that false allegations don't threaten me at all.
I'm a potential employer. I see the video of you being interrogated about the rape. I'm your child. My friends show me and laugh. I'm your lawyer and I thank you for helping me put my kids through college. And for a boat. Thanks for being secure.
I expect the slim chance of me getting my ass kicked by police is a lot fatter than the slim chance of me getting falsely accused of rape.
At the point the false accusation has been made, your chance of being falsely accused is now 100% and your chance of being beaten is still less than 1. I guess you being happy with your interrogation over a false charge being immediately available to the public should cancel out all my concerns about privacy.
When a cop pulls someone over for speeding, they should have to appear in front of a judge and then prove that the person they pulled over was indeed speed, and if they can do that, only then should the person be issued a ticket.
I don't see how that is a significant difference from what happens now. If you look at the ticket as your invitation to come before a judge and make the cop prove the charge, then it is identical.
1. You get an 'invitation' to come to court.
a. You decline and the cop wins by default.
b. You accept, and the cop wins. You get a "ticket".
c. You accept and the cop loses. You don't get a ticket, but you've still accepted the invitation to appear.
Most people choose option 'a' even though the invitation says you can appear. Some people choose to appear and 'c' is the outcome.
The problem with your interpretation is that you view the ticket as the end of the process, not the beginning. As a final outcome and not a starting position.
when the rape kit showed no signs of forced intercourse, the rape charges were dropped.
Here's a clue. Consensual sex would show up on a rape kit, too, and there's no way to know the difference. "I didn't protest or fight back because he said he'd kill me if I did ... I did say 'no'..."
But congratulations, your interrogation is now on You Tube for everyone to watch, and the part about the charges being dropped, well, that didn't happen until later so it's not in that video. Still happy with the video being made public?
Personally, I prefer to let the rule of law prevail, and in our society accusations must be backed with evidence.
Actually, no, they don't. Accusations need only an accuser. Conviction is supposed to require evidence, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" depends a lot on who is accusing and how believable they are compared to you.
Your statement that you would laugh at the accusations of rape makes you look to the people investigating the accusation like you think rape is something funny, and that is how it would be presented to the jury if it got that far. "This person thinks that the rape of a woman is something to laugh at." "Uhh, no, wait, I was laughing at the thought that I would do such a thing... really, that's what I was laughing at."
As an American I have to ask, When was the last time we were defending ourselves?
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. The only reason for US involvement anywhere is if we ourselves are in personal danger. The hell with allies or the powerless who seek our aid in ridding themselves of oppression. We got ours, they should get theirs on their own.
It's a shame we didn't apply that isolationist policy in WWI and WWII. Japan would have been secure in knowing we would not interfere with their plans for China and we wouldn't have been drawn into defending ourselves in the Pacific. The equivalent to the exceptionally wonderful EU would have existed by 1945, and there would be no question of whether Turkey could join or not. They wouldn't want to, but they'd "join" anyway. Serves them right -- after all, who names an empire after a foot stool? There wouldn't have been decades of the "East/West Germany" problem. Greece wouldn't be allowed to go bankrupt. There would be no Israel to have to worry about, and Palestinians would have a true Motherland. The UN wouldn't be sucking up so much prime New York City land because we wouldn't be a part of that.
Yes. Isolationism is the way to go. We'll get off your front lawn as long as you stay off ours and we won't care whose front lawns you are on or what you do there.
Whether or not you think it's wrong that arrests are public record - ... no, that's not a good reason to not allow public access to things that are publicly accessible.
I'm sorry, but when did "speaking to a citizen" (the language of the summary) become "arrests"? Do you really think that every interaction the police have with people is just to arrest them? How do they know who to arrest if they don't speak to the victims and witnesses, none of whom apparently deserve any privacy or respect from you. Why should the video of a knifing victim, for example, taken by the cop's helmet cam be made public? How about that fresh murder scene with the body still there? Would you say that the video of the cop delivering a baby, taken from the perspective of a helmet cam, also be made public? Would you want a video of your wife in such a situation out on the web?
And before you say "don't take the video", you better know that the video WILL be taken in such interactions just to protect the cop from later charges of improper or incorrect actions.
You're ok with that because of the slim chance that you'll get beaten up by police and want the video to prosecute that?
Is the video of the arrest any worse than the public record of your arrest permanently attached to your name?
Yes.
And the video of your questioning prior to the arrest is much worse than the report of that questioning that says only that "subject is not a person of interest due to alibi and lack of motive".
"Hey, look Martha, ain't that our next door neighbor sitting in the chair at the cop shop being in-terry-gated for those local robberies? I always said he was up to no good... let's go key his car to show him we don't want none of his kind around here..."
What government reveals should never be driven by what people want or don't want exposed,
In some parts of the world the government serves the people, not the other way around. At least, it is supposed to. To claim that what the people want is irrelevant is, well, pushing us further towards the upside down model that people here seem to dislike.
Since the police are often involved with people in ways that would be violations of privacy should a normal person do it (such as execution of a search warrant), then there are clear and compelling reasons why "all video of everything they do" should NOT be the rule regarding what is made public.
Even just allowing an officer into your house to discuss an issue would result in a video of the interior of your house available online for everyone to view. Now, I suppose you could take a hard line and say "if you don't want your privacy violated like that, don't allow officers into your house", but people who need a burglary investigated might call you callous and, frankly, a moron. The idea that private discussions with a cop need to be held in police headquarters if you don't want your personal space videod and online is also rather moronic.
and it's a simple way into it and has a clear defined goal
Simple is an opinion. I'd say a several month project that could result in what I saw (not) working at the faire isn't "simple" and isn't likely to help. While the goal is clearly defined, it doesn't match the stated goal and doesn't get him closer to it.
at least it's more interesting than buying a bionoid and having it go through motions to sit.
If your goal is to learn about doing something more than "move to position x,y, drop a dot of glue, rinse repeat", then I'd say a "bionoid" is a lot more interesting. Where is the ball? Where is the goal? How do I calculate the vector to push it? How do I avoid other opposing robots? What emergent behaviors appear with just a few simple action rules? How do two similar robots interact and what emergent behaviors appear from that? All of that is not what you learn from building someone else's kit.
Air NEVER EVER PULLS.
Most people consider that sucking on a straw pulls the liquid up the tube. That's the common usage of the term. Yes, in a 100% technical discussion, which a simple explanation usually isn't, the other air is pushing and the air in the straw is less pushing, resulting in an upward force on the liquid in the straw.
With that in mind your are talking rubbish.
I'm sorry that my oversimplification and presentation in lay terms confused you.
Actually, you should understand that A) coinreturn made the claim
As did you. I quoted your words. And at the time, you apparently felt interested enough to play, but now you really don't care.
If you insist on playing, I look at what AuMatar wrote, and I see no explicit conversion into a right-left argument other than the fact that he used the work lockstep which would implicitly criticise two conservative judges for voting together too often.
Yes, other than using derogatory language about two conservatives, AuMatar is completely innocent of trying to make this a left/right issue. Yep. You win. If you ignore what he said, he didn't say it. If we ignore what you said, then coinreturn was the only one saying it. Yep again. You win. What a good game player you are for someone who isn't playing. Care to play a nice game of chess?
If it had been Kagan who had voted with the majority, and AuMatar had noted that it was one of the few times Kagan hadn't voted in lockstep with Sotomeyer, would you be this angry?
Yes, if you get caught failing at the politics game, project your own feelings onto others and try to deflect the blame. What "angry"? I'm not angry. Why would I be? Your failure to succeed at the game of politicizing SCOTUS doesn't make me angry, just amused. Your abdication of the game after you lose is, well, still not anger-inducing. Amusing, perhaps.
Thanks for helping to correct an erroneous belief I had of Bernoulli's principle. Not that he was wrong or anything just that the way in which it was taught to me.
If you're looking at this "air compression" and the wing pushing the air down as your new understanding of Bernoulli's principle, then you're worse off than you were before.
Bernoulli's principle is that air that is moving perpendicular to a surface exerts less pressure on that surface than static air, and the faster it moves the less pressure it exerts. A wing with a positive angle of attack has air moving over the upper surface faster than the air moves over the lower surface. That means there is less air pressure on the upper surface than on the lower surface. The result is ... lift. The air pulls up on the wing because the pressure on top is less than the pressure on the bottom.
As a reaction, the wing pulls down on the air over it. This PULLS the air down at the back end of the wing, and it is this pressure differential that creates wingtip vortices.
There is a small region near the ground where the compressibility of the air plays a large role, and this is called "ground effect." Once you are more than a wing-length or so above ground, Bernoulli takes over and compression of air isn't the cause of the lift.
If you want an example of the principle, take a strip of light paper, maybe 1 inch wide by 6 inches long. Blow over the top surface and the paper should rise. You may have to help it get close enough to the airstream for the laminar flow to attach, so hold the paper up to start with. THAT's Bernoulli's principle. There is no compressed air involved other than in your lungs. No air being pushed down. Just a low pressure zone on top of the paper due to the perpendicular velocity. If you want to completely rule out air moving under the paper, glue the end of the paper to the bottom side of a straw, on just enough of the straw to hold the paper. Blow through the straw. The only moving air will be over the top of the paper.
This is like saying that raspberry pies baked with raspberries you go to the store to buy taste the same as raspberry pies baked with raspberries your spouse buys from the store. Same raspberries, same cook, just a different way of getting the starting ingredients.
I did that with mug-rack pegs.
I'd buy a dollar's worth of 1/4" dowel and cut to length. Heck, I'd make it a school-themed rack and use pencils cut to length, and leave the eraser part on. That's even faster than trying to print them out. Using a 3d printer for this would be even more overkill than using a 12" lathe to turn them out of stainless steel stock. Right tool for the job, eh?
Need a re-usable layout template for drilling holes? Just design and print!
This guy's printer wouldn't have made anything sturdy enough for one use, much less a reusable template. Punch holes in a piece of cardboard would have been more repeatable.
There's lots of uses for them...
When you're building things out of hot melt glue, you need to keep in mind that it flexes even when cold and doesn't create anything lasting. Like I said, his printer was not a very impressive toy. That doesn't say anything about printers that use UV cured plastics or scintered metals to make high resolution prints.
That's turbojets.
Yes, jets. Like I said.
Turbofans, on the other hand, also have, well, the fan part in front.
Yes, turbofans have propellers. But the engine on this hypothetical aircraft is a jet, not just a generic turbine. And even if the hypothetical engine here is a turboprop, the lift is NOT provided by the air the propeller moves, it is provided by the air moving over the wing due to the forward motion of the aircraft.
They would also disagree on your poor choice of apostrophe placement.
Oh, goody, a grammar flame. How special.
Given enough thrust, that's exactly what they do.
No, that's not what they do. Not a single high-powered aircraft does this. And the reason you have to qualify your statement with "given enough thrust" is because you're making up for wing efficiency based on shape by providing more thrust than is necessary. That is a tacit admission that wing shape really does matter.
Your jet plane's engine will be pulling in air through its prop and pushing it out the back.
Jet planes don't have props. They have compressors.
This means the relative air movement through the engine and across the wings must exist in order for it to begin to roll forward on your treadmill.
The wings have nothing to do with the forward motion, only the air being pulled into the engine and thrust out the back does. In fact, before the aircraft starts the takeoff roll, there can be zero wind over the wings. But it isn't until there is a wind across the wings that the aircraft can actually fly. That "wind" comes from the forward motion of the aircraft created by the thrust.
It'll hover in mid air above the treadmill if it allowed to get up to speed and enough wind is moved across the wing,
If there is no static wind then there will be no wind over the wings of an aircraft that is not moving wrt the earth. It doesn't matter how much air the jet itself moves, if the aircraft is in some way prevented from moving forward to create an apparent wind, it will not fly. That includes having a surface below the aircraft providing sufficient friction through the wheels to balance the thrust from the engine.
If you do that experiment you will notice that as the helicopter's propeller spins up
The difference is that a helicopter's "propeller" provides lift, where a jet engine provides thrust. Lift is up. Thrust is whatever direction you point it. Yes, a Harrier can "fly" with zero airspeed because the jet engine thrust balances the weight. A helicopter can fly with zero airspeed because the blades provide sufficient lift to balance weight. But, a jet aircraft with a normal engine pointed the normal way will not fly just because the jet engine is running, it requires the lift generated by air moving across the wings. If the aircraft is not moving wrt the air, there is no lift.
As the helicopter hovers just above the scale's surface, but not touching it, examine the numbers on the scale -- They're the same as before the helicopter became airborn.
That's not true. Prior to starting the engine, the entire weight of the helicopter will be supported by the scale. After takeoff, and equivalent mass of air will be accelerated downward, but it will not be focussed on the scale, it will act on a larger area. Since the same mass occurs over a larger area, the "weight" will be less on the smaller area. And, of course, once the helicopter moves out of ground effect, the weight on the scale will be zero.
Additionally, the shape of a plane's wing does not cause much of the lift. It's the angle of attack.
NACA, and it's successor, NASA, would disagree. This is why there have been many studies on the most effective shapes for wings. True, at some angle of attack, any wing will have zero lift, but at any given angle of attack some shapes will have more lift than others. That's why they don't just use a flat slab of aluminum for a wing.
While it was, indeed, cool (or 'hot', since it was a hot-melt glue based system), it wasn't impressive as anything more than a cool toy for making toys.
With MakerSlide, it's quite easy.
Many things are easy for people who already know what they are doing. If the question had been "I want to build a CNC mill..." I'd agree, a kit is the easiest way to do it. Note, I didn't say "easy", I said "easiest". "Easy" is calling the vendor and having a completed mill show up in a box ready to run.
But for someone who says "I want to play with a soccer playing robot...", then a mill kit isn't going to be the best place to start. When/if he finishes the kit, and it works, and he doesn't get distracted or disappointed or burned out or simply tired of the process, he'll have a CNC mill and will have learned how to put that kit together. That's not much closer to a soccer playing robot than when he started.
I don't think a "software guy" is really going to need to start milling his own robot parts until he gets to generation three, or maybe two if he's really into it, of the robot. Having to build your own parts detracts from the other necessary parts of the project, like "how do I detect the ball", and "what are the necessary steps in doing this task?" It isn't until he's at "how do I make the hardware better" that a mill comes into play, really. Maybe for a mechanical engineer it starts there, but not a "software guy".
I would be really slick if I could tell them the exact criteria I wanted, the best offer I had received so far, and when is my cut off for a final decision. Then they could tailor their offers to me.
But that would never happen. They aren't going to limit their offers to the specific details you give them simply because too many people think they want one thing when they want another, or would want another if they knew about it. If they don't have exactly what you want, or they tell you "here it is" and you don't buy, they don't make a sale. But if they say "here's something like what you asked for..." and you actually like it and buy, they win.
A very trivial anecdote. Two weeks ago I went to a new restaurant. I looked at the menu and based my decision on the descriptions I saw there. After I ordered, I walked by another table and saw what I really wanted. I didn't know I wanted it until I saw it (actually, I thought it was too expensive), and the waiter didn't show it to me based on what I told him I wanted. Had he done so, I'd have bought something that cost almost twice as much and I'd have liked three times better. That's what drives marketing, not trying to meet explicit statements of desire, it's creating desire.