"isolationism... That's largely what brought the US into the last world war"
The declaration of strategic-economic war against Japan represented by the oil embargo led to the US getting involved in war. This led the Japanese navy to estimate that it had two years of fuel left. It should not be bewildering that a nation being being thus strangled might retaliate, and that retaliation could only take the form of shooting war.
The embargo was calculated to respond to Japanese action in its own region with which the US disagreed - the invasion of China and the colonies of Southeast Asia.
Without entering into a discussion of the pros and cons, it was the OPPOSITE of isolationism which brought war to the US.
since 64 bit addressing is important if you want more than 4GB RAM
64 bit direct addressing is no more necessary to use >4 GB of RAM with ARM than it is with Intel. The magic is called PAE - physical address extension. It allows a multiple of 4 GB of RAM globally, though each process is, in practical terms, limited to 4 GB. For example, the Cortex-A12 core is a 32 bit architecture, but has 40 bits of memory addressability. 32 of those bits are directly set from address fields in instructions, and the other 8 bits are set by page tables. With 40 bits you can utilize up to 1 TB of RAM.
Those old enough to remember the 8086 will recall that it was a 16 bit architecture, but had 20 address pins, so could address 1 MB of RAM rather than just 64K. 4 of those pins were set using segment registers. The segmented memory model was actually more flexible than the flat memory model, because even individual processes could manipulate their own segment registers to address the full 1 MB range.
The only way I could make sense of it was that I interpreted the issue of "jumping on red" is that they are starting in anticipation of their own green when the intersecting roadway's goes red. There is often or usually a delay between the two, so it does give such scofflaws an advantage to flout the regulation and only endangers them if the guy in the intersecting roadway is also a scofflaw and is running his own red. Yeah, I know, that is an all-too-likely possibility.
In my locale, many or most drivers are actually ultra-cautious and add THEIR OWN delay between their own light turning green, and starting off. This infuriates me on general principle, since it indicates an assumption that the system is defective, and I suppose it depresses me that it actually IS defective.
The system should be bloody well designed so that when you are first in line and you see the change to green you have an iron-clad immunity to instantly plant the accelerator on the floor. Not to speed, but to damn well get to the speed limit without taking all goddam day.
But that's not all that precise. To the sprinter, the mere brisk jogger is disabled. To the brisk jogger, the dog-trotter is disabled. To the dog-trotter, he who can but walk is disabled. To he who can but walk, the shuffler is disabled. To the shuffler, the crawler is disabled. To the crawler, the wriggler is disabled. Where do you want to draw the arbitrary line?
You're going to have to define something about being capable in context. Perhaps 70th percentile of entire population in "speed of jogging the length of a crosswalk when motivated", plus perhaps 70th percentile in visual acuity and hearing, plus maybe 30th percentile of mental alertness. Something about ability to swivel his neck should also be in there. And you're going to have to publish precise specs so the poor crosswalker knows how hard he has to exert himself, and whether he should just give up the attempt. Actually, you still need real-time feedback so he knows he's pacing himself successfully. Should he bowl over the 80 year old lady with the huge armful of groceries to save himself? Or knock the groceries to the ground, pick her up and sprint with her?
A better solution (strictly in theory) would be to give everyone entering a crosswalk a token which is surrendered on making the goal safely. The traffic light will then never turn green until the token count reaches zero. If some lengthy timeout occurs with the token count never reaching zero, the intersection is frozen in both directions, an audiovisual alarm annunciator set, and the authorities are summoned to evaluate and clear the situation. Unfortunately the DOS potential of such a scheme is huge.
In a more useful vein, one could suggest that separating the vehicle grade from the pedestrian grade in congested areas (cities, certainly) is the proper solution. With all vehicular traffic moved to a dedicated subterranean grade, you eliminate such vexing problems, including not only pedestrian safety, but also vision impairment due to precipitation and sub glare, traction hazard due to ice and snow, etc. Also, the surface of the city becomes one big pedestrian mall / prark. We have to decide which level bicycles belong on. OK, so I'm a utopian science fiction writer at heart.
Really all that should be fixed is to put a bigger gap between the countdown reaching 0 and the light actually changing.
Sigh. Completely misses the point. The "about to change" signal is ALREADY a sign that the change is about to occur. The countdown should relate precisely to the real world. You should know for damn well certain what is to happen when it reaches the end. Not at some ill defined point after that. Your idea just promotes craziness.
Light will change in 7 seconds...6...5...4...3...2...1 CLICK. Only kidding; light will change in 5 seconds...4...3...2...1 CLICK. Gotcha; light will change in 3 seconds...2...1
Yes; the "about to change" (yellow light, flashing walk sign, countdown) had bloody well be long enough to actually have a fighting chance to respond in time. There probably should also be a dramatically lower speed limit within x meters of the controlled intersection so you don't need to make the "about to change" last for an eon as everyone speeds along at 60 km/h.
I would say your original question was answered, and relatively civilly. Saying that the respondent has no point seems a bit petty. The point was made, and quite ably. Your counterpoint is also clear enough, and readers can decide how much merit and validity it has.
I am not convinced, either, that JavaScript is an elegant language, but I am less convinced that it is crap than I was was back when it referred to nothing more than an array of incompatible pidgn dialects. The fact remains that its greatest strength is its ubiquity as a lingua franca.
It is difficult not to be favorably impressed that a resource has been written in JavaScript which shows so much promise.
Sergei Brin, is that you? “If we could wave a magic wand and not be subject to US law, that would be great. If we could be in some magical jurisdiction that everyone in the world trusted, that would be great. We're doing it as well as can be done." Did you say that to the Guardian?
Thank you for clarifying that. So far, checking into that, I ran across this, which says that Google tried to scapegoat one engineer (shades of GM), when actually management failed to do its function, and according to the FCC Google impeded and delayed the FCC's investigation, resulting in a fine of - wait for it - $25 grand. I would say that is about the equivalent of one dust grain filed off of a single penny to you or me.
The project software was clearly designed to capture and record those packets which included email etc, and that data had no possible relevancy to the ostensible purpose of the project, which was basically only to link SSIDs and MACs to their geographical location. So it's a strange definition of "inadvertent", but even with the benefit of the doubt, I think the issue a lot of us have is, why didn't Google just say oops, say the words to make us actually believe none of the questionable data was actually inspected by anyone, come clean and be open about it, and properly aid the FCC in its investigation? There is just too much an odor of Watergate coverup to the affair.
You sure as hell got THAT right. But it's not like the shills are prevnting real people from posting here too. We only have ourselves to blame for the din of the shills and apologists completely drowning us out here.
All you guys posting to the effect that Google has been doing nothing wrong in connection with this - you all lost me at the point you failed to acknowledge or comprehend this:
[Google] acknowledged that its Street View cars were accessing email, web history and other data on unencrypted Wi-Fi networks
Did any of you even read the summary? I have no issue with Google recording the presence of my (hypothetical) open WiFi hotspot at such-and-such location and publishing that fact, even with an exterior photo of my property. I have a BIG problem with them snooping on private correspondence and other private matters exposed on said open WiFi.
The fact that if I did have an open WiFi it would sure as hell be on a different network than the one I use for email and other personal activities is BESIDE THE POINT. The point is, per the summary, Google is actively snooping on things they know for damn sure are not intended for them.
If the summary is wrong on this point, fine; please point out exactly how it is wrong.
Seems to me that they should be locked up in POW camps run by the military, from which there is no release so long as the combat continues, save at the discretion of both sides agreeing on an exchange. Their confinement would be strictly a military issue, not subject to appeal through the judiciary. As such I have no problem with using extraterritorial as well as territorial military holdings, as in neither case would the military aims of the national government be allowed to be betrayed by gerbils.
Of course in my imaginary world, the US, and hopefully most of the civilized world, would have, through due process, declared total war against the islamists who made themselves our all-out, zealous enemy which is a bandit cartel rather than a proper religion.
Since that didn't happen, nothing I suggest based on that is going to be operative. In actual fact, two successive US regimes have convinced me they have no interest in addressing reality in an effective manner, so whatever comes home to roost on the US as a national power is richly deserved.
The fact that the people in the US on the whole do not directly deserve the hell that will exponentially be visited on them - life is harsh, as the lion tells the wildebeeste and the shark tells the seal. Stupidity has consequences. The US voters installed these horrific regimes just as surely as German voters confirmed Hitler in a plebiscite.
I was about to say if they don't, they should, suggesting all you need is to have ground and VCC connected and D+ and D- left open - but that's not the way it works! You might get 100 mA that way, or you might get nothing, but you'll never get the full 1/2 amp or the extended 1.8 amps that way. You need enough smarts in your "condom" to negotiate the current.
But all is not lost. I second what the AC suggests: LockedUSB. They have done the work and produced a neat little package, and it's worth the reduced price for what it does.
silver has the best electrical resistance, followed by copper, followed by aluminium
Our AC is full of bull. Gold is more conductive than aluminum. However, the figures for the four top metals are grouped so closely that there isn't much to choose (other than heavy-duty power transmission, where the ratio of resistivity to density rules and cost matters greatly, so basically it's either copper or aluminum, and aluminum has a significant edge).
Resistivity in ohm-meters at 20 C: Silver, 1.59*10^-8 Copper, 1.68*10^-8 Gold, 2.44*10^-8 Aluminum, 2.82*10^-8
Gold (or platinum) plated contacts are most desirable for circuits which carry very low to extremely low current, because it is free from corrosion, so surface resistance stays low. For circuits carrying significant current, contacts operate under much higher mechanical pressure, so wiping clears the corrosion at the points of contact. Platinum has more than TWENTY TIMES the resistivity of gold, yet it is still very suitable for contact plating. The resistance contributed by a plating only 1.3 MICRONS in thickness is utterly insignificant. In fact, you need a tin substrate under the gold plating to make it durable, and tin is only as conductive as platinum. But it doesn't matter, because the tin substrate only needs to be 1.3 microns thick, too.
The meat of the connector, relay or switch contact can't be silver, copper, gold or aluminum because none of them has any significant degree of springiness. Phosphor-bronze is good. Its resistivity is seven times higher than copper, but that is just a fact of life. The wires leading to the contacts form a current path many times longer than that of the contact itself, so the resistance of the contact is not very significant.
Interesting question, by way of backtracking from the challenge. I know of two statues (if that is what you meant to write) of Lenin in Finland. There are also two such statues in Italy, and four such statues in the US. I guess they must have been ex-Soviet countries too.
OTOH, the Finnish armed forces killed a lot of Soviet soldiers during WW II. And Nazi German soldiers, BTW, in a different period of the war.
I wonder whether C/C++ should provide a safe buffer
When I see that expression "C/C++" used in this particular context it raises my hackles, because it indicates the writer does not understand the difference.
In C the programmer is free to USE a buffer safely, by doing his own bounds checking. In C++ the programmer is free to use C++'s non-overflowing dynamically-allocated/self-growing constructs, as well as a simple C style array or fixed-size-allocated buffer. C++ makes it substantially easier to use a buffer safely, but you can do it in C also, by exercising more intricate care in programming.
In principle you could greatly increase reliability/security by switching the ecosystem from C to C++ and enforcing certain rules, but I am afraid that the base of truly competent C++ programmers is at least an order of magnitude less than that of C programmers, and worse, programmers who can write C++ and get it to compile, but are not truly proficient and competent in C++, seldom realize their own deficiency.
TL;DR: C++ *HAS* safe buffers if you choose to use them.
Please read Robert Heinlein's The Number of the Beast and then tell me if you still think natural language is appropriate to command computers.
The use of natural language to interact with Star Trek: The Next Generation's computer has an extremely powerful appeal. I read Heinlein's novel prior to the debut of STTNG and I was still impressed by the latter, but my belief in the feasibility of the idea is greatly tempered by the former.
Most admins find out about -- after they run into a situation where they accidentally created a file with a name like "-f" go ahead, try and delete a file named "-f" any other way.
rm./-f Is the most dead-simple way of doing it and is portable to non-gnu-based systems, although even BSD has the double-dash option nowadays.
And there is always the old standby of insulating the operation from bash command line expansion: perl -e 'unlink "-f";'
You could also, within a minute or so, write and compile a literally two-line C program to remove it. I don't understand the mystery. #include <unistd.h> int main() { unlink("-f"); }
Well, nitrogen and hydrogen actually, which can be EXTRACTED from air and water respectively.
Plus a whole hell of a lot of energy. In practice the hydrogen is almost always produced by steam reforming of natural gas, not electrolyzing water, because the latter is terribly inefficient and expensive.
You just doubled down on STUPID. Leave aerodynamics to those who understand it. Hint: yes, of course both a paper airplane and a feather experience lift when gliding and fluttering respectively.
The airplane wing is curved on the top, and flat on the bottom. The wind has to travel farther over the top of the wing than the bottom, meaning there is less air pressure on the top of the wing, more on the bottom, and that's what generates lift.
That is the most frequently cited bunch of baloney in explaining lift. The easiest way to demonstrate what a load of bull it is, is to point out that a paper airplane develops lift and glides fine, even though both the top and bottom of the airfoil are flat. A close second is to point out that planes with aerobatic capability can develop lift and fly inverted. Then there is the fact that perfectly symmetric cross section airfoils work fine as wings, being quite popular in models, but also found at full scale.
Lift is developed by shaping the flow of the airstream. Vortex theory is key to understanding the truth of it. Check out the Lanchester-Prandtl wing theory, based on work by the great Max Munk.
Slashdot Mirror
The declaration of strategic-economic war against Japan represented by the oil embargo led to the US getting involved in war. This led the Japanese navy to estimate that it had two years of fuel left. It should not be bewildering that a nation being being thus strangled might retaliate, and that retaliation could only take the form of shooting war.
The embargo was calculated to respond to Japanese action in its own region with which the US disagreed - the invasion of China and the colonies of Southeast Asia.
Without entering into a discussion of the pros and cons, it was the OPPOSITE of isolationism which brought war to the US.
64 bit direct addressing is no more necessary to use >4 GB of RAM with ARM than it is with Intel. The magic is called PAE - physical address extension. It allows a multiple of 4 GB of RAM globally, though each process is, in practical terms, limited to 4 GB. For example, the Cortex-A12 core is a 32 bit architecture, but has 40 bits of memory addressability. 32 of those bits are directly set from address fields in instructions, and the other 8 bits are set by page tables. With 40 bits you can utilize up to 1 TB of RAM.
Those old enough to remember the 8086 will recall that it was a 16 bit architecture, but had 20 address pins, so could address 1 MB of RAM rather than just 64K. 4 of those pins were set using segment registers. The segmented memory model was actually more flexible than the flat memory model, because even individual processes could manipulate their own segment registers to address the full 1 MB range.
The only way I could make sense of it was that I interpreted the issue of "jumping on red" is that they are starting in anticipation of their own green when the intersecting roadway's goes red. There is often or usually a delay between the two, so it does give such scofflaws an advantage to flout the regulation and only endangers them if the guy in the intersecting roadway is also a scofflaw and is running his own red. Yeah, I know, that is an all-too-likely possibility.
In my locale, many or most drivers are actually ultra-cautious and add THEIR OWN delay between their own light turning green, and starting off. This infuriates me on general principle, since it indicates an assumption that the system is defective, and I suppose it depresses me that it actually IS defective.
The system should be bloody well designed so that when you are first in line and you see the change to green you have an iron-clad immunity to instantly plant the accelerator on the floor. Not to speed, but to damn well get to the speed limit without taking all goddam day.
But that's not all that precise. To the sprinter, the mere brisk jogger is disabled. To the brisk jogger, the dog-trotter is disabled. To the dog-trotter, he who can but walk is disabled. To he who can but walk, the shuffler is disabled. To the shuffler, the crawler is disabled. To the crawler, the wriggler is disabled. Where do you want to draw the arbitrary line?
You're going to have to define something about being capable in context. Perhaps 70th percentile of entire population in "speed of jogging the length of a crosswalk when motivated", plus perhaps 70th percentile in visual acuity and hearing, plus maybe 30th percentile of mental alertness. Something about ability to swivel his neck should also be in there. And you're going to have to publish precise specs so the poor crosswalker knows how hard he has to exert himself, and whether he should just give up the attempt. Actually, you still need real-time feedback so he knows he's pacing himself successfully. Should he bowl over the 80 year old lady with the huge armful of groceries to save himself? Or knock the groceries to the ground, pick her up and sprint with her?
A better solution (strictly in theory) would be to give everyone entering a crosswalk a token which is surrendered on making the goal safely. The traffic light will then never turn green until the token count reaches zero. If some lengthy timeout occurs with the token count never reaching zero, the intersection is frozen in both directions, an audiovisual alarm annunciator set, and the authorities are summoned to evaluate and clear the situation. Unfortunately the DOS potential of such a scheme is huge.
In a more useful vein, one could suggest that separating the vehicle grade from the pedestrian grade in congested areas (cities, certainly) is the proper solution. With all vehicular traffic moved to a dedicated subterranean grade, you eliminate such vexing problems, including not only pedestrian safety, but also vision impairment due to precipitation and sub glare, traction hazard due to ice and snow, etc. Also, the surface of the city becomes one big pedestrian mall / prark. We have to decide which level bicycles belong on. OK, so I'm a utopian science fiction writer at heart.
Sigh. Completely misses the point. The "about to change" signal is ALREADY a sign that the change is about to occur. The countdown should relate precisely to the real world. You should know for damn well certain what is to happen when it reaches the end. Not at some ill defined point after that. Your idea just promotes craziness.
Yes; the "about to change" (yellow light, flashing walk sign, countdown) had bloody well be long enough to actually have a fighting chance to respond in time. There probably should also be a dramatically lower speed limit within x meters of the controlled intersection so you don't need to make the "about to change" last for an eon as everyone speeds along at 60 km/h.
I would say your original question was answered, and relatively civilly. Saying that the respondent has no point seems a bit petty. The point was made, and quite ably. Your counterpoint is also clear enough, and readers can decide how much merit and validity it has.
I am not convinced, either, that JavaScript is an elegant language, but I am less convinced that it is crap than I was was back when it referred to nothing more than an array of incompatible pidgn dialects. The fact remains that its greatest strength is its ubiquity as a lingua franca.
It is difficult not to be favorably impressed that a resource has been written in JavaScript which shows so much promise.
Yes, the price of the 850 is obscene. The 840 wasn't very overwhelming either. The Crucial M500 is where it's at.
You don't know how to set up and use port 587 or 465?
I think CoolVibe means "get a real VPS with a static IP and real DNS".
Sergei Brin, is that you? “If we could wave a magic wand and not be subject to US law, that would be great. If we could be in some magical jurisdiction that everyone in the world trusted, that would be great. We're doing it as well as can be done." Did you say that to the Guardian?
Thank you for clarifying that. So far, checking into that, I ran across this, which says that Google tried to scapegoat one engineer (shades of GM), when actually management failed to do its function, and according to the FCC Google impeded and delayed the FCC's investigation, resulting in a fine of - wait for it - $25 grand. I would say that is about the equivalent of one dust grain filed off of a single penny to you or me.
The project software was clearly designed to capture and record those packets which included email etc, and that data had no possible relevancy to the ostensible purpose of the project, which was basically only to link SSIDs and MACs to their geographical location. So it's a strange definition of "inadvertent", but even with the benefit of the doubt, I think the issue a lot of us have is, why didn't Google just say oops, say the words to make us actually believe none of the questionable data was actually inspected by anyone, come clean and be open about it, and properly aid the FCC in its investigation? There is just too much an odor of Watergate coverup to the affair.
You sure as hell got THAT right. But it's not like the shills are prevnting real people from posting here too. We only have ourselves to blame for the din of the shills and apologists completely drowning us out here.
All you guys posting to the effect that Google has been doing nothing wrong in connection with this - you all lost me at the point you failed to acknowledge or comprehend this:
Did any of you even read the summary? I have no issue with Google recording the presence of my (hypothetical) open WiFi hotspot at such-and-such location and publishing that fact, even with an exterior photo of my property. I have a BIG problem with them snooping on private correspondence and other private matters exposed on said open WiFi.
The fact that if I did have an open WiFi it would sure as hell be on a different network than the one I use for email and other personal activities is BESIDE THE POINT. The point is, per the summary, Google is actively snooping on things they know for damn sure are not intended for them.
If the summary is wrong on this point, fine; please point out exactly how it is wrong.
Hell no. Any other questions?
Seems to me that they should be locked up in POW camps run by the military, from which there is no release so long as the combat continues, save at the discretion of both sides agreeing on an exchange. Their confinement would be strictly a military issue, not subject to appeal through the judiciary. As such I have no problem with using extraterritorial as well as territorial military holdings, as in neither case would the military aims of the national government be allowed to be betrayed by gerbils.
Of course in my imaginary world, the US, and hopefully most of the civilized world, would have, through due process, declared total war against the islamists who made themselves our all-out, zealous enemy which is a bandit cartel rather than a proper religion.
Since that didn't happen, nothing I suggest based on that is going to be operative. In actual fact, two successive US regimes have convinced me they have no interest in addressing reality in an effective manner, so whatever comes home to roost on the US as a national power is richly deserved.
The fact that the people in the US on the whole do not directly deserve the hell that will exponentially be visited on them - life is harsh, as the lion tells the wildebeeste and the shark tells the seal. Stupidity has consequences. The US voters installed these horrific regimes just as surely as German voters confirmed Hitler in a plebiscite.
I was about to say if they don't, they should, suggesting all you need is to have ground and VCC connected and D+ and D- left open - but that's not the way it works! You might get 100 mA that way, or you might get nothing, but you'll never get the full 1/2 amp or the extended 1.8 amps that way. You need enough smarts in your "condom" to negotiate the current.
But all is not lost. I second what the AC suggests: LockedUSB. They have done the work and produced a neat little package, and it's worth the reduced price for what it does.
Our AC is full of bull. Gold is more conductive than aluminum. However, the figures for the four top metals are grouped so closely that there isn't much to choose (other than heavy-duty power transmission, where the ratio of resistivity to density rules and cost matters greatly, so basically it's either copper or aluminum, and aluminum has a significant edge).
Resistivity in ohm-meters at 20 C:
Silver, 1.59*10^-8
Copper, 1.68*10^-8
Gold, 2.44*10^-8
Aluminum, 2.82*10^-8
Gold (or platinum) plated contacts are most desirable for circuits which carry very low to extremely low current, because it is free from corrosion, so surface resistance stays low. For circuits carrying significant current, contacts operate under much higher mechanical pressure, so wiping clears the corrosion at the points of contact. Platinum has more than TWENTY TIMES the resistivity of gold, yet it is still very suitable for contact plating. The resistance contributed by a plating only 1.3 MICRONS in thickness is utterly insignificant. In fact, you need a tin substrate under the gold plating to make it durable, and tin is only as conductive as platinum. But it doesn't matter, because the tin substrate only needs to be 1.3 microns thick, too.
The meat of the connector, relay or switch contact can't be silver, copper, gold or aluminum because none of them has any significant degree of springiness. Phosphor-bronze is good. Its resistivity is seven times higher than copper, but that is just a fact of life. The wires leading to the contacts form a current path many times longer than that of the contact itself, so the resistance of the contact is not very significant.
Interesting question, by way of backtracking from the challenge. I know of two statues (if that is what you meant to write) of Lenin in Finland. There are also two such statues in Italy, and four such statues in the US. I guess they must have been ex-Soviet countries too.
OTOH, the Finnish armed forces killed a lot of Soviet soldiers during WW II. And Nazi German soldiers, BTW, in a different period of the war.
When I see that expression "C/C++" used in this particular context it raises my hackles, because it indicates the writer does not understand the difference.
In C the programmer is free to USE a buffer safely, by doing his own bounds checking. In C++ the programmer is free to use C++'s non-overflowing dynamically-allocated/self-growing constructs, as well as a simple C style array or fixed-size-allocated buffer. C++ makes it substantially easier to use a buffer safely, but you can do it in C also, by exercising more intricate care in programming.
In principle you could greatly increase reliability/security by switching the ecosystem from C to C++ and enforcing certain rules, but I am afraid that the base of truly competent C++ programmers is at least an order of magnitude less than that of C programmers, and worse, programmers who can write C++ and get it to compile, but are not truly proficient and competent in C++, seldom realize their own deficiency.
TL;DR: C++ *HAS* safe buffers if you choose to use them.
Er, Finland was never part of the Soviet Union.
Please read Robert Heinlein's The Number of the Beast and then tell me if you still think natural language is appropriate to command computers.
The use of natural language to interact with Star Trek: The Next Generation's computer has an extremely powerful appeal. I read Heinlein's novel prior to the debut of STTNG and I was still impressed by the latter, but my belief in the feasibility of the idea is greatly tempered by the former.
rm ./-f
Is the most dead-simple way of doing it and is portable to non-gnu-based systems, although even BSD has the double-dash option nowadays.
And there is always the old standby of insulating the operation from bash command line expansion:
perl -e 'unlink "-f";'
You could also, within a minute or so, write and compile a literally two-line C program to remove it. I don't understand the mystery.
#include <unistd.h>
int main() { unlink("-f"); }
Well, nitrogen and hydrogen actually, which can be EXTRACTED from air and water respectively.
Plus a whole hell of a lot of energy. In practice the hydrogen is almost always produced by steam reforming of natural gas, not electrolyzing water, because the latter is terribly inefficient and expensive.
You just doubled down on STUPID. Leave aerodynamics to those who understand it. Hint: yes, of course both a paper airplane and a feather experience lift when gliding and fluttering respectively.
That is the most frequently cited bunch of baloney in explaining lift. The easiest way to demonstrate what a load of bull it is, is to point out that a paper airplane develops lift and glides fine, even though both the top and bottom of the airfoil are flat. A close second is to point out that planes with aerobatic capability can develop lift and fly inverted. Then there is the fact that perfectly symmetric cross section airfoils work fine as wings, being quite popular in models, but also found at full scale.
Lift is developed by shaping the flow of the airstream. Vortex theory is key to understanding the truth of it. Check out the Lanchester-Prandtl wing theory, based on work by the great Max Munk.