Also, a la carte wouldn't help your bill; the pricing for a la carte would ensure that you are still paying as much or more than you are for bundled tv.
You are looking at it the wrong way. A la carte pricing wouldn't cut the "average" bill, but would give me the power to control my own bill. So *MY* bill would be cut, even if the average one wouldn't be.
Did these cases flood the courts and no lower court sided with the plaintiffs and SCOTUS denied cert on all of them as they wound their way through the system? I truly don't know the answer to this, but I've never heard this happened.
They were applied as expected, though not to the letter of the Constitution, so nobody challenged them on Constitutional grounds. At least, not until the nation was ready. You seem to be presuming that every law is quickly challenged to verify the courts position. That may be true now, but was it as true 100-150 years ago?
Yes, and for practical exercises, it rounds to zero. (and I knew that one, and was going to put in something like "perfect insulator" or such, but wanted to give you something mostly irrelevant to fixate on, and yes, you passed the asshole test)
Air is a lossless spring (at least in theory). Even throwing in "worst case" heat loss and such, still much much better than your 10% figure.
Let me know when you decide to stop being an asshole when discussing things on the net.
As soon as the people who are wrong stop being jackasses about it. How about you? When are you planning on stopping your assholeness?
I'm just simply telling you, if you're compressing a gas, it doesn't matter if you're recovering or storing energy during the decompression, the compression itself is highly lossy
And I'm telling you that you are wrong.
You refuse to listen. You can lead a horse to a book, but you can't make him read it.
What's the loss in compressing air in a sealed piston? Take a car engine. Seal every chamber 100% perfect. eliminate friction. Then turn the crank. As you compress it, you "lose" nothing, and as you turn the crank more, you uncompress it, losing nothing. Then it goes around and around. You can compress it an infinite number of times without losing anything.
Air in a sealed system becomes a spring, not a loss. You don't understand "open system" and "closed system".
Describe how you're getting the tires back up to 120+ psi.
You object on a theoretical basis, so the implementation doesn't matter until you learn basic physics. Let me know when that's done, and we can move on to basic engineering. You obviously have no grasp of either.
Yes. They wanted it to be more than they were willing to pass, so they passed more than they wanted. And slowed implementation. Lawmakers all the time pass stuff that affects their children more than those that passed it. Why is it unbelievable it happened?
The elongated egg-shape of the front end of a streamliner is one of the strongest shapes in nature, and the A-pillars follow the shape.
No, it's not. When they build buildings and want the strongest foundation, they use straight vertical piers. Not elongated curves. Because curves are weak, and vertical strength is higher than lateral.
No, the judge said that tenure harms minorities. There was no logical link given, no detail in the reasoning that was passed in TFA, and I haven't read the decision.
If the interpretation by the courts was so fatally flawed for the first 50+ years, wouldn't you think there would have been immediate and widespread outrage and the historical record would reflect this as a major political issue at that time?
Because the people at the time wanted the wrong interpretation. It slowed transition and was more palatable.
Tenure would do nothing to stop this, and would in fact make it worse. Without tenure, you're free to go work somewhere else if you find the current environment too oppressive.
So tenure would stop you from leaving a job? I've only ever seen it used to raise the bar to fire someone, not the other way around.
If there were tenure, you would be unable to switch jobs without starting on the bottom at the new place. Good luck escaping a bad work environment under that system!
I've seen tenure systems where someone tenured elswhere is on a "fast track" (usually a year or less) to full tenure at the new place. They are generally seen as a professional recognition, not a union seniority. Someone from IBEW local 1547 moving to Teamsters local 25 would be starting out at the bottom, but someone going from one local to another is more like someone going from one university to another, at least from what I've seen.
Why not simply let the parents (customers/taxpayers) decide,
Do you work in IT? Many on slashdot do. Have you ever had a customer ask for something they obviously didn't want? I've seen an IT manager spend millions on Oracle because "that's what the other guys are doing". The funny thing is, they didn't even have a database. After buying and installing Oracle, he was amazed it didn't do what he wanted it to do.
That's what you'd get if you put "regular" people in charge of education.
Why not have experts in charge of the fields they are experts in? That'll never work. We need the dumbest person in charge of everything.
And others could say that the wording means the current interpretation, and it was the previous judges who were the "activist judges" failing to apply the law as written because it was politically inconvenient at the time.
The administrator doing that would be sued into oblivion and never work in education again. Seriously, people love to make up absurd circumstances for why we need strict government control over certain things, yet those things would never happen due to the consequences.
I've seen similar happen without consequences. You are presuming the administrator states "I'm firing you for failing to properly teach this religious subject". They never do. There are worse abuses, but you've already made up your mind, so any "proof" would be dismissed, not that firing someone requires "proof", unless there's a union or such.
My "car" already "hovers" a few inches above the road, riding on "tires" that support the weight and provide propulsion. One engineers throw-away comment being blown out of proportion isn't that big of a deal.
Perhaps he was supposed to mention work reducing rolling resistance through lift on the car body, but he wasn't supposed to make it sound like a hovercraft?
TFA doesn't claim "hovercraft" That's editorial. What would happen if you found a way to duct air under the tires? Have them lifted 1mm off the ground by a thin layer of air. Part of braking or any other maneuver would be to cut the air, and the tire is then in contact again. The tire still bears 100% of the car weight, but has no contact with the road while under certain cruising conditions.
The "announcement" is overblown from a throw away comment with no detail or follow-up. No official press release, just a comment by an engineer about some of the "cool stuff" they are investigating (not making, not prototyping, just thinking about).
Perhaps the engineer was even flat out wrong. I could claim the same thing he claimed if I worked out a lift system that, as the car approached the road, the lift on the car increased. Then lower the suspension to the point the normal force decreased by 90%. You'd lose 90% of your handling, but that wouldn't matter, as long as you were cruising. And it'd be "cruising" on a cushion of air more than the tires.
Given his statement, I can see 100 different solutions that are all better than "hovercar".
Unless they are looking into powered roadways and mag-lev powered hover cars for freeway cruising, but that'd be massive infrastructure build, and the car would be trivial, once the roads are done.
. If you have a highly raked windshield (optimal aerodynamics) then the driver and passenger have to be located a bit further back from the front of the car for headroom reasons, so there's still plenty of room ahead of them to the foremost point on the vehicle.
But the long windshield makes for bad UI. How do you clean the small angle where the dash and windscreen meet? What is the effect at night, since you are looking through more glass and at a more distorting angle? Extending the A-pillar along your raked windshield makes it almost worthless for rollover protection.
Aerodynamics maybe your "favorite" design constraint, but it's far from the only one.
remember that compressing air is a rather lossy process.
In an open system, yes. In a closed system, no.
You are assuming the worst possible implementation for anything that doesn't directly agree with you, and the best possible implementation for things that agree with you. It's a form of confirmation bias, and it makes for an unfair evaluation of the ideas of others.
Slashdot Mirror
They should be allowed on the ballot, but nobody should vote for them, and a party should have some way of keeping the loons off their ballots.
Also, a la carte wouldn't help your bill; the pricing for a la carte would ensure that you are still paying as much or more than you are for bundled tv.
You are looking at it the wrong way. A la carte pricing wouldn't cut the "average" bill, but would give me the power to control my own bill. So *MY* bill would be cut, even if the average one wouldn't be.
Did these cases flood the courts and no lower court sided with the plaintiffs and SCOTUS denied cert on all of them as they wound their way through the system? I truly don't know the answer to this, but I've never heard this happened.
They were applied as expected, though not to the letter of the Constitution, so nobody challenged them on Constitutional grounds. At least, not until the nation was ready. You seem to be presuming that every law is quickly challenged to verify the courts position. That may be true now, but was it as true 100-150 years ago?
It depends on the rate of heat flow.
Yes, and for practical exercises, it rounds to zero. (and I knew that one, and was going to put in something like "perfect insulator" or such, but wanted to give you something mostly irrelevant to fixate on, and yes, you passed the asshole test)
Air is a lossless spring (at least in theory). Even throwing in "worst case" heat loss and such, still much much better than your 10% figure.
Let me know when you decide to stop being an asshole when discussing things on the net.
As soon as the people who are wrong stop being jackasses about it. How about you? When are you planning on stopping your assholeness?
I'm just simply telling you, if you're compressing a gas, it doesn't matter if you're recovering or storing energy during the decompression, the compression itself is highly lossy
And I'm telling you that you are wrong.
You refuse to listen. You can lead a horse to a book, but you can't make him read it.
What's the loss in compressing air in a sealed piston? Take a car engine. Seal every chamber 100% perfect. eliminate friction. Then turn the crank. As you compress it, you "lose" nothing, and as you turn the crank more, you uncompress it, losing nothing. Then it goes around and around. You can compress it an infinite number of times without losing anything.
Air in a sealed system becomes a spring, not a loss. You don't understand "open system" and "closed system".
Describe how you're getting the tires back up to 120+ psi.
You object on a theoretical basis, so the implementation doesn't matter until you learn basic physics. Let me know when that's done, and we can move on to basic engineering. You obviously have no grasp of either.
Yes. They wanted it to be more than they were willing to pass, so they passed more than they wanted. And slowed implementation. Lawmakers all the time pass stuff that affects their children more than those that passed it. Why is it unbelievable it happened?
I did, but only after I posted this on based on the content on the initial link.
They are. That you didn't work on the design team doesn't mean they didn't have to work on it.
It's not "confirmation bias", it's a fact; air compression is a highly lossy process.
So tying two balloons together (so air can pass) and squeezing one to move air into the other is a lossy process?
No, you are so obsessed with being right that you stopped thinking. Take a deep breath and try again.
I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that your proposed solution is vastly inefficient. But it IS vastly inefficient.
What proposed idea? I didn't "propose" anything. I simply pointed out that your incorrect assumptions about compression were incorrect.
You angle the dash up to the windshield.
in practice, that reduces visibility.
The elongated egg-shape of the front end of a streamliner is one of the strongest shapes in nature, and the A-pillars follow the shape.
No, it's not. When they build buildings and want the strongest foundation, they use straight vertical piers. Not elongated curves. Because curves are weak, and vertical strength is higher than lateral.
No, the judge said that tenure harms minorities. There was no logical link given, no detail in the reasoning that was passed in TFA, and I haven't read the decision.
If the interpretation by the courts was so fatally flawed for the first 50+ years, wouldn't you think there would have been immediate and widespread outrage and the historical record would reflect this as a major political issue at that time?
Because the people at the time wanted the wrong interpretation. It slowed transition and was more palatable.
Tenure would do nothing to stop this, and would in fact make it worse. Without tenure, you're free to go work somewhere else if you find the current environment too oppressive.
So tenure would stop you from leaving a job? I've only ever seen it used to raise the bar to fire someone, not the other way around.
If there were tenure, you would be unable to switch jobs without starting on the bottom at the new place. Good luck escaping a bad work environment under that system!
I've seen tenure systems where someone tenured elswhere is on a "fast track" (usually a year or less) to full tenure at the new place. They are generally seen as a professional recognition, not a union seniority. Someone from IBEW local 1547 moving to Teamsters local 25 would be starting out at the bottom, but someone going from one local to another is more like someone going from one university to another, at least from what I've seen.
You've assumed that tenure *causes* poor education. That's assuming facts not in evidence.
Why not simply let the parents (customers/taxpayers) decide,
Do you work in IT? Many on slashdot do. Have you ever had a customer ask for something they obviously didn't want? I've seen an IT manager spend millions on Oracle because "that's what the other guys are doing". The funny thing is, they didn't even have a database. After buying and installing Oracle, he was amazed it didn't do what he wanted it to do.
That's what you'd get if you put "regular" people in charge of education.
Why not have experts in charge of the fields they are experts in? That'll never work. We need the dumbest person in charge of everything.
And others could say that the wording means the current interpretation, and it was the previous judges who were the "activist judges" failing to apply the law as written because it was politically inconvenient at the time.
Yes. It is. You have some process to gain tenure. Where do you live where there is no process to gain tenure?
The administrator doing that would be sued into oblivion and never work in education again. Seriously, people love to make up absurd circumstances for why we need strict government control over certain things, yet those things would never happen due to the consequences.
I've seen similar happen without consequences. You are presuming the administrator states "I'm firing you for failing to properly teach this religious subject". They never do. There are worse abuses, but you've already made up your mind, so any "proof" would be dismissed, not that firing someone requires "proof", unless there's a union or such.
My "car" already "hovers" a few inches above the road, riding on "tires" that support the weight and provide propulsion. One engineers throw-away comment being blown out of proportion isn't that big of a deal.
Perhaps he was supposed to mention work reducing rolling resistance through lift on the car body, but he wasn't supposed to make it sound like a hovercraft?
TFA doesn't claim "hovercraft" That's editorial. What would happen if you found a way to duct air under the tires? Have them lifted 1mm off the ground by a thin layer of air. Part of braking or any other maneuver would be to cut the air, and the tire is then in contact again. The tire still bears 100% of the car weight, but has no contact with the road while under certain cruising conditions.
The "announcement" is overblown from a throw away comment with no detail or follow-up. No official press release, just a comment by an engineer about some of the "cool stuff" they are investigating (not making, not prototyping, just thinking about).
Perhaps the engineer was even flat out wrong. I could claim the same thing he claimed if I worked out a lift system that, as the car approached the road, the lift on the car increased. Then lower the suspension to the point the normal force decreased by 90%. You'd lose 90% of your handling, but that wouldn't matter, as long as you were cruising. And it'd be "cruising" on a cushion of air more than the tires.
Given his statement, I can see 100 different solutions that are all better than "hovercar".
Unless they are looking into powered roadways and mag-lev powered hover cars for freeway cruising, but that'd be massive infrastructure build, and the car would be trivial, once the roads are done.
They weren't an American "car" comany, but an American "racing" company. You might as well have said "Carroll Shelby is a good American car company."
. If you have a highly raked windshield (optimal aerodynamics) then the driver and passenger have to be located a bit further back from the front of the car for headroom reasons, so there's still plenty of room ahead of them to the foremost point on the vehicle.
But the long windshield makes for bad UI. How do you clean the small angle where the dash and windscreen meet? What is the effect at night, since you are looking through more glass and at a more distorting angle? Extending the A-pillar along your raked windshield makes it almost worthless for rollover protection.
Aerodynamics maybe your "favorite" design constraint, but it's far from the only one.
There's almost nothing on there about the shape of the pods, and in fact, the renderings look different on different pages.
remember that compressing air is a rather lossy process.
In an open system, yes. In a closed system, no.
You are assuming the worst possible implementation for anything that doesn't directly agree with you, and the best possible implementation for things that agree with you. It's a form of confirmation bias, and it makes for an unfair evaluation of the ideas of others.