I love how those that seem to have a legitimate reason for something like a truck or SUV are getting upset. Clearly, I was not targeting those that need these vehicles.
Once you calm back down and bother to look at the cars in traffic around you, notice how most of these SUVs are single persons driving and are not being used to haul or tow vehicles. This is a fact supported by American vehicle manufacturers. Simple fact is, *most* owners fall into the category that I've described. Simple fact is, the VAST majority of SUV and truck owners could do just as well, if not better in a car. Simple fact is, SUV's are considered to be the trendy vehicle to have. Thusly, you havea heard mentality.
Well, it is, just that, a generalization. Unlike most generalizations, however, this one actually has some value when you examine it. Last I heard, something like 85%-90% of truck and SUV owners never use their extra capacity (drive more than one person or extra cargo) or capability (off-road, 4x4, tow or haul). Clearly, those that need a truck or SUV, I don't have a problem with it. That leaves 10%-15% with a valid reason. Just the same, that leaves 80%-90% running in the heard mentality.
There are other problems associated with people driving these things too. These drivers tend to not change their driving habbits much. I say, "much", because there are some studies which suggest that some drivers actually get more dangerous and abusive on the road. At any rate, that means, most tend to drive unsafely. They not only account for a larger number of accidents, but a larger number of injury and fataility accidents as well. If their popularity continues, I would be all for requiring non-work related truck and SUV owners to take additional driving classes so they can safely operate their vehicles. Sadly, while the drivers of these vehicles are commonly uninjured, it's not uncommon for their victims to be badly injured or killed. This, of course, ignores the increased odds for roll overs in the average SUV owner's hands. Add in the fact that a diproportionate number of drivers don't know how to properly and safely use their anti-lock brakes, these things really are death traps for the other people that are not driving trucks or SUV's.
My criticism would nearly be as hard if most everyone did as you seem to do. That is, have one truck or SUV for doing your work and hauling and another for actually moving people around.
To the parent poster - what do you drive with a 5.7L engine
Firebird TransAM. And, unlike most vehicles, I can actually cruise at around 80-85 (around 1600-1800RPM) and still get 26mpg, thanks to a 6-speed tranny (4+2, IIRC).
Ya, I recently sold my YZF600R, which was seeing 50-52.
It is kind of funny how expectations of mileage seems to differ from country to country. I'd *guess* that roughly relates to average price per gallon paid by those countries. Here, anything that sees close to 30mpg is considered good mileage. Anything close to 40 is considered awesome. Anything over that is considered mythical.;)
Ahh. Thanks. That makes putting books into my palm via Plucker, more attractive. I hate having to have all these different readers for different books. The more I can fit into Plucker, the happier I am.
Thanks for chiming in! Many Americans seem to forget just how crappy our gas mileage is here when compared to the cars other countries drive.
I drive a sports car with a 350ci engine and get 26 m/g on the highway. In the city, I get anywhere from 18-22, depending on how I drive. Fact is, I live fairly far out, so most of my miles are highway miles. Toss in the fact that most SUV drivers are alone most of the time and generally are NOT getting 22-27 mpg (more like 12-22, and that's on the highway), and I think that's down right shameful. I can at least claim that I often have two or three people in the car with me and I have aerodynamics, by far, in my favor. Anytime you have a brick which you want to push through the air, you're going to require a bigger engine. Bigger engines mean worse mileage. Add in the fact that most Americans typically drive 5-25 over the posted speed limits, especially on the highways, and mileage typically drops through the floor.
People who drive SUV's, IMO, greatly suffer from the heard mentality anyways. So, any logical argument is more than likely going to be completely lost. IMO, owning a SUV is about status and keeping up with the neighbors. None of this will change until car markers stop pushing, "you are what you drive." Sadly, most people see a SUV as a "cool and trendy owner, ready to go anywhere, anytime." The sad thing is, SUV really translates into "PIG".
My favorite excuse that SUV owners give is, "I have to transport the kids". Which translates into, two kids and two adults. Seems like most cars can do that fine. Worse, both parents are driving SUVs. How many times do they need to haul two SUV full of kids around. Typically, not many or simply never. People that give that excuse are either stupid or think that the people they are telling it to are even more stupid than them. I guess that may be the case if people are really buying into that load of crap.
Well, I think the more you dig, the more references you'll find and the father back you'll find them.
It's you that are characterizing it as "wink-wink nudge-nudge". The really sad thing is, while he seemed to be serious, it's the press that took it as "wink-wink nudge-nudge" (to use your words) and for the most part ignored reporting it. Being nice doesn't make for good news. That a simple fact. If you're upset, you need to go slap around the news media outlets that you use because they are clearly not doing their job properly.
Considering it's impossible to prove a negative, you seriously can't say there are no WMD there. No one can. And, if there really are no WMD, that makes Saddam to be one of the biggest idiots of all time. He made them, he possed them, and decided to play games with UN inspectors. Then, when he "destroyed them", he ensured that UN inspectors could not validate that fact. What a fool.
He said over and over again that there were ties between osama and saddam
Hmmm. I don't seem to recall that even though I did see it widely reported. This seems more like media BS than fact. Simple fact is, they offered that there were some "loose associations" (or something to that effect) because of some meetings between people which took place. That does qualify as ties and the meetings were confirmed to have taken place. Just the same, we all know the loose associations were not based on terrorist goals and activities.
It sounds like you're having a hard time figuring out what information you have is based on crappy news reporting, factual accounts, and personal bias. You seem to be greatly confused between bad CIA Intelligence and what the definition of a lie is. If you've been making an effort to watch recent news, this should be crystal clear.
Why would I have links to stuff that was clearly spoken in many Whitehouse press conferences, which were televised? Why would I have links to the many statements presented by various officials on TV, some of which were spoken at the UN?
Like I said, feel free to dig. Simple fact, these reasons were spelled out for anyone that actually cared to know it. Just because it's colorized one way by your favorite news outlet, doesn't mean they actually accurately represent everything that's been stated.
You should actually check the early press conferences. That reason was clearly given many, many, many, many times. Simple fact is, people didn't want to do it because of humanitarian reasons but they would jump for WMD. So, that's the platform that ran with. That's the platform they could get the press to run with. That's the facts. Just because you didn't read it, doesn't mean that's not the facts.
Simple fact is, what I stated is 100% true.
I'm sure if you dig, you can find information confirming what I stated. I watched the friggen press conferences as well as the UN meetings. Humanitarian needs were clearly stated many, many, many, many, many, many times. Those that want to ignore that fact, do so at their own ignorance.
We will be there a long time as a police and military force. The current Iraqi military is more or less untrained and only numbers something like 1200. Their police is dire need of real training too. Leaving early would probably mean civil war and maybe someone as bad, if not worse than Saddam taking power. And by worse, I mean someone that openly hates anything West, whereby, they are some of the world's worst zealots.
Realistically, we'll easily need to be there another year or two, maybe more Which is, more or less EXACTLY (open ended, long term commitment) what the President stated to the public when he stated the ball rolling. In fact, some degree of involvement was specualted to be as long as 5 - 10 years. That's not saying that we'll have troops there for that entire duration. Just the same, it's always been an open ended commitment, with the phrase, "long term", being used.
Mind you, no one would support GW if he made such a statement, whereby that was our only reason. In stead, he has to use a current events to get involved. Since our troops are taxed in two countries right now, what else would you ask of them? Seems like we have to finish what we have started before we go elsewhere to, "fight opression all over the world."
Bush suddenly found love for the iraqi people after his main justifications for war were found to be lies.
So tired of re-reading this wholey incorrect statement by so many people. From day one, humanitarian reasons have been stated. Blame the press that they only gave you half the story. The press conferences made clear, that there we many reasons to go to war. The press jumped on WMD and the President was more than happy to play it up. He's now getting bitch-slapped for making that mistake. Just the same, it doesn't change that his long list for being in Iraq has long existed. It's just that whomever you get you news from was happy to manipulate you and only give you the high rating media-blitz bullshit. Dig deeper, and I think you'll find there's more to it than what you've been told.
To be fair, when this whole thing started, a long list of items were given by the Preseident. The press latched onto WMD and that's what the ran with. The President, being a media savy guy, decided that sticking with that story would get him the most air time and support since that's what the press was going out of their way to push. Now, no WMD have been found. The President is now forced to go back to his original list to talk with the press.
War always means higher ratings.
Sadly, the press and the public have a very short memory unless it's about bad news. Supporting the President really isn't considered bad news, so the press isn't in a hurry to remind the populas that they were involved in shaping the hearts and minds about WMD too. Rather, they'd prefer to focus on the bad and hope no one remembers that with the press reporting WMD, increasedthe odds of public support for war and that media wanted high ratings.
War always means higher ratings.
Now, people are pissed off that things are going slightly worse than predicted. And yes, I do mean, *slightly worse*. That's not to say that things are good. Rather, they knew darn well, this was not going to be a cake walk. Furthermore, they offered, up front, that this was a long term entrance into Iraq. That was stated many, many, many, many, many times. Now, the population seems to be in a hurry to act surprised that this is a long term activity.
Thanks. I didn't know that. I was wondering about that when I was typing the original message, but I could only remember metal containers being specifically mentioned.
That's because the entire industry is not really setup to stop fraud. Not at all. They are, however, setup to detect, catch, and prosecute fraud. They are slowing inching toward measures to prevent fraud but sadly, merchants usually do not do their share. So, it makes it really hard for the industry to shift when the guys on the front line don't wat to do the most basic of things to help themselves.
But then, that's normally at the other end of the car. So, that's really not worth worrying about. On the other hand, someone creating a spark with their phone near a pump, *might* fall under the "give consideration" category.
I'm sorry, perhaps I mispoke. The fire I referred to did NOT start from a phone.
Just the same, I have seen failed and dying electronics produce sparks. Just because they are not supposed to spark and/or cause a static charge to build in your body, does not mean that they can't. That's the point I'm trying to make. Besides, people tend to do unexpected things at odd times. Changing batteries? Plugging in a charger? What about those new battery powered battery pack chargers. Get my point? It has nothing to do with should or should not or wasting electricity ionizing the the air. Simple fact is, electronics can and do fail is odd ways. As long as there is electricity, there is the risk for a spark. But, you are right. The biggest risk is clearly from static discharge.
All you need is a good spark in the right air/fuel mixture. The fact that Mythbusters couldn't do it, doesn't mean it can't happen. Within the last 30-days, on the local news here in Dallas, I saw a static discharge start a car fire while at the pump. The person failed to ground themselves prior to starting to pump fuel. Once the vapors were in the air, they touched *something* (I don't recall where the spark occurred, sorry). Swoosh! Suddenly, the car was on fire. The guy experienced minor burns up his arm, which was holding the pump.
While I would personally guess that a cell phone starting a fire is doubtful, I think it would be foolish to rule out the risk completely. On a side note, some states have a law requiring all metal fuel containers to be filled ONLY while on the ground and you are required to keep the metal part of the nozzel in contact with the container at all times. It seems, static discharge bewteen a metal container and the pump's nozzle are not uncommon. In other words, those guys that are filling up that gas can from the bed of their truck, may be in for some trouble. Not to mention, an invitation for a ticket.
Morale of the story here? Make sure you properly ground your self BEFORE you start to pump gas.
First, let me say that I've worked in the CC industry for years. I have good friends that work for some of the largest ISOs in the country. Generally speaking, what you're stating doesn't smell right.
If they authorized it, they are contractually bound to pay it unless there is a charge back. Charge backs are resolved through their own process and should not directly effect the bank's promise to pay. In the case above, it sounds like the merchant failed to follow the guidelines which are clearly layed out and now he's paying the piper. Different banks have slightly different guidelines, as set by their risk departments. If that store did not check ID and signature or did not swipe a card as as required to ge their discount rate, then they should expect to get it in the tail pipe. It's simply not acceptable for mechants to shink away from their contractual obligations and expect the issuing banks and/or visa/mc to absorb the merchant's mistakes. I can assure you that merchants tend to go out of their way to fail to follow simply contractual obligations and then want to blame someone else. I can't say for sure this is what happened to your friend, but I can say, the odds are greatly in my favor for being correct.
Charge backs, on the other hand, do tend to be in the card holder's favor. Just the same, most banks have groups which watch for fraud from cardholders, as it relates to chargebacks. Additionally, while the odds do tend to be slanted toward the cardholder, as long as the merchant has properly upheld their end, a chargeback can be denied, so long as the merchant made reasonable efforts to address the dispute. Especially if the goods were not returned by the cardholder.
I'm constantly amazed that the sheer stupidity of not only people, but the mods and what they'll mod up and down.
I've been hammered to death for stating facts about gyrocopters, yet, thanks to a couple fo morons and idiotic mods that believed them, I've taken some serious karma bashing for being correct. Only on slashdot will someone that knows what they're talking about get slapped down. Worse, I was repeatedly tagged as a troll when trolling was not even involved. Hell, if anyone had half a brain here, they wouldn't be afraid of someone having a differing opinion which is factually supported. Yet, the mods were scared that someone might learn the facts about these things a listened to the idiots that posted here.
Thankfully, there were a handful of mods which were kind enough to mod intelligently to keep the truth from being completely hidden. Yet, I'm still somewhat angered at the fact that one of my more informative posts is currently rated -1 and some of the other posts which are 100% lies and full of incorrect information demanding that I be modded down, is currently modded 5. What bullshit.
Please re-read what I stated. This is basic stuff and somehow you've completely missed the boat. Airflow on an airfoil is what creates lift. If you have a plane moving foward at 20kts and and headwind at 20kts, the airflow creates lift with an effective 40kts of airflow. Period. If you have a tailwind of 20kts, the effective air flow is 0kts. That creates zero lift. Period. That means no friggen lift. Furthermore, for a gyrocopter, energy in the rotor (RPM) is relative to the airflow moving over it from the front of the craft. Gyrocopters can not fly unless there is minimum airflow AND RPM in the rotor. A tailwind not only reudces the effective lift of the airfoil, but it also reduces the RPM of the rotor, further reducing its lift. The result is that it becomes fairly easy to exceed the critical angle of attack causing one side of the rotor to stall. I've stated nothing which is contrary to these basic facts. And, this is exactly what happens. These thinks are known to go inverted when this happens, making recovery very problematic and, in fact, impossible at low altititudes. Beyond this, this is basic 101 gyrocopter aerospace engineering stuff. Come on already. This is exactly why planes should take off and land into the wind. Landing downwind requires a higher IAS to prevent prematurely stalling. I'm sorry, but that's fact. If you disagree with anything I've stated here, it's proof you have no idea what you are talking about.
Furthermore, I've even seen a video of one of these things falling from the friggen air at about 20 feet. The guy did not maintain enough energy in his rotors, pulled back, stalling the craft. If fell like a rock from about 20 feet. The rotors broke over the guy's head and it destroyed the airframe. I don't recall if the pilot was seriously injured. There goes the "always autorotates" lie.
Simple fact is, I've seen it on video and and read enough information on these things by engineers that actually work on them to understand what's going on. If they worked like so many people here seem to think they do, the accident rate would be far, far, far, far, far lower than it is. Toss in the fact that most (all??) of the engines on these things are not FAA approved and low pilot time and bad myths about energy retension, they are a death trap waiting to happen.
My father, being a pilot, was going to get one of these as a young man. One of his friends died in one of these things. Another was injured. Why? Because one stalled without enough energy in the rotors, causing a rotor stall and fell out of the air at low altitude. The other one had an engine failure with a tail wind and stalled. He autorotated, but was not able to maintain enough forward energy to maintain enough lift and energy in the rotors. He was, again, injured. My father wisely decided to pass on his gyrocopter.
As I originally stated and is well supported by not only factual accounts of three (of many) accidents, but the physics that make these things fly, these make for very poor general purpose aviation vehicles which have a very high fatality rate.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
All of the reasons that I've listed are specific areas of development that real eningeers are working to improve because, as is, they pose significant risks to pilots.
You seem to forget that a tail wind slows the rate of rotation on the rotor, thusly causing lift to be reduced. Therefore, changing the angle of attack greatly increases the risk of a single side of the rotor to stall. As a result, bad stuff....
You may want to learn more about the subject before you post again.
Once you can answer why helicopters have a maxium forward speed (hint, it relates to rotor lift), then you'll start to understand why you don't understand what you're talking about.
Sad to say, but aviation engineers completely disagree with your assesment.
Ah. First of all, there is a huge difference between rotary and fixed hing craft. You might want to learn more about the physics that keeps gyrocopters in the air before you reply. Why do helicopters have a maximum forward airspeed? That's the same resason that causes gyrocopters to have rotor stall with tail winds.
Doh.
And btw, I am currently studying for my license and have been around planes all my life. My father and uncle are both pilots. I grew up in planes. I have made plenty of r/c planes. I understand how and why they fly. Being a pilot, in no way, ensures you understand anything other than basic physics as it relates to lift, drag, thrust ad gravity. Period. Believe it or not, I think knowledge learned from the engineers that work on gyrocopters trumps your "I'm a pilot" statement.
Slashdot Mirror
I love how those that seem to have a legitimate reason for something like a truck or SUV are getting upset. Clearly, I was not targeting those that need these vehicles.
Once you calm back down and bother to look at the cars in traffic around you, notice how most of these SUVs are single persons driving and are not being used to haul or tow vehicles. This is a fact supported by American vehicle manufacturers. Simple fact is, *most* owners fall into the category that I've described. Simple fact is, the VAST majority of SUV and truck owners could do just as well, if not better in a car. Simple fact is, SUV's are considered to be the trendy vehicle to have. Thusly, you havea heard mentality.
Nice Generalization
Well, it is, just that, a generalization. Unlike most generalizations, however, this one actually has some value when you examine it. Last I heard, something like 85%-90% of truck and SUV owners never use their extra capacity (drive more than one person or extra cargo) or capability (off-road, 4x4, tow or haul). Clearly, those that need a truck or SUV, I don't have a problem with it. That leaves 10%-15% with a valid reason. Just the same, that leaves 80%-90% running in the heard mentality.
There are other problems associated with people driving these things too. These drivers tend to not change their driving habbits much. I say, "much", because there are some studies which suggest that some drivers actually get more dangerous and abusive on the road. At any rate, that means, most tend to drive unsafely. They not only account for a larger number of accidents, but a larger number of injury and fataility accidents as well. If their popularity continues, I would be all for requiring non-work related truck and SUV owners to take additional driving classes so they can safely operate their vehicles. Sadly, while the drivers of these vehicles are commonly uninjured, it's not uncommon for their victims to be badly injured or killed. This, of course, ignores the increased odds for roll overs in the average SUV owner's hands. Add in the fact that a diproportionate number of drivers don't know how to properly and safely use their anti-lock brakes, these things really are death traps for the other people that are not driving trucks or SUV's.
My criticism would nearly be as hard if most everyone did as you seem to do. That is, have one truck or SUV for doing your work and hauling and another for actually moving people around.
To the parent poster - what do you drive with a 5.7L engine
Firebird TransAM. And, unlike most vehicles, I can actually cruise at around 80-85 (around 1600-1800RPM) and still get 26mpg, thanks to a 6-speed tranny (4+2, IIRC).
This is why mail order merchants pay the highest discount rates because there is so much fraud associated with it.
There are also some minor tidbits which you are leaving out from the above situation.
Ohh. Thanks for the link!
Ya, I recently sold my YZF600R, which was seeing 50-52.
;)
It is kind of funny how expectations of mileage seems to differ from country to country. I'd *guess* that roughly relates to average price per gallon paid by those countries. Here, anything that sees close to 30mpg is considered good mileage. Anything close to 40 is considered awesome. Anything over that is considered mythical.
Ahh. Thanks. That makes putting books into my palm via Plucker, more attractive. I hate having to have all these different readers for different books. The more I can fit into Plucker, the happier I am.
Thanks.
Thanks for chiming in! Many Americans seem to forget just how crappy our gas mileage is here when compared to the cars other countries drive.
I drive a sports car with a 350ci engine and get 26 m/g on the highway. In the city, I get anywhere from 18-22, depending on how I drive. Fact is, I live fairly far out, so most of my miles are highway miles. Toss in the fact that most SUV drivers are alone most of the time and generally are NOT getting 22-27 mpg (more like 12-22, and that's on the highway), and I think that's down right shameful. I can at least claim that I often have two or three people in the car with me and I have aerodynamics, by far, in my favor. Anytime you have a brick which you want to push through the air, you're going to require a bigger engine. Bigger engines mean worse mileage. Add in the fact that most Americans typically drive 5-25 over the posted speed limits, especially on the highways, and mileage typically drops through the floor.
People who drive SUV's, IMO, greatly suffer from the heard mentality anyways. So, any logical argument is more than likely going to be completely lost. IMO, owning a SUV is about status and keeping up with the neighbors. None of this will change until car markers stop pushing, "you are what you drive." Sadly, most people see a SUV as a "cool and trendy owner, ready to go anywhere, anytime." The sad thing is, SUV really translates into "PIG".
My favorite excuse that SUV owners give is, "I have to transport the kids". Which translates into, two kids and two adults. Seems like most cars can do that fine. Worse, both parents are driving SUVs. How many times do they need to haul two SUV full of kids around. Typically, not many or simply never. People that give that excuse are either stupid or think that the people they are telling it to are even more stupid than them. I guess that may be the case if people are really buying into that load of crap.
Well, I think the more you dig, the more references you'll find and the father back you'll find them.
It's you that are characterizing it as "wink-wink nudge-nudge". The really sad thing is, while he seemed to be serious, it's the press that took it as "wink-wink nudge-nudge" (to use your words) and for the most part ignored reporting it. Being nice doesn't make for good news. That a simple fact. If you're upset, you need to go slap around the news media outlets that you use because they are clearly not doing their job properly.
Considering it's impossible to prove a negative, you seriously can't say there are no WMD there. No one can. And, if there really are no WMD, that makes Saddam to be one of the biggest idiots of all time. He made them, he possed them, and decided to play games with UN inspectors. Then, when he "destroyed them", he ensured that UN inspectors could not validate that fact. What a fool.
He said over and over again that there were ties between osama and saddam
Hmmm. I don't seem to recall that even though I did see it widely reported. This seems more like media BS than fact. Simple fact is, they offered that there were some "loose associations" (or something to that effect) because of some meetings between people which took place. That does qualify as ties and the meetings were confirmed to have taken place. Just the same, we all know the loose associations were not based on terrorist goals and activities.
It sounds like you're having a hard time figuring out what information you have is based on crappy news reporting, factual accounts, and personal bias. You seem to be greatly confused between bad CIA Intelligence and what the definition of a lie is. If you've been making an effort to watch recent news, this should be crystal clear.
Why would I have links to stuff that was clearly spoken in many Whitehouse press conferences, which were televised? Why would I have links to the many statements presented by various officials on TV, some of which were spoken at the UN?
Like I said, feel free to dig. Simple fact, these reasons were spelled out for anyone that actually cared to know it. Just because it's colorized one way by your favorite news outlet, doesn't mean they actually accurately represent everything that's been stated.
You should actually check the early press conferences. That reason was clearly given many, many, many, many times. Simple fact is, people didn't want to do it because of humanitarian reasons but they would jump for WMD. So, that's the platform that ran with. That's the platform they could get the press to run with. That's the facts. Just because you didn't read it, doesn't mean that's not the facts.
Simple fact is, what I stated is 100% true.
I'm sure if you dig, you can find information confirming what I stated. I watched the friggen press conferences as well as the UN meetings. Humanitarian needs were clearly stated many, many, many, many, many, many times. Those that want to ignore that fact, do so at their own ignorance.
We will be there a long time as a police and military force. The current Iraqi military is more or less untrained and only numbers something like 1200. Their police is dire need of real training too. Leaving early would probably mean civil war and maybe someone as bad, if not worse than Saddam taking power. And by worse, I mean someone that openly hates anything West, whereby, they are some of the world's worst zealots.
Realistically, we'll easily need to be there another year or two, maybe more Which is, more or less EXACTLY (open ended, long term commitment) what the President stated to the public when he stated the ball rolling. In fact, some degree of involvement was specualted to be as long as 5 - 10 years. That's not saying that we'll have troops there for that entire duration. Just the same, it's always been an open ended commitment, with the phrase, "long term", being used.
Mind you, no one would support GW if he made such a statement, whereby that was our only reason. In stead, he has to use a current events to get involved. Since our troops are taxed in two countries right now, what else would you ask of them? Seems like we have to finish what we have started before we go elsewhere to, "fight opression all over the world."
Bush suddenly found love for the iraqi people after his main justifications for war were found to be lies.
So tired of re-reading this wholey incorrect statement by so many people. From day one, humanitarian reasons have been stated. Blame the press that they only gave you half the story. The press conferences made clear, that there we many reasons to go to war. The press jumped on WMD and the President was more than happy to play it up. He's now getting bitch-slapped for making that mistake. Just the same, it doesn't change that his long list for being in Iraq has long existed. It's just that whomever you get you news from was happy to manipulate you and only give you the high rating media-blitz bullshit. Dig deeper, and I think you'll find there's more to it than what you've been told.
To be fair, when this whole thing started, a long list of items were given by the Preseident. The press latched onto WMD and that's what the ran with. The President, being a media savy guy, decided that sticking with that story would get him the most air time and support since that's what the press was going out of their way to push. Now, no WMD have been found. The President is now forced to go back to his original list to talk with the press.
War always means higher ratings.
Sadly, the press and the public have a very short memory unless it's about bad news. Supporting the President really isn't considered bad news, so the press isn't in a hurry to remind the populas that they were involved in shaping the hearts and minds about WMD too. Rather, they'd prefer to focus on the bad and hope no one remembers that with the press reporting WMD, increasedthe odds of public support for war and that media wanted high ratings.
War always means higher ratings.
Now, people are pissed off that things are going slightly worse than predicted. And yes, I do mean, *slightly worse*. That's not to say that things are good. Rather, they knew darn well, this was not going to be a cake walk. Furthermore, they offered, up front, that this was a long term entrance into Iraq. That was stated many, many, many, many, many times. Now, the population seems to be in a hurry to act surprised that this is a long term activity.
So, does that mean that there exists enough "matter" to possibily offer fuel sources for ships, should man kind ever wonder off that far?
Ya, I know. Odd question. But I would be curious what the speculation is on this "matter".
err....when I said, "stop fraud", I really meant, "prevent fraud".
Thanks. I didn't know that. I was wondering about that when I was typing the original message, but I could only remember metal containers being specifically mentioned.
Thanks again.
That's because the entire industry is not really setup to stop fraud. Not at all. They are, however, setup to detect, catch, and prosecute fraud. They are slowing inching toward measures to prevent fraud but sadly, merchants usually do not do their share. So, it makes it really hard for the industry to shift when the guys on the front line don't wat to do the most basic of things to help themselves.
But then, that's normally at the other end of the car. So, that's really not worth worrying about. On the other hand, someone creating a spark with their phone near a pump, *might* fall under the "give consideration" category.
I'm sorry, perhaps I mispoke. The fire I referred to did NOT start from a phone.
Just the same, I have seen failed and dying electronics produce sparks. Just because they are not supposed to spark and/or cause a static charge to build in your body, does not mean that they can't. That's the point I'm trying to make. Besides, people tend to do unexpected things at odd times. Changing batteries? Plugging in a charger? What about those new battery powered battery pack chargers. Get my point? It has nothing to do with should or should not or wasting electricity ionizing the the air. Simple fact is, electronics can and do fail is odd ways. As long as there is electricity, there is the risk for a spark. But, you are right. The biggest risk is clearly from static discharge.
All you need is a good spark in the right air/fuel mixture. The fact that Mythbusters couldn't do it, doesn't mean it can't happen. Within the last 30-days, on the local news here in Dallas, I saw a static discharge start a car fire while at the pump. The person failed to ground themselves prior to starting to pump fuel. Once the vapors were in the air, they touched *something* (I don't recall where the spark occurred, sorry). Swoosh! Suddenly, the car was on fire. The guy experienced minor burns up his arm, which was holding the pump.
While I would personally guess that a cell phone starting a fire is doubtful, I think it would be foolish to rule out the risk completely. On a side note, some states have a law requiring all metal fuel containers to be filled ONLY while on the ground and you are required to keep the metal part of the nozzel in contact with the container at all times. It seems, static discharge bewteen a metal container and the pump's nozzle are not uncommon. In other words, those guys that are filling up that gas can from the bed of their truck, may be in for some trouble. Not to mention, an invitation for a ticket.
Morale of the story here? Make sure you properly ground your self BEFORE you start to pump gas.
First, let me say that I've worked in the CC industry for years. I have good friends that work for some of the largest ISOs in the country. Generally speaking, what you're stating doesn't smell right.
If they authorized it, they are contractually bound to pay it unless there is a charge back. Charge backs are resolved through their own process and should not directly effect the bank's promise to pay. In the case above, it sounds like the merchant failed to follow the guidelines which are clearly layed out and now he's paying the piper. Different banks have slightly different guidelines, as set by their risk departments. If that store did not check ID and signature or did not swipe a card as as required to ge their discount rate, then they should expect to get it in the tail pipe. It's simply not acceptable for mechants to shink away from their contractual obligations and expect the issuing banks and/or visa/mc to absorb the merchant's mistakes. I can assure you that merchants tend to go out of their way to fail to follow simply contractual obligations and then want to blame someone else. I can't say for sure this is what happened to your friend, but I can say, the odds are greatly in my favor for being correct.
Charge backs, on the other hand, do tend to be in the card holder's favor. Just the same, most banks have groups which watch for fraud from cardholders, as it relates to chargebacks. Additionally, while the odds do tend to be slanted toward the cardholder, as long as the merchant has properly upheld their end, a chargeback can be denied, so long as the merchant made reasonable efforts to address the dispute. Especially if the goods were not returned by the cardholder.
I'm constantly amazed that the sheer stupidity of not only people, but the mods and what they'll mod up and down.
I've been hammered to death for stating facts about gyrocopters, yet, thanks to a couple fo morons and idiotic mods that believed them, I've taken some serious karma bashing for being correct. Only on slashdot will someone that knows what they're talking about get slapped down. Worse, I was repeatedly tagged as a troll when trolling was not even involved. Hell, if anyone had half a brain here, they wouldn't be afraid of someone having a differing opinion which is factually supported. Yet, the mods were scared that someone might learn the facts about these things a listened to the idiots that posted here.
Thankfully, there were a handful of mods which were kind enough to mod intelligently to keep the truth from being completely hidden. Yet, I'm still somewhat angered at the fact that one of my more informative posts is currently rated -1 and some of the other posts which are 100% lies and full of incorrect information demanding that I be modded down, is currently modded 5. What bullshit.
Please re-read what I stated. This is basic stuff and somehow you've completely missed the boat. Airflow on an airfoil is what creates lift. If you have a plane moving foward at 20kts and and headwind at 20kts, the airflow creates lift with an effective 40kts of airflow. Period. If you have a tailwind of 20kts, the effective air flow is 0kts. That creates zero lift. Period. That means no friggen lift. Furthermore, for a gyrocopter, energy in the rotor (RPM) is relative to the airflow moving over it from the front of the craft. Gyrocopters can not fly unless there is minimum airflow AND RPM in the rotor. A tailwind not only reudces the effective lift of the airfoil, but it also reduces the RPM of the rotor, further reducing its lift. The result is that it becomes fairly easy to exceed the critical angle of attack causing one side of the rotor to stall. I've stated nothing which is contrary to these basic facts. And, this is exactly what happens. These thinks are known to go inverted when this happens, making recovery very problematic and, in fact, impossible at low altititudes. Beyond this, this is basic 101 gyrocopter aerospace engineering stuff. Come on already. This is exactly why planes should take off and land into the wind. Landing downwind requires a higher IAS to prevent prematurely stalling. I'm sorry, but that's fact. If you disagree with anything I've stated here, it's proof you have no idea what you are talking about.
Furthermore, I've even seen a video of one of these things falling from the friggen air at about 20 feet. The guy did not maintain enough energy in his rotors, pulled back, stalling the craft. If fell like a rock from about 20 feet. The rotors broke over the guy's head and it destroyed the airframe. I don't recall if the pilot was seriously injured. There goes the "always autorotates" lie.
Simple fact is, I've seen it on video and and read enough information on these things by engineers that actually work on them to understand what's going on. If they worked like so many people here seem to think they do, the accident rate would be far, far, far, far, far lower than it is. Toss in the fact that most (all??) of the engines on these things are not FAA approved and low pilot time and bad myths about energy retension, they are a death trap waiting to happen.
My father, being a pilot, was going to get one of these as a young man. One of his friends died in one of these things. Another was injured. Why? Because one stalled without enough energy in the rotors, causing a rotor stall and fell out of the air at low altitude. The other one had an engine failure with a tail wind and stalled. He autorotated, but was not able to maintain enough forward energy to maintain enough lift and energy in the rotors. He was, again, injured. My father wisely decided to pass on his gyrocopter.
As I originally stated and is well supported by not only factual accounts of three (of many) accidents, but the physics that make these things fly, these make for very poor general purpose aviation vehicles which have a very high fatality rate.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
All of the reasons that I've listed are specific areas of development that real eningeers are working to improve because, as is, they pose significant risks to pilots.
You seem to forget that a tail wind slows the rate of rotation on the rotor, thusly causing lift to be reduced. Therefore, changing the angle of attack greatly increases the risk of a single side of the rotor to stall. As a result, bad stuff....
You may want to learn more about the subject before you post again.
Once you can answer why helicopters have a maxium forward speed (hint, it relates to rotor lift), then you'll start to understand why you don't understand what you're talking about.
Sad to say, but aviation engineers completely disagree with your assesment.
Ah. First of all, there is a huge difference between rotary and fixed hing craft. You might want to learn more about the physics that keeps gyrocopters in the air before you reply. Why do helicopters have a maximum forward airspeed? That's the same resason that causes gyrocopters to have rotor stall with tail winds.
Doh.
And btw, I am currently studying for my license and have been around planes all my life. My father and uncle are both pilots. I grew up in planes. I have made plenty of r/c planes. I understand how and why they fly. Being a pilot, in no way, ensures you understand anything other than basic physics as it relates to lift, drag, thrust ad gravity. Period. Believe it or not, I think knowledge learned from the engineers that work on gyrocopters trumps your "I'm a pilot" statement.