How is that even supposed to work? You can't run the engine up to full power with the car sitting still *and* have it in gear.
We have a winner!
That's exactly why a moving vehicle, which has much more energy plus potentially making peak horsepower, is often unable to be stopped by its braking system. Now add in anti-lock brakes which can also drastically diminish ones braking ability, cause rapid heating of the brakes, and finally, overheating. Yes, that's right, anti-lock brakes DIMINISHES braking distance and braking capability. It does so in order to drastically increase controllability. A good driver without anti-lock brakes can often out brake an anti-lock system by up to 20% in ideal conditions.
Next time you get into your car, press and hold the brakes - hard (do so at your own risk). Now press the pedal to the floor. Most vehicles never get close to making peak power because of their stall converter. Often the engine can't claw past a thousand or two RPMs (depending on car) from idle. Most vehicles tend to provide peak HP at around 75% from the red line on their RPM gage. The gap provided by most vehicles is staggering.
If you do it with a manual car, you would need to rev the engine and then let out the clutch
Surprisingly, this can be done. Well at least, spinning the tires. It just takes practice. It requires a careful balance of three pedals with two feet. But ultimately, since the objective is to hold the car rather than spin the tires, the vehicle will die. Though honestly, I'm not sure what the guidelines actually require for manual transmissions.
No, that's wrong. Whether a weapon is direct fire or indirect fire
The 30mm cannon on the Apache Longbow is an indirect fire, area affect weapon. They train to use it as a direct fire weapon. The Army's primary classification of the cannon is that of an indirect fire weapon because of the targeting capabilities of the weapon and how it was originally intended to be used (no LOS or BVR and over obstacles, etc.). Regardless, because it is an area affect, indirect fire weapon, its accuracy when used as a direct fire weapon its the greatest - because its requirements as such don't exist - and it especially shows for the first several rounds coming out the barrel because of the recoil system. It was these facts I was trying to stress. Furthermore, the type of ammo fired from the 30mm cannon does have a direct affect on use. When loaded when HE rounds, they by far, tend to use it as an area affect weapon. You are right that I referred to it as indirect when I should have referred to it as area affect.
My brother is an Apache Longbow pilot. I've had the privilege to use both a simulator as well as sit in the actual aircraft. In the later I have acquired targets and used the FLIR system to track targets out on the flight line.
The problem here is I got lazy and didn't want to have to repeatedly type, "indirect fire" and "area affect weapon", or make the actual distinction, and you have the knowledge to split hairs, which is a rarity here - especially when it comes to weapon systems. That will teach me.;) So kudos to you for being able to call me out.
Perhaps you should at least watch the video. And then bother to observe what weapons look like when carried by people. Then bother to understand the actual visual capabilities of current weapon system. If you had a clue, your idiotic post would have never occurred. But frankly, stupidity such as yours is exactly why video such as this causes such far reaching panic, ignorance and hatred - which is exactly why the military lied about it.
shell does NOT "expand or flatten easily in the human body"
Because the 30mm cannon on an Apache is classified as an indirect fire weapon. They train to use it as a direct fire weapon; regardless, its an indirect fire weapon, especially with HE rounds in use. Accordingly, you should think of it as a small grenade rather than a round meant to directly penetrate a soft target. Technically, they typically fire in 10 round bursts and the first three rounds are lucky to be within 10 meters of the target.
Was more or less adding to your comments for those who don't already know.
In the video none of them are obviously carrying anything big, though you can hear the soldiers calling in that the people were carrying AK47's and an RPG.
I strongly urge you to learn more about what you're talking about. They actually look exactly like people carrying AKs and RPGs. And in the part where the pilot declares "RPG", it looks EXACTLY like someone with an "RPG".
As your entire basis is incorrect, I encourage you to read my other posts so you'll be better educated on the subject. Regardless, your post is incorrect.
Those were high explosive rounds. Think of them as 30mm hand grenades. And for those who don't know, the M203, an extremely common NATA grenade launcher, fires 40mm grenades.
Please go read my other posts on this subject. After doing so, the poster looks like a complete idiot. Actually knowing what you're talking about makes all the difference. In this case, the poster is an idiot.
Ironically, AA batteries were commonly used as anti-personal weapons the world over since WWI. As such, the world at large still continues to use them accordingly. Their use is not illegal.
But covering it up just makes it so SO much worse.
Wrong. Covering it up only makes it worse when people go out of their way to make it worse. Basically those who leaked this video likely are the cause of additional, needless murder and bloodshed. Those who leaked it should be very ashamed. At the very least, they've proven they have no respect for human life and only want to initiate additional death and destruction.
Now if the leak had shown illegal actions rather than a horrible friendly fire tragidy, I absolutely believe it should have been leaked. But in this case, the leak only serves to inflame the ignorant and weak minded - to be used as terrorists sock puppets.
Sometimes a lie is for the greater good. The military was right to lie about it.
First let me say, I only watched the first 2/3rds of the video. The situation is very complex. Please keep in mind, I'm not making excuses. I'm simply explaining the reality in a war zone.
In the portion I watched, I did not see anything which failed to follow proper Rules of Engagement (RoE). This is not to say I didn't observe a tragedy. It was horrific. It was upsetting. Frankly it made me mad and even want to cry. Regardless, what you observed in this video is what is called friendly fire and is a direct result of terrorist actions. Yes, you heard that right.
You need to keep in mind, what the pilots saw very much look like what terrorists look like when they are walking around with RPGs and AKs. They've likely seen groups of men who more or less look exactly like that dozens and dozens of times before. Their failure was to make the distinction between cameras and weapons. This is, of course, why media are constantly encouraged to wear clothing which easily identifies them as press, or at the very least distinguishes them from the enemy. They are encouraged to have, "TV" on their vehicles; on at least two sides and on the roof. They are encouraged to wear "TV" on their clothes. Since terrorists don't wear a uniform that means everyone looks like a terrorist. The thing which stands them apart is the typical weapon appeal; which they they absolutely have similarities. This may all sound funny and odd, but cameras, especially TV cameras are easily confused with many modern weapons at a distance. For example, the guy leaning around the corner taking pictures did look like someone leaning around a corner with an RPG.
What is even further hurtful to watch is when the good Samaritans show up in the van to try to rescue the injured cameraman. What you don't realize is, standard operations is for terrorists to leave the scene after taking weapons and rescuing the injured. They then go to the press with stories of mass murders by US troops; when in fact, only terrorists were killed. As such, terrorists who attempt to leave the scene with people who are believed to be terrorists, and considered legal targets. In this case, the soldiers legitimately believed they has killed terrorists and now, per terrorists standard operating procedures, terrorists was loading up the wounded.
While regretful, the lies the military told to cover up are hardly difficult to understand. You need to keep in mind, the press has the death of *thousands* on their hands following the release of the Abu Ghraib prison pictures. Those deaths are in exchange of press dollars and ratings. Their pictures incited riots, caused uprisings, initiated continued civil conflicts, and prevented the hand over of cities back into the hands of the indigenous populations. Accordingly, legitimate friendly fire is likely to cause additional problems.
You need to keep in mind, at the end of the day, this is war. Its not clean. Its not pretty. And this is war at the hands of humans. No humans are perfect. And yet despite 21st century technology, friendly fire is still a significant event even among soldiers who have modern equipment specifically to prevent these situations. As such, its not the least bit surprising this happened to cameramen, in indistinguishable clothing, in a war zone.
While I didn't watch the whole video, unless something drastically changed in the last 1/3 of it, I see nothing other than a horrible, horrible tragedy which underscores the reality of humanity and the horrors of war. This is not the crime they are clearly trying to frame it as. And those who attempt to frame it as such only reveal themselves as ignorant or pushing an agenda. That's not an excuse, that's the facts.
So please, at the end of the day, there are very few reporters who don't have blood on their hands. And when friendly fire leads to the death of one of their own, the hypocrites are usually the first to cry foul the loudest.
Sad? Yes. Regrettable? Yes. Tragic? Absolutely yes! Crime? No. Did the military lie? Yes. Understandable why the military lied? Absolutely yes! They're looking to save lives on every side and leaks like this only work to further cause death and inflame an extremely volatile situation.
I find this especially interesting because I was previously rabidly attacked every time this came up, for stating what is a well known fact, and what is contrary to rampant ignorance. By law brakes are not required to stop a moving vehicle while accelerating at full throttle. The law only requires brakes to hold a vehicle at rest while at full throttle. There is a world of difference in the physics involved. And contrary to urban myth, it is extremely easy to overheat brakes on the majority of passenger vehicles. Brakes which are moderately overheated may have their braking efficiency reduced by as much as 80%.
The fact that Car and Driver is able to come to a different conclusion than physics, the NHTSA, and the manufacturer, only underscores what I've always said. Car and Driver is a magazine for people who can't spell, "car". Generally the readers or ignorant douches who don't know anything about vehicles yet consider themselves to be the elite of drivers. In short, its for those who think they know vehicles but really don't know anything. It educates them about buzz words so they can hold buzzword compliant conversations with others who know nothing about vehicles.
Bullshit. Every credible climate model performs calibration runs which simulates historical climate. If they start their model two hundred years in the past and they can't get within a margin of error of today's climate then the model isn't used.
Because you're obviously incredibly nieve on the subject, I'll follow up with something incredibly easy to understand. The models don't ever match new data. Never. When they get new data, they then tweak the model until it matches the historical data. Then they run a new simulation which shows doom and gloom. So the only bullshit is coming from you. Reasonable people and real, unbiased scientists, call this completely bullshit; aka, pseudo-science. The nieve and ignorant take it as fact and good science.
I didn't even bother to read the rest of your uninformed, irrational, and highly charged rant.
is a propeller a type of wing? it provide thrust, not lift. To my knowledge they aren't designed like a wing either.
Very loosely, yes. It provides thrust or lift depending on its orientation and use. You can quite literally replace wings with freely spinning propellers and generate lift... assuming you also have something to provide thrust. We have flying aircraft as such. They're just not common.
I fall into an odd category. I believe GW exists. I don't believe there is evidence which supports man is the sole cause. Personally, I'm extremely perplexed by those who don't believe in GW, but I digress. According to the people who actually develop advanced climate computer simulations, their own models are flawed and still need lots of continued research, development, and new data. Every year, as new data comes out, they are forced to further adjust their entire models; which seemingly don't even correlate over decades, let alone centuries.
Not the least of which, and extremely interesting to me, science has proved magnetic pole reversal is a real phenomenon here on Earth. More recent research, which was until fairly recently unknown, indicates as the poles continue to migrate away from their axial locations, the Earth's magnetosphere will continue to weaken. This is a historical fact that such things have repeatedly happened in the past. As the magnetosphere weakens, much more radiation reaches the Earth's surface. While its known it poses a risk to both life and artificial satellites, I've not heard of any research which attempts to correlate huge increases of radiation and significantly weakened magnetosphere protection with climate research. Oddly enough, I have repeatedly heard astrophysicists who claim only minor solar output changes can drastically affect climate change. In this case, seemingly, solar output need not change since the levels received are increasing because of a naturally occurring decrease in Earth's protection.
Since the weakening of the magnetosphere and its inverse increase of radiation seems to mirror that of climate change, to which man is attributed, it seems to shout loudly that those who claim man is behind GW, are woefully ignorant. Especially since I'm not aware of any such research. And ultimately, that's the real problem. The more we learn, the more we learn we don't know or understand. We are constantly finding significant and new, first order variables which drive our climate. And yet while we know we don't understand how lots of lots of things work which directly drive our climate, people are more than willing to shout from the rooftop the sky is falling when in fact, we know we don't really know. Lastly, for every new first order variable discovered, all previous climate models are completely invalidated. And while we know for a fact the models have been completely invalidates at least three times, I've not heard any mumblings of such from the very people who directly benefit from continued grants.
To me, this stinks to high heaven of some seriously bad pseudo-science. And not surprisingly, we're hearing more and more of exactly that. So while I'm not saying man isn't behind GW, I'm saying anyone who attempts to authoritatively state man is behind it, likely is up for more grant money; or ignorantly parroting accordingly. For all I know, man may be behind, but the science doesn't really provide that answer; at least not yet. To date, all research seems to indicate, we really don't have a fucking clue.
A propeller is a specific type of wing. Wings are airfoils. Propellers are airfoils. Planes have fixed wings. Helicopters have rotatory wings. Both have wings.
and illegal downloads is that the seller doesn't lose the opportunity to sell the content
But like stock, the seller's value of material has been negatively effected. No bones about it, pirating directly causes a loss for the seller. The complex formulas used to calculate stop loss, for stocks, plus several others, would likely help determine the actual loss of value.
The particles to which I refer must exist else the entire standard model falls apart. Of course, that doesn't mean the standard model is accurate. It just means that if it falls apart, much of modern theoretical physics is completely out the window as its built around the assumption the standard model is correct. And for the standard model to be correct, those as of yet undetected, yet mathematically required particles must exist.
IIRC, there are still something like six particles, which the math says MUST exist, but have never been observed. At this point those particles are as theoretical as the "god particle". Simply put, even if I don't correctly recall the number of still theoretical particles, there is still lots and lots of theoretical research yet to be done. Likely, at least many life times worth.
Rather than exploit the free publicity and growth of revenue, they fight against the rising tides with their swords. If the movie and music industries collapse, it will not be due to piracy, but anti-piracy.
Why was this modded, "Insightful"? There wasn't anything the least bit interesting, insightful, or even true in it?
Since when is stealing, "free publicity"? And contrary to your assertions, what proof do you have which indicates stealing directly translates into increased revenue? Furthermore, your "swords" isn't even accurate; its their, "pens." We're talking attorneys, not armies. Lastly, they show no signs of collapse.
So to summarize, you said, "I still shit because I'm ignorant." And then someone said, "Wow! That's insightful!" If you would stop believing your own BS, you'd be laughing at your post - as I am.
Good for you!
"NO OFFICER! I did NOT steal his wallet! I was freely promoting and advertising his spending potential! What?! I get a Scoobie snack?! Wow! Like zoinks! I thought I was in trouble for a second."
And just FYI, the often claimed "viral boost" pushed by pirates actually have no proof. Thus far, we have equal evidence the "viral boost" actually bring some portion of profits sooner - not more profits. In other words, there is no proof that stealing actually increases sales; only that it may bring profits slighter sooner.
Slashdot Mirror
How is that even supposed to work? You can't run the engine up to full power with the car sitting still *and* have it in gear.
We have a winner!
That's exactly why a moving vehicle, which has much more energy plus potentially making peak horsepower, is often unable to be stopped by its braking system. Now add in anti-lock brakes which can also drastically diminish ones braking ability, cause rapid heating of the brakes, and finally, overheating. Yes, that's right, anti-lock brakes DIMINISHES braking distance and braking capability. It does so in order to drastically increase controllability. A good driver without anti-lock brakes can often out brake an anti-lock system by up to 20% in ideal conditions.
Next time you get into your car, press and hold the brakes - hard (do so at your own risk). Now press the pedal to the floor. Most vehicles never get close to making peak power because of their stall converter. Often the engine can't claw past a thousand or two RPMs (depending on car) from idle. Most vehicles tend to provide peak HP at around 75% from the red line on their RPM gage. The gap provided by most vehicles is staggering.
If you do it with a manual car, you would need to rev the engine and then let out the clutch
Surprisingly, this can be done. Well at least, spinning the tires. It just takes practice. It requires a careful balance of three pedals with two feet. But ultimately, since the objective is to hold the car rather than spin the tires, the vehicle will die. Though honestly, I'm not sure what the guidelines actually require for manual transmissions.
No, that's wrong. Whether a weapon is direct fire or indirect fire
The 30mm cannon on the Apache Longbow is an indirect fire, area affect weapon. They train to use it as a direct fire weapon. The Army's primary classification of the cannon is that of an indirect fire weapon because of the targeting capabilities of the weapon and how it was originally intended to be used (no LOS or BVR and over obstacles, etc.). Regardless, because it is an area affect, indirect fire weapon, its accuracy when used as a direct fire weapon its the greatest - because its requirements as such don't exist - and it especially shows for the first several rounds coming out the barrel because of the recoil system. It was these facts I was trying to stress. Furthermore, the type of ammo fired from the 30mm cannon does have a direct affect on use. When loaded when HE rounds, they by far, tend to use it as an area affect weapon. You are right that I referred to it as indirect when I should have referred to it as area affect.
My brother is an Apache Longbow pilot. I've had the privilege to use both a simulator as well as sit in the actual aircraft. In the later I have acquired targets and used the FLIR system to track targets out on the flight line.
The problem here is I got lazy and didn't want to have to repeatedly type, "indirect fire" and "area affect weapon", or make the actual distinction, and you have the knowledge to split hairs, which is a rarity here - especially when it comes to weapon systems. That will teach me. ;) So kudos to you for being able to call me out.
LOL.
Perhaps you should at least watch the video. And then bother to observe what weapons look like when carried by people. Then bother to understand the actual visual capabilities of current weapon system. If you had a clue, your idiotic post would have never occurred. But frankly, stupidity such as yours is exactly why video such as this causes such far reaching panic, ignorance and hatred - which is exactly why the military lied about it.
shell does NOT "expand or flatten easily in the human body"
Because the 30mm cannon on an Apache is classified as an indirect fire weapon. They train to use it as a direct fire weapon; regardless, its an indirect fire weapon, especially with HE rounds in use. Accordingly, you should think of it as a small grenade rather than a round meant to directly penetrate a soft target. Technically, they typically fire in 10 round bursts and the first three rounds are lucky to be within 10 meters of the target.
Was more or less adding to your comments for those who don't already know.
In the video none of them are obviously carrying anything big, though you can hear the soldiers calling in that the people were carrying AK47's and an RPG.
I strongly urge you to learn more about what you're talking about. They actually look exactly like people carrying AKs and RPGs. And in the part where the pilot declares "RPG", it looks EXACTLY like someone with an "RPG".
As your entire basis is incorrect, I encourage you to read my other posts so you'll be better educated on the subject. Regardless, your post is incorrect.
Thank you for your post. Its nice to see a few others who actually know what they are talking about.
Trust me, a 30mm shell
Those were high explosive rounds. Think of them as 30mm hand grenades. And for those who don't know, the M203, an extremely common NATA grenade launcher, fires 40mm grenades.
Please go read my other posts on this subject. After doing so, the poster looks like a complete idiot. Actually knowing what you're talking about makes all the difference. In this case, the poster is an idiot.
Ironically, AA batteries were commonly used as anti-personal weapons the world over since WWI. As such, the world at large still continues to use them accordingly. Their use is not illegal.
Using anti-aircraft/anti-vehicle weaponry against non-armored human targets goes against the Geneva Convention.
This is an extremely common misconception. If that were true, mortars and artillery would be illegal. As would many sniper weapons.
But covering it up just makes it so SO much worse.
Wrong. Covering it up only makes it worse when people go out of their way to make it worse. Basically those who leaked this video likely are the cause of additional, needless murder and bloodshed. Those who leaked it should be very ashamed. At the very least, they've proven they have no respect for human life and only want to initiate additional death and destruction.
Now if the leak had shown illegal actions rather than a horrible friendly fire tragidy, I absolutely believe it should have been leaked. But in this case, the leak only serves to inflame the ignorant and weak minded - to be used as terrorists sock puppets.
Sometimes a lie is for the greater good. The military was right to lie about it.
First let me say, I only watched the first 2/3rds of the video. The situation is very complex. Please keep in mind, I'm not making excuses. I'm simply explaining the reality in a war zone.
In the portion I watched, I did not see anything which failed to follow proper Rules of Engagement (RoE). This is not to say I didn't observe a tragedy. It was horrific. It was upsetting. Frankly it made me mad and even want to cry. Regardless, what you observed in this video is what is called friendly fire and is a direct result of terrorist actions. Yes, you heard that right.
You need to keep in mind, what the pilots saw very much look like what terrorists look like when they are walking around with RPGs and AKs. They've likely seen groups of men who more or less look exactly like that dozens and dozens of times before. Their failure was to make the distinction between cameras and weapons. This is, of course, why media are constantly encouraged to wear clothing which easily identifies them as press, or at the very least distinguishes them from the enemy. They are encouraged to have, "TV" on their vehicles; on at least two sides and on the roof. They are encouraged to wear "TV" on their clothes. Since terrorists don't wear a uniform that means everyone looks like a terrorist. The thing which stands them apart is the typical weapon appeal; which they they absolutely have similarities. This may all sound funny and odd, but cameras, especially TV cameras are easily confused with many modern weapons at a distance. For example, the guy leaning around the corner taking pictures did look like someone leaning around a corner with an RPG.
What is even further hurtful to watch is when the good Samaritans show up in the van to try to rescue the injured cameraman. What you don't realize is, standard operations is for terrorists to leave the scene after taking weapons and rescuing the injured. They then go to the press with stories of mass murders by US troops; when in fact, only terrorists were killed. As such, terrorists who attempt to leave the scene with people who are believed to be terrorists, and considered legal targets. In this case, the soldiers legitimately believed they has killed terrorists and now, per terrorists standard operating procedures, terrorists was loading up the wounded.
While regretful, the lies the military told to cover up are hardly difficult to understand. You need to keep in mind, the press has the death of *thousands* on their hands following the release of the Abu Ghraib prison pictures. Those deaths are in exchange of press dollars and ratings. Their pictures incited riots, caused uprisings, initiated continued civil conflicts, and prevented the hand over of cities back into the hands of the indigenous populations. Accordingly, legitimate friendly fire is likely to cause additional problems.
You need to keep in mind, at the end of the day, this is war. Its not clean. Its not pretty. And this is war at the hands of humans. No humans are perfect. And yet despite 21st century technology, friendly fire is still a significant event even among soldiers who have modern equipment specifically to prevent these situations. As such, its not the least bit surprising this happened to cameramen, in indistinguishable clothing, in a war zone.
While I didn't watch the whole video, unless something drastically changed in the last 1/3 of it, I see nothing other than a horrible, horrible tragedy which underscores the reality of humanity and the horrors of war. This is not the crime they are clearly trying to frame it as. And those who attempt to frame it as such only reveal themselves as ignorant or pushing an agenda. That's not an excuse, that's the facts.
So please, at the end of the day, there are very few reporters who don't have blood on their hands. And when friendly fire leads to the death of one of their own, the hypocrites are usually the first to cry foul the loudest.
Sad? Yes. Regrettable? Yes. Tragic? Absolutely yes! Crime? No. Did the military lie? Yes. Understandable why the military lied? Absolutely yes! They're looking to save lives on every side and leaks like this only work to further cause death and inflame an extremely volatile situation.
I find this especially interesting because I was previously rabidly attacked every time this came up, for stating what is a well known fact, and what is contrary to rampant ignorance. By law brakes are not required to stop a moving vehicle while accelerating at full throttle. The law only requires brakes to hold a vehicle at rest while at full throttle. There is a world of difference in the physics involved. And contrary to urban myth, it is extremely easy to overheat brakes on the majority of passenger vehicles. Brakes which are moderately overheated may have their braking efficiency reduced by as much as 80%.
The fact that Car and Driver is able to come to a different conclusion than physics, the NHTSA, and the manufacturer, only underscores what I've always said. Car and Driver is a magazine for people who can't spell, "car". Generally the readers or ignorant douches who don't know anything about vehicles yet consider themselves to be the elite of drivers. In short, its for those who think they know vehicles but really don't know anything. It educates them about buzz words so they can hold buzzword compliant conversations with others who know nothing about vehicles.
Bullshit. Every credible climate model performs calibration runs which simulates historical climate. If they start their model two hundred years in the past and they can't get within a margin of error of today's climate then the model isn't used.
Because you're obviously incredibly nieve on the subject, I'll follow up with something incredibly easy to understand. The models don't ever match new data. Never. When they get new data, they then tweak the model until it matches the historical data. Then they run a new simulation which shows doom and gloom. So the only bullshit is coming from you. Reasonable people and real, unbiased scientists, call this completely bullshit; aka, pseudo-science. The nieve and ignorant take it as fact and good science.
I didn't even bother to read the rest of your uninformed, irrational, and highly charged rant.
I'm not sure if that was supposed to be tongue in cheek or not. If it wasn't, the stupidity makes my head hurt. If it was, touché!
is a propeller a type of wing? it provide thrust, not lift. To my knowledge they aren't designed like a wing either.
Very loosely, yes. It provides thrust or lift depending on its orientation and use. You can quite literally replace wings with freely spinning propellers and generate lift... assuming you also have something to provide thrust. We have flying aircraft as such. They're just not common.
I fall into an odd category. I believe GW exists. I don't believe there is evidence which supports man is the sole cause. Personally, I'm extremely perplexed by those who don't believe in GW, but I digress. According to the people who actually develop advanced climate computer simulations, their own models are flawed and still need lots of continued research, development, and new data. Every year, as new data comes out, they are forced to further adjust their entire models; which seemingly don't even correlate over decades, let alone centuries.
Not the least of which, and extremely interesting to me, science has proved magnetic pole reversal is a real phenomenon here on Earth. More recent research, which was until fairly recently unknown, indicates as the poles continue to migrate away from their axial locations, the Earth's magnetosphere will continue to weaken. This is a historical fact that such things have repeatedly happened in the past. As the magnetosphere weakens, much more radiation reaches the Earth's surface. While its known it poses a risk to both life and artificial satellites, I've not heard of any research which attempts to correlate huge increases of radiation and significantly weakened magnetosphere protection with climate research. Oddly enough, I have repeatedly heard astrophysicists who claim only minor solar output changes can drastically affect climate change. In this case, seemingly, solar output need not change since the levels received are increasing because of a naturally occurring decrease in Earth's protection.
Since the weakening of the magnetosphere and its inverse increase of radiation seems to mirror that of climate change, to which man is attributed, it seems to shout loudly that those who claim man is behind GW, are woefully ignorant. Especially since I'm not aware of any such research. And ultimately, that's the real problem. The more we learn, the more we learn we don't know or understand. We are constantly finding significant and new, first order variables which drive our climate. And yet while we know we don't understand how lots of lots of things work which directly drive our climate, people are more than willing to shout from the rooftop the sky is falling when in fact, we know we don't really know. Lastly, for every new first order variable discovered, all previous climate models are completely invalidated. And while we know for a fact the models have been completely invalidates at least three times, I've not heard any mumblings of such from the very people who directly benefit from continued grants.
To me, this stinks to high heaven of some seriously bad pseudo-science. And not surprisingly, we're hearing more and more of exactly that. So while I'm not saying man isn't behind GW, I'm saying anyone who attempts to authoritatively state man is behind it, likely is up for more grant money; or ignorantly parroting accordingly. For all I know, man may be behind, but the science doesn't really provide that answer; at least not yet. To date, all research seems to indicate, we really don't have a fucking clue.
They have propellers, not wings.
A propeller is a specific type of wing. Wings are airfoils. Propellers are airfoils. Planes have fixed wings. Helicopters have rotatory wings. Both have wings.
and illegal downloads is that the seller doesn't lose the opportunity to sell the content
But like stock, the seller's value of material has been negatively effected. No bones about it, pirating directly causes a loss for the seller. The complex formulas used to calculate stop loss, for stocks, plus several others, would likely help determine the actual loss of value.
The particles to which I refer must exist else the entire standard model falls apart. Of course, that doesn't mean the standard model is accurate. It just means that if it falls apart, much of modern theoretical physics is completely out the window as its built around the assumption the standard model is correct. And for the standard model to be correct, those as of yet undetected, yet mathematically required particles must exist.
That's a really good point. Unfortunately, the answer is well beyond my next cup of coffee.
IIRC, there are still something like six particles, which the math says MUST exist, but have never been observed. At this point those particles are as theoretical as the "god particle". Simply put, even if I don't correctly recall the number of still theoretical particles, there is still lots and lots of theoretical research yet to be done. Likely, at least many life times worth.
Rather than exploit the free publicity and growth of revenue, they fight against the rising tides with their swords. If the movie and music industries collapse, it will not be due to piracy, but anti-piracy.
Why was this modded, "Insightful"? There wasn't anything the least bit interesting, insightful, or even true in it?
Since when is stealing, "free publicity"? And contrary to your assertions, what proof do you have which indicates stealing directly translates into increased revenue? Furthermore, your "swords" isn't even accurate; its their, "pens." We're talking attorneys, not armies. Lastly, they show no signs of collapse.
So to summarize, you said, "I still shit because I'm ignorant." And then someone said, "Wow! That's insightful!" If you would stop believing your own BS, you'd be laughing at your post - as I am.
Good for you!
"NO OFFICER! I did NOT steal his wallet! I was freely promoting and advertising his spending potential! What?! I get a Scoobie snack?! Wow! Like zoinks! I thought I was in trouble for a second."
And just FYI, the often claimed "viral boost" pushed by pirates actually have no proof. Thus far, we have equal evidence the "viral boost" actually bring some portion of profits sooner - not more profits. In other words, there is no proof that stealing actually increases sales; only that it may bring profits slighter sooner.
Look at "Statutory Rape". I don't think it means what you think it means.
Is what I described the disaster behind the movie?