So, you'd rather cherry pick the one foul-up of a successful program and you accuse me of bad-faith discussion?
I didn't cherry pick it, you did. Not me, not the GP you were replying to, you did.
Maybe that was not the point you were trying to make. Maybe you just bought into a phony anti-renewable energy, anti-Obama talking point.
You still haven't read what I wrote. You're still imagining what you want me to have said. You're having a one sided argument, and you haven't realized it yet.
(You're in a pro-Obama funk, but I don't think you know it. You've been scared by so many bogey men, you're starting to see them where they don't exist.)
While the temperature effect may be a greater driving force, there could easily be something that nudges it in it's initial direction, such as your orbital theory. I would think the countervailing temperate winds might balance the angular momentum issue, but that wouldn't slow the Earth.
With the moon slowing the Earth, the angular momentum stays within the Earth-Moon system. I didn't follow the torque argument (I think it's missing an important detail somewhere), but it makes sense that as the system grows, the angular speed would slow somewhere. But when it's just the winds of Earth, I don't see where that momentum goes.
Sorry for making you do extra work. It's the first time in a while I've seen an interesting physics thought experiment that doesn't go way over my head.
I agree that the energy must come from somewhere, but you still haven't addressed conservation of angular momentum.
In terms of the moon, I always thought that the tide energy was being generated by decreasing the moon's escape energy. That could just be my own supposition though. I do know that the common claim on wind power is that it is indirect solar energy. That doesn't mean that's correct.
I find you're theory interesting; it just has a hole in it that I'd like to know how to fill.;)
But I'd rather see an effort and a failure at something like solar...
You'd rather, but I wouldn't. Solyndra was dead. It had failed. There were ZERO prospects there before that investment was made.
Would I like to find viable solar? Sure. I don't even mind the Federal government (within reason) helping to find it. But if you'd rather spend money on Solyndra than on an oil pipeline, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, cheap.
Sure, Solyndra didn't work out as advertised, and maybe they got the money for reasons other than them having a really good idea. But I'd rather see an effort and a failure at something like solar rather than just spending the same 500 mil convincing people that tar sands and a really long pipe is going to be anything like the answer.
Solyndra was one part bad PR move, and one part fraud. By the time the Federal government invested, it was no longer viable (and the White House was informed as much).
The problem with the Federal Government investing in science and tech isn't the investment, it's the criteria they use to decide where and how. They're not interested in picking something that might work years from now, they're interested in things that make good photo ops today. (And yes, I can see room for federal investment in science... cautiously.)
Oh bother. This is a law firm which deals with private information as a business. It's what they do. Every peon (non-lawyer) should always assume that every document is private, and that disclosure could lose them their jobs. They should be told this, but they should also be able to figure it out on their own.
Now there are scenarios (ex:asking permission) where someone else would be at fault. In the general case, though, the paralegal is squarely at fault. I don't want to hire a lawyer who employs that paralegal... thus one can hardly blame the law firm for not wanting to employ him/her any further.
I hope they don't do a regeneration just because they feel they must. They've already got a great actor in the lead part. Why mess with that? A regeneration would both feel cliche and risk finding a lesser talent.
Even the goddamn zombie episode spent much of its time focusing on whether the two side characters were in love or not.
(without a spoiler) There's a very good reason for that story arc. If you'd seen the recent episodes, you'd know why. That arc leads through the Last Centurion to Demons Run and the season finale. It's actually a potentially significant change to the series.
You're kidding, right? Fox isn't smart enough to point out that the definition of poverty has drifted like crazy. The New York Times, on the other hand, has pointed it out.
As Toonol points out, why pick out Texas? Why specifically? The most likely reason is as attack on Perry. I also don't like him, but I don't like unfair political drive by attacks.
I'm surprised you aren't calling it "class warfare."
I didn't. It didn't cross my mind. Actually, by bringing it up you just suggested that such an argument might have legitimacy. Are you looking for trouble?
(Don't make me retort by claiming you work for ACORN. That would be childish.)
That's not a bad idea, actually. If we can impress upon Jon some of the things that matter to us, it could shape his future interviews with candidates (or choosing guests, for that matter). He can't make them answer, but he has a talent of making them face the issue.
Ron Paul is nuts. Every time I want to like him, he goes and says something untrue, inane, or just plain insane.
I would much rather hear from Rand Paul, who has been somewhat in the shadows through all this. Some have suggested that he'll be his fathers successor. Me, I don't know. I really haven't heard enough from him. Thus, it would be great to interview him here. Maybe, just maybe, he'll wind up being the "Paul" I can like.
Re:The next new airplane to get axed...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
The problem with China is that their population, as well as ours in the US, is starting to feel that conflict is inevitable. While it isn't, such things tend to lead to increased tension, and may eventually lead to conflict.
Thus, it is unfair, but wise, to consider China as a potential enemy, and hope they never are.
Re:The next new airplane to get axed...
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Uh, the US isn't the only democracy that discusses things on the Internet... (Hence the word "opinion" that you might have missed?)
It doesn't have a whole lot of free (or inexpensive) software more powerful than GIMP. (It does have moderate and very expensive software that is much better than GIMP.) Now the cheep software available does tend to have a much cleaner/easier user interface than GIMP...
I thought that was how the free market worked. Everyone negotiates the best deal they can for themselves. So why is it 'self-serving' and 'money-grubbing' when working stiffs band together to form a union to negotiate collectively for more money or better conditions, and not when a banker or CEO gets a million dollar golden parachute? I'll be transfer my outrage to the common working stiff when I see all examples of the latter disappear.
A great question. I'll come back to that in a moment.
Disclaimer: I belong to no union. But I have worked with union members, and found them to contain the approximately the same proportion of decent hard-working folk as non-union members.
And there we have it. There's your confusion. Union members aren't part of a club. They "belong" to the union in the same sense that Costco club members do. At best, the unions see them as customers that can't go elsewhere (the way insurance companies see their customers, only moreso). More commonly they see their "membership" as an orchard to be harvested. At worst, they see them as a mineral to be mined.
I don't mean to vilify union members. It's the unions themselves that tend to be evil. If unions did right by their members, there wouldn't be nearly as many union related problems.
Now there are unions formed by the "working stiffs" themselves. These are very rare and tend to be worthy of respect. They also tend to be crowded out by the established parasites. People rarely think about forming a union these days. They "join" unions. And by join I mean one person joins and the "shop goes union" and everyone else is forced to join. (depends on state law; entirely unconstitutional, but what can you do?)
key word: negotiate. If you don't like the deal that the unions got, have a word with the management that negotiated the deal.
And say what? You shouldn't have caved to the bully who can afford ten times as many lawyers per case? You need to bear in mind that the unions tend to be much larger than the companies their employees "belong to".
And yes, that CEO negotiated his deal too. He was just better at negotiating. Or perhaps because he was negotiating with his fellow board members with a wink and a nod that they would all 'negotiate' the same golden parachute. Hmmm.
Now that is a real problem. It's becoming fashionable, at least among moderately big corporations. It can be sickening.
Slashdot Mirror
He went to a country where he knew he had broken the law. He had to know that arrest and prosecution was one of the possible outcomes.
He gambled. He lost.
So, you'd rather cherry pick the one foul-up of a successful program and you accuse me of bad-faith discussion?
I didn't cherry pick it, you did. Not me, not the GP you were replying to, you did.
Maybe that was not the point you were trying to make. Maybe you just bought into a phony anti-renewable energy, anti-Obama talking point.
You still haven't read what I wrote. You're still imagining what you want me to have said. You're having a one sided argument, and you haven't realized it yet.
(You're in a pro-Obama funk, but I don't think you know it. You've been scared by so many bogey men, you're starting to see them where they don't exist.)
Nice bait and switch. Well done.
You offered a false dichotomy, waited for me to bite, and then redefined one of the sides*. I assume it wasn't intentional, but it was still rude.
(*The original scenario called for Solyndra specifically, not the whole loan program - something I carefully did not side against.)
While the temperature effect may be a greater driving force, there could easily be something that nudges it in it's initial direction, such as your orbital theory. I would think the countervailing temperate winds might balance the angular momentum issue, but that wouldn't slow the Earth.
With the moon slowing the Earth, the angular momentum stays within the Earth-Moon system. I didn't follow the torque argument (I think it's missing an important detail somewhere), but it makes sense that as the system grows, the angular speed would slow somewhere. But when it's just the winds of Earth, I don't see where that momentum goes.
Sorry for making you do extra work. It's the first time in a while I've seen an interesting physics thought experiment that doesn't go way over my head.
I agree that the energy must come from somewhere, but you still haven't addressed conservation of angular momentum.
In terms of the moon, I always thought that the tide energy was being generated by decreasing the moon's escape energy. That could just be my own supposition though. I do know that the common claim on wind power is that it is indirect solar energy. That doesn't mean that's correct.
I find you're theory interesting; it just has a hole in it that I'd like to know how to fill. ;)
Yeah, I got that. You're missing the point.
But I'd rather see an effort and a failure at something like solar...
You'd rather, but I wouldn't. Solyndra was dead. It had failed. There were ZERO prospects there before that investment was made.
Would I like to find viable solar? Sure. I don't even mind the Federal government (within reason) helping to find it. But if you'd rather spend money on Solyndra than on an oil pipeline, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, cheap.
Sure, Solyndra didn't work out as advertised, and maybe they got the money for reasons other than them having a really good idea. But I'd rather see an effort and a failure at something like solar rather than just spending the same 500 mil convincing people that tar sands and a really long pipe is going to be anything like the answer.
Solyndra was one part bad PR move, and one part fraud. By the time the Federal government invested, it was no longer viable (and the White House was informed as much).
The problem with the Federal Government investing in science and tech isn't the investment, it's the criteria they use to decide where and how. They're not interested in picking something that might work years from now, they're interested in things that make good photo ops today. (And yes, I can see room for federal investment in science... cautiously.)
Hmm... Interesting. How then do you conserve angular momentum? (as in: law of conservation...)
Oh bother. This is a law firm which deals with private information as a business. It's what they do. Every peon (non-lawyer) should always assume that every document is private, and that disclosure could lose them their jobs. They should be told this, but they should also be able to figure it out on their own.
Now there are scenarios (ex:asking permission) where someone else would be at fault. In the general case, though, the paralegal is squarely at fault. I don't want to hire a lawyer who employs that paralegal... thus one can hardly blame the law firm for not wanting to employ him/her any further.
I hope they don't do a regeneration just because they feel they must. They've already got a great actor in the lead part. Why mess with that? A regeneration would both feel cliche and risk finding a lesser talent.
Even the goddamn zombie episode spent much of its time focusing on whether the two side characters were in love or not.
(without a spoiler) There's a very good reason for that story arc. If you'd seen the recent episodes, you'd know why. That arc leads through the Last Centurion to Demons Run and the season finale. It's actually a potentially significant change to the series.
Touche
They've kinda substituted that with "fixed points", so they can choose as writers just how backed into a corner he is.
Um, FWIW, IMO, the thing with the Dr. and Rose worked, even if it didn't work out for him.
FTFY
You're kidding, right? Fox isn't smart enough to point out that the definition of poverty has drifted like crazy. The New York Times, on the other hand, has pointed it out.
As Toonol points out, why pick out Texas? Why specifically? The most likely reason is as attack on Perry. I also don't like him, but I don't like unfair political drive by attacks.
I'm surprised you aren't calling it "class warfare."
I didn't. It didn't cross my mind. Actually, by bringing it up you just suggested that such an argument might have legitimacy. Are you looking for trouble?
(Don't make me retort by claiming you work for ACORN. That would be childish.)
4,143,077 Texans live in poverty. 1,655,085 of them are children. http://www.census.gov/
Terrible, yes, but it also depends on how you define "poverty". The definition has changed over the years, and loosened over recent decades.
Only some subset of that group is in actual poverty.
(Besides, this looks like a hit on Rick Perry. I don't support him, but come on. Really?)
Yes, but friction with the bottle still plays a role, as does surface tension and viscosity.
*sigh*
Yes, republic... Seriously though, who did I confuse?
Democracy has entered the vernacular as meaning elected representation. It's not technically correct, but it's also not going away.
That's not a bad idea, actually. If we can impress upon Jon some of the things that matter to us, it could shape his future interviews with candidates (or choosing guests, for that matter). He can't make them answer, but he has a talent of making them face the issue.
Ron Paul is nuts. Every time I want to like him, he goes and says something untrue, inane, or just plain insane.
I would much rather hear from Rand Paul, who has been somewhat in the shadows through all this. Some have suggested that he'll be his fathers successor. Me, I don't know. I really haven't heard enough from him. Thus, it would be great to interview him here. Maybe, just maybe, he'll wind up being the "Paul" I can like.
The problem with China is that their population, as well as ours in the US, is starting to feel that conflict is inevitable. While it isn't, such things tend to lead to increased tension, and may eventually lead to conflict.
Thus, it is unfair, but wise, to consider China as a potential enemy, and hope they never are.
Uh, the US isn't the only democracy that discusses things on the Internet... (Hence the word "opinion" that you might have missed?)
China, OPEC, North Korea, and Russia!
And if we're especially lucky: Canada, Brazil, and India. (I know, fat chance.)
It doesn't have a whole lot of free (or inexpensive) software more powerful than GIMP. (It does have moderate and very expensive software that is much better than GIMP.) Now the cheep software available does tend to have a much cleaner/easier user interface than GIMP...
I thought that was how the free market worked. Everyone negotiates the best deal they can for themselves. So why is it 'self-serving' and 'money-grubbing' when working stiffs band together to form a union to negotiate collectively for more money or better conditions, and not when a banker or CEO gets a million dollar golden parachute? I'll be transfer my outrage to the common working stiff when I see all examples of the latter disappear.
A great question. I'll come back to that in a moment.
Disclaimer: I belong to no union. But I have worked with union members, and found them to contain the approximately the same proportion of decent hard-working folk as non-union members.
And there we have it. There's your confusion. Union members aren't part of a club. They "belong" to the union in the same sense that Costco club members do. At best, the unions see them as customers that can't go elsewhere (the way insurance companies see their customers, only moreso). More commonly they see their "membership" as an orchard to be harvested. At worst, they see them as a mineral to be mined.
I don't mean to vilify union members. It's the unions themselves that tend to be evil. If unions did right by their members, there wouldn't be nearly as many union related problems.
Now there are unions formed by the "working stiffs" themselves. These are very rare and tend to be worthy of respect. They also tend to be crowded out by the established parasites. People rarely think about forming a union these days. They "join" unions. And by join I mean one person joins and the "shop goes union" and everyone else is forced to join. (depends on state law; entirely unconstitutional, but what can you do?)
key word: negotiate. If you don't like the deal that the unions got, have a word with the management that negotiated the deal.
And say what? You shouldn't have caved to the bully who can afford ten times as many lawyers per case? You need to bear in mind that the unions tend to be much larger than the companies their employees "belong to".
And yes, that CEO negotiated his deal too. He was just better at negotiating. Or perhaps because he was negotiating with his fellow board members with a wink and a nod that they would all 'negotiate' the same golden parachute. Hmmm.
Now that is a real problem. It's becoming fashionable, at least among moderately big corporations. It can be sickening.