> Exact same argument could be applied to 'climate' models...
Sorry, no. We understand very well the hydrodynamic, chemical and thermodynamic laws that govern the climate. Not so for neural process of even very simple worms.
It certainly can, and very easy too - simply withdraw legal, regulatory and insurance coverage from "dark pools". Those who would sill want to gamble there - let them handle the risk without any freedom -endangering state interference.
No, the US government did not approve of Iraqi chemical weapon use. You wildly exaggerate, to be polite.
And you are lying, to be precise. Here're some choice quotes from the article in the "Foreign Policy" that I linked to
U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.
and also
U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.
"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.
Looks like tacit approval to me.
The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.
- Invaded sovereign nation that did not threaten USA - the supreme war crime under Nurenberg statues. This war resulted in million+ excess deaths of Iraq populac, according to the Johns Hopkins Unuiversity study
- Established secret torture GULAG
- Declared habeas corpus void for "terorism" suspects
- Launched the total survelliance programs that Snowden now revealed
- Given away trillions of public money to corrupt and bankrupt Wall Street bankers
Thank you for this testament to the efficiency of the US education and media. Never mind the numerous examples of non-monetary, egalitarian societies and the actual history of money and debt.
In imaginary libertarian paradise, where mythical beast called "free market", decides who does what for how much, your objection would have been valid.
> Well, if you could remove greed, lust, hate, and evil from human nature then this would work..
Actually, for the communism to work it is enough to remove the scarcity. That's why maintaining scarcity and inequality is a major preoccupation of the 1%
> they want to achieve status marked by having things
In communism things can be had by anyone for asking, so having things would not confer any status. What good is a mansion if you can't get servants to clean it, or less fortunate to envy it?
> however, that capitalism has one of the worst track records for resolving this: the shittiest jobs are > often also the lowest paid, and who gets to do them is "decided" by race, gender, and economic status
Excellent point, - never thought of that myself, even though it's so obvious. Perhaps, because it is so obvious.
I watched the video of Blackbird starting up, and it looks like you are right, and I have been mistaken all along. It does indeed work as a propeller from the get-go
There's an article by someone from MIT with analysis of such a craft, linked from wikipedia article about Blackbird. It will, in principle, work just as Blackbird does.
> It's unclear whether this is merely a language quibble, or you don't yet understand how it works.
Well, no. I understand "how it works" just fine, wheras you don't.
> The propeller is exerting a rearward force on the air.
No, it doesn't, as simple as that.
> The propeller is exerting a rearward force on the air.
Again, nope.
> Newtons Laws: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If a force exists from the prop towards the air, there also > exists and equal and opposite force from the air towards the prop.
Yes, so far so good.
> The air *is* exerting a forwards force on the cart, even when the cart is going above windspeed.
No, it does not, even if you put a few more asterisks around "is". The correct statement is, "wind is exerting rotating force on the propeller, even when the cart is going above windspeed. "
> the wind" is indeed pushing forwards on the propeller.
No, the net force on the propeller from the wind is directed backwards (plus rotating momentum, which, being transmitted to the wheels, is pushing the craft forward)
> So the net force on the craft, from the wind, is a forwards acceleration.
Nope, you are still wrong. The original approach to the analysis - sideways motion of the blades with respect to the wind - is the correct one.
> You'll have to break out the differential equations if you want to calculate what's going on.
No, you don't (though I have no trouble doing so, when needed). This is high-school level problem
> The movement of the ground in the opposite direction is what powers the propeller
Incorrect - what powers the propeller is the relative speed between the ground and the wind.
> The problem that people are having is that they don't see how the wind can still be pushing the cart when the cart is moving faster than the wind.
That's not a problem, that's a solution. The wind can not be pushing the cart when it is moving faster than the wind. The problem are the people who insist on incorrect solution.
Again, no. The net force from wind on the craft is pushing it backwards. It's the wheels that propel the craft forward. And the wheels are powered by the propeller, not the other way around
That's completely incorrect. The wind can't push the craft forward - the craft goes faster than the wind, so the net force on the craft from the wind is braking it.
Slashdot Mirror
> Exact same argument could be applied to 'climate' models...
Sorry, no. We understand very well the hydrodynamic, chemical and thermodynamic laws that govern the climate. Not so for neural process of even very simple worms.
It certainly can, and very easy too - simply withdraw legal, regulatory and insurance coverage from "dark pools". Those who would sill want to gamble there - let them handle the risk without any freedom -endangering state interference.
No, the US government did not approve of Iraqi chemical weapon use. You wildly exaggerate, to be polite.
And you are lying, to be precise. Here're some choice quotes from the article in the "Foreign Policy" that I linked to
U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.
and also
U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.
"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.
Looks like tacit approval to me.
The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.
Iraq did have and use chemical weapons in the past.
With full knowledge and approval of the USA government, as the declassified government documents prove
"Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran"
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran
I find it amazing that so many people treat assertions by the US government as a fact. How many times you need to be lied to grow up a little?
Developers! Developers! Developers!
Developers?
"NSA spies on it"
You are forgetting his biggest achievements:
- Invaded sovereign nation that did not threaten USA - the supreme war crime under Nurenberg statues. This war resulted in million+ excess deaths of Iraq populac, according to the Johns Hopkins Unuiversity study
- Established secret torture GULAG
- Declared habeas corpus void for "terorism" suspects
- Launched the total survelliance programs that Snowden now revealed
- Given away trillions of public money to corrupt and bankrupt Wall Street bankers
Thank you for this testament to the efficiency of the US education and media. Never mind the numerous examples of non-monetary, egalitarian societies and the actual history of money and debt.
And race and gender has absolutely nothing to do with whatever you call "economic status". Nothing at all. Perish the thought!
In imaginary libertarian paradise, where mythical beast called "free market", decides who does what for how much, your objection would have been valid.
> Well, if you could remove greed, lust, hate, and evil from human nature then this would work..
Actually, for the communism to work it is enough to remove the scarcity. That's why maintaining scarcity and inequality is a major preoccupation of the 1%
> they want to achieve status marked by having things
In communism things can be had by anyone for asking, so having things would not confer any status. What good is a mansion if you can't get servants to clean it, or less fortunate to envy it?
> however, that capitalism has one of the worst track records for resolving this: the shittiest jobs are
> often also the lowest paid, and who gets to do them is "decided" by race, gender, and economic status
Excellent point, - never thought of that myself, even though it's so obvious. Perhaps, because it is so obvious.
They want their "Biofeedback" fad back.
Though it could have been newsworthy, if they used Raspberry Pi in 3D-printed box to implement the control algorithms.
I watched the video of Blackbird starting up, and it looks like you are right, and I have been mistaken all along. It does indeed work as a propeller from the get-go
Go to proctologist and tell him to cure your craniorectal syndrome.
> No, the principles of Relativity (proper noun) ARE something specific to nuclear physics and other high energy endeavors.
Another ignorant person heard from. Go to wikipedia and search for "Galilean relativity principle"
There's an article by someone from MIT with analysis of such a craft, linked from wikipedia article about Blackbird. It will, in principle, work just as Blackbird does.
> Direct downwind faster than wind is impossible with a windmill(turbine).
Incorrect.
> Your words, they make no sense.
Only to someone lacking the understanding of basic physics.
> A propeller is powered. It cannot be used to extract power.
It can, and it is.
> you cannot have wheels powered by a propeller.
Your say-so, no matter how vigorous, does not make it correct.
It's great to see comments form people who really understand what's going on, like beelsebob.
> It's unclear whether this is merely a language quibble, or you don't yet understand how it works.
Well, no. I understand "how it works" just fine, wheras you don't.
> The propeller is exerting a rearward force on the air.
No, it doesn't, as simple as that.
> The propeller is exerting a rearward force on the air.
Again, nope.
> Newtons Laws: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If a force exists from the prop towards the air, there also
> exists and equal and opposite force from the air towards the prop.
Yes, so far so good.
> The air *is* exerting a forwards force on the cart, even when the cart is going above windspeed.
No, it does not, even if you put a few more asterisks around "is". The correct statement is, "wind is exerting rotating force on the propeller, even when the cart is going above windspeed. "
> the wind" is indeed pushing forwards on the propeller.
No, the net force on the propeller from the wind is directed backwards (plus rotating momentum, which, being transmitted to the wheels, is pushing the craft forward)
> So the net force on the craft, from the wind, is a forwards acceleration.
Nope, you are still wrong. The original approach to the analysis - sideways motion of the blades with respect to the wind - is the correct one.
> You'll have to break out the differential equations if you want to calculate what's going on.
No, you don't (though I have no trouble doing so, when needed). This is high-school level problem
> The movement of the ground in the opposite direction is what powers the propeller
Incorrect - what powers the propeller is the relative speed between the ground and the wind.
> The problem that people are having is that they don't see how the wind can still be pushing the cart when the cart is moving faster than the wind.
That's not a problem, that's a solution. The wind can not be pushing the cart when it is moving faster than the wind. The problem are the people who insist on incorrect solution.
Again, no. The net force from wind on the craft is pushing it backwards. It's the wheels that propel the craft forward. And the wheels are powered by the propeller, not the other way around
That's completely incorrect. The wind can't push the craft forward - the craft goes faster than the wind, so the net force on the craft from the wind is braking it.