Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 9, 2012 at 12:53 PM in reply to: OT: If you can’t stand Jeff Bridges shilling for Hyundai, you won’t like Gary Busey Shilling for Kia :) #735586
KSMountain
Participant[quote=walterwhite]A bear broke into it in yosemite and tweaked the center console not covered by the generous wRranty.[/quote]
That would be an amusing clause to be present in a warranty…Did the bear get anything good? How much damage was there?
ParticipantIt is a reasonable thought experiment posed by the OP.
It may say something about the nature of economics that we haven’t been able to come up with an answer that satisfies everyone yet.
Let me take a stab (note: I am not an economist nor do I play one on tv):
If we monetized $15T overnight – As sreeb said, what do you think would happen to commodity prices? How much would folks demand for a barrel of oil? Or for a future barrel of oil? Do you really think it would remain unchanged? As someone with a tangible asset like that, wouldn’t you be just a little concerned about the fiat you were being offered in trade? Might that concern take prices up to $140 or $200/barrel immediately? I think it might. Might that ripple into everything else pretty quickly? Look at gold prices (or oil prices) – it’s not like things are static – they *are* influenced by events.
What would happen to our exchange rate vs other currencies?
Do you think international trade and debt would continue to be denominated in dollars after such an action?
Even if we “printed” $15T, we would STILL be spending more than we take in. We would still need to borrow even *more*. Currently 40% of our debt (as I understand it) is held by external parties. If you were one of those external parties, how would you feel about lending even *more* to someone who took such a precipitous unilateral action? Might you change your terms for any future loan? I think you well might.
Since we seem to be having some trouble agreeing on what would happen, how about if we took it to a (even more) ridiculous extreme? Why stop at $15T and leave us in a position where we still need to borrow? Why not just “print” $150T? Hooray, we’re all rolling in dough! Are we able to agree on the outcome of *that*? If we can, then it seems to me you can walk back to what the impact of a $15T intervention would be.
Still not clear? Why not print $330Q? We could distribute that money and every man, woman, and child in the US would instantly be a billionaire! Problem solved?
ParticipantHey! This thread is back? How cute!
I’m getting all nostalgic…
Participant[quote=Cad0158]Long time reader, first time commenter.
I was in an accident in UC when a drunk driver hit my car as I was coming off the freeway.
The driver fled and my car was undriveable. When we called 911 it took the police 30 minutes to get there and then the CHP and police argued about who was supposed to do the paperwork (since it was just off the freeway and on the street just off the freeway).
We got the first 5 digits of the plate. We contacted SDPD and they didn’t do anything.
I’m sure it’s just me (probably), but almost all my interactions with police I would describe as poor.[/quote]
Welcome Cad0158!I’m curious, did you give that info to your insurance company? Seems like they might have DMV records access, legal right, and motive to persue it…
ParticipantHappy Holidays everyone!
Best Wishes for you and your families in 2012.
Here’s hoping we have a year of interesting things to discuss and minimal need for the Ignore User bomb. 🙂
Participant1) The avionics warned “stall stall stall” something like 75 times. Yet the word never came up in the cockpit conversation. Language issue? Sensory overload? Was it an issue that they didn’t “believe” the warning? If you truly internalized “stall” the recovery actions would have been more obvious.
2) Perhaps the root issue really was that the other pilots didn’t know what was going on with the right hand sidestick. Make that more obvious? You could say “detect conflicts between left and right” but that won’t be enough. In a disciplined cockpit only one pilot will “have the controls” at a time, which was generally the case here. They handed off verbally. The problem was when the right hand guy was in control the inputs were improper. How to detect that – even *more* software and alarms? Difficult situation. Yes there was a time when left and right pilots were both controlling but that was only a small portion of the accident, near the end, as I understand it.
3) I’m not sure there’s an angle of attack indicator in that aircraft. Others on this board may know. But even if the cockpit said “angle of attack, angle of attack, angle of attack”, they were ignoring the other warning that said “Stall”.
4) Even though it was mentioned above that “they were descending at 10000ft/min, they knew what was going on”, the popular mechanics article said they “incredibly” were debating whether they were descending.
5) When envisioning this accident, keep in mind this was at night over the middle of the ocean, in a storm. Probably no visual references whatsover. No horizon.
6) We can blame it on the “stupid guy in the right hand seat”, but I guess you could have a guy with a brain fart in the left hand seat. What to do? Averaging the inputs won’t be enough. Difficult problem.
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote CDMA ENG]The reason, they explained, that you dont go to full power and point the aircraft down has everything to do with the wing design. The aircraft’s wing, if it is going to fast, start to build a shock wave over the leading edge and interrupts the airflow to the extent that the wing will lose lift.[/quote]Compressibility effect occurs trans-sonic/supersonic not low speed. This is why there were several accidents when trying to break the sound barrier. The shock wave prevented sufficient airflow from getting to the control surfaces. Next Miramar airshow, take a look at the leading edges on F18, F16s. You’ll find they are very narrow/thin. Compare that to a commercial sub-sonic plane, which has a fairly thick leading edge and to private planes which also have a fairly thick leading edge compared to their size and weight. The thicker leading edge gives an advantage due to a larger range of Angle of Attacks(AOA) that the wing will operate over (angle of attack being the angular difference between a line through the width of the wing and the vector representing the direction that the air is impacting the leading edge).
Compressibility is also the reason why supersonic aircraft try to have a smoothly transitioning cross section – ie have a coke bottle shape where the fuselage actually gets a little thinner in cross section when near the wings.
What happens at high AOAs is that as you approach stall, the laminar flow on the back(top) of the wing actually detaches from the wing surface. When that happens, you loose lift from the wing. There are all sorts of tricks done to prevent this. Next time you are on a flight, take the window seat next to the top of the wing. You’ll see small little blades sticking up from the top, near the chord of the wing(highest point, thickest in cross section) going lengthwise along the wing. You’ll notice that they are at a slight angle to the airflow. This is to create a vortex near the top wing surface that ‘glues’ the laminar flow down to the surface of the wing. If on the flight, you are on takeoff or landing and there is a moderate amount of moisture in the air – you can actually see the vortexes. Another thing to note, is that when flaps on commercial aircraft are deployed near their fullest, the leading edge of the wing actually pulls away from the wing and drops down. This is to bleed high pressure air from under the wing and ‘jet’ it close to the surface to ensure laminar flow at high Angle of Attacks.
There is another piece of the wing that you may see move. It will be near the fuselage of the wing is a large panel that tilts up from the top of the wing. Most of the panels will be in close to the fuselage. This is the ‘spoiler’ and it does what its name says. It ‘spoils’ the airflow, killing lift and increasing drag (also acting as a brake) when it comes up. It is useful at low speeds because the ailerons at the tips don’t have as much a bite on the airflow at low speeds. It has more of a ‘brake’ effect at higher speeds. They are mostly on the part of the wing nearest to the fuselage because they have a very large effect on the aircraft. If they were further out to the tip, they could easily flip or roll the aircraft.[/quote]
What a great post. Thanks ucodegen.Participant[quote=walterwhite]thank you. obviously my pathetic mewling was just a pitiful cry for positive feedback.[/quote]
Yes, it was.But, I have admired many of the laconic scaredy posts. Efficiency in expression, yet sometimes thought provoking.
If I ignore you, it will be accidental.
ParticipantIf you’re not grunting you’re not trying.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Arraya]We don’t tell Israel anything about her borders – they have been breaking international law and expanding since inception, with every president since Ford(and all world leaders) asking them to stop. [/quote]
I really want to take this off topic, but you’ve bought into a narrative that isn’t quite consistent with facts. Israel’s borders haven’t changed for over 60 years since it declared it’s independence after it accepted a UN partition plan which was rejected by every surrounding political body and war on Israel was declared by each of them.[/quote]
Wait SK. It seems to me Israel’s borders changed *immensely* after the six-day war, which was 44 years ago. They drove all the way to the Suez Canal. Isn’t it true that they also captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights in that war? Not all of that territory has been “returned”.Here’s a link to a graphic, I don’t know how to do the cool image thing Arraya did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Six_Day_War_Terrritories_2.pngAm I missing some way that that is not a change of borders?
Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=KSMountain]
So what’s your answer to my question?I’m interested in your answer.[/quote]
I assume you mean in arraya’s ideal post-capitalist collapse world?
I’m not sure. We certainly have to think about the material demands of long distance travel and transport. Though, you certainly would have much more time to travel;)
We ship fish from Canada to China to be cleaned – then back to the US to be consumed. For some reason, economic sense is at odds with the real world.
But, the short answer is, no, money demand and power would be no more.[/quote]
Yeah I just don’t know Arraya. I guess I can easily see collapse somewhere out there – why not – it’s happened many times before.
On the other hand, haven’t there always been “elites”? Was there ever a time when there wasn’t inequitable distribution of wealth?
Even in the USSR you had the party members, the politburo, dachas, and highway lanes reserved for the elites.
Perhaps even in caveman days there was a guy who figured out how to attach a spearhead more securely to his spear, and was more successful hunting, and then got all the chicks. And the other cavemen were likely grunting in jealousy.
I am in rare agreement with Brian here. You get your “wish”, things go to crap for 10-15 years – then what? How do you know you don’t end up with something even more inequitable? Might that even be the *most likely* outcome?
Like the song says:
“You say you want a revolution, well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan”Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=KSMountain]Arraya,
If you got your global economic collapse, would I still be able to fly in a jet airplane to Europe? Having some nice wine available on the flight would be nice too.
If not – count me out![/quote]
Whether society goes down over several decades of decay punctuated by interment crises or a few successive catastrophic financial collapses within a few years – it’s going down. We are going to have to reorganize based on new rules or have a severely and increasingly dysfunctional society.[/quote]
So what’s your answer to my question?I’m interested in your answer.
Participant[quote=Arraya]Science is a process of formulating models that predict outcomes in a natural system under certain conditions, and then testing them to see if the future predictions agree. However, the goal is to find how the model is inadequately representing the natural system. When the model is refuted, it is adjusted to form a new model from what is learned about the system. Since there is an underlying system that is being approximated by the models, there is an “objective reality” (exists independently of human conceptualization) to be described by conceptual models. The models evolve representations of the relationships and features that are defined by the system. Models are useful to humans. Models are respected when they better reflect the nature of the system.
Economics is an artifact of human imagination and all human conceptualization, and the agreement among certain humans who “play the games” together — thereby it is a social technology. There is no underlying physical reality other than what is identified by the players to be components. Nevertheless, the economic properties are determined by and limited only by the beliefs of the “players.” To build economic models one must assume certain features, and the models become part of the generators of the results. Since they are not inherently tied to the physical and biological realities(no physical referent), they may fail arbitrarily as the physical and biological world view of humans change — or as people believe the physical and biological world exists.
Economics in large part reflects human belief systems. Modern economics does not exist if we collectively don’t believe it. You can’t say the same about thermodynamics.[/quote]
I liked this post a lot.Participant[quote=KSMountain][quote=Arraya]We don’t NEED money to cast an arm or make a computer – these are technical processes.[/quote]
A new chip plant costs about $2 Billion. Takes many years to build, has a lot of real estate, power, and specialized gas needs. You need a fully intact supply chain, financial system, and legal infrastructure to make a microchip.Hope you don’t spill coffee on your computer…[/quote]
Make that $5B.You know what it takes to make a computer? Capital. And capitalists. Sorry.
-
AuthorPosts
