I think it's closer to crying because your car just got keyed, when you spent yesterday keying a dozen cars. It's a bit tough to swallow. But really, it's all just political points. Also tears are hardly difficult to deliberately evoke.

The agents are typically under huge pressure to recover debts, and often lie outrageously in the pursuit of it. Personal experience may differ, mind you.

I'm not sure why people seem to think this is an elementary problem. I seriously doubt that most people in this discussion studied anywhere near the math and physics required in the calculation in middle school, or even high school, or college for that matter. Having studied physics and math at all those levels, I know that wind turbines were NEVER part of the discussion. After looking up the relevant equations, I can see why -- they're certainly not trivial, and would probably required significant calculus to understand (derive). In university my physics courses were directed towards electricity, so I didn't get a chance to play with wind tunnels -- although I'd still love to!

Applying the oversimplified version of laws that you learned in early physics classes to reality can often leave you in stunned silence when reality seems to defy them. Things like the dimples on golf balls or sailing ships moving upwind are classic examples of things that you wouldn't expect to even be conceivable unless you saw it in action.

The point I was making was that if air passes through the turbine, (I am assuming) it leaves with a portion of the turbine's forward velocity imparted upon it. If this is the case, then doesn't it mean that the car's chassis, following directly behind the turbine will experience less drag, since the relative wind speed is lower? So if the drag on the car's chassis is reduced, and a portion of the drag increase from the turbine is gathered by the generator, doesn't it get a bit more complicated? Again, this isn't the same as the trivial example of a fan on a sail boat (which due to triangular sails and keels actually can work in a very limited fashion).

Yeah I know this is only likely to make me look more stupider, but I'm okay with that.

Doesn't seem like that fan weighs more than 5 pounds or so. A generator can be small enough to fit in a flashlight. Sure that won't generate the power we're looking for, but it's not like it'd require something the size of your car's alternator either. Also, he mentioned 40 mph, I think, as the point at which it become beneficial. I expect he's done the calculations to know when it's worth doing. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt here, he obviously knows more about his prototype than any of us do, and he's obviously not a fool.

I'm not so sure, Drachen.

If the car was going to push that air anyways, then there would be less additional drag from the turbine, no? This isn't the same situation as attaching the turbine to the top of the car, or having it stick out the side. We're concerned about the net effect on the vehicle's drag.

If I'm not mistaken, then this energy is not coming from nowhere, but is rather a portion of the energy being wasted to push the air in front of the car that is being returned.

Will it ever be enough to drive the care on it's own? No, I don't think so, without significant modifications and a steady breeze. But that doesn't mean it can't contribute to the vehicles efficiency.

All this is little more than idle speculation though. I def need to read more on the drag effects of turbines.

What you don't get from this video, and is very likely the case, is that it likely took several hours, and involved dozens of interactions with cops and probably complaints. And likely with the same cops over and over again.

At a certain point, forcing one of the jackass trolls to spend a couple of hours in processing before being released unscathed and uncharged seems a very reasonable way to stop the idiots.

Of course, the trolls wouldn't cut their video to demonstrate how reasonable the police were over the course of the day, but would you really expect anything more? If he had actually been charged, or even just given a fine for idiocy and making a general nuisance of himself, you can guarantee he would have spliced it in at the end of the video.

There's legitimate shit to worry about. Especially where police/public interaction is concerned. This sort of stupidity muddies the water and embitters both sides while achieving nothing positive at all. It's not even funny.

In reply to this comment by EvilDeathBee:
>> ^Confucius:

>> ^EvilDeathBee:
There's always some joyless old bastard.
Hope they sue him for wrongful arrest. You cannot let people like that get away with misusing their power

Cop is a douche but he has a point. Cops being called and sent around all over the city to stop people from fake peeing. Sure hope im not getting robbed when that happens when someone is fake peeing.


I think the pranksters are twats, but the cop arresting without cause is unjustifiable. Besides, who calls cops for people taking a piss? The suspect would be long gone by the time they got there. That cop would've had to have seen them then and there, and then got all pissy that he got pranked

I apologize for removing the body of text from the quote, but given the amount of text in it, it seemed cumbersome.

I applaud the significant digging you must have done to come up with a collection of significant quotes. It's well travelled ground to be sure, but it's nice to have more meat for the discussion.

Having read your post, I feel it is worth adding some additional details. I feel it not a surprise at all that the founding fathers and friends make a great many references to God and religion in their many discussions. During this age, the vast majority of Americans did subscribe to one of several Christian denominations. Thererfore, the most significant part of the body of your message, to me, is the incorporation of Christinanity into state-level law.

This would seem completely contrary to our current interpretation of the establishment clause, right? I assume that is where you were going. If not, I apologise for misunderstanding.

I think you are right. I think those laws are in direct conflict with the our view of establishment clause. I would not be surprised if they were in some significant part responsible for the drafting and ratification of that same clause. You see they came first. Furthermore, they are at the state level, not the federal level. Directly applying those same laws to the states themselves didn't come around for quite a time after that, and very possible was neither expected or intended by those same signers.

Maybe there's a completely different way to interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I honestly haven't heard another one put forward. Certainly they wrote these words down for a reason though. If they had meant it to apply only to non-christian religions they would have said so.

My personal suspicion is that the clause was added so as to be able to overlook the religious differences between states when running the federal government. They didn't want the federal government to discriminate based on religious denomination. Take it with a grain of salt though, as I'm certainly no constitutional scholar. The wall of separation thing really is a red herring which occupies no space in law, and far too much space in discussion.

>> ^shinyblurry:

...

Oops. Thought I had been more clear than that in my previous explanation. In fact on rereading it I'm fairly convinced that I was. I'll restate my position in different terms to maybe clear up the confusion.

I suspect the kernel of our misunderstanding lies in your previous post. Thank you for helping me to crystallize my view.
"Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away. "

A-Obama uses religion for political reasons.
B-Santorum would implement policy for religious reasons.

I don't think I can make it much more clear than that. I would immensely prefer that religion be mishandled in the pursuit of politics, than the country be mishandled in the pursuit of religion. If that means I'm a hypocrite, than I proudly am.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

If you actually believe (Obama) is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile... What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy.
Ding! This proved my whole point. Of course the liberal, leftist, progressives don't have a problem when when Obama uses religion to make a point. But when a conservative mentions religion to make a point, well it's "a whole other level of idiocy". It is a study of hypocrisy in at its purest, most basic level - and also a fine example of just how people allow political partisanship to annihilate thier own intellectual credibility.
Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away.
Either you believe in the wall of seperation absolutely, or you don't. Me - I have no problem with political figures who have religious faith. Obama can say Jesus is driving his tax policy, tell churches to vote for him, and bow on his knees in front of crazy fundie kook preachers, and I'm OK with it. Progressives don't have a problem with Obama's blatant use of religion either. I'm just pointing out (rather smugly) the hypocrisy of liberal outrage when Santorum does nothing but mention he disagrees with the progressive re-interpretation of Jefferson's statement. Denying such clear-cut hypocrisy fools no one except those who are already "lost" in the mental sense.
And that's what I think has happend to leftists, really. After a certain point, some people become so invested in a particular position that they will agree with any snake-oil liar who says the sky is pink and the moon is cheese as long as that person parrots the right lines at them. Such is the case with the neolib Videosift progressives who see no problem when Obama uses religion to push his agendas, but then shrivel up like a vampire next to garlic when any conservative even mentions the word 'faith'.
Such linguistic gesticulation fools no one. Liberals should at least be honest and admit that they're just trying to have it both ways here. That would at least give them some degree of honesty, even if they aren't fair.

If you actually believe he is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile. I expect you're smarter than that, but sufficiently dim to expect nobody to follow the link. Yeah, he mentions Jesus, but I rather suspect it's an attempt to reduce the deficit that's driving him, not a religious compass. He's just saying in an offhand way, 'Hey republicans, here's a way to square this with the ministry of Jesus.' presumably to preemptively take the wind out of their sails in the future head butting.

Yes, Obama is campaigning. I'm no fan of Obama any more, that is for sure. Never really was a fan of either party, although Obama briefly gave me Hope(tm) before flushing it down the toilet. I don't see how it's relevant that some of his grassroots efforts are in churches. Is that not typically the case? Either way it's a complete straw man.

What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy. It was based on a misunderstanding not only of the text, but also of the practical implementation of the ammendment over centuries of history.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".
Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/i
ndex.htm
And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.

This just in:

Al Qaeda wins.

I understand the urge to exaggerate the facts when making one's point, but I don't feel we watched the same video, messenger. The stumble on the way out was precisely the result of the smaller lad squirming. Hardly thrown the the ground. I never saw him get hit a single time. I did see him get thrown off the train when he failed to take the hint and tried to get back onto the train.

Social pressure was clearly not working. When you are holding up several hundred people time is of the essence. Especially as you are holding up the next train to come up that same set of tracks, and the next, etc.

Does he deserve to get thrown off the train? Perhaps. I would say probably, but of course none of us know all the facts. Do all the people on the train deserve to be delayed for 5 minutes, the train miss it's slot on the tracks, and then wait another 5 or 10 minutes for the next train to go by before they can continue on their way? Definitely not. Is avoiding bruising his ego worth say 500 minutes of the other commuters' time? I hardly think so.

People have become completely terrified of the concept of even marginal violence. This was much less violent than any of a number of sports I've played, and he had every opportunity to 'opt out' and refused to take them.

Wow. That's all you glean from this? Hedges is a smart, well spoken fellow. How can you not be at least a bit curious as to his reasoning on the subject before dismissing him in a grossly oversimplified way?

Maybe he did sleep under a bridge, I don't know. None of us here do. Maybe he was a regular free-loader on the train. Again we don't know. Maybe he bought a ticket at this station and got on the next train. Again none of us know. I expect the worst he would reasonably be expected to suffer is the shame of having to call his parents and get a lift.

But if you sit there, caught in a lie, continuing to lie to the face of the conductor, don't expect too much sympathy from him or anyone else within earshot.

That said you're a more compassionate person than me, I would say.

Also: Speaking from experience, spending a night huddled in a bus shelter in freezing weather can do wonders for imparting life lessons. Those lessons are generally worth a hell of a lot more than a night's discomfort.

Surrendering all responsibility to the police every time anyone does anything wrong is ridiculous. Not only does it cost us more money, as a society, than the situation merits, but it ingrains in all those (not) involved that it isn't their problem and fosters the 'someone else will deal with it, so I'll just keep living in my bubble' attitude.