Tornadoes have been known to embed bits of straw or dried grass into trees. And tornado speeds are a gentle walk in the park compared to orbital speeds.
Because it isn't. It's distinct from chattel slavery, which is not the only form of slavery. Bonded labor is the most common form of slavery today, and is also not chattel slavery.
If a Tesla would use rheostatic braking, I think it would require more cooling capacity than the cars are currently designed for. If the resistor couldn't be kept cool, then the car would have to revert back to friction brakes anyway. More cooling probably means bigger air intakes, which I think would run contrary to their aesthetic goals.
Rheostatic and friction brakes both basically convert kinetic energy into heat. Is there some fundamental reason why a resistor would be harder to cool appropriately (low thermal conductivity comes to mind, though I'm pretty sure there are high performance ceramics used for both brakes and resistors -- my heuristics aren't really good enough to make a good guess for this one)?
Well, friction brakes are cooled by the airflow in the wheel wells. Perhaps you could aircool the resistors in the same place. The friction brakes would probably still be there though; would there be space for both?
Shouldn't the resistor having to end up dissipating exactly as much heat as the friction brakes do, by conservation of energy? Is there a reason that it's inherently mechanically harder for the resistor to dissipate that heat?
Disks and pads wear out. I haven't done the math, but I assume you could put in a big (wine bottle sized?) power resistor that can take the thermal cycling more or less indefinitely.
You'd have to cool it, as other commenters have pointed out (you're putting a car's worth of kinetic energy into the thing, after all). I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, just possible.
pmiller2's intent was clear, he was obviously commenting on limitations of camera technology, not suggesting that black people intent nor choose(?!?) to be hard to photograph. dstick's response is maliciously uncharitable at best.
Thank you, as well, for recognizing what I was saying, and that, while I made statements involving race, there was no malicious racism behind any of it.
His rights regarding copyright should be taken from him. This is no different from a convicted murderer no longer having the right to own a gun. Allowing this man to continue to sue people is a travesty of justice.
You're providing an excellent illustration of why I don't understand popular coverage of the Prenda case.
Paul Hansmeier isn't in jail for abusing copyright, or for doing anything the courts thought was wrong relating to copyright. He's in jail for misrepresenting facts to the court. The entire case against Prenda was that they represented to the court that they were agents of the copyright owner, when in fact they were the copyright owner themselves. There was nothing, legally, wrong with their suit.
And yet everyone seems to think of the Prenda case as a victory against copyright trolling. It is no such thing! Why would Hansmeier lose rights to own copyrights, when he didn't do anything wrong with the copyrights he had?
The minor point here is that what he's suing for has no connection to his misbehavior. If lying to the court in a copyright lawsuit doesn't bar him from suing for libel, there's no reason for it to bar him from suing for copyright infringement.
The major point is that malfeasance in a lawsuit can't get you barred from the courts, for the obvious reason that people can still commit crimes against you even if you once misrepresented yourself in court.
The constitution gives us the right to the courts, and he should be allowed to keep that right. When he’s served his debt to society, his rights should be restored. That’s the point of the justice system. His reputation is already ruined, we don’t need to be vengeful with our punishments.
I don't give a damn about his reputation. The point of the legal system is to protect the innocent, not ruin the reputations of the guilty. He continues to use the legal system to victimize people, and this should not be allowed. Strip him of his right to sue anybody over copyright. Leave intact his right to sue the government to restore his other rights. To this man, courts are a weapon used to extort people. Allowing a criminal like him to keep his weapon is moronic.
Again. You’re angry and asking for vengeance. The legal system isn’t for that. Constitutional rights should never be able to be removed.
Can you imagine if we allowed someone’s entire right to the courts be removed? In that instance, you wouldn’t even be able to challenge your lack of rights. That’s not right. But by advocating for no access to the courts in one instance, there will be people advocating for more. So we draw the line somewhere and say your right to the courts can’t be taken away.
I’m also ignoring how you’re ignoring the actual reality of the Prenda scandal. It wasn’t over copyright infringements lawsuits. It was about lying to the court. Sure, they filed frivolous lawsuits, but that wasn’t why they were arrested.
You're not alone. To be frank, I think much of the apparent love showered on pets by some people is performative. In public, people compete to show off how great they are at pampering their 'furbaby.' Pampering pets has become a fashion.
