Carborendum

But you haven't given a definition. Tautology is not a definition. That's the crux of your hypocrisy. I've already explained it to you just as clearly as you explained your understanding of salvation to me. You've refused to expound or explain or discuss that definition (which I've asked multiple times for you to do). But you expect someone else to expound and explain the written word which you've claimed to have read and studied? And you refuse to acknowledge your hypocrisy here? You start expounding more about your position and I'll expound more about the clarification. Simple little exchange. But you're not about the simple exchange of ideas. You're only interested in stirring the pot.

Thank you. I'd like to focus on the bolded phrase. I do not say that what we're seeing is the beginning of the end. I'm also not saying it isn't. I'm saying that there are some things that the devil does that don't change. Some things do. But there are some things that Satan is limited in his tools. It may be that God is limiting him. It may be that the tools he has used are already the best tools possible. The tools for breaking down faithful societies have not changed. They have been the same since scriptural times. I believe what John the Revelator saw for his future was already part of history. And it is no different today. He keeps using the same tools again and again in every generation (eternal vigilance and all). I had often wondered why we see the "signs of the times" so often and then we're almost "disappointed" or feel like someone has cried wolf too often to believe there is going to be an "End Times Scenario". The signs keep coming. No Second Coming. Some fall away with loss of faith. I don't think there was any crying wolf. I think that the end could have come at any time in history as long as the people were not properly resisting the darkness. The date isn't set. That is why "no man knows the day nor the hour." It will come just as soon as we lose vigilance; as soon as there are insufficient people blowing their horns; as soon as enough people bow down to the beast and the faithful eventually become powerless to stop them. That could be this generation. It could be the next. It could be 20 generations from now. There is no date. There is a condition that needs to be satisfied. I don't remember the WKRP episode you're speaking of. But I'm guessing it's this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZP0Hn31HA0&list=PLbNMmuomfgHl8RBFWwnXlLvNLvL7jP6AJ&index=22 (BTW, Gordon Jump (the station manager) was LDS.) Here's my take on boycotts. I do not believe boycotts themselves are good or bad. I think that sometimes, the cause which motivates the boycott could be evil, silly, meaningless, or noble. I don't have a problem with some people raising awareness to boycott some things. I believe it to be a free market tool for social justice reform. And I encourage its use. And I encourage businesses to make their decisions on whether to capitulate or to resist. The battles will do what the battles do. What is happening recently is not what we saw in the 80s. The strategy is FIRST: boycott. WHEN that fails use violent tactics -- often vandalism or bodily harm. And that is what it's come down to. Because I disagree with you, I can hit you and even kill you. Not just put pressure on you, but completely destroy you. Dan Crenshaw spoke of how it is all too easy to call someone a racist or a nazi when one feels their position is weakening. But this is really a form of violence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik_kzn3etsE (start at around 3:13). There is certainly a difference between massive gatherings of TEA Party folks vs. even the small gatherings of ANTIFA. This is not a good environment for us to be in.

Ok. OK. Fixed it.

They have the right to deny, but they should just shut up and bake the cake? I don't see how that's any different than saying their right doesn't mean squat. You're essentially saying that this right is so small, that it isn't worth fighting for -- or worth protecting. If that's the esteem we give it, then by preponderance, we're basically saying, the right doesn't exist (in a real world scenario). Listen, I know you want to walk the fine line of balance. And I commend you for that ideal you try to achieve. But there are some bigger things at work here. You want us to just "bake the cake." But it's more than just the cake. What do you think the "cancel culture" is really about? It is the mark of the beast. If you don't do what we want you to do and believe what we want you to believe, and bow down to the idolatrous god of materialism, abortion, moral depravity, & licentiousness, then you shouldn't have the right to do business in America. If you don't have the mark in your hand (actions) and head (beliefs) then you cannot buy or sell here. Boycotts, lawsuits, shoutdowns on social media Conservative public forums with specified formats for open dialogue with opposing points of interest are being overrun by liberals who simply want the conservatives to stop speaking. All of Hollywood can't make a blockbuster movie without some SJW theme anymore. The mark of the beast is all around. And you want us to just "bake the cake"? It's more than just the cake.

Here's the difference between an ER doctor treating a patient who lives "an objectionable" lifestyle vs. a baker baking a cake. 1. One is life and death. The other is a completely arbitrary luxury. 2. One requires a doctor to do a noble thing (save a person's life) while the patient simply receives the service. The other requires the baker to personally participate in an act that he finds objectionable, while the one receiving it can gloat at victory. Saving a person's life is saving a person's life. It doesn't matter whose life we're talking about. It could be Adolf Hitler. And the doctor should save the guy's life. Writing something down with one's own hand in celebration of an act is ok or not depending on what is being written. It is interesting that you say "don't be a doctor or a cop." The judgment has actually been handed down that a cop has no responsibility to protect your life or your property. If I were to ask about who has the greater moral responibility to show benevolence to someone with whom they disagree, I'd think that the cop would be the fist on the list, followed by the ER doctor. The baker would rank about 81 on that list of 3 people.

As a free market capitalist, I have to believe that if the government would only provide a framework, then get out of the way, the market would bring us out much more quickly than any government mandate to hand out money or forgive debt or controls of individuals of any kind.

Well, Taveler. No matter what we disagree on, I still find it a pleasure to have known you.

I can't tell when you're joking or not. But I didn't see any wire that you're talking about other than the throttle controls and the netting. Don't be my childhood friend who told me about the North Koreans coming down over the mountains.

Now that we've talked this thing to death. The flying cars... wow... they're not here yet.

Yes. We were all aware of that. But the way the question was worded was that if we ignore units and just look at the number, which would have a bigger number. Now perform the same calculation for the volume and area for the range { 0<= X<=1 }. You'll not only notice that the volume→∞ as x→0, but you'll also notice that the ln(x) does some pretty funky things. I'll put in a good word for you.

I'm aware of these definitions. But I tend to roll my eyes whenever anyone uses definition #3. Not that it is "perfect." But that it is "magical."

Maybe it is just supposed to be a "fun" question that gets all funned-out when applying analytical physics to the problem. I have a "geek club" that I used to meet with before the quarantine. As part of the process of admittance, they asked the following question: They had apparently been arguing that for the past three weeks. I thought about it for about three seconds and decided, They welcomed me into the club.

Dont yew mene "YERONG!!!"

A similar deficiency diminished the outlook for the Bautista Procedure. It was believed that the fact it was only used on terminally ill patients tilted the data to one side. Then they decided, what if they did it on otherwise healthy people with only this one defect. There was a boost in survivability. But as years went on, there was a lower survival rate. Now it isn't used much in the US.

You're asking for an impossible situation to be analyzed using real-world physics. Kinda hard to do. But I'll counter an unrealistic condition with another unrealistic condition that should go hand-in-hand with the condition you submitted. If the treadmill is a "perfect quantum treadmill" (TM) whatever that's supposed to mean, then I can say that the surface between the wheels and the axles are also completely frictionless. If those are frictionless, then the treadmill can do whatever it wants, but it applies absolutely no horizontal force to the body of the aircraft. The wheels and treadmill then divide out of the equation completely allowing the plane to function normally despite whatever the treadmill does. The reality is that with all these conditions, the treadmill would stand still.

Only if there is vertical thrust. I'm assuming that your implying that a treadmill means that the plane is not moving horizontally. A regular aircraft gets its lift by the flow of air across its wings. Therefore, no horizontal movement = no vertical force allowing for lift. So an alternative method of vertical thrust must be provided (VTOL). But the problem is more complicated than that. A regular airplane doesn't achieve lift off velocity by wheel force. It achieves it by its jets or propellers. Thus the treadmill is irrelevant.

Terrafugia has two models. The Transition doesn't even carry three people. And there is no way for it to land safely in rough terrain. The TF-X is still concept only. I may be remembering incorrectly, but they scrapped the Transition as they were pursuing the TF-X manufacturing and marketing. As far as I know, the TF-X doesn't actually even have a prototype. It is still awaiting funding to build the first model. The Aerobmobile can at least land on a fairly flat grassy field. None of them so far carry more than two people. Then there's the size issue. For HTOL aircraft, the wings are the primary lifting mechanism. When you have a requirement for a flying mini-van, the wings must be very wide. But with the transitional propeller from VTOL to flight, there can be propeller assist with a shorter wingspan. The shorter wingspan will be easier to fold up in emergency response situations. The eventual, mass produced roadable capability will be much easier to achieve with the VToL. It's a quick solution because it addresses all these issues. It does, however, make it more expensive.

A guy apparently in his 20s or 30s is wearing a tie while riding a homemade amateur hovercraft? Gotta be LDS.

Whatever label you want to put on them doesn't make much of a difference. The requirements outlined in the article are the following: Air Force's label: Advanced Air Mobility Vehicles Applicable uses: medical evacuation installation security disaster relief Eventually scalable to mass produce for the broader public Carry 3 to 8 people @ over 100 mph. Now, we already have small single or twin engine aircraft that can do that. So, considering the mission description, it is likely to be used in difficult terrain. Small aircraft simply cannot have the kind of landing gear required for adverse terrain. So, a VTOL is a quick and dirty solution.

This really is quite impressive from a guy who doesn't have an engineering background. All he needs is proper louvers and funnels with accompanying controls. That would allow a greater altitude and steering capability. He may not even need more/bigger engines if he applies that correctly.

This somewhat addresses the space requirement for take of and landing in an urban setting.

But Truthseaker wasn't Catholic, was she? Not only that. But there are an awful lot of Catholics.

This is an excellent point. If a police officer were to decide on his own whom to arrest and whom to leave alone for committing the same crime, or what laws to enforce and which laws to not enforce, after they've gone through established processes, he's basically taking the law into his own hands. The entire idea behind the Constitution was that it would be better to have a few tyrants with a lot of power counter-acting each other as opposed to a million little tyrants exercising power over their little realms. As much as I like the idea of civil disobedience for unjust laws, one must understand that the right to civil disobedience does have a price. And that price is often that some people will get arrested -- and sometimes killed.

Let's see... False. Also false. True. I think that answers the question.

For the record, as for my part, it was not meant to be used for "shock value." It was just an illustration of how liberals laugh at conservatives who raise a valid concern. Then the liberals validate that concern.