From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-26 18:45:02 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said:

> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:50:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:oOmdneO8vOH6piPXnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>> D. Peter Maus wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/09 10:01 , Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>>> In rec.photo.digital Bill Graham<weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against
>>>>>> carrying guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws,
>>>>>> and so only the criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will
>>>>>> go up. When you allow everyone to carry guns, some percentage of
>>>>>> the honest people will do so, and this is bad news for the
>>>>>> criminals, and the crime rates will go down. Or. at least, the
>>>>>> criminals will go elsewhere.
>>>>>
> I think I unknowingly managed to take a photograph of you last week:
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/651841603_9fsaJ-L.jpg

No that couldn't be Bill.
That guy is carrying openly, quite legally. Bill's preference is to
carry concealed without a permit.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: DRS on
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4abe6343$0$1618$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net
> Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>> DRS wrote:

[...]

>>> There is no group in America more prone to shrill, fact-free
>>> emotionalism than the Right.
>>
> -Only in the view of a confirmed, doctrinaire leftist --
>
> Q.E.D. Anyone who criticizes right-wing extremism is a "doctrinaire
> leftist". Never mind the screaming, racist, bigoted demonstrations
> against Obama. Never mind the threats of violence.
>
>>> Michael Lind wrote an interesting
>>> article at Salon.com the other day on the original neoconservatives,
>>
>> Did he mention in it that "the original neoconservatives" were
>> liberals,
>
> Conservative liberals?
>
> Smirk.

Basically, yes. Lind (and this answers Neil's question to me in his
preceding post) points out that the original neocons were roughly speaking
centre-left and he was one of them. They were distinguished in large part
from the conservatives (hence the neo- prefix) in that they generally
accepted that changes from the New Deal like Social Security and what have
you had become so entrenched in the fabric of America that they were here to
stay. They didn't want any further expansion of the state but they didn't
want these programs dismantled either. In Britain they probably would have
been called Tories.

The thrust of his article, though, was the way the movement was hijcked by
the radical right and how in that process the intellectual basis for
conservatism painstakingly built by people like William F. Buckley in the
1960s and 1970s was eliminated in favour of the kind of rabid
anti-intellectualism that drives it now (which is how today's neocons can,
against all the evidence, refer to Fox News as credible).



From: Chris Malcolm on
In rec.photo.digital Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital D. Peter Maus <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net>
>> wrote:

>>> No one has ever said that the bumblebee can't fly. Clearly it
>>> can, it happens every day. Science has never been so blind as to
>>> make such a claim. But what Science HAS said, is that the bumblebee
>>> is UNSTABLE in flight, an aerodynamically unsound design. This
>>> doesn't mean or even imply that it can't fly. Just that there would
>>> be easier and better ways to achieve flight.
>>
>> Not so. What science said until recently was simply that according to
>> our understanding of fixed wing aeroplane flight the bumblebee had
>> insufficient wing area to fly.

> That's the story as I always heard it too, "insufficient wing area to fly."

> But the idea that "SCIENCE said" that is something I'm very skeptical about.
> What sort of science could possibly arrive at such a conclusion?

> In the first and most obvious place, a bumblebee is in no way comparable to
> a fixed wing aircraft. What it is comparable to is an ornithopter, and I
> don't think anyone ever built an ornithopter that could actually fly, so
> that's a kind of aircraft that you wouldn't expect there to be enough
> scientific data on to arrive at any conclusions about bumblebees.

>> Not that it was unstable. It is in fact
>> unusually stable in flight due to its relatively low centre of gravity
>> and large effective dihedral.

> How do you establish the "effective dihedral" of wings that are beating at
> such an incredibly fast rate, though?

The point about dihedral is that as the plane (or insect) tips over to
one side the effective length of the wing on the lowered side
increases, increasing the lift on that side, and the effective length
of the other wing decreases, decreasing the lift. So the forces
naturally restore level flight. At a first approximation you could
simply average over the range of motion of the flapping wing. As a
second approximation you could assume simple harmonic motion of the
wing and average over that, which would lead to much the same result
:-)

Or experimentally you could use high speed photography to map the
trajectory of the flapping wing and integrate, or simply measure the
forces (recent analysers of bee flight have developed various ways of
doing all that).

> I don't believe dihedral has anything
> to do with it.

I didn't say it had anything to do with the claim of bees not being
able to fly. You raised the red herring of that claim having something
to do with stability. I used the dihedral and low centre of gravity of
the bee to point out that stability wasn't a problem in bee flight,
and wasn't what the controversy was about. Bees are amongst the most
basically stable of insect fliers, simply because their "design" is
optimised for the carrying of heavy loads -- they're big nectar
tankers for transporting nectar loads back to the hive. Regardless of
exactly what the exact effective dihedral of a bee's wings is, there's
no doubt that there's quite a fair dihedral. Modern high speed
photography has shown that.

> Even if you could calculate the AVERAGE dihedral of a
> bumblebee's wings, you'd still have to establish the incidence in order for
> it to mean anything. Dihedral produces lateral stability only because (or
> if) the wing also has positive incidence.

I think you're confusing incidence with angle of attack. Given a bee's
bent and rather unaerodynamic shape, and the fact that it flies with
its undercarriage down, it would be hard to decide what the
longitudinal aerodynamic axis of a bee's body in flight actually
was. The bee wing angle of attack varies all the time as the wing
moves. But what the angles are doesn't matter. All that matters for
dihedral to work is that lift is being generated by wings. It doesn't
matter how. Since bees do actually fly then lift is obviously being
generated therefore dihedral effects occur.

>> The problem was that theoretically the
>> wings weren't large enough to do the job they clearly were doing. So
>> something was wrong with a simplified analysis of bee flight based on
>> fixed wing aerodynamics.
>>
>> In the 1990s the important missing factor was discovered -- the
>> trailing edge vortices which are such an important source of lift loss
>> in fixed wing aerodynamics were exploited to add lift in the flight of
>> many insects. In the 2000s high speed cinematography and mechanical
>> simulations of bee wing motion demonstrated in practical detail that
>> this was in fact what the bee was doing.

> That's interesting.

> I'd still like to know where the original "insufficient wing area" story got
> started, though. Absent some proof of a serious scientific analysis in the
> past claiming that, I'm inclined to believe it may be more of an urban myth.

It has been difficult to track down the source of the claim. According
to Wikipedia the earliest published claim comes from the introduction
to "Le Vol des Insectes" in 1934 by the entomologist Antoine Magnan,
who was relying on unspecified calculations done by his assistant
Andre Sainte-Lague.

But the story was verbally current long before that publication.

What Wikipedia says about that is that

"Some credit physicist Ludwig Prandtl (1875-1953) of the University of
Gottingen in Germany with popularizing the myth. Others say it was
Swiss gas dynamicist Jacob Ackeret (1898-1981) who did the
calculations."

and more generally

"It is believed that the calculations which purported to show that
bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of
oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations
without flow separation."

> It's a popular one anyway, and will probably go on forever -- like the
> widely held belief that before Columbus everyone thought the earth was flat.

Such beliefs would soon die out if we gave our children a better
scientific education. The problem is that a lot of people, especially
in the US, think that our children are already being exposed to too
much science, which carries the danger of encouraging scepticism about
the literal truth of religious scriptures believed to be the Word of
God. The "according to science bees can't fly" is a very popular
simple way of explaining to ignorant gullible people why they
shouldn't trust science. And so long as plenty of people are making
plenty of money out of encouraging people to distrust science it's
bound to go on.

--
Chris Malcolm
From: Bob Larter on
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> Bob Larter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't you think it's kind of hypocritical that on the one hand
>>>> right-wingers oppose abortion, calling it murder, and yet on the other
>>>> hand, they support the death penalty?
>>> Actually no. With abortion I can at least understand their opposition,
>>> even if I don't agree with it.
>>>
>>> At what number of weeks in the pregnancy would you say that abortion is
>>> no longer acceptable? Clearly few people would support it at 38 weeks.
>>> What about 27 weeks?
>> Given that my son was born at 26 weeks, & is now a perfectly healthy 8
>> year old, abortions as late as that do bother me a lot.
>
> Less than 1% of all abortions occur in the 3rd trimester and those few
> are almost always done for medical need.

In such cases, I don't have a problem with them.

>> That said, I
>> still believe that the woman's right to choose trumps the rights of the
>> foetus.
>>
>>> While their opposition to RU486 is pretty
>>> ridiculous, at least you can see where they are coming from in opposing
>>> abortion after the fetus is more than a few weeks old.
>> My personal dividing line is at the point where the foetus is viable
>> outside the womb. Currently, I think that's around 24 weeks.
>
> Only if you have a million dollars to spend on medical care. A more
> practical limit of viability would be around 33 weeks.

Not so. Here in Australia, where we have free, universal healthcare, my
son's birth & followup treatments didn't cost his mother or I a single cent.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on
SMS wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>
>> Given that my son was born at 26 weeks, & is now a perfectly healthy 8
>> year old, abortions as late as that do bother me a lot. That said, I
>> still believe that the woman's right to choose trumps the rights of
>> the foetus.
>
> My daughter was 27 weeks, son was 32 weeks, and both are fine. The
> memory of the NICU ordeals will remain with me forever, as I'm sure it
> does with everyone that goes through it.

You're not kidding.

>>> While their opposition to RU486 is pretty ridiculous, at least you
>>> can see where they are coming from in opposing abortion after the
>>> fetus is more than a few weeks old.
>>
>> My personal dividing line is at the point where the foetus is viable
>> outside the womb. Currently, I think that's around 24 weeks.
>
> There are cases where there are extremely serious problems that are not
> known until the third trimester, cases where there is no reason to
> continue the pregnancy. This is where the right-wingers come up with
> their "only god can decide" schtick. Of course they don't apply the same
> criteria to other parts of others lives.

Of course not.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------