J.C.MacSwell

Of course it's flat...like your head...

The fact that you and a few others have misrepresented Bill 16 as a toothless guideline doesn't change the fact that other concerns and ideas of J Peterson have also been discussed. But I know you mean well and likely overlooked them so all good.

You mean the concerns that something that effects free speech get a foothold in law? You might want to point your strawman meter a little less directed outward. To you of course, yes absolutely. to those that read the title of the thread...not so much... The OP:

Let me see if I can express in your modus operandi, even if ensures you will continue to be blind to one side of the issue: The format where you decide what I meant, interpreted in the most absurd fashion? You're probably right, and why you are incapable of understanding J Peterson's argument, and will continue to choose to believe that it's about his malicious attempt to avoid showing any respect for some very vulnerable members of society. How did I do?

Well, IMO, all that makes you a good father, with high personal accountability...and a bit of a fascist if you expect judges to throw the book at your neighbours if they don't meet your standards.

What would you prefer to call it, if someone condemns someone with no effort to consider the facts that are available, and consider the amount available? If someone is fed misinformation, but can reasonably believe it, I might consider their boycott legitimate even if they are wrong. In that case they're not the source of the problem. But if they continue to trust the source, I give them less of a pass. No. But those feeding those folks that misinformation certainly don't help the cause...even when they are nicely dressed and speak well after getting off the jet.

I agree. What's the alternative?

I think the difference, in my mind at least, between cancel culture and legitimate boycott is the level of actual evidence, and effort to examine it, required to make an informed choice whether to join in on the boycott. Cancel culture (my definition of it) absolutely reeks of virtue signalling, where legitimate boycott has clearly less of it. Of course there is a spectrum of grey areas between the extremes of the two, and as per the political climate the Right and Left don't tend to agree on what is legitimate and what is not. ...and much of the formerly respectable "mainstream media" exacerbates the problem...often ignoring the actual evidence until and if it ever smacks them in the face.

And I don't claim some things aren't better left to government directly. It's a tool...you still need to use it properly.

The Wealth Of Nations, Book II, Chapter II, p.329, para. 106. But note also that I had said "often get by far your best value and return"...prudent and efficient regulation is required to get the best of free enterprise.

...encourage competitive bids from multiple Municipalities, States, Provinces, and even Countries... for decreased regulations, tax reductions, and even outright subsidies...well beyond those offered to small and medium sized businesses in the same areas....all in the name of their version of "free enterprise"....or as David Lewis called it back in 1972..."Corporate Welfare bums". Or as I like to put it...taxing mobile capital is like trying to tackle a greased pig. . Where truly free enterprise is supported to work though, you often get by far your best value and return.

Both could be part of the answer to each and every listed question

But...we still want to hear your opinions iNow...

Except Krause's concerns are essentially what J Petersen is about . He's not against the acceptance of transgenders.

They spin an upright cylinder such that the boundary layer essentially creates a very inefficient airfoil shape. You don't need waste energy to do that...just put up a (hopefully more effectively shaped) sail. Any thrust does in fact come from the wind. In no wind Flettner rotors create no thrust. (note that there is little if any wind in your photo of the "Flettner rotors driving a large ship", which probably explains why the lines to this anchored ship are slack)

I am unaware you had a motorway proposal and made no attempt to refute it. Does it have anything to do with this topic? Something to do with Flettner rotors? I'm honestly at a total loss here. What are you on about?

Studiot I'm sorry you fail to understand my posts. Maybe someone can explain the concept better, but there is only so much room in close proximity to where you are harnessing the energy of the wind. Flettner rotors are a pretty inefficient way of creating a poorly shaped airfoil.

If it doesn't exit you cannot harvest any more flow. The trade off is the basis of the Betz limit, and there are similarly further limits on how close you can effectively place rotors of any kind.

4 times the energy per volume of air, but the flow is double, so as you suggest it's a cube relation. I assumed that was directed at me, as you were quoting me in that post. If I sounded negative I apologize for the way I stated it.(not that I feel guilty as that was not my intent). Unfortunately orientation doesn't change the limitations of that particular aspect of the problem/challenge. You need room for the harvested air to exit the vicinity.

That exacerbates the problems further. Detrimental effects due to congestion of the rotors themselves still apply.

Is that not apparent?

Before even considering turbulence, if you consider what the Betz's limit is based on, limitations of how much energy can be removed based on the swept area: Consider that for an array of rotors it's not just swept areas A that cannot overlap, but the A2s also...any closer and they are choking each other from lack area for air removal. In practice even that close together cannot be approached, and of course as Mistermack has mentioned if the wind is anything but at 90 degrees to the array (wall) the interference gets higher. The swept area of the rotors in the wall are squares, not discs, but the same principles apply...and as also has been mentioned these rotors are much less aerodynamically efficient than standard horizontal axis turbines. Note also that the standard turbines have 2 or 3 blades, not more, for similar reasons. Try to take too much energy out and you get less.

First of all this type of rotor is a high drag device with lots of turbulence. Second, even the most aerodynamically efficient units interfere with each other when in close proximity, even when not in each others "dirty air".

8 actually.

How is it even remotely off topic? It's exactly the type of arguments Petersen has made, with his detractors claiming they are fallacious slippery slope arguments. Petersen from a debate on political correctness: "Well, I guess I would like to set out a challenge in somewhat the same format as Mr. Fry did, to people on the moderate left. I’ve studies totalitarianism for a very long time, both on the left and on the right in various forms. And I think we’ve done a pretty decent job of determining when right-wing beliefs become dangerous. I think that they become dangerous when they, and the people who stand on the right, evoke notions of racial superiority, or ethnic superiority, something like that. It’s fairly easy — and necessary, I think — to draw a box around them and place them to one side. We’ve done a pretty good job of that. - 15 - What I fail to see happening on the left — and this is with regard to the sensible left, because such a thing exists — is for the same thing to happen with regard to the radical leftists." https://munkdebates.com/getmedia/80828104-84DF-4F0D-AF22-5BA9D8BB2D6A/Munk-Debate-Political-Correctness-May-2018-Transcript.pdf.aspx