MigL

The only other person I know who hates his fellow citizens because of perceived differences is D Trump. He hates based on skin color and nationality. I suggest you and he are more alike than you care to admit, Ten oz. You hate based on ideology.

I have spoken English for almost 50 years now. Yet for some reason, I still do mental addition and multiplication in Italian. Welcome back, Markus.

Sure. Lets take the generalizations one step further. Americans have aligned their values and ideals with those of D Trump, by electing him President. IE all Americans are responsible for making America mean again ( and the laughing stock of the world ). Or are generalizations only valid when they suit your narrative, Ten oz ?

I don't really label myself, Ten oz; I have voted liberal, conservative and even socialist ( yes, we have more than two parties in Canada ), depending on the issues of the day. But I suppose most people on this forum would consider me a fiscal conservative because of my stance on excessive borrowing and runaway debit. You seem to think that invites a comparison to American Republicans and even D Trump ( in your previous post ). Maybe I should make a few comparisons of my own... Your American President has recently called our Prime Minister 'dishonest and weak'. Your former President R Nixon called P Trudeau ( father and former PM ) an 'asshole" Should I assumes that says something about the character and integrity of all Americans ? ( you are American are you not ? )

One problem that I can see... Guide vanes and stators are used to 'straighten' the gas flow, otherwise it spirals around the engine and has an unfavorable attitude to the fan blades ( plus unwanted gyroscopic effects ). In your design, the two shafts need to spin at exactly the same speed, so that each succeeding stage can straighten the flow of the preceeding stage. Even a small difference in rtational speed will cause the gas flow to spira axially. The shaft driven by the first turbine will necessarily spin faster than the second turbine, as gas speed has been reduced by interaction with the first. In normal engines this isn't a problem, as the first turbine drives the outer shaft/hi-pressure compressor, while the second turbine drives the inner shaft/lo-pressure compressor at a lower speed. That brings us to the second problem... Most advanced engines nowdays are turbofans which have a slower turning lo-pressure compressor, and 'bypass ' air is ducted around the hi-pressure compressor. Military engines have a bypass ratio of 0.3:1 up to 1:1 depending on application, and then dump this bypass air into an afterburner/re-heat section; meanwhile commercial aviation engines can have bypass ratios of 8:1 or more, and the most advanced ones have 'geared' fans to reduce/optimize rotational speed even more. Your design does not lend itself to these types of application. And while a small turbojet might have applications in non-reusable missiles, most APUs and turboshaft engines use centrifugal compressors to reduce size and part count. Have you tried contacting any of the companies I mentioned in my last post ?

Can't say for certain, as its been years since I read and thought about it, but Rolls Royce may already have a patent on that idea. ( or it could be the former Bristol Siddeley aero engines, now part of RR, who holds the patent ) I know there have been RR 2 spool designs with counter-rotating spools ( RR Pegasus in the HS Harrier VTOL aircraft ), to combat gyroscopic effects which would be disastrous fo a hovering aircraft, but I think stators/guide vanes are still used in the Pegasus, which is an extensive modification of the 50/60s era Bristol Siddeley Orpheus. In the Western world, the big three military engine manufacturers are the already mentioned British Rolls Royce, General Electric and the Pratt and Whitney division of United Technologies, both American. Smaller players are Safran ( formerly SNECMA ) of France, MTU of Germany, FIAT avio of Italy, Volvo-Flygmotor of Sweden, and the American Allison ( owned by Rolls Royce ). Boeing and Lockheed-Martin don't manufacture aero engines, turbine or otherwise.

Both our federal Conservative government and our provincial Liberal government invested heavily in the economic recovery following the 2008 crash; and our economy had one of the fastest comebacks in the world. However the federal Conservatives made an effort to return to balanced budgets and were booted out of office, the provincial Liberals did not, and continued spending like drunken sailors. I'm glad that our health care system is envied by Americans, Phi, but it can be quickly rendered ineffective, either by massive cuts, as Conservatives are claimed to want, or, if money has to be diverted from health care because its needed to service a massive debit, as the Liberals have done. I will agree that privatizing certain services is detrimental. Hydro in Ontario is private now, and the PCs have promised to change that ( we'll see if it actually happens ). The CEO earns 6 million ( don't get excited, its Canadian dollars ) and we have exorbitant prices for hydro. On the other hand our liquor and beer are under provincial control and heavily taxed; we pay $40 for a case of 24 beer. The PCs have also promised 'buck a beer' prices, i.e. $24 for a case of beer ( we Canadians like our beer )

I just gave you an example in my previous post, Ten oz. Maybe you should read other people's posts before prejudicially assuming racism , hate and intolerance. Must be tough living in your world, where everyone is evil and you are the only one who's seen the light.

A 1 kg will attract the Earth as much as the Earth attracts the 1 kg mass. That is how gravitational interactions work. If a star interacts with a photon so as to constrain it along a geodesic, the photon is equally interacting with the star. So, yes, a photon does have a gravitational field. The reason quantizing classical gravity theories will not work is because renormalization fails. Gravity is self coupling, that means it interacts with itself. At very close ranges a quantum gravity particle ( graviton ) would be surrounded by a 'halo' of virtual gravitons. this also happens in QED with photons and electrons, but these fields are not self coupling, and the infinities created by the surrounding virtual particles can be cancelled away. In quantized gravity theory, the renormalization trick fails because the infinities don't cancel out. Most people have given up on quantization of classical gravity and are taking new approaches such as String/Superstring theories and Loop Quantum Gravity.

To answer your question... The biggest argument against fiscal conservatives is that they want to cut funding from social programs. I live in Ontario, Canada where we have a large debit. So large that 12.5 billion of every annual budget goes towards servicing the INTEREST on the debit ( the principal must still be paid by our kids in the future, because we choose to live so large ). You see that 12.5 billion as a necessary evil to fund our social programs. I see it as money that could be spent on social programs but is, instead, wasted paying interest on an unmanageable debit. It is in effect, a 12.5 billion CUT to our social programs. Incidentally, tonight we elected a Conservative government in Ontario, after a decade and a half of Liberal rule. Not too happy about that as their leader is D Ford, the brother of the late R Ford; the famous crack smoking, outspoken and forced to quit, Toronto mayor. ( what can possibly go wrong ? )

We have strayed a little off-topic from the OP. The biggest problem with a perceived offence is the fact that it is based on subjective perception. If a normal person compares a group of people with animals, the common interpretation is that they have no morals, are barbaric and don't get along well in society. When someone like D Trump says it, because of his history of intolerance for immigrants, the perception is that he is comparing them to animals. Whether that's factual or not, that is the general perception because that's the bed he's made for himself. I don't think its fair to say that all conservatives think along the same lines as D Trump, Ten oz, or even all Republicans. That is a broad brush generalization which you have often railed against, but somehow you see fit to use that brush to paint people who you don't agree with or like. I consider myself a fiscal conservative, and have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why I should change my views. ( Phi has tried )

Star Wars is 'dumbed down' for the masses. As such it enjoys a much wider audience, and each movie makes a truck-load of money. Is it any wonder there are 2-3 spin-offs a year now ? I liked Star Trek TOS and TNG. I thought Enterprise had potential, but was proved wrong. While the rebooted movies started off good, the third was real crap.

Very well, I'll rephrase it in your words... The baker discriminated against the gay couple because of prejudice. IOW he didn't like them, and he acted on those feelings.

Me ? Called a d*ck or pr*ck ? Quite often ( possibly by a few of the forum membership ). But never by someone on TV.

No,I'm not making an equivalence between the two. I understand R Barr has a history of stupidity and hatred, and frankly, I expected no better from her. I did expect better from S Bee. That's why her comments are almost more disappointing.

Agreed. And why exactly, do you think the baker discriminated against the gay couple ? You seem to think that discrimination is more than simply not liking another person for the colour of their skin, or their gender, or their sexual/romantic preference, or even their religious beliefs.

I tend to feel equal disdain for 'racial' hated and gender hatred. Only dark skinned people are hatefully compared to apes, and that's what R Barr did. To me, that displays hatred towards a 'race'. Only women are called 'feckless c*nts', and that's what S Bee did. Tome, that displays hatred toward a gender. Should everyone have forgiven R Barr if she had apologized "profusely and sincerely" also, rangerx ? And if R Barr had made those comments during a televised comedy routine instead of twitter, do you think she should have gotten a pass, CharonY ? How did that work out for Michael Richards ?

Come on, Phi, this was never about religion; the baker simply did not agree with the lifestyle choices made by the couple ordering the cake. His religious beliefs were simply the excuse used to deny their business. And you simply cannot pass laws to make everyone like everyone else. If not religion, they'll simply use some other excuse next time. The only way to change their attitude, is not through legislation, but through their profits, or lack thereof. I'm sure this baker will soon realize his mistake when business drops off. ( or maybe he can move to the US south )

Dimreepr says... "If the context is, in public to humiliate an innocent party in the most degrading way you can think of, that's deplorable and deserving of punishment." and I tend to agree with that sentiment. So, to get back on topic, is this not what S. Bee did ?

seriously ? I might not like the way Phi parts his hair, and if he wants to hire me to build a fence, I can refuse because I don't like certain lifestyle choices ( hair parting ) he makes. There is no law requiring a person to like everyone. Similarly there is no law requiring anyone to patronize that bakery if you don't like the character of the owner. If enough people vote with their wallet, that bakery will soon go out of business, and another problem will have been solved by capitalism.

I don't have kids, so I can't really help you. My parents were immigrants, so I was brought up fairly frugal. If I could go back and give my younger self financial advice it would be... "Spend your money now, it'll never be worth more than it is right now." Oh, and... "Spend it on real estate."

Just a vulgarity, Swansont ? I suppose that could be your opinion. My opinion is that the term reduces a woman's worth to an orifice used for sexual gratification. If that isn't offensive to womankind, I don't know what is. And your reply to Strange may as well have started with... "WHAT ABOUT when these other jackasses used the same offensive and disparaging ( to women ) word." But we have women members, it would be nice to get their opinion on the matter. ( and whether the use of that term offends them even if not directed at them )

But should we be discussing whether Republicans called H Clinton the same C word during the election, or whether this is appropriate use by a TV personality, or for any person to describe someone of the female ( or in Britain, even male ) gender ? That is certainly 'what about ism'. We are discussing whether its the 'right' thing to do. And sure it happens all the time in people's private conversations, Just like the N word gets used, and sometimes its just attributed to familiarity or ignorance. But if you are broadcasting it over the airwaves you are a racist if you use the N word and a misogynistic woman hater if you use the C word. And what does it make the people who condone and allow such behavior ?

Disregarding all her past stupidities and fascination with conspiracy theories, R Barr specifically aimed her comments at one person of a certain demographic, and compared her to the offspring of fundamentalist terrorists and intelligent apes. S Bee aimed her comment at a person of a specific gender, and compared her to a genital orifice. How is one directed at all people of color, while the other not directed at all people of the female gender ? Incidentally , rather than 'owning' the C word, I find the use by a female, directed at another female, even more hateful. Personally, I have no use for R Barr, and have lost respect for S Bee, who seems to think she needs shock tactics to stay relevant. Whatever happened to taking the high road, and demonstrating the superiority of your ideals over the other side's

So Rosanne Barr displays to the world that she doesn't just play 'white trash' on TV; she IS white trash. And she gets herself and a lot of others , on the unemployment line. Whether you think that's fair to the rest of the cast or others who worked on the show, is irrelevant, as the network has the right to protect its 'image'. Now Samantha Bee calls Ivanka Trump a "c**t' on national TV and no action is taken by the network. Is this the double standard Republicans are always complaining about ? Are TV networks trying to project an Anti-Trump image, so this is OK ? Is this a non-issue ( because it agrees with your sensibilities ) ? Or is hateful speech to be called out no matter what your political leanings ?