What's the "but" for? I wasn't arguing against any claims about whether Americans live in situations where they are car dependent.

So, not the City of London then, just London. In other words, in a big city that's about 50 km across.

I... what? I am a little confused. Travel is unavailable to old people and people with a variety of medical conditions because... "car dependence"? Do you somehow think that "car dependence" is some sort of disease or crippling addiction? First of all, for all the groups you mention, travel is a hell of a lot more available with cars than without them. Also, there really isn't a circumstance where having a car somehow stops other options from existing. Kid/old person/medically disabled person in a world where cars are available can, if they can walk or ride a bicycle, etc. has that option, but also can go places they would not be able to go by those methods. In the situation where there are not available cars, they can walk or ride a bicycle, etc. but that's it. They don't have any options that don't exist in the first scenario, but they do have less options.

You seem to have not parsed my sentence correctly. There is no contradiction. I did not say that one is not "car dependent" in places where having a motor vehicle is pretty much a requirement. I said that those places can be just as healthy or healthier than places where you can avoid being car dependent.

See, I can't help feeling that, since you keep saying that people have "carbrain" or that they are "carosexuals" (indirectly), etc. that indicates that it is you who is a bit weird about the whole thing. No one is attacking your preferred lifestyle. It sounds nice. The problem is that you are apparently demonizing people who are not in your situation and need cars to get around. It's a little odd.

See, that there is an example. Not everyone is like you. I don't drink. I can drive back from the places I drive too (with possible exceptions like to the garage, or certain medical appointments, etc.) Also, when I go out, sometimes I take people with me who would be incapable of walking that far. Not everyone is in your particular situation.

I think serviscope_minor is actually advising you to embrace asceticism. Give up all worldly things, desires, and attachments, for the sake of living a more fulfilling, car free life. Of course, it seems weirdly circular to start from the notion that living a car-free life means more physical activity and then end up with abandoning physical activities like competitive swimming for your kids in order to live a car-free life.

So, by the standards you're using, calling the GP a "carosexual" because they want a car for pragmatic reasons, doesn't that make you a "carosexual" because you also apparently have a car for pragmatic reasons? While there clearly is a whole culture thing with obsession with personal transportation in the US and there are some where the term "carosexual" could apply (and there are some here on Slashdot who are indeed car obsessed and I have gotten into arguments with on car-related stories). However, generally speaking, labeling as twisted fetishists everyone who just uses a car to get from point A to point B is a bit weird. Especially when you consider that such claims are well, well beyond the original claim from serviscope_minor about the exercise benefits of not owning a car.

You're talking about isolated micro-communities though, like gentrified city centers, or villages with a short walk to the shops and, these days mostly inhabited by pensioners/retirees. Most people don't live like that. Most urban dwellers in the world we live in (and you are perfectly free to suggest changing the world, but I am talking about now) are either car dependent, or public transportation dependent. For most of them, the distance they walk to where their car is parked is not that different from the distance they walk to the bus/tram/subway stop when they don't have a car. As for trips to the store to get groceries, etc. you can get all that stuff delivered now.

Bear in mind though, I am talking about my own experience across multiple countries. It is certainly the case that, in the US, inhabitants in nominally rural environments may very well end up getting less exercise than some urbanites. Of course, a lot of what the US seems to consider rural/small town is what I would have thought of as being basically a city when I was growing up, so mileage may vary, of course. On the average, a milder version of what you are claiming may be true, that there is a correlation between car ownership and poorer physical health. It's just that "About the worst thing you can do exercise wise is be car dependent." appears to be a much stronger claim that that. "Car dependence" is simply a matter of practical utility depending on where you live and how you live. Thus my point that there are places and styles of living that are absolutely as healthy or healthier than many of the environments where you can avoid being "car dependent", but where having a motor vehicle is pretty much a requirement.

Spot on.

In regards to rural life you wrote:

Then to city life you wrote:

Uh, no. The point is that in rural life, I would just step out the door and walk for miles and miles and miles through fields and woods in varied terrain, climb trees, slopes, small rockfaces, jump small gorges, cross ponds and streams on fallen logs, swim in the river or our pool, sometimes ride horses (including across the river) though that was mostly my sister's thing, fly kites, sled, even cross country ski, ice skate on ponds, roll down hills, and many other physical activities. In the city, I did a bit of walking.

Sure, some of those other activities are possible in the city, but most of them are sanitized, commercialized, finable offenses, etc., etc. Basically, you are creating a false dichotomy between some sort of walkable city center and some suburban hellhole. There are in fact, other situations out there and some of them, while pretty much requiring a motorized vehicle to live there, provide a lot more opportunities for enjoyable daily exercise than cities.

Sure, but your whole point seemed to basically be about situational opportunity cost issues when you are "car dependent" versus having no car. My point is that, when I was in an environment with real freedom to roam, it was simply easier as well as more rewarding to just go outside for the pleasure of being outside. In the city it just generally took more preparation to even leave in the first place, more stairs, considerably more danger from other human beings, more car exhaust to deal with, less destinations to practically visit, less acceptable activities to take part in and much more severely limited hours you could do them in, less actual physical activity in the activities, and a lot more people around to actually compete with for access to whatever you needed for the activities.

In other words, in your car dependence complaint, you are implicitly arguing for highly constrained city life. Sure, that may be for some people, but it isn't for everyone.

In my experience, this is far from true in many cases. In the various places I grew up I generally had access to many acres of farmland, woods, rivers to swim in or, when there was no river, a pool. All of those places were completely car dependent. I mean, in one of the places I lived there wasn't a single retail store or gas station in the entire town. When you needed things, you had to drive to the "city" (really just a big town). On the other hand, when I lived in a small apartment in a city in France. Well, we did walk anywhere we needed to go, but that was almost exclusively to school and back and sometimes to stores. In the actual apartment, going outside meant a little balcony. You didn't walk down the stairs without a specific destination in mind.

Are you really such a moron you can't understand that the "take" you are attacking is just me trying to give the poster I originally replied to a little benefit of the doubt over how badly they misunderstood the purpose of the SEC.

Oh, I am fully aware you are a troll.

Well, let's go over it, shall we. I claimed that Twitter/X was unprofitable. While getting absolute numbers on private companies financials is a tricky proposition, it is widely acknowledged that the profits were about half of what they were when Musk bought it before the merger. The claim that the value of Twitter/X was made up for the sale. Once again, private companies, but the valuation they claimed in the sale was far, far above the valuations any external analysts gave it at the time. Indeed, the valuation for Twitter only ever reached that high because Musk bought it. Before he bought it, no one thought it was worth $44 Billion. That was followed by my opinion that this self-dealing sale appears to just be an attempt to shore up X before Musk would have needed to sell Tesla stock to cover his loans. Next I noted that some of the investors were investors in both, but not all of them. This is a straight up true factual statement. Next I state that, very shortly after the previous merger of X and xAI, now that merged company is merging with SpaceX. This is also undeniably true, whether you agree that it is suspiciously soon or not. Next, the question of whether Musk uses assets from companies where he has a partial ownership stake in other companies where he has a partial ownership stake is undeniable. I mean, I would consider it also undeniable that is a breach of fiduciary duty (or even embezzlement), but maybe you just consider that an opinion. It is also undeniable that he threatened Tesla with competing with them on AI and Robotics (after claiming those were critical to Tesla's success) outside the company unless they gave him a massive fortune in stock.

So, yeah, I don't see any facts that are seriously in question there. You might have a different opinion or conclusion from the same facts, but your claim is nonsense.

Yes, about the level of filthy lies and misrepresentation you would expect from a troll.

The odd thing here is that, since all either of us have is what information is available publicly, why are you defending the valuation? It's quite simple, if he were just selling something he owned entirely to another entity that he owned entirely, it would be a different matter. Since he does not own either entity entirely, then the valuation is a matter for the SEC, plain and simply. If it appears to not be on the up and up, then the SEC should be investigating. The extreme jump in the stated value in the merger versus what every credible independent evaluator was saying for the merger is suspicious. There seems to be no public statement of how the valuation was calculated. When the value is negotiated by two companies, there is a tendency to accept the negotiated value. However, when the leadership at both companies is effectively the same, that's self-dealing.

Since he had control of both companies, he largely did do it by himself. I mean, X had a board, but why would they object to a deal that was designed to favor X. As for xAI, it apparently did not even have an independent board of directors. In any case, how is this relevant? Even if he didn't have unilateral power to do it, the SEC is not bound to wait for a later shareholder lawsuit to scrutinize such a trade.

Sweet Jebus you're a moron. Why would your views on whether my views matter matter?

I am not the SEC you dolt. I was arguing that this merger is the sort of thing where the SEC would typically step in, despite the fact that it doesn't create a monopoly. Are you capable of keeping anything straight in your head?

I'll note what is lacking from what I believe to be your pretty feeble lie from that paragraph is any clarification about how, if you were "watching this thread for a while" (but somehow only this one branch with 5 posts to it when you posted, as opposed to the main thread with something like 54 posts), you mysteriously failed to notice that I was one of the people on the thread. Even though you claim that you have been watching, as you say "you too". Or any mention of the big coincidence of your only posts being in reply to me in that time frame. Yeah, really credible. I mean, why even bother to lie about it? It's not like there's actually anything wrong with "I was looking at your other posts and decided to reply to one". Unless you turn it into full on stalking like some seem to do for some accounts on Slashdot. I think I've even seen it done to you. Not as badly as to rsilvergun (I mean I know you don't like his opinions, but a person has to be completely crazy to create a hundred fake accounts with slight variations of his handle or to post abusive replies to every one of his posts. Then there's Creimer. Who the hell is that? I don't recall ever seeing a post by that Slashdotter, but they have a (fortunately not active lately) stalker who would post mountains of stuff essentially randomly to attack them. I mean it's deranged. Anyway, the point is, why not just cop to doing that. Why play this game that you just happened to notice that I was the person you were replying to?

Once again, I am aware that you are a troll. It's kind of pathetic that you appear to be proud of it. What is even more pathetic is that you seem to think that there's any use in doing it to me. I recognize your playground taunts and misrepresentations of what I have said for what they are. All you are doing by trolling is wasting your time.

I have a rational understanding of the average Slashdotters propensity for actually following a posted link. Also, I would make a comment about glass houses and stones, but why bother, you won't learn anything.

Anyway, as long as we are going on about that other thread, posting has expired on it, but I had actually prepared a response to your last message, but didn't post it before. So, why not? I'll just tack it on the end here.

===================

Well, while I know what you actually meant, your claim that your take is laughably bad is accurate. Car companies use that term plenty. Feel free to mentally substitute whatever name you want. Your constant misrepresentation is ridiculous as well. I never claimed it to be impervious to impact or penetration or that it was magical. Also, the "shock absorbing casing" was, if you were paying attention, not the safety cage of the car, but the casing around the SSD.

Nothing is impervious, but a lot of attention is paid to keeping things in the passenger compartment safe. Avoiding penetration, etc. is definitely one of the design goals. You have not presented anything credible to make me doubt my claim that the majority of accidents are mostly in one of two categories: no damage to the SSD at all, or basically total destruction to the SSD so that recovery is obviously out of the question. The in-between range is narrow.

On a side note, don't you think it's ridiculous that you're doing all this arguing, insulting, deceptive misrepresentation of my position, etc. and all over what? I mean, quite frankly, what? It's hard to really discern your position. It seems to be that it's somehow not feasible for companies that don't have enough internal experience in data recovery to go to outside experts? Because you've danced a long way from that basic point and I'm not sure you remember that was the point in the first place, so I'm going to keep bringing it up.

Wow you are an idiot. Water is an incompressible fluid, unlike the gases in an air bag. More importantly though, water has significant mass, about three orders of magnitude more per unit volume than a gas. People regularly fall from great heights onto gas-filled cushioning devices without injury. That works precisely because landing accelerates them gradually at relatively low G-Force (also the distribution of the force over a broad area, as you pointed out, which I am not ignoring). That works because the air both compresses, and doesn't require a lot of force to move it out of the way due to its low mass and therefore low inertia. For water, when you hit, the water does not compress, plus it has significant mass so a lot more force is required to move it out of the way. Once it gets moving, hydrodynamic forces come into play, those are complicated, but part of it is that you already have the water under you moving at that point and you have a void above you for the water you're displacing to move into through vortex motion that you create. This is why the initial hit against the surface tends to be much harder. That and surface tension, though that is minor compared to the displacement issue.

All that said, it's all relative. People have intentionally jumped into water from about the height of 20 story building and lived. They do have a tendency to break bones, but they live. As for non-athletic dives. Some 40 people have survived jumping the 220 feet from the Golden Gate bridge although a couple of thousand or so have not survived. Then again, those records are beaten by a 342 foot drop into an air bag which was done intentionally to win a world record, with the stunt performer jumping over and over again from increasingly higher altitude indicating that falling into an airbag is not only survivable from higher than a drop into water, but consistently so, without the near 100% chance of death or significant injury.

Since I was maybe 12. Anyway, it was a waste of five minutes. Nothing in there is relevant to the conversation. If we were to look at your language skills, I will note that my first mention of airbags in this discussion was replying to you apparently claiming that airbags deploying indicated that the specific crash in question was very serious and me pointing out that, since airbags were for protecting peoples heads rather than protecting equipment, that it was pretty meaningless to whether the SSD would be damaged. Then you ended up ranting and raving about airbags and G-forces since I also mentioned G-forces. Now you're ranting and raving about how airbags are less effective above certain collision speeds? What does that have to do with anything? Nothing to do with whether a main function of an airbag is to reduce G-forces experienced by a person's head during a crash. Nothing about whether an airbag deployment means a crash serious enough to damage the SSD (in fact, you seem to simply be pointing out that airbag deployments happen at relatively low speed).

There's no point to any of this. You're just babbling incoherently without any connection whatsoever to the topic at hand, which is whether companies can hire outside for help with data recovery if they can't do it in house. Which makes your next statement extra ironic.

For even more irony, My first post in this thread was 77 words in reply to your 114 words. Basically, you kept on questioning everything and going off on tangents, etc. My posts got long simply because I was answering your questions, and following up on your tangents and repeatedly trying to remind you what the point of the conversation was. Now we've ended up on you going nuts over airbags. Not even the physics of them now, but statistics on their efficacy in crashes at varying speeds with and without accompanying seat belts. I am almost surprised you didn't go off on a tangent about the arm injuries experienced with earlier model air bags mentioned in the discussion section.

What are you even trying to say? What does the presence of the word RADAR in the article have to do with what I said? Are you confused enough to think that I was claiming that you were the first to mention RADAR? Or what are you trying to say? My original post to you was in regards to what you said. The article is the general start of the conversation, but the way these things work, you can still reply to other things that people say.

Nothing backfired on me. You're literally writing it right there that you brought up mitigation of issues with civilian RADAR in comparison to military RADAR. So, in my discussion of the issue, I started with the overlap between civilian and military RADAR systems. The point of starting there was that the the base technologies of a lot of military RADAR and civilian systems is not actually any different and so, for those similar systems, the mitigation methods shouldn't be very different. So I covered that first then moved on to other Miitary RADAR technologies that are different. It's a pretty normal way to respond to what you wrote.

Also, I sort of lost you on:

Was that last word supposed to be "civilian" or is that a typo?

Thinking just fine. You're the one who seems to be missing what it means to cover an area "East of" something. I shouldn't have to explain this, but I was talking about covering an area where the turbines are not actually present, in the particular paragraph you were replying to.

Oh dear. I have to explain things carefully and slowly to you, don't I. Otherwise you'll seize on any ridiculous thing to try to make a point. Do you think that the word "far" is a specific distance? There is nothing untrue about what I said. For a RADAR system that bounces off the ionosphere to actually hit a wind turbine installation that is a short distance offshore, then it would, indeed, need to be far onland. The whole point is that such a RADAR installation could not practically be located on the coast. It would have to be located a distance which falls under the category of "far" onland to do this. This is what I was saying. I was saying nothing about the actual placement of existing systems of that type. However, I will also add - though I'm sure I'll regret it because you'll just turn it into another whole thing that you beat to death without ever actually understanding what I'm writing - you're wrong about OTH RADAR systems not ever being located near the coast.

No it hasn't. There's this thing called the legislative branch that's the only one that can actually do that. If you want to check the name, check recent funding bills and see if they allocate money to the "Department of Defense" or the "Department of War". The Department of Defense is not, and has never been named the department of War. The DoD was formed from the departments of the Army, Navy, and Air force. The department of the Army at the time was formerly the Department of War, and the department of the Air Force had been part of it, but they had already been shifted to separate departments before the merger under the DoD. The DoD was the start of actual unified command of the US military. Play pretend about the name all you like, it doesn't actually change what it is.

Your opinion concerning that is worthless.

Riiight. _My_ zealotry.

No. My comment still stands. I don't understand why you have to measure in acres and football fields. You weren't quoting the article when you were wrote what you're claiming you didn't write. Using football fields when the size in an actual unit is available is, to be frank, a crutch for idiots to use for other idiots. It might work as a joke (hence the Libraries of Congress), but it's just sad when seriously used.

Sure, I will get right on that... once you've sent me the specs, data, code, etc. for YOUR system that does one turbine, I'll handle the multi-turbine project no problem.

Ummm, what? I am trying to figure out what you are trying to say here. First, the term electrical noise. Do you mean EM noise, or do you mean actual sound produced by electrical equipment or as a secondary effect from EM radiation from a vessel? If it's the first one, you might be a little bit crazy, so I'll assume it's the second one: secondary sound waves create from the activity of electrical equipment. So, in that case, that would be a big whatever. Boats are far louder, and wind turbines are far quieter. Not to mention the sounds are going to be distinctive sounds. You're just grasping at irrelevant straws here.

Uh, huh. And this is louder than boats how?

It is a matter of degree, and my opinion is that, based on the available facts, it can't be that serious a degree compared to all of the other existing challenges out there. Such as boats. As a matter of opinion, it is odd how much other people having an opinion seems to infuriate you.

If you're in wait and see mode, you literally could have just said that at the start of the discussion and saved a lot of typing. Also, while they might appeal if it is a serious problem, the Trump administration is very likely to appeal if it isn't a serious problem. There is literally no way to tell whether it is a real problem or not based on whether or not they appeal.

If you'd read my post and the posts I was replying to, you would understand that my posts were actually a rebuttal against another poster who claimed "The SEC protects against monopolies.". What I said over more than just the previous post was that the job of the SEC is to regulate securities, not to prevent monopolies. What I was saying is that prevention of monopolies by the SEC a side effect. In other words, the statement that "The SEC protects against monopolies" is true in the sense that, by preventing securities fraud, the SEC stops companies from, for example using fraud to drive up their stock price and then using that overvalued stock as financial leverage to (as just one example) go through hostile takeovers of their competitors. In that sense, it can be true that the SEC protects against monopolies, but it is ridiculous to claim that is their purpose. Potential monopolies are just one of the many undesirable side effects of unregulated securities.

Now, if you had actually read the thread, rather than my one comment, that would have been clear to you and you would not have bothered with this post. Also, this is your only post on this entire article. Posted to me only, with clear evidence you haven't read the rest of this thread. Also posted three days after the article was posted. One of the very last four posts on the article (until this one) after it turned three days old (and with 50% of those four posts being from me). It is also one of your only two posts on Thursday, both replies to me, and grouped close together with just under four hours until your next post.

So, based on your misunderstanding of my post and the thread and the over evidence in the preceding paragraph, I can confidently conclude that:

Is a clear lie because you obviously just looked at my posting history, found a comment you would like to attack, opened it up, maybe skimmed the thread history a little bit, but not enough to understand, then posted this reply. Then, at the end of the reply, you pretended that you just happened to notice while you were typing that I'm the same person you were having an argument with on another thread. I mean, there's no point in pretending. It's really just the two of us, so you know that I know that you're lying, just like when you use the childish "spinning disks on a Tesla" sad little strawman you cooked up. If you had any confidence in your own argument, or any dignity, you wouldn't have to make up lies. You know perfectly well that I never said anything about spinning disks on a Tesla.

Just in case there actually is anyone else still reading this thread against all likelyhood the origin of his "spinning disks on a Tesla" taunt is from another article where data recovery from disks was mentioned and the claim that a large company (in this case Tesla, but my response was really for any company in the same situation) might not be able to do data recovery in house was brought up. So I gave an anecdote about how, once upon a time, I was one of the people who, among other job duties, handled data recovery from devices in the field and, when we couldn't do it in house, we would use a specialist contractor. That was it, the point was very simply that, if you can't do it in house, you use a contractor. So ArmoredDragon here then asks more details and I volunteer that all those devices had spinning disks, rather than SSDs. From there, he has created a strawman/playground-level taunt apparently claiming that I claimed that Teslas had spinning disks. This is at about the level of Ralph from the Simpsons asking Lisa "Are you going to marry a carrot?"

So, in reply to your childish taunt, ArmoredDragon, I am going to just go with Lisa's response: "Yes, Ralph. I'm going to marry a carrot."

What you are saying here seems completely orthogonal to the post you are replying to. The point is that the big investors in these companies like Fidelity or Sequoia Capital (that is an investor in both) get the money they need to invest directly or indirectly from 401K's and pension funds. The acquisition of X by xAI was obviously meant to save the investors of that company (especially Elon Musk and the Tesla shares he backed his share with) from the dismal performance of the company.

Musk bought Twitter for way more than it was worth on the promise that he would make it far more profitable with ideas like firing just about everyone, switching to an all subscription model, and allowing people to buy vanity checkmarks, etc. Oh, and he planned to turn it into an "everything app". It's an idiotic plan because, if you're going to basically replace the brand, people, and software of a company like that, all that's left is the physical assets and the user base. The physical assets were not worth a fraction of the $44 billion. The user base (what's left of it) would simply materialize for any "everything app" if it was actually any good. It would have made way more sense to just start a new company since what he wanted was a new company anyway.

Anyway, when xAI bought X/Twitter, the valuation amazingly rebounded to, coincidentally, just a fraction more than the valuation that Musk bought it for. This is either an amazing coincidence (and really unlikely for a company that relies on advertising revenue where the CEO told advertisers fuck you, literally, and also threatened them if they didn't pay for advertising). So the valuation appears to have been face-saving for Musk, and also may have gotten him out of his own debt (though we don't know exactly how that was all structured). That would have been done at the expense of the xAI investors. Some of the investors were the same in both companies. It still may have been an uneven trade even for those though, because they may not have had an equal percentage of shares in each company. Once again, directly or indirectly, most of the investment comes from things like 401K plans, pension funds and the like. The big institutional investors do not have some magical separation of funds between the funds they manage for small investors and their large scale investment. Without regulators like the SEC stopping them, they can simply take any troubled asset and roll it into a security that they have their fund managers buy across their various funds, leaving the small investors to eat the loss.

Also, do you know what other company is overvalued? Tesla. It's a fairly small car company by sales, selling a little less than BMW. However, it is somehow worth $1.5 trillion, even though the actual largest carmaker Toyota is only worth a fifth as much. It can be argued that Tesla is more than a car company with up to around 25% of its sales being in other areas like power, etc., and with their robotics division theoretically up and coming. However various other car companies also do other kinds of business including robotics and power equipment. There is no rational reason for Tesla's value, it's all a speculative bubble. If Musk has to sell a bunch of Tesla stock such as because he needs to pay back a loan, the valuation for Tesla could collapse.

Basically, Musk has built a house of cards and he is currently in the process of using a chain of companies to save the others in pretty shifty ways.

I think of 401Ks and the like as a bit like the slot machines at a casino. The odds on those are centrally controlled and variable so that the casino can meet its target payout ratio and ensure that, on average, the customers are losing as much money as possible without going over the legally mandated limit. In other words, a stable block that can be used to anchor all of the crazy, risky activity. A stable block that is constantly fed with suckers.

Maybe read more slowly to comprehend what I wrote so I don't have to keep repeating myself:

OK. So, first, the article _is_ about the court cases (and the details around them). As I said, I was not referring directly to them. As I said in the sentence you _didn't_ quote, I was referring to what you wrote right before I entered the conversation:

Followed by two more paragraphs about the supposed military dangers of these wind farms. You yourself are the one who made the topic the technical reality of whether or not these wind turbines are a real problem for military imaging of the coast and general alarmism. I addressed the realities of the turbines and the alarmism.

I will reiterate. I was not the one who brought up civilian RADAR, _you were_. So I covered both civilian and military RADAR in a discussion that was meant to highlight the basic realities of RADAR that apply to both the civilian RADAR systems and the military ones. The discussion of, for example, the Nantucket airport RADAR was mostly to illustrate that, even though it's closer, it still doesn't have any practical issues. The military installations located where all or most of the turbines are not visible over the horizon in line of sight have even less of an issue being further away.

What!? Jebus. This gets dumber and dumber. Aircraft can fly East of the wind farm to cover that area. Your original argument was that the land-based RADAR couldn't see past the wind farm and one of the things I pointed out is that those areas could be covered by military ships with their own RADAR and satellites. So, now all of a sudden you're mentioning yet another system that can operate outside the area that the turbines could possibly be a problem (and also look down from the sky like satellites) and that's your argument? Also, the profile of the wind turbines from above is relatively tiny.

You have severe reading comprehension issues, don't you? If I write a lot and go into detail it's TLDR. If I keep it short, you fill in imaginary detail of your own. The point was that the only positioning for OTH RADAR where the wind Turbines would be a problem would be if you positioned it where it was looking at the wind turbines. Basically, all you're doing above with "If you want your over the horizon radar to pickup where your line of sight radar ends..." is paraphrasing what I said. No practical configuration of that RADAR would result in it being interfered with by the turbines.

I didn't miss the point. I stated it clearly and you have just once again provided more evidence that: "In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about WRT military RADAR." You're basically pontificating that, because we don't know what we don't know, that somehow it means that there must be some special threat from wind Turbines to completely unknown imaging systems that might as well be the Force, from Star Wars. So there's some amazing, super high tech, sci fi technology they have but its kryptonite is: wind turbines. Not boats, not birds, not weather, not active countermeasures. Wind Turbines. Right. Sure.

The Department of what? Sorry, I thought you were from the US and talking about the US Military. Must have been some confusion.

They aren't going into detail because of the reason you gave in your very first post. They're just lying. There is no significant issue. There never was, and there will not be once the project is finished. It is not hard to connect the dots. This is happening because the US has a President who says things like:

Of course, while that may sound like completely insane ranting, actually he understands wind power

even though

Basically, the man declared that he would not allow "windmills" to be built and this is a pretext to try give some credibility to that goal in court. We don't have to guess about this. The man regularly muses in public about how he will make up fake emergencies to justify his actions.

I am not sure why you have to measure it in acres _and_ football fields. Can we just settle on it being 1600 Libraries of Congress? Or, we could put it in terms on how long the sides would be if it were a square. That would be about 13.2 miles. I mean, sizable sure, but not that big compared to the length of the coastline. Also, um, you don't think the entire space is taken up by wind turbines do you? It's 176 turbines, apparently. So, that would be about a square mile each.

I could design and build that system and it would likely work for all the turbines. Because it would just have to work for one instance of a turbine and then you could apply the method for every instance. Also, "seas, weather, etc." Why do you need to add them. They're already there. RADAR already has to deal with adverse conditions.

Once again, there isn't actually a legitimate complaint. They just made it up as a pretext.

Boats can and do create significant clutter problems for RADAR. So, aside from the fact that your claim is not true, boats also occlude RADAR.

As usual, you just ignore what I am actually writing. I am pretty sure of one of those engineers read this conversation, they would come to the same conclusion that I have: Offshore wind turbines are just run of the mill obstacles like many other things found at sea and can be dealt with by an assortment of methods.

It's so confusing trying to follow your thinking. Why are you going on about generators/alternators in subs? The point was that what you would find in the nacelle of a wind turbine is considerably quieter. Not to mention that they are 500 feet in the air, not submerged in water. They're not noisy in the water, and they won't get confused with, or overwhelm the noise of subs.

Reading comprehension issues again I see. It is not about people disagreeing with me. It's about having a concealed agenda and pretending to be discussing something in good faith when it's just a plan to deceive. MacMann keeps posting links to: Renewable Energy: Without the Hot Air by Sir David MacKay. It purports to be a logical, data driven approach to considering renewable power. However, if you examine it, it's really just a manipulative exercise designed from the start to drive the conclusion that nuclear power is the only answer. At the end of his life, MacKay stopped pretending to be serious about honestly evaluating renewables and came out as a full on nuclear zealot. That's the sort of thing I am talking about.

As for ignoring what I write, being functionally illiterate isn't something to be proud of. Neither is being dishonest in debate. It's actually pretty pathetic to admit to not actually reading what the other person has to say and just waiting for the next opportunity to hammer your own point while ignoring counterarguments. Seriously, pride in the fact that one thinks that just getting their own two bits in is proper debate?

We know that lots of things cause clutter with Doppler RADAR (additionally, I know that includes boats, although apparently you do not.

Which is it? Is it Presidential administrations , or is it an actual military assessment? Do you think that the Biden administration would have somehow allowed it if there really was some big security threat?

That is hardly all we know. We also know how insanely dead set against wind power Trump is and how much that he lies. We also know that he will have others in his administration lie for him. Sure, you can always speculate that there's some urgent military reason for his that either only just appeared this year, or that was suppressed under Biden but I think you need to learn how to assign probabilities to things based on the evidence. I am not a big fan of Ockham's Razor, but this isn't really it anyway. There's nothing simple about the craziness of Trump's anti-renewable obsession, after all. This is about assembling the evidence and he possible explanations and weighing them against each other.