Note The Attached Forms Are Drafts Only They Are Not: Fill & Download for Free

This was written about 40 years ago by a Canadian Journalist… And it still holds true for the most part.“Widespread, but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring,59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I’d like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar, or the Douglas DC-10?If so, why don’t they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American planes?Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon— notonce, but several times— andsafely home again.You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the American who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.I can name you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don’t think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I’m one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.”Dinesh DeSouza who came to the US as an exchange student from India wrote this in 2002… and it still hold true.“America has become an empire, a fact that Americans are reluctant to admit and that critics of the United States regard with great alarm.Since the end of the cold war, the US has exercised an unparalleled and largely unrivaled influence throughout the world – economically, politically, culturally, and militarily. Critics of America, at home and abroad, are right to worry about how US power is being used.The critics charge that America is no different from other rapacious empires that have trampled the continents in previous centuries. Within the universities, intellectuals speak of American policies as “neo-imperialist,” because they promote the goals of empire while eschewing the term.America talks about lofty ideals, the critics say, but in reality it pursues its naked self-interest. In the Gulf War, for example, America’s leaders asserted they were fighting for human rights, but in truth they were fighting to protect US access to oil. The critics point to past US support for dictators like Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, and the Shah of Iran as evidence that Americans don’t really care about democratic ideals.Even now the US supports unelected regimes in Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. No wonder, the critics say, so many people around the world are anti-American and some even resort to terrorism to lash out.Are the critics right? They are correct to note the extent of American influence, but wrong to suggest that the US is no different from such colonial powers as the British, French, and Spanish that once dominated the world. Those empires – like the Islamic, Mongol, and Chinese empires – were sustained primarily by force. The British ruled my native country of India with some 100,000 troops.US domination is not sustained primarily by force. True, America has bases in the Middle East and Far East, and it can intervene militarily just about anywhere in the world.But the real power of America extends far beyond its military capabilities. Walk into a hotel in Barbados or Bombay and the bellhop is whistling the theme from “Titanic.” African boys in remote villages wear baseball caps. Millions of people around the globe want to move to America. Countless people are drawn to America’s technology, freedom, and way of life.Some critics sneer that these aspirations are short-sighted. Perhaps they are right. People may be wrong to want the American lifestyle, and may not foresee its disadvantages, but at least they are seeking it voluntarily.What about the occasions, though, when America does exercise military power? Here we can hardly deny the critics’ allegation that the US acts to promote its self-interest. Even so, Americans can feel immensely proud of how often their country has served their interests while simultaneously promoting noble ideals and the welfare of others. Yes, America fought the Gulf War in part to protect its oil interests, but it also fought to liberate the Kuwaitis from Iraqi invasion.But what about long-lasting US backing for dictators, like Somoza, Pinochet, Marcos, and the shah? It should be noted that, in each case, the US eventually turned against their regimes and aided in their ouster.In Chile and the Philippines, the outcome was favorable: The Pinochet and Marcos regimes were replaced by democratic governments that endure. In Nicaragua and Iran, however, one form of tyranny gave way to another.These outcomes highlight a foreign- policy staple, the principle of the lesser evil. This means that one should not pursue a thing that seems good if it is likely to result in something worse. A second implication is that one is usually justified in allying with a bad guy to oppose a regime that is worse. A classic example was the American alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler.Thus, many US actions that support tin-pot dictators become defensible. Remember, America was fighting a cold war. If one accepts that the Soviet Union was indeed an “evil empire,” then the US was right to attach more importance to Marcos and Pinochet’s anti-Soviet position than to their autocratic thuggery.NOW the cold war is over, so why does America support despotic regimes like those of Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and the royal family in Saudi Arabia? Again, examine the practical alternative to those regimes.Unfortunately there do not seem to be viable liberal, democratic parties in the Middle East. The alternative to Mr. Mubarak and the Saudi royal family appears to be Islamic fundamentalists of the bin Laden stripe. Faced with the choice between “uncompromising medievals” and “corrupt moderns,” America must side with the corrupt.Remember, also, the larger context. America is the most magnanimous imperial power ever. After leveling Japan and Germany during World War II, the US rebuilt them. For the most part, America is an abstaining superpower. It shows no real interest in conquering the rest of the world, even though it can. On occasion, the US intervenes in Grenada or Haiti or Bosnia, but it never stays to rule them.Moreover, when America does get into a war, it is supremely careful to avoid targeting civilians. Even as US bombs destroyed the infrastructure of the Taliban, American planes dropped rations of food to avert hardship and starvation of Afghan civilians. What other country does such things?Jeane Kirkpatrick once said that “Americans need to face the truth about themselves, no matter how pleasant it is.” The reason many Americans don’t feel this way is that they judge themselves by a higher standard. Thus if the Chinese, the Arabs, or the sub-Saharan Africans slaughter 10,000 of their own people, the world utters a collective sigh and resumes normal business.By contrast, if America, in the middle of a war, accidentally bombs a school and kills 200 civilians, there is an uproar and an investigation. All of this demonstrates America’s evident moral superiority.If this be the workings of empire, let us have more of it.”I think the answer is that while America makes mistakes… in general and in comparison to any other country in the world the country can hold it’s head high and is able to claim they have taken the moral high ground in making the majority of their policy decisions over the past 300 years. All in all the scale is tipped far in favor of the USA being the greatest country in the world.

I’ll Say dbrand, yes that brand for mobile skins which is so new that their Wikipedia page is still a draft. (Wikipedia|Link)dbrand is a Toronto based Mobile phone accessories maker, which has covered a lot of ground in just 3 years. In such a short time,they expanded their product line to many devices, many different style and almost got in a legal fight with Google. (reddit|Link)As of now dbrand only deals in Mobile , laptop and Gaming console skins and ships all around the world. dbrand may not be a household name yet because of their minimal advertising (as to have a good benefit/cost ratio).To talk about dbrand’s marketing, I would like to take a theoretical approach just to make sure I cover all the aspect of marketing.(cant help it, i am a commerce student)Just for recap, Kotler Defines marketing as"Marketing is the science and art of exploring, creating, and delivering value to satisfy the needs of a target market at a profit. Marketing identifies unfulfilled needs and desires. It defines, measures and quantifies the size of the identified market and the profit potential. It pinpoints which segments the company is capable of serving best and it designs and promotes the appropriate products and services."And to do Marketing, marketers use marketing mix, i.e. tools used for marketing.Marketing mix have often been associated with either 4 Ps (Product, place, price and promotion) or 7 Ps (4Ps + physical evidence, People and Process)And to prove dbrands exceptional marketing, I would only stick to 4Ps.1) Product.To put on record, dbrand makes beautiful skins although they are not the only one.dbrand’s skins although of good quality cannot be credited with reason for their success. Many of its competitor too uses the same material (3M’s) and provide good cut, i.e. precision cut.Take a look by yourself.above images are of iphone 6s in various skins manufactured by them. some of their competitors too make beautiful skins but the choices that dbrand provides is way more than most of its competitorsThe edge that dbrand gets is due to the skin maker/chooser on their site. Which allows user to choose elements from from different skin for their order, meaning a customer can choose different part from different skins to make a custom style while the competitors doesn’t provide this option.below is an image of a design i made with titanium theme skin for the from and carbon fibre skin for the back along with a wooden print skin for the camera.2) Price.The pricing of dbrand skins are not exceptional, and falls in the ball park of the industry. Which is not a Pro but also not a Con.On comparing the price of carbon fibre skin for Note 5 on slickwrap and dbrand, the total came out around 17$ in both cases while price of shipping to India was quite differentConsidering the fact that normal shipping to India takes a lot of time, it seems that premium shipping is a better option but the cost of shipping to India takes the “good” out of this deal3) Promotion.These robots (they call themselves robots on social media) are good in promotion and Customer service.Promotion is where dbrand shines according to me, They Decided to advertise the product through the Youtubers like Marquess Brownlee (aka MKBHD), Linus Sebastian of Linus tech tips, Lewis of unbox Therapy and many other Youtubers. The method is not new, but it’s how they did it. They provided the reviewers with review units of the latest mobile phone or notebooks with their skins already applied in exchange for the shout out. Since most reviews include lots of Macro shots, their Skins automatically become part of it. This strategy proved to be so successful that one of their competitor ( slickwrap ) decided to do the same and got in touch with other well-known Youtubers like Jonathan Morrison of TLDSocial media promotion is common these days, so is engaging with the customers and prospective customers, but dbrand took it whole different level, recently they got themselves into a rap battle with AMD (you should really check that out.| Link). Stays in touch with Youtubers and asks some crazy questions on twitter (like best gaming monitor for use in office), Posts Meme and Lamborghini Pictures (not a big deal for Facebook pages, but unconventional for a Company). They also do simple stuff like solving customer grievances and altering orders on request just to give benefits of the latest offers to customer who placed order before the offer, heck they even give discount coupons directly on Facebook if a customer asks for it.Here is a snippet of the rap battle with AMDYOU CAN FIND THE COMPLETE BATTLE HERE: AMD Radeon leaped into an epic rap battle on Twitter and it was amazingHere is dbrand interacting with the Customers on Facebook4) PlaceThe 4th P is how an Organisation delivers its product. Both dbrand and slickwraps uses government postal services for delivery for both international and domestic shipping which though is comparatively inexpensive but takes much more time than the private shipping service providers but also gives an option to choose for Tractable shipping option (FEDEX in slickwrap’s case for 36$ and Canada Post’s premium service in case of dbrand for 28$ ).Pricing mentioned above are for shipping to India.So to conclude, I think dbrand excels in marketing. Their product and pricing are at par with the competitors while their Promotion is among the best I have seen. They are literally using social media like a BOSS that too on steroids.Disclaimer.To put on record, I am not associated with dbrand or any other aforementioned brand. i have never bought a skin from dbrand(they don't support the products i use :( ) but i have seen enough of their products and products from their competitors in person to judge. although would love to try their product when they'll make skins for the devices i use.This is my first answer so cut me some slack if I made a mistake. ill update it in the future tooUpdate 1:here is one more incidence of dbrand defending its original idea.last month dbrand on its twitter account took a jab at its competitor by tweeting about the difference in orientation of nexus logo in its product.Following the tweet, slick wrap defended their claim of being of being the first to introduce the design by tweeting to screenshot of reddit comment.below are the images tweeted by slickwrap along with the aforementioned tweetbut in the end, dbrand counter atacked and won the argument with slickwrap's post on XDA forum.below are the attached images of the aforementioned tweetUPDATE 2in response to a prospective customer's dilema, slickwrap replied in binary to woo the customer but then came DbrandText:tweet #1 : not sure if i should get a @Dbrand skin or slickwrap skin for my MBP and iphoneTweet #2(from slick wrap) : 01010100 01100101 01100001 01101101 01010011 01101100 01101001 011000011 01101011 01110111 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110011tweet #3: How cute. they want to be robots too.Update 3:recently many new twitter accounts have come up or atleast being pointed out which are either taking shots at Dbrand or praising slickwraps. so dbrand points out that many of the new accounts are burner accounts as in burner cellphones.below are the attached images of the tweet.ill update the answer in the future too.Dbrand - dbrand // iPhone 6s Skins, Nexus 6P Skins, Note 5 Skins, Nexus 5X Skins

This may come as a shock to most, but the biggest design flaw in history is the aerodynamics of a rocket. Yes, a rocket, the living embodiment of pure, raw power, and speed. Since it is a flaw in aerodynamics, it can be fixed by reshaping the rocket. In fact, the fix has already been unknowingly demonstrated.The problem that arises is that the exhaust plume is narrow and directly underneath the rocket up and until supersonic speeds have been achieved, at or about Max Q. Once the rocket goes supersonic, the narrow plume widens, fanning out in all directions.This is believed to be the effect of the lower pressure higher in the atmosphere, but it begins when the rocket hits supersonic speeds, and the altitude is about 10 km. However, the Virgin Galactic SS2 shows a narrow plume from 15 to 80 km altitude, with little to no effect of pressure. It is said Mach diamonds occur at sea level due to the higher pressures, and that they don’t exist at high altitude due to expansion, yet the Mach diamonds are observed with the SS2 during its entire ascent.Likewise, compare the Mach diamonds in the nozzles attached to the shuttle. When the boosters are jettisoned at 45 km, the Mach diamonds are exactly the same as they are at sea level, despite the massive change in pressure between these altitudes.Chang’ e 5 lunar sample return second stage. Vacuum pressure, Mach diamonds intact.Raptor vacuum engine test at sea level shows the same shape and direction of the inverted cone:Based on these examples alone, a change in pressure is not responsible for the expansion of the plume of SOME rockets, therefore another reason must be found to explain the observed phenomena AND relate it to the rockets speed, not the pressure of the atmosphere.If we take a look from a different angle, it becomes quite clear as to why the plume expands. Underneath these plumes, redirecting them is a prominent and glowing ring, and this is a vortex ring. What you may also notice is that the eight displaced plumes are actually very narrow, and not expanded themselves, at least from the nozzle to the ring itself. This is best seen looking down the rocket, from which vantage point the ring can also be observed. Also, please note a second ring further down the plume. The answer is simple then, the shape of the rocket body, and not the pressure or rocket nozzle, is the issue. The difference between the SS2 and the shuttle versus the Falcon 9, or Saturn rocket, which showed the same expansion, is the relative size of the craft, or the sleekness of the later pair versus the much larger profile of the former. To put it simply, if the surface of the sleek Falcon 9 creates a vortex ring as proposed, the much wider space shuttle and Virgin SS2 will make a larger ring.What is necessary now is to offer reasons for 1) the formation of the vortex ring, and 2) the reason a vortex ring will create an expanded plume overall while the individual plumes remain unaffected. For this we turn to fluid dynamics.Aerospike rocket engines are offered as a solution to the expansion problem, since it is assumed they will not expand due to pressure, but as indicated above, the rocket body is the issue, and not the nozzle itself. But the aerospike nozzle does give us a means to explain the vortex ring in the wake of the rocket.When a fluid moves relative to a surface, the surface induces a rolling in the fluid nearby, creating vortices. The spike of an aerospike engine provides such a surface, and the result is the formation of vortex rings in the plume. Likewise, when a fluid is passed over the inner surface of a nozzle, it also creates a vortex ring. Please note the clear distinction between the rotating ring, and the gases this ring rotates in the second picture, because a vortex ring is a rotating ring of gases that rotates OTHER gases. Though both of these vortex rings are essentially identical, they differ in that they rotate gases in different directions because the vortex rings themselves are turning in different directions. The ring created by the aerospike turns inward towards the spike, while the bell nozzle forces the gases to turn outwards, as seen above.In the reverse sense, a rocket passing through a fluid creates the required vortex ring, and it will have an inward turn towards the rocket. At trans-sonic speeds, these vortex rings form on the body of the rocket.Once the rocket goes super-sonic, these rings shed and disrupt the plume. This is the point that the plume begins to expand:Either one of these preformed rings is either taken up into the wake, but most likely the vortex rings that were forming on the body, are also now forming in the wake as a result of the narrowing of the Mach cone.For example, the images below depict an airplane at Mach 1, and at supersonic. In the first image, there are shocks extending from the tip, and the rear, perpendicular to these points on the top and bottom. Past supersonic, these shocks are then angled towards the back of the jet, creating the V-shape of the shocks.Bullet for comparison:These oblique shocks appear two dimensional, but they will extend outwards in a 360⁰ pattern, since objects are three dimensional, creating the cone seen. Trapped within these shocks is the vortex ring, which originated from the body, or at supersonic speeds the vapor cones merely form further back. This vortex ring would form regardless of the presence of rocket nozzles or not. And with bullets moving through water, a perfectly analogous version to a rocket moving through air, the following rings are formed in its wake, creating a cone like a Mach cone with vortex rings in the wake.Baseball travelling at Mach 1.3. Wake vortex ring remains intact even after passing through a leather glove.Suffice it to say, vortex rings form in the wake of rockets, and can be trapped there. A vortex ring, since it is a vortex, results in a reversal of currents on either side of the ring. The rocket body creates the ring with an inward turn, which redirects the plumes outward by forcing exhaust back up under the rocket. This results in charring on the bottom of rockets, even the ones that do not return like the Falcon 9.And this is best seen by looking at the plume side on past Max Q. The cone shape further down the plume coincides with the second ring in the plume. The cone shape is the result of the collision of flows from opposite sides of the rings, creating a stagnation point where the gases are at rest relative to the rocket. This reversal of flow and formation of stagnation points, which form a cone shape, is best demonstrated by a simple smoke ring, which is itself a vortex ring.To sum up the discussion, the formation of the vortex ring represents what can best be called supersonic drafting. Drafting results in the reversal and stagnation of flow behind vehicles. Here are some examples showing this effect:Some animals know very well how to take advantage of human technology: this pigeon spotted in The Netherlands using slipstreams to race cars on the highway at 100 km/h is a proof https://t.co/PDm0pLR6nK pic.twitter.com/ekKuKNxMqd— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) April 21, 2020The flow behind a vehicle is both reversing the flow while stagnating the air. Basically, the same reason a mini van gets dirt on its rear door, and a dead fish swims upstream (Yes, it is dead!) is the same reason the rocket plume is disrupted, and since the plumes are exhausting near it, they not only sustain it, they are in the path of its effects. The difference is that at supersonic speeds, these structures become more powerful, even powerful enough to deflect the massive amounts of power of 8 rocket engines with the Falcon 9.So, how do we fix this? Since this deflection results in the force of the nozzles applied at roughly a 45 degree angle, reducing thrust in the y-direction, or up, since it must share it with the x-direction, it creates a large decrease in efficiency. Luckily, this vortex ring returns some flow, reestablishing some of the thrust, but much is lost. By preventing this inevitable vortex ring from forming near the nozzles, the nozzles will direct their flow only in the y-direction, or straight down, which will allow sustained thrust from sea level to space.The Virgin SS2 and the shuttle create large rings, while their nozzles are located near the center. A good way to see this is a jet fighter which creates a vapor cone from a vortex ring, but the exhaust of their jets are located near its center and unaffected by it. In the second picture you see the clear distinction between the cone and the dark vortex ring.The key is to widen the base, but it need not be done in such a way that adds a large amount of drag to the rocket. The rear of a jet fighter is basically an array of wings. These wings help create the larger vapor cone, whose center, where the nozzles are located is a zone of relative calm. The key then is to add thin, but wide wings at the base, which will create a larger ring, far outside the range of the nozzles. Essentially, a rocket should be shaped like a dart or mortar with fins (not so bulbous), but to widen the resultant vortex ring.In fact, SpaceX’s new Starship Super heavy booster will be equipped with permanent landing legs, which will accomplish the same goal. Whether or not it will be wide enough is to be determined, and with so many engines placed underneath, it will be hard to keep the nozzles concentrated near the center where the ring has little to no effect. These legs could be longer in the future designs, or more added.A test I would love to see is for a falcon 9 to be launched with its landing legs extended to observe any change in the plumes, but they would need to be reinforced. The pay off of increased drag at sea level is increased, and stable, thrust throughout the ascent.I just need to get a hold of Elon Musk! I wonder if he has a rocket to spare?Note added: The Matrix executed the fluid dynamics in this scene perfectly. It just needs a pigeon and a dead fish.Note added: