Yeah, Llamonade needed to chill out a little bit.
JayCliff, it looks like you live surrounded by impressive nature. It would be very cool if you post a picture about your surroundings and those harbor seals👌
(As long as you don't mind. We respect privacy).
On the other hand Llamonade statements made the forum more interesting and educative.
And that feeling of being expelled from chess.com at any moment is kind of apealing.
Anyways, if we would have had his religious past he described, we would also be that angry. Maybe by now we even would have gone crazy and would be preaching the apocalipsis and the end of the world on the streets with a newspaper hat on the head.
I seem to make a new account every 1-3 months. If my account were 6 years old like yours maybe I'd care 
This last 3 of those 6 years I didn't log in chess.com. But, yeah, from the first 3 years I have good memories and chess matches to keep.
Oh, no wonder I don't recognize you. I've been around a while and usually recognize old accounts that have been active.
And those first 3 years I was only playing, I didn't talk in forums. That makes it more difficult for you to recognize my account.
I just got some days of free time, so I begun to talk in forums, out of my boredom. It's been really funny the offtopic section 
I've been laughing so much. I didn't know in chess.com people could be so funny 
Soon I will get so stressed again, working and studying, that you people will think I just desappeared into thin air.
And I also have been learning a lot in the forums. People here know a lot about pollution, chess engines, etc. It's been very interesting too.
When exams get here and I get stressed and everything, I will try to connect again, but I don't think I will be able to connect so often...
Wow... That's cool. Thank you!
You are so lucky living surrounded by nature. A big city feels like a prison, at least for people like me used to a small village. The change was hard.
By the way, someone mentioned about an airplane shape being the most aerodynamic.
s23bog just told me the following: "I would like to point out that that is incorrect. The most aerodynamic shape is the shape of a drop of rain. The shape I am making is much more aerodynamic than any airplane."
I just edited the title of the thread, because s23bog said the spacecraft idea was one of the possibilities in a future, but not the ultimate goal. So i changed it because that was confusing.
He has many interesting ideas of development, all of them will lead to solutions for global warming.
By request of s23bog, I just changed again the title of the thread to this one more precise.
It'll never take off.
Raindrops are NOT the most aerodynamic shapes. They have a drag coefficient within 6% of that of a sphere, about 0.5 (resistance times that of a similar cross section brick at same speed). That is why high performance planes are NOT shaped like raindrops. The drag coefficient of the Concorde supersonic aircraft was more like 0.2. A cylinder with a long sharp point and a cleverly designed tail would have even less drag. The lowest drag I can find is for a long symmetric aerofoil which has a measured 0.045 - ten times better than a raindrop!
Note that while a raindrop is the result of a struggle between viscous drag and surface tension, the shape of airplanes is determined by two competing factors. The first is to generate a lot of lift. The second factor is to reduce drag.
The lower the speed, the more the former dominates. Light planes don't go very fast so have quite big wings. Passenger jets manage a nice compromise with large fat, very aerodynamic wings. Fast jets are much more slender and pointy with smaller wings, generally swept back more, supersonic jets have short wings and hypersonic jets have retractable wings (so that they can generate enough lift when slow and reduce drag when fast).
Raindrops are good for one thing - falling. Their shape depends on their size (which affects the balance between drag and surface tension. See this article by NASA, who also came up with some blunt, less than aerodynamic shapes for the express purpose of discarding large amounts of kinetic energy from drag on re-entry (Apollo, Space Shuttle, etc.)
It'll never take off.
Raindrops are NOT the most aerodynamic shapes.
It's nice of you to go into detail, but frankly this should go without saying. The wind vs surface tension would make it like a falling pancake, probably one of the least aerodynamic shapes in terms of drag.
A cartoon representation of a raindrop (a cone like shape) would also not be best.
By the way I deleted those posts after reading your message.
It'll never take off.
Raindrops are NOT the most aerodynamic shapes. They have a drag coefficient within 6% of that of a sphere, about 0.5 (resistance times that of a similar cross section brick at same speed). That is why high performance planes are NOT shaped like raindrops. The drag coefficient of the Concorde supersonic aircraft was more like 0.2. A cylinder with a long sharp point and a cleverly designed tail would have even less drag. The lowest drag I can find is for a long symmetric aerofoil which has a measured 0.045 - ten times better than a raindrop!
Note that while a raindrop is the result of a struggle between viscous drag and surface tension, the shape of airplanes is determined by two competing factors. The first is to generate a lot of lift. The second factor is to reduce drag.
The lower the speed, the more the former dominates. Light planes don't go very fast so have quite big wings. Passenger jets manage a nice compromise with large fat, very aerodynamic wings. Fast jets are much more slender and pointy with smaller wings, generally swept back more, supersonic jets have short wings and hypersonic jets have retractable wings (so that they can generate enough lift when slow and reduce drag when fast).
Raindrops are good for one thing - falling. Their shape depends on their size (which affects the balance between drag and surface tension. See this article by NASA, who also came up with some blunt, less than aerodynamic shapes for the express purpose of discarding large amounts of kinetic energy from drag on re-entry (Apollo, Space Shuttle, etc.)
what a drag.
harbor seals are cool too, but we cant really keep them at home ; )