well hes not alone
jim lehrer seems to have the same difficulties figuring out the differences between the 2 candidates
so what conclusions are we to draw about your brain from the fact that something did go wrong on the suspension?
maybe you should get someone competent to repair your car
your mechanical incompetence will end up killing yourself or worse someone else
the car cant be that terrible if hes confident itll suvive 4h on the road
what does it matter if it makes him and others happy?
Last edited by Shotglass, .
dont get me wrong i think this is worth doing its just that this appear rather pointless as a publicity stunt
am i missing something important here? hasnt this already been done before deades ago?
i mean this is kinda like making a huge hubub about landing on the moon again when its already been done in what technologically speaking was the stone age
i mean this is kinda like making a huge hubub about landing on the moon again when its already been done in what technologically speaking was the stone age
you understand how democracy works
[ ] no
[ ] no
[ ] no
http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/statistics/
"In 2011, the majority of charitable dollars went to religion (32%)"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141 ... tendance-inches-2010.aspx
in 2010, with 43.1% of Americans reporting weekly or almost weekly attendance
=> according to your simple minded logic 43% of americans account for 32% of the money given to charity while the non religious 57% account for 68% of the money given to charity
=> atheists give more than twice as much money to charity
you understand how statistics works
[ ] no
[ ] no
[ ] no
(for anyone who does yeah im well aware that theres far too little info in those 2 statistics to draw these conclusions)
and how is that different from government?
well yes but i was repsonding to you rather than him becaue talking to him is bloody pointless
i think youre giving him far too much credit there when in actual fact hes probably simply talking random sciency words that he picked up on tv at some point
probably
the main issue with your though process is that you look at the result with the a priori assumption that it always had to arrive at the point where right now youre looking at evolutionary history and its current "end" result
if you try to do that kind of time reversal youll end up with a ridiculously small chance of evolution ever turning out the way it did
someone actually tried to calculate that chance as a proof of god ignoring that the result is meaningless as its based on the false assumption that evolution was always going to end up here
the secondary issue is the assumption that the solutions nature comes up with are universally clever
while yes things like a honeycomb are pretty clever and close to mathematical optimality other more complex problems have solutions that when viewed as an engineering problem leave a lot to be desired
muscles for example if i remember correctly operate at an efficiency of 10-20% while the internal combustion engines cars use are somewhere in the range of 25-30% so about double
and we consider those to be terribly inefficient
or take photosynthesis the process that (almost) all life on the planet depends on and yet it has an efficiency of about 5% with a theoretical masimum of 25% if we ignore all the bits of radiation that it cant work at
im pretty certain ive read news of solar panels with higher efficiencies than that
also on a fundamental level if plants had perfected photosynthesis theyd be pitch black or at the very least not green which is the colour that sunlight is the strongest at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y ... s_interference_experiment
the issue with that logic is that you have to postulate that the laws of quantum mechanics somehow popped into existence before the big bang to then allow th big bang to happen
now you could assume that the laws themself allow for the laws to pop out of nothing but then youd have a circular argument which doesnt help either
on top of that you also have the problem that last time i checked the big bang was supposed to be the beginning of space, time, energy/mattter and the laws of physics
so youd need the laws of physics to kickstart the laws of physics... circular again
will do when i find time
again got jack shit to do with quantum physics
or newtonian physics for that matter
that light acts as a wave with a double slit had been discovered and understood way before anyone ever figured out quantum mechanics
1) time
2) by not having any engineering problems in the first place
that has jack shit to do with quantum mechanics
while the flag next to my name doesnt exactly make me an expert on jokes in the eyes of most british people to me his delivery doesnt exactly make it look like a joke
thought something like that might be going on by san marino and vatican worked fine so i figured that wasnt the issue
fixed now although it still appears to get coloured incorrectly
i think the prioblem is that youre aproaching this positively ie people do this to get something out of it which might be true for people who tart up cars that are horrible to begin with like jack in the vain hope it might give them recognition from others
however i think a far more important thing is the negative where the car will actively stop you from doing things as james may put it a car that you like the looks of might just make you think to yourself "no im not going to kill myself today" when you climb into it in the morning to go to work
unfortunately through girls associating you with people like jack it also blocks you from ever having sex
well if nothing else at least your sports car will significantly lower your chances of contacting hiv
while its not an immutable rule nor a perfect analogy i still believe its a good yardstick to replace the word car with girlfriend in any sentence you say about a car and based on that decide whether or not youd like to own it
"shes only good to be with if you dont care about her looks" is a definite no-fly
as is not liking the way the rear door opens
the only redeeming feature that thing has is that sitting on the inside youre not the one who has to look at it
not just that... the shoes are fugly too
yes thats exactly what im trying to say
well done for picking up on it
also to add to the pedantry of amp you dont actually need to double clutch without synchros as without synchro rings you also dont have anything that physically prevents you from jamming the dogs together either through brute force or some approximate revmatching (and slightly less brute force)
not good for gearbox life but it is faster than clutching which is why its sometimes used in racing (eg f1 if im not mistaken)
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG