Trust me, you were screwed when you ticked the box marked "Vista."
Anyway, I'd help, but I don't know much about Vista ATM. Is there any way you can figure out which particular update it is that it seems to get hung up on? That might be a start.
Hey guys. I just wanted to let y'all know that I have returned. My stupid wireless Linksys router froze, so I had to reset it. Took a whole goddamned 5 minutes - but I'm back now, so it's A-OK!
Hey thanks for your query, I have checked out everything about you and I predict that your ideal job Jeremy is a Sewage Worker. Good luck in your new career.
So I guess I should drop out of the Aerospace program then... eh? :P
I don't mind the engine shut-off feature. But, and I already posted this in the bugs forum, it shouldn't do it even when you pause the game. Right now, if you pause in the middle of a race for a minute, and then come back and pick up where you left off, you have to turn the engine on again.
No. Quantum fluctuation results from massive kinetic energy changes in heavy objects. It's most likely to occur when an object traveling at a high rate of speed is significantly slowed in a very short period of time (e.g. big crash, plane into building, etc...) but can also occur if an object accelerates fast enough, although this is rare (artillery, for example will generally not undergo this effect as is is not massive enough to induce it.) When a large mass slows down very rapidly, the molecular structure of certain components can "shift" slightly. This is most common in the more dense parts (steel, for example, as opposed to plastic) because of the significant weight that must be slowed without compromising molecular stability. Imagine stacking 100 empty boxes in a 10x10 pile (boxes being molecules) and then hurling them (somehow staying together) at 20 mph into a wall. When they hit, they compress, and then bounce back so that the resulting stack is actually longer (they leave space between them as they rebound.) This is what happens during quantum fluctuation at a molecular level. However, as you know, the molecular bonds in such materials as steel are nothing if not strong, so it takes an ENORMOUS amount of energy to separate molecules, even by as much as what happens in this phenomena. So what happens is the steel actually becomes very hot as it absorbs a significant amount of heat from the surrounding environment to account for this change in its structure. Most of the time, however, the steel cools almost as quickly when the molecules snap back together, but if the impact is strong enough, the molecules are banged up so much that they cannot quite realign (imagine slamming the boxes so hard that they kind of fall out of order) and so the heat is retained, and the steel stays hot.
If enough steel undergoes this phenomena, it can actually produce a significant amount of heat.
It has nothing to do with duplication of objects, however.
I can't say I "appreciate" cheese's heat-retaining properties. While I understand the lasagna analogy, it's usually the slab of detached cheese on the pizza slice that attacks my chin. :weeping:
Ahhh alright. I wasn't actually sure if you were joking or not, but most of the crazy statements in this thread have been serious so far, so I assumed the worst.
Well, let me ask you this then. Do you really believe that it's possible to heat steel to the point of being ABLE to stay molten for months?! I can't even imagine steel being heated by ANYTHING that might have happened on that day to the point of staying molten for months.
Are you serious? How was that a "nuclear-like" explosion?! Give me ONE PIECE of evidence to support that the impact of that aircraft and the resulting explosion were any sort of nuclear blast. ONE.
Yeah, I agree. I just thought I'd point it out before everyone called your data "useless" on the grounds that you didn't use the absolutely correct conversion factor.
But who the hell cares. The point is it's a lot of energy.
What I don't like about this study, is that they tested the building's ability to withstand the fires, as designed, with the 3/4" of fireproofing material. They DO state that maybe the fireproofing wasn't as thick as what they tested it with, HOWEVER, they don't seem to state the possibility of the fireproofing being knocked off entirely during the impact. That would have lead to a significantly different outcome.
You're right. This thread is going in circles. Which is why I *sigh*ed. If you'd read previous posts, you'd have seen that the pancake theory was already discussed. You are absolutely free to discuss anything you wish, but at this point, you're only another part of the repetitive process.
You know what. It may have well been a government conspiracy. But that doesn't mean that the planes WEREN'T responsible for the collapse of the towers! Why MUST it be more complicated than that? I'm pretty certain that even if the buildings hadn't collapsed, most Americans would have been just as willing to attack Afghanistan.
I'm not trying to make a point that it was or was not an inside job. I'm simply trying to make the point that I BELIEVE the collapse was not a result of explosives, or aliens or drunk drivers... that the planes and subsequent fire were enough to bring them down. That's ALL I'm trying to say.
I really hate repeating myself, so if you read my past posts, you will see that the central columns are NOT the reason for the buildings' collapse. It's the trusses spanning from the core to the outer skeleton that failed.
Ughhh... again, as you stated, this HAS been mentioned. First off, the buildings collapsed from the point of impact. That is where the collapse started, and it worked its way down from there. The collapse was NOT a pancake collapse, as is clearly seen by simply watching the videos. It was simply a matter of the top part smashing its way through the bottom.
*sigh* Did you read any of this thread? I actually went through great pains to explain how the collapse happened. I don't see what's so surprising about BOTH buildings going down. Don't you think it's more likely that if a design fault caused one to collapse, the other would collapse too? Seeing as they were both subjected to the same exact attack? I personally would find it MORE odd if only ONE fell down. Read my post on, I think page three (the loooong one.) That gives a somewhat detailed explanation as to why they collapsed.
Because it's terribly expensive to crash a fully-fueled 757 into a building every time... not to mention the lack of kamikaze pilots who will sign up for the job...