On 4/18/2011 1:15, Invisible wrote:
> If you crash a road car,

You didn't say "road car" before. You said "you couldn't design a car...." 
Clearly you can.

You can design a road car the same way. It'll just cost the same $100K that 
a F-1 car costs.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/18/2011 9:13, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 100 MPH is two cars in a head-on collision doing only 50 MPH, remember.

No it isn't.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:22:05 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/18/2011 9:13, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 100 MPH is two cars in a head-on collision doing only 50 MPH, remember.
> 
> No it isn't.

50 MPH each, that is.  Yes, the rate of closure is 100 MPH.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/18/2011 10:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:22:05 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 4/18/2011 9:13, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 100 MPH is two cars in a head-on collision doing only 50 MPH, remember.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
> 50 MPH each, that is.  Yes, the rate of closure is 100 MPH.

But the collision of each car is the same as running into a wall at 50MPH. 
So making it safe for a 50MPH crash means making it safe for two cars, each 
going 50MPH, to run head on into each other.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:39:14 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/18/2011 10:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:22:05 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/18/2011 9:13, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> 100 MPH is two cars in a head-on collision doing only 50 MPH,
>>>> remember.
>>>
>>> No it isn't.
>>
>> 50 MPH each, that is.  Yes, the rate of closure is 100 MPH.
> 
> But the collision of each car is the same as running into a wall at
> 50MPH. So making it safe for a 50MPH crash means making it safe for two
> cars, each going 50MPH, to run head on into each other.

Oh, I see what you're saying - yes, the damage to each car isn't the same 
as the damage to one car hitting a wall at 100 MPH.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/17/2011 2:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/17/2011 14:10, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> No, all too many of them are arguing worse.
>
> Yes, but I don't think that's serious debate over the reality. That's
> just lying.
>
Hard to tell sometimes. Some people really are just that nuts.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/17/2011 2:40 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/17/2011 14:16, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The problem isn't that people
>> "shipping" to California would match those standards, its that people 10
>> feet across a damn state line don't have to. :p
>
> My point is that it's hard to buy a car outside of California that
> doesn't match California standards, because it's too expensive to retool
> for two different versions of the cars any more. If you buy a Toyota
> while you live in Texas or New York, you're going to get one that meets
> CA emission standards. And you won't have to pay to bring it into CA.
>
> Maybe that's not the case with Detroit cars, but I would be surprised.
>
Well, I get your point. The problem, unfortunately, is old, used cars, 
in states that don't require those standards be "maintained". Net result 
= unless its a brand new car...

Post a reply to this message

On 18-4-2011 10:21, Invisible wrote:
>>> You've got to admit, when you read about stuff like people believing
>>> that ID is real science, it does make you wonder what kind of people
>>> live there.
>>
>> If you take ID to be the idea that some protein(complexe)s can not have
>> been evolved from earlier proteins, then that is a testable hypothesis.
>> Stating and researching that idea was real science.
>
> So there's a theory, the theory has been repeatedly proven wrong,

no it hasn't. All *cases* that have been put forward that should have 
shown support have in fact turned out to be in support of evolution. 
That does not prove there are none. For that to prove you need to 
examine all proteins that exist anywhere in nature.

> there's no particular reason to believe that it might be right in some
> unknown case,

You only say that because you 'believe' the theory and not the hypothesis.

> and yet people continue to assert the truth of this theory
> as *fact*? Doesn't sound very rational to me...

That is entirely a different matter. These people need not be the same 
as the ones that do the real research.

>> BTW would dissecting the cases brought forward by Behe at al. count as
>> spending time on ID? Because that would be an ideal way to teach
>> students how real science works.
>
> I commend the idea.
>
> Right along side showing how String Theory, despite looking far more
> professional than ID, is also not [yet] science.

I also disagree on that. String theory is pure maths. I tend to think 
that maths is a science.
I would agree that string theory is not physics yet.

> (And examining why it
> has the potential to /become/ science in a way that ID does not.)

Remember that in the unlikely case they do find an example of something 
that cannot have been evolved in an autonomous way, ID becomes science. 
We might think that it is just as unlikely as someone handing over the 
telephone number of God, but it might just happen.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 18-4-2011 10:10, Invisible wrote:
> On 15/04/2011 22:25, andrel wrote:
>
>> Oh no, that means that someone really believes that because the society
>> as a whole seems to have almost exactly the right amount of bakers,
>> plumbers and housewives that must imply that the society is designed by
>> a supreme being. And that the proof of that is that society is
>> irreducible complex because if you remove one group, the bakers or the
>> policeman, or the bus drivers, or... the whole thing stops working,
>> hence it cannot have been evolved.
>
> That's not gonna work. Society is composed of individuals with
> intelligence [allegedly].

The point is that to make it work someone has to understand it all and 
design it to make it function. Even if you had been intelligent, you 
would still not know how much wheat, oil and bakers you need and anyone 
who does, does not know how an engine works. So even if there is local 
knowledge you still need global knowledge to design a society.
(FYI I do not believe any of the above. I know society has evolved from 
something simpler, but as it is now, so many earlier parts are missing 
that it is hard to see how it came about. Starting with just the people 
living in a country then no matter how intelligent they are, they will 
not form a smoothly running society before most, if not all, died from 
starvation.)

> Complex things can only come about due to
> intelligence, so if unintelligent chemical soup becomes living,
> breathing complexity, it must be my invisible friend's intelligence that
> made it so.

OMG, invisible has an invisible friend.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

> In other words, there was no logical reason it couldn't have run from
> the power being still generated. Well, unless there was something in
> there so that, under disaster conditions, it "stopped" generating power,
> so shorts couldn't happen. Still... I don't get it.

It's just that the pumps were connected to the wrong power source.
You need that connection when you start the reactor to get everything in 
motion. But once started, any power plant, using ANY technology, must be 
self powered.

At Fukujima, it was'nt the case, and they payd dearly for that mistake.



Alain

Post a reply to this message