Have you ever thought that maybe the muslims don´t want to reform their countrys or use the same system as the western democracys? You can´t just force your view of the world on other cultures and expect them to accept it with open arms. For example the Russians people seem to be very happy living in an undemocratic country which is agressive against it´s neighbours, has no free press, constant propaganda and one great glorious leader. And their culture isn´t even that different from the western world.
On the sidenote I wouldn´t call USA a proper democracy because they use plurality voting system which means A LOT of votes just go missing and they give too much power to one person. But if that´s the way you like it then go ahead. Who am I to tell you how to run your country? Just like who are you to tell the Muslims how to run their country?
Do Europeans pay taxes to the state AND the union?
As far as I know people only pay to the "state" (we call them countrys) and each country pays some to the union. Which is good for us. Germany and other big rich countrys pay for most of the EU budget and the smaller countrys cash in. I think we´ve got more money from EU than we´ve given them.
If there is a disaster in portugal, will the other states pay for it?
Not all of it. In the new treaty there is a point that in case of a disaster other countrys should help but I don´t know to which extent. The suffering country will pay for most of it. Overall I think it´s a good thing.
Does one state have the power to tax more than the others?
As far as I know, yes. The taxes in Sweden or Denmark for example are much higher than here(but they get good health care, free education, good infrastructure, big pensions, etc...)
Will there be no more borders?
If a country wishes to join the Schengen Agreement then there will be no borders. Some countrys have refused to do so, like UK.
Will this take all the money from all the states and put them in one pot?
Not all, some.
Will states be able to make different laws than other states?
If the law won´t contradict the EU laws then yes. Atleast that´s how it is now. Maybe this treaty will change something.
The only problem I see is people may lose their national identity.
I seriously doubt that. We survived 50 years under the soviet rule. Had to live through russification and thousands of immigrants and didn´t lose our national identity.
The biggest problem in the US is bureaucracy, people are being paid to do nothing except make damn sure that nothing gets done.
The bureaucracy is indeed a problem.[/quote]
As far as I know people only pay to the "state" (we call them countrys) and each country pays some to the union. Which is good for us. Germany and other big rich countrys pay for most of the EU budget and the smaller countrys cash in. I think we´ve got more money from EU than we´ve given them.
If there is a disaster in portugal, will the other states pay for it?
Not all of it. In the new treaty there is a point that in case of a disaster other countrys should help but I don´t know to which extent. The suffering country will pay for most of it. Overall I think it´s a good thing.
Does one state have the power to tax more than the others?
As far as I know, yes. The taxes in Sweden or Denmark for example are much higher than here(but they get good health care, free education, good infrastructure, big pensions, etc...)
Will there be no more borders?
If a country wishes to join the Schengen Agreement then there will be no borders. Some countrys have refused to do so, like UK.
Will this take all the money from all the states and put them in one pot?
Not all, some.
Will states be able to make different laws than other states?
If the law won´t contradict the EU laws then yes. Atleast that´s how it is now. Maybe this treaty will change something.
The only problem I see is people may lose their national identity.
I seriously doubt that. We survived 50 years under the soviet rule. Had to live through russification and thousands of immigrants and didn´t lose our national identity.
The biggest problem in the US is bureaucracy, people are being paid to do nothing except make damn sure that nothing gets done.
The bureaucracy is indeed a problem.[/quote]
The way I undestood it is that the organizers provide the cars for the competitors for the race. Since this is autocross and people take turns to have a go then theoretically everyone can use the same car.
[edit] Too slow.
I do have a question though. If you brake something on the car, do you have to pay for it yourself?
There doesn´t seem to be much change. Isn´t the EU constitution superior to local constitutions even now? And if it isn´t and it becomes after the treaty, what´s the big deal. It´s not as if the EU constitution is much different from the local one´s.
I like the fact you can cross borders without sitting in lines for 10 hours(Polish - Lithuanian border anyone), that you can use the same currency in most of countrys(although not here yet) and that a small country like mine has some economical and overall security from belonging in EU instead of being left alone. Especially with Russia going nuts lately.
I agree with Victor that putting something like that on a referendum isn´t going to produce any results. The EU is confusing, I don´t fully understand it and there are so many members. If every country made a referendum on everything, then there´s bound to be atleast one in which the negative propaganda would make people vote "no" and that would be enough to kill it off.
Also noone is going to loose their national identidy if they don´t want to. Everyone will keep their own language, education system, national symbols, etc. The EU is mainly an economic union. And if you use your countrys economy policy as source for your national identidy, then... you´re weird.
And if the things would indeed turn tits up then every member can always use this new opportunity in the treaty:
"The treaty introduces an exit clause for members wanting to withdraw from the Union."
I would vote "yes" btw.
I like the fact you can cross borders without sitting in lines for 10 hours(Polish - Lithuanian border anyone), that you can use the same currency in most of countrys(although not here yet) and that a small country like mine has some economical and overall security from belonging in EU instead of being left alone. Especially with Russia going nuts lately.
I agree with Victor that putting something like that on a referendum isn´t going to produce any results. The EU is confusing, I don´t fully understand it and there are so many members. If every country made a referendum on everything, then there´s bound to be atleast one in which the negative propaganda would make people vote "no" and that would be enough to kill it off.
Also noone is going to loose their national identidy if they don´t want to. Everyone will keep their own language, education system, national symbols, etc. The EU is mainly an economic union. And if you use your countrys economy policy as source for your national identidy, then... you´re weird.
And if the things would indeed turn tits up then every member can always use this new opportunity in the treaty:
"The treaty introduces an exit clause for members wanting to withdraw from the Union."
I would vote "yes" btw.
Errr... no he didn´t. He said that people are more likely to watch ads when they´re in the middle of a program. The more people that watch the ads, the more money advertisers pay to the TV broadcaster.
A bit off topic but the two major commercial televisions in Estonia seem to make ad breaks at exactly the same time. Maybe they have some sort of evil agreement to prevent people from switching channels during ad breaks. Or maybe I´m just paranoid.
Noone(almost noone, there´s bound to be some weirdos) likes the ads but that´s where they get their money so we´ll have to live with it.
It´s all relative. Compared to an MX5...
I believe those classes are meant to be about all religions. Christianity, Islam, Budism, Hinduism, etc. Atleast that´s how the goverment wanted to implement those classes here but it didn´t go down very well with the public so I haven´t heard about that law anymore in recent times. The other thing is that I´m sure those classes would turn into Lutherian propaganda because only religious people would be interested in teaching those classes. And since the most common religion here is Lutherism then I´d guess most of teachers would be Lutherans. Maybe that´s what happened to Niko. I find it hard to believe that the Finns would implement mandatory Christian-learning or whatever you´d call it. I had a class about religion in the third grade. It wasn´t mandatory but I was young and stupid and thought it was so I took it. It was all about Christianity.
I´m an Atheist btw.
... and if the treadmill is moving at 10 mph then the wheels are moving at 15 mph.
If the treadmill moves at 15 mph then the wheels are moving at 20 mph...
See a pattern?
It´s impossible for the conveier to match the speed of the wheels (unless the speed of the wheels is 0). As explained here:
I call it inventing stuff. Nowhere in the riddle does it even hint that having two combinations of ages that add up to the same number(the number of the house next door) means that the answer must be one of those two.
And to quote Tristan in this thread:
And my point is that the riddle does not make sense.
Exactly.
No, you assume that the number of the house next door is relevant. Besides the number would be relevant with all the combinations, not just with the ages that give 13 as a sum. So that doesn´t narrow it down at all.
Again, you assume that the fact can be used. Also the eldest son isn´t one of the twins in all combinations except the 1,6,6. So that still leaves a bunch of possible answers.
You´re thinking too much like a human and adding information yourself (like the two 13´s are relevant) because otherwise the riddle wouldn´t make sense. If you think like a computer and don´t make any assumptions but rely on cold hard facts (like you should in these riddles) then there is no single answer.
Also the argument that all the information in the text must be relevant to the solution doesn´t hold up. There´s always atleast a little bit of irrelevant stuff in these riddles. Otherwise they would become too obvious. For example, in this case the irrelevant pieces of information are that there were boys and one of them plays drums. Those don´t add anything to the solution but fooled some of you who used the arguments "that´s not a boy anymore" and "he´s too young to play drums" when excluding the age combinations.
You do.
Otherwise all these answers would work as proven by Kurent earlier.
1,1,36 = 38
1,2,18 = 21
1,3,12 = 16
1,4,9 = 14
2,2,9 = 13
2,3,6 = 11
3,3,4 = 10
Only 1,6,6 is excluded because there must be one older brother.
Now by adding the fact that a person who knows the house number doesn´t know the answerand needs more information leaves only these options:
1,6,6 = 13
2,2,9 = 13
Because any other option would mean that by knowing the house number you know the ages. But since there are two 13´s, it means you don´t know the ages. Yet.
And the fact that there is one older brother excludes the 1,6,6. That means the only option is: 2,2,9.
The riddle in the first post is unsolvable.
The one in the first post is. You did a good a job and understood the point of the riddle and got the "right" answer but presented in a way that it is in the first post, it hasn´t got one single answer and it is indeed flawed and pointless. Look at TechAde´s second link and see how the riddle is properly presented.
Kurent is right and Tristan is wrong! The riddle in the first post is flawed and can not be solved in that form. You don´t need to know the number of the house next door. However you need to know the fact that a person who knows the number needed to know more information at first but the riddle was solvable when he was told there was an eldest son. 2,2,9 is correct. Just read the best answer on TechAde´s second link. It´s explained better there.
It´s not true.
It´s a big piss take that people took seriously and now believe it.
I´ve never been down south either but I´ve read the wikipedia article posted in this thread and seen the "Brainiac" episode where they tested this myth and found out it was completely random and the direction of waterflow had more to do with the shape of the sink instead of the hemisphere on which the sink is located.
No problem.
Sounds like sponsorship to me.
If it´s a partnership then shouldn´t 500servers get something too? Looks more like a sponsorship to me. 
Anyway, congrats I guess.
Anyway, congrats I guess.
If you Brits weren´t so afraid of foreigners and would sign up with the Schengen Agreement then it would be no problem.
To be fair Heidfeld got very unlucky at turn one when Trulli forced him very very wide making him loose several places. Kubica on the other hand had a good start and had the track all to himself for the entire race. Don´t get me wrong, Kubica was better in this race but I think calling one´s performance brilliant and other´s a failure is a bit harsh.
Renault was a competitive car when he was there. Not yet a championship winning car but still good. And look how that ended up.
Heidfeld was disturbed by both McLarens. After he passed Hamilton moved off the racing line and Alonso was disturbed only by Kovalainen.
And I agree with Hyperactive. The old 60 minute free quali wasn´t really good. It was just backmarkers showing their sponsor logos for the first 30-40 minutes. And a real madness in the last few minutes.
I meant the part where all wars and fighting were stopped for the Olympic games.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG