I guess not, as the rumours of Haidser being gay didn't really errupt until way after Cohen invented Bruno.
He is right though. Wood heatings are very inefficient but very polluting.
So, gettin something proper, like for example geothermal, would solve two problems at once.
Why are they bancrupt then?
Well, you didn't have to be a genius to know that oil prices are a) prone to sudden change, and b) are rising constantly. Heck, since the oil crisis in the 70ies there was plenty of time to come up with solutions to possible future problems like we face today.
So IMHO it's just the result of a long history of bad strategy and politics, and well deserved.
I do pity the thousands of people who will lose their jobs in the wake of this.
Come on, Austria isn't what most people consider a flat country (with Alps and all that), but I have yet to encounter a single road I couldn't manage with an "underpowered cardboard box".
As long as you don't need to drive offroad, there's absolutely no need for a big 4wd car.
Also, it's a fatal misconception that driving an SUV is safer than driving an ordinary modern car. It's just that with driving an SUV, you make it more dangerous for those who drive ordinary cars which are perfectly safe as long as they don't crash into some huge SUV.
I can't wait to see Sasha Baron Cohens next movie 
Fot the PC. And GT5 isn't out and prologue is a bad joke.
hmmm, I am not really quickly embarassed, and I find it rather easy to engage people in conversations, so I really don't have much to tell, except a few things happening in foreign countries.
Case 1) Back in school, when I was 16, we had an exchange with a school in Mauriac (beautiful Departement de Cantal, France). After an exhausting 21 sleepless hours in the bus, I was welocomed with what must have been the feast of the year for my host family: doves.
Too bad I can't eat fowl or gnaw meat from bones without getting seriously unwell. Even the sight of otherwise deliciusly grilled birds makes me nearly vomit. And so there was something in front of me that I can only describe as a mass grave of small birds, which made me almost barf on the table.
Thankfully I could pretend that I was travel sick from the long bus voyage, so it wasn't rally that much of a problem. I still feel sorry today though, as I guess it was a huge hassle to prepare such a meal, and I couldn't appreciate it.
Case 2) London, Oxford Street, two years later. Another exchange program with the Sir Frances Bardsley school for girls in Romfort. Again, I have to explain a little: My first name is Norbert, and in class, people called me "Nob", which has no other meaning whatsoever in german. Well, the thing is different in english speaking countries, and the girls (three of them, and not too shabby looking) told me so. Now I actually quite enjoyed the situation as it was obviosuly awkward for them.
My blushing moment was on day two or three there, as already said, in Oxford Street, where my best friend back then saw something interesting and started yelling my surname at the top of his voice to inform me...
Case 3) Well, everything in Finland. Honestly, you Suomilainen don't talk to people. Period. Heck, I've been to funerals in Austria which were more joyful than a standard bus ride in Tampere. Nobody's talking, not even to people they know, no eye contact, no greetings. How do fins get to know new people, as they all don't start conversations?
Case 1) Back in school, when I was 16, we had an exchange with a school in Mauriac (beautiful Departement de Cantal, France). After an exhausting 21 sleepless hours in the bus, I was welocomed with what must have been the feast of the year for my host family: doves.
Too bad I can't eat fowl or gnaw meat from bones without getting seriously unwell. Even the sight of otherwise deliciusly grilled birds makes me nearly vomit. And so there was something in front of me that I can only describe as a mass grave of small birds, which made me almost barf on the table.
Thankfully I could pretend that I was travel sick from the long bus voyage, so it wasn't rally that much of a problem. I still feel sorry today though, as I guess it was a huge hassle to prepare such a meal, and I couldn't appreciate it.
Case 2) London, Oxford Street, two years later. Another exchange program with the Sir Frances Bardsley school for girls in Romfort. Again, I have to explain a little: My first name is Norbert, and in class, people called me "Nob", which has no other meaning whatsoever in german. Well, the thing is different in english speaking countries, and the girls (three of them, and not too shabby looking) told me so. Now I actually quite enjoyed the situation as it was obviosuly awkward for them.
My blushing moment was on day two or three there, as already said, in Oxford Street, where my best friend back then saw something interesting and started yelling my surname at the top of his voice to inform me...
Case 3) Well, everything in Finland. Honestly, you Suomilainen don't talk to people. Period. Heck, I've been to funerals in Austria which were more joyful than a standard bus ride in Tampere. Nobody's talking, not even to people they know, no eye contact, no greetings. How do fins get to know new people, as they all don't start conversations?
I'm clearly a Nostalgiafag. Too bad it ain't in the poll
I just don't get why driving a manual is more active than driving an automatic. Ok, I give it to you that you have to do more stuff to keep going. But at least for me, 99% of the gear changes I do, I do without actively thinking about it, thus, I don't think it makes me more alert than an automatic driver.
Additionally, if you have to think about changing gears, it's definately distracting you from the traffic around you, thus it would be more advisable to use an automatic.
Also, the lack of alertness doesn't come from not using a gear lever, but from monotony.
Additionally, if you have to think about changing gears, it's definately distracting you from the traffic around you, thus it would be more advisable to use an automatic.
Also, the lack of alertness doesn't come from not using a gear lever, but from monotony.
I find the notion quite amusing that some in here equalize the ability to change gears manually with being a better driver... Honestly, most europeans should know that the truth couldn't be further away.
Ah, the sweet agony of teenage love. How I miss those times of completely dissolving into self pity
No worries, you'll get over it, and most likely you will suffer and cause much heart pain untilo you grow older than 25.
No worries, you'll get over it, and most likely you will suffer and cause much heart pain untilo you grow older than 25.
Hmm. Anybody know what happened of Racing Legends?
The thread is a very nice find
The thread is a very nice find
Just a small self bump, as it has some not racing game related entries as well
It's because GTA limits your settings according to your system. IIRC, high texture settings are unlocked if you have at least 1024 mb GPU memory.
Watched Wilbur wants to kill himself recently. Touching and funny movie, worth seeing.
So, what makes your Granddad cling to being a catholic, even though he himself sees that it's falsified in so many places?
Now don't get me wrong, I don't want to insult your granddad or you. It's IMHO just one of those thousands of cases were a membership to a religious group is down to tradition rather than belief or conviction.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't want to insult your granddad or you. It's IMHO just one of those thousands of cases were a membership to a religious group is down to tradition rather than belief or conviction.
Well, that's more like a side-effect of how lax the churches have become nowadays.
If he doesn't believe everything the roman catholic church proclaims to the letter, he is in fact no roman catholic. He might be calling himself a catholic, and he might believe he is one, but, and that's the thing about beliefs, it sure doesn't make him one.
In darker times, he would've faced a fiery death at the stakes for the "blasphemies" you describe.
And it doesn't matter what religion you're coming from. As soon as you disagree with it, and be it in less important points than the nature of god (which should actually be the most important common factor for all followers of a religion), you're not part of it anymore, be it officially aknowledged or not.
I mean, that's the point in a religion, isn't it? Believing in it, following it, taking part in it's rituals. If you don't do that what makes you being a part of it?
If he doesn't believe everything the roman catholic church proclaims to the letter, he is in fact no roman catholic. He might be calling himself a catholic, and he might believe he is one, but, and that's the thing about beliefs, it sure doesn't make him one.
In darker times, he would've faced a fiery death at the stakes for the "blasphemies" you describe.
And it doesn't matter what religion you're coming from. As soon as you disagree with it, and be it in less important points than the nature of god (which should actually be the most important common factor for all followers of a religion), you're not part of it anymore, be it officially aknowledged or not.
I mean, that's the point in a religion, isn't it? Believing in it, following it, taking part in it's rituals. If you don't do that what makes you being a part of it?
Actually, it's the other way round, you don't really get what I am saying.
Religion does not equal chrisitan belief. A religion is a system of beliefs.
You have formed your own system of beliefs, thus you have created your own independent religion.
Also, it doesn't have to do anything with right or wrong, because if it had, again, there wouldn't be any form of religion. Unless the point would be to be wrong.
Religion does not equal chrisitan belief. A religion is a system of beliefs.
You have formed your own system of beliefs, thus you have created your own independent religion.
Also, it doesn't have to do anything with right or wrong, because if it had, again, there wouldn't be any form of religion. Unless the point would be to be wrong.
Nope, read any writing about god, be it the bible, the Qu'ran, anything. It's always a person, or, if you like to go polytheistic, multiple persons.
The whole concept of religion wouldn't work if it wouldn't regard gods as persons who act with intentions and decide. A blob of energy can't do both these things, thus it can't be a god, even if it was the source of the universe.
Let me explain it with the ordinary sun cult: people think the sun is a god. As a god, it's likely to have quirks and bad moods. Thus, the "god" has to be pleased with sacrifices and prayers, so it doesn't one day decide "**** it" and refuses to go up in the morning, making everyone really misreable until they die of cold or lack of oxygen. Thus, rituals are developed to constantly please the god.
Now take out the concept of a god being a person with needs, intetions and moods, and what's left? nothing, because there would be nothing that has to be pleased.
So in short: Without the concept of a person as a god, there would be any religions at all. So, if you take out the "person", you also take out "god".
EDIT to answer your edited post: Even if god is "just" the creator, he/she/it would still need a mind, because a mind is the basic premise for "creativity". If a stone falls into water, does it "create" the ripples, or does it "cause" them? That might be semtantics, but to me, it's still an important point, as it pronounces the difference between chance and design. So even that creator god would be a "person" in the widest definition.
And yes, because you define god differently, you are in fact in a religion. You might be the only member of it, and thus also the prophet and head of it, it still would be a religion. Just because you don't have a strict set of rules and rituals doesn't make it less religious, it just makes it less official.
Last edited by ColeusRattus, .
Oh yes I am! A god is by definition a quasi omnipotent scentient person. A high energy entity with no "personality" and no intentions thus doesn't qualify as a god. Also, you can't reject the concept of religion without rejecting the concept of god, because as soon as you believe in any form of a god, you're in a religion, no matter how it's organised and how many members it has. So you'd basically just have a religion for your own.
And Tristan: Well, I know that it's just as plausible that the universe is infinte on both directions on the time axis as having a point to start somewhere. I think the latest trend in the univers' origin is the string theory, with multiverses colliding and thus generating new universes with different orientations in the space time continuum. Which might be true, but I lack the brains to wrap them around it
Last edited by ColeusRattus, .
Anyone care to explain who David Williams is supposed to be?
What's so special about David Williams? google didn't come up with anything useful.
hmm, not too many, I suppose, and all quite old:
1990 VW Passat B3 GL Variant, 70 bhp turbo-diesel. My very first and favourite car. Sturdy, lightweight for a huge car as it hadn't much electronics in it, and the engine was very torquey until 3,500 rpm, so it got up to it's maximum speed quite quickly. Sadly, the engine gave in after 320.000 km. Used it as a "camping" car to go to rock festivals, thanks to it being a wagon. It's the only car I really miss having.
1992 VW Vento, same 70 bhp turbo-diesel. I got it as a replacement for the Passat. Was reasonably fun to drive being lighter than the Passat, still, there are two reasons that I didn't really like it: 1) Buying it used, it had a stupid fart can (on a diesel, d'oh), a spoiler and car colour matching alloys. In short: it was quite riced. I still grew to like the spoiler though, as it helped with parallel parking, as the stock saloon rear would've made judgeing the distance to the car behind harder.
2) I could've gotten a red Audi A4 Avant with 114 bhp for the same money. But back then, my parents still had a say and deemed it too dangerous for me. In retrospect, they were propably right. Still, it was red and a wagon, so it would have felt like a proper replacement for the Passat.
1994 Citroen BX, 90 bhp turbo-diesel. Looks good on paper: my most high powered car, lot's of extras like A/C, ABS, electric windows, hydropneumatic suspension. But it was the most rubbish car I have ever driven. The engine, even though presumably more powerfull, didn't create any torque at all. I was often left standing by biciclists at traffic lights. Most of the time, the gadgets weren't working, most annoyingly the suspension and the power steering. The strange part about the steering was that when it stopped working, it was as hard to turn as the wheel of a car without power steering at standstill, even when the Citroen was moving.
The suspension was rubbish beyond belief: when not working, it nearly broke my back, and the rare times it did work, it felt like a boat. And it cost quite a lot to fix. Also, once the breaks failed completely, so I had to carefully come home using the engine and hand break.
1995 Toyota Corolla XLI 16V, 88 bhp 4banger, 3 door hatchback. The car I have now for three years, or 180.000 km (has about 300.000 km on it). Can't complain, it's reasonably sporty, sturdy, cheap, lot's of extras like A/C, electric windows and sunroof, seat heating, etc. Sadly, it's slowly starting to show it's age, as something with the exhaust is wrong since a few weeks ago, and I haven't the money right now to fix it. Sounds like a ricer's car for the moment. Also, since this winter, some rusty patches start to appear, so instead of fixing it, I might just get me another car.
1990 VW Passat B3 GL Variant, 70 bhp turbo-diesel. My very first and favourite car. Sturdy, lightweight for a huge car as it hadn't much electronics in it, and the engine was very torquey until 3,500 rpm, so it got up to it's maximum speed quite quickly. Sadly, the engine gave in after 320.000 km. Used it as a "camping" car to go to rock festivals, thanks to it being a wagon. It's the only car I really miss having.
1992 VW Vento, same 70 bhp turbo-diesel. I got it as a replacement for the Passat. Was reasonably fun to drive being lighter than the Passat, still, there are two reasons that I didn't really like it: 1) Buying it used, it had a stupid fart can (on a diesel, d'oh), a spoiler and car colour matching alloys. In short: it was quite riced. I still grew to like the spoiler though, as it helped with parallel parking, as the stock saloon rear would've made judgeing the distance to the car behind harder.
2) I could've gotten a red Audi A4 Avant with 114 bhp for the same money. But back then, my parents still had a say and deemed it too dangerous for me. In retrospect, they were propably right. Still, it was red and a wagon, so it would have felt like a proper replacement for the Passat.
1994 Citroen BX, 90 bhp turbo-diesel. Looks good on paper: my most high powered car, lot's of extras like A/C, ABS, electric windows, hydropneumatic suspension. But it was the most rubbish car I have ever driven. The engine, even though presumably more powerfull, didn't create any torque at all. I was often left standing by biciclists at traffic lights. Most of the time, the gadgets weren't working, most annoyingly the suspension and the power steering. The strange part about the steering was that when it stopped working, it was as hard to turn as the wheel of a car without power steering at standstill, even when the Citroen was moving.
The suspension was rubbish beyond belief: when not working, it nearly broke my back, and the rare times it did work, it felt like a boat. And it cost quite a lot to fix. Also, once the breaks failed completely, so I had to carefully come home using the engine and hand break.
1995 Toyota Corolla XLI 16V, 88 bhp 4banger, 3 door hatchback. The car I have now for three years, or 180.000 km (has about 300.000 km on it). Can't complain, it's reasonably sporty, sturdy, cheap, lot's of extras like A/C, electric windows and sunroof, seat heating, etc. Sadly, it's slowly starting to show it's age, as something with the exhaust is wrong since a few weeks ago, and I haven't the money right now to fix it. Sounds like a ricer's car for the moment. Also, since this winter, some rusty patches start to appear, so instead of fixing it, I might just get me another car.
Last edited by ColeusRattus, .
"how often do I have to tell you, Fisi: what happens in the showers, STAYS in the showers!"
I disagree, gills. You can't break down the existence of god down to a definition.
The universe we see around us has to come from somewhere, as the most acknowledged theories proclaim, and as our finite mind can't really cope with infinity and thus needs a "beginning". Seeing the vastness of it, and the mass and energy it contains, let alone the force that ignited the spark of life and makes it thrive forward and evolve, makes it quite clear that whatever the source of the universe and ultimately us was, it needed to be an almost uncomprehensibly tremendous source of energy (even more so if there wasn't any mass to begin with).
Now here comes the definition part in: was that source merely a natural phenomenon that triggered a reaction which lead to our universe and life simply by chance.
Or was it rather willfully designing the universe?
I for one think it was the first, as God per "definition" is a scentient being, thus, even a theoretical blob made out of all the energy and mass in the universe wouldn't qualify, as it would lack a consciousness. Saying that the source of our universe had a plan in creating it seems to me about as plausible as the sun willfully and deliberately shaping clouds in our sky.
Still, seeing the source of our universe as god isn't as utterly stupid as believing in an anthropoid old guy creating us from his image. Speaking of which, that wouldn't make god anthropoid, but rather us theoid.
The universe we see around us has to come from somewhere, as the most acknowledged theories proclaim, and as our finite mind can't really cope with infinity and thus needs a "beginning". Seeing the vastness of it, and the mass and energy it contains, let alone the force that ignited the spark of life and makes it thrive forward and evolve, makes it quite clear that whatever the source of the universe and ultimately us was, it needed to be an almost uncomprehensibly tremendous source of energy (even more so if there wasn't any mass to begin with).
Now here comes the definition part in: was that source merely a natural phenomenon that triggered a reaction which lead to our universe and life simply by chance.
Or was it rather willfully designing the universe?
I for one think it was the first, as God per "definition" is a scentient being, thus, even a theoretical blob made out of all the energy and mass in the universe wouldn't qualify, as it would lack a consciousness. Saying that the source of our universe had a plan in creating it seems to me about as plausible as the sun willfully and deliberately shaping clouds in our sky.
Still, seeing the source of our universe as god isn't as utterly stupid as believing in an anthropoid old guy creating us from his image. Speaking of which, that wouldn't make god anthropoid, but rather us theoid.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG