You'll be hard-pressed to find a WR set with a mouse. There is one at BL1/R, and it's not even a demo combo. The rest use a wheel at that track.

I feel it's a bit misleading to say a type of control scheme is better because it allows you to flick the steering quicker. You lose an awful lot of precision in doing so. You should only really need to flick the steering if you screw up. If you can be precise enough to not need to flick the steering, chances are you'll be faster, all else being equal.

Try this:
https://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=46131

It's definitely a wheel set and although the time is now 1.22 seconds (~101%) off the WR on a 2 minute lap, it's still pretty quick. Also, the set was developed for racing, meaning it had to be able to wear down a set of tires and at least half a tank of fuel without any major issues, so it's probably more stable than your typical WR set.

Last edited by Forbin, Sun 27 Apr 2014, 04:54.

Quote from Chrisuu01 :

I was accelerating out of this corner when my bike lowsided.
https://www.google.nl/maps/@51 ... 7Hz1U9_Pm9dY7bPia3iQw!2e0

My left knee hit one of those beige stones at of the road's edge.
The protector in my motorcycle trousers was literally shattered.

The internal armour or external knee puck?

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

RAID isn't a backup strategy.

Not strictly speaking, no. It's data redundancy that protects against hardware failure, but not software issues. I generally have more problems with the former than the latter.

I have two WD Black 2TB internal drives connected to an LSI 9260-4i card in a RAID1 configuration.

The fundamental principles are the same though. The goals are just a little different.

Last edited by Forbin, Tue 11 Mar 2014, 15:23.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Look at planes - they always fly with their wings at 15° AoA. Don't they??

Also, I didn't say that zero AoA is 'best' in any way, shape or form. You don't run a flat wing at high angles of attack, cars and planes do run profiles at lots of angles - the profile is the more important part.

Planes vary their AoA dramatically depending upon the needs of the current situation. In cruising situations, minimal drag is desired, which generally means minimal AoA. However, minimal AoA means going fairly fast. As speed increases, so too does drag, so it may in fact make sense to go slower and use a higher AoA for optimal efficiency. Likewise, if a heavy load is being carried, sitting at the optimal portion of the lift/drag curve is highly desirable, and this is accomplished via a relatively large AoA.

Primarily the airfoil profile and wingspan determine at what AoA that optimal lift/drag point occurs.

I do not understand the emphasis on not comparing a downforce device on a car with an airplane wing. The configuration of the former often resembles an airplane wing with its flaps down. Even the endplates resemble winglets, both of which are designed to reduce wingtip vortices.

Last edited by Forbin, Tue 11 Mar 2014, 14:06.

Quote from Racer Y :

Besides a process implies order. Order implies design and design implies intelligence. Unless you're implying that possible evolutionary outcomes don't occur unless it's determined by Divine will.

The bolded section (my emphasis) is a fallacy.

Please see section CF: Physics and Mathematics on this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Quote from Racer Y :

Think about how long it would take to go from Blue Jay to Cardinal or I dunno finch to sparrow?

This is an absurd statement. More likely is they evolved from a common ancestor and experienced genetic divergence.

Quote from Racer Y :

My guess as to how our development occurred in half a billion years (there. It sounds longer now). Is simply dumb luck. As if the changes happened at the right place at the right time.

It's not dumb luck. It's a process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory

Lack of sexual reproduction does not preclude generation of genetic variety and ultimately evolution. You have mutations, copy errors during mitosis, etc. These are not particularly slow processes.

Claim:
Evolution requires mutations, but mutations are rare.

Response:
- Very large mutations are rare, but mutations are ubiquitous. There is roughly 0.1 to 1 mutation per genome replication in viruses and 0.003 mutations per genome per replication in microbes. Mutation rates for higher organisms vary quite a bit between organisms, but excluding the parts of the genome in which most mutations are neutral (the junk DNA), the mutation rates are also roughly 0.003 per effective genome per cell replication. Since sexual reproduction involves many cell replications, humans have about 1.6 mutations per generation. This is likely an underestimate, because mutations with very small effect are easy to miss in the studies. Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has about 64 new mutations (Drake et al. 1998). Another estimate concludes 175 mutations per generation, including at least 3 deleterious mutations (Nachman and Crowell 2000).

(source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB100.html)

Further reading:
What Determines the Rate of Evolution?
Rates of Evolution

Last edited by Forbin, Thu 6 Mar 2014, 15:20.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Quantum physics has proven that once an experiment is observed the result is altered.

It's a bit more complex than that.

Misunderstandings of Quantum Mechanics may result in acceptance of Quantum woo.

Last edited by Forbin, Wed 5 Mar 2014, 04:19.

Quote from flymike91 :

...well-publicised scientific corruption that goes along with [global warming].

Sources please.

Quote from flymike91 :

Scientists are not always objective with the data, and also cannot be trusted if they have something to gain from publicising one conclusion over another. (public and private grant money) Look at the highly profitable science behind global warming. One conclusion gets public money because it generates expensive and powerful legislation, the other is discounted entirely to the point of outright hostility and hatred. It's not even a choice, going against the grain there is career suicide, just the same as scientists who examine the question of some kind of intervention in our evolutionary past.

Claim:
The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists' pay; they cannot be considered objective.

Response:
- Scientists get rewarded for overthrowing currently accepted ideas (if they can do so with evidence) and for proposing new theories that lead to new research. Any bias from material gain would be against the accepted theory of evolution.

- Many research scientists could make more money in industry. They do science because they enjoy it.

- The complaint applies equally to anti-evolutionists.

(source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA321_1.html)

Claim:
Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.

Response:
- The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution -- quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.

- Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

(source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA320.html)

Claim:
If our minds arose from lesser animals via natural processes, then our minds may be fallible. Then the conclusions that we come up with are subject to doubt, including the conclusion of evolution itself.
Darwin (1881) wrote in a letter, "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or are at all trustworthy."

Response:
- It is well established that the mind is fallible. Ordinary memory and reasoning are mistaken surprisingly often (Gilovich 1991; Schacter 2001). Pathologies add further complications (Sacks 1970). This fallibility exists whatever the source of our minds may be.

- Doubt exists in all areas of life. Nothing can be proven absolutely. However, many things are certain enough that we call them facts and do not worry about the possibility that they are wrong until we see actual evidence that they are wrong. Without such an attitude, we would never be able to get on with our lives.

- The fallibility of our minds argues more against creationism. Nobody can be certain of it either, and minds as imperfect as ours argue against their being divinely created.

- Darwin only applied this argument to questions beyond the scope of science. He thought science was well within the scope of a modified monkey brain.

(source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA120.html)

Last edited by Forbin, Tue 4 Mar 2014, 22:55.

I'm not sure if my post was entirely clear.

I am not a creationist.

The text of my post shows many claims made by creationists that are logically fallacious. Clicking each statement takes you to a page that demonstrates the reasoning behind why that claim is irrational.

Last edited by Forbin, Tue 4 Mar 2014, 21:11.

The text below shows many claims made by creationists that are logically fallacious. Clicking each statement takes you to a page that demonstrates the reasoning behind why that claim is irrational.

Main list of creationist claims and their rebuttals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html


Individual creationist claims related to your claims (click for the responses):

Quote from flymike91 :

Perhaps we monkey meat bags have as incomplete theories about evolution as we do about creationism.

"Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact."

"Problems with evolution ... ce for creationism."

Quote from flymike91 :

Life is too exquisitely engineered and complex to have spawned from the mud with no influence whatsoever imo.

"Life looks intelligently ... equires a designer."

"Design is self-evident. ... ur eyes and see it."

"Complexity indicates intelligent design."

"Systems are irreducibly ... they were designed."

"Even the simplest, most ... e arisen by chance."

"Some biochemical systems ... t must be designed."

"Complex organs and biolo ... d not have evolved."

Quote from flymike91 :

We could be expressions of an ancient beyond ancient language written in chemical code. If we found evidence of an ancient or extraterrestrial code as complex but separate from DNA we would not assume that it just appeared out of the stardust, it was created.

"The genetic code is a la ... n-material reality."

Last edited by Forbin, Tue 4 Mar 2014, 21:13.

What was up with the constant blue flame coming out of the exhaust on the 918?

I don't know why you'd buy a 260x for that price when the 750Ti is just as much money, just as fast (if not faster), runs cooler, and uses less power. Unless you really need DisplayPort and/or EyeFinity.

Quote from Fordman :

So the 750Ti would get me by for say 2yrs at the least. Thats when I will have to do a major upgrade and will be in a better position to do it.

It really depends what you want to play, at what resolution, and whether you can tolerate using less than maximum quality settings. Look up some reviews for benchmark results to show you how it fares in various apps. AnandTech is a good source.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/ ... nd-gtx-750-review-maxwell

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

Don't go for the 750. It's ridiculously underclocked, and crippled compared to the 760. You're better off saving up a bit of $/£/EUR to get a 760.

I'd avoid the 750, but the 750Ti is a decent card.

Right now is a bad time to buy AMD because all the bitcoin miners are snatching them up, driving prices up. AMD doesn't neuter double-precision compute to the same extent NVIDIA does, so they're better for bitcoin mining.

"Cryptocoin Mania has resulted in virtually every high-end AMD card being snatched up for mining. And with cryptocoin prices having risen to new levels in the last few months, the value of these cards as miners has exceeded their value as video cards, resulting in the demand spike. With video card prices now being almost unilaterally dictated by mining returns and electricity costs, the 280 series and 290 series are all running roughly $100 over MSRP." --AnandTech, http://anandtech.com/show/7703 ... buyers-guide-january-2014

Last edited by Forbin, Mon 3 Mar 2014, 19:36.

Quote from Bose321 :

I have an Asus P5Q-E. Doesn't matter which drivers are installed; onboard analog audio is just quite poor.

I was referring more to the optical out and support for multi-channel possibly being dependent upon driver revision.

Have you checked the 6ch/Stereo switch next to the optical input on the speakers?

Take a look at Page 4-30 (section 4, page 30) of the English motherboard manual, or page 146 (aka 4-30) of the English PDF.

http://support.asus.com/downlo ... hashedid=ogZlrSeVzUh9MKLO

My guess is there's something you're missing in the settings.

Which motherboard do you have? Do you have the latest audio drivers installed properly?

Failing that, maybe try a USB DAC? (digital to analog converter) Chances are a decent external DAC is going to be better than an internal soundcard. This is because a soundcard needs to have extra circuitry on it for an amplifier. There's little need to have a separate amplifier since your speakers have one built in and it sounds like you're happy with it.

Last edited by Forbin, Mon 3 Mar 2014, 16:47.

Put another way, have you ever seen a spinning Formula car lift off? (disregarding the Weber case in which contact was made)

Team Gay wins 6 medals.

http://www.autostraddle.com/we ... x-medals-at-sochi-225519/

It doesn't. We have no rational proof of any mystical karma, only social karma, tied to the attitudes of other people with regards to our actions. As an agnostic, I cannot entirely rule out mystical karma, but I would need some sort of scientific proof.

Also, as the wiki article states, practical applications of secular ethics rely upon game theory to gradually shift the definitions of what is good and bad. Since humans are complex and fallible creatures, this means you do sometimes see conflicts in ethical principles, or at least the practical applications thereof.

Last edited by Forbin, Mon 24 Feb 2014, 10:32.

Quote from Racer Y :

If there are no gods, then what defines these actions as good or bad and what is it that decides the punishment and rewards for these actions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

I believe a cable conversion is possible if it's that much of a barrier.