Random fact: I'm on Minecraft, and I'm bored..

But an S2000 has a LSD.

I'm going to try that. I really haven't been messing around with it a lot, you shouldn't be expected to.

Quote from RasmusL :

Obviously it's very different for some people, don't ask me why

Do you need more answers? I'm not saying Firefox is always shit. I've just never experienced it not being so since 3.0 came.

Obviously it's very different for some people, don't ask me why

I had some kind of issue with Firefox since around 3.0. I mean, it would hang and crash on me randomly and apparently leak memory too. I could let it stand around with a few tabs, and come back to it using 2 GB of memory, without any extensions.

Chrome for me just reacts instantly, never hangs or crashes, starts much faster and now even has extensions

I just tried Chrome for the hell of it.. IT HAS EXTENSIONS NOW.
Goodbye forever Firefox. Once upon a time, people chose Firefox because it was lean, responsive and better than IE. Now it's just a huge resource hogging monster.
It would be hard for me to claim today that it's better than IE 9.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsyakt_DduE

Oh god lolol.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

shaking the whole car from the POWAH.

I had a VW Polo 1.6, at speeds around idle the WHOLE car was shaking. The gear lever would be rattling all over the place when in neutral at a red light. Obviously caused by the massive power of a 15 year old 1.6l engine

3 or 4 tabs with Flash..
Yeah Flash sucks donkey balls, but you can't really avoid it. I don't want FlashBlock, I use Flash a lot

Also 20 tabs is when I'm just starting out.
I never close firefox, and when it's been a long time since I've closed old tabs I can have 100

I have 6 gb ram, Firefox 4 with like 20 tabs open consumes 1-2 gb of that..
And sometimes up to 50% cpu on 3.1 GHz dual-core.

Really is a huge resource hog for a browser.. I would switch instantly to Opera if I could have Adblock Plus And Greasemonkey.

On topic (unlike all you guys)..

Vaski - Murder

Justin Bieber.

Your friend studied at a Uni for an office job, then doesn't want anything to do with an office?

Quote from BlueFlame :

Come to think of it guys, I don't think I ever went full throttle until the rev limiter in first gear, so my point was invalid.

I hope that RB4 doesn't go for the apex Apparently in LFS rally we race in both directions at the same time :O

Well, Chernobyl had no primary containment, just the vessel and secondary containment..

Also I didn't say Chernobyl was like a nuclear bomb. Obviously it wasn't designed to be a bomb, the enrichment is quite low compared to weapons-grade.
The mechanism is the same. Chernobyl achieved prompt criticality, raising the core temperature by thousands of degrees in milliseconds.
Bombs strive to achieve prompt criticality really fast. That's how they explode.

Again, Fukushima will never attain prompt criticality. Worst-case scenario IMO is fire in the spent fuel store. Which is what has now happened TWICE in reactor 4.

Last edited by RasmusL, Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:10.

Simply containing MOX will not make it worse than Chernobyl. Chernobyl's fuel literally exploded in a criticality event, the closest you'll get to a nuclear bomb in a power plant. This spread the entire reactor contents out everywhere.

A meltdown in a reactor containing MOX will, as long as the vessel OR primary containment OR secondary containment (just one) is intact, release basically no radioactive material.
There is practically 0 risk of any Japanese plant going critical. An actual core explosion won't happen.

That makes good sense..

While gamma rays will pass through walls etc, radioactive particles in the air will be quite limited compared to outside.

Well, we're certainly not going to die There's no nuclear apocalypse now, at least not because of Fukushima. The local area and perhaps a significant part of Japan might be seriously affected though.

Sadly the accident hit the worst possible place - Fukushima is one of the oldest running nuclear power plants in the world. The vessel is still the original one from 1967, a Mark 1 from GE. Not the best case scenario to start off with.

Edit: Aaaand I just heard a reactor has caught fire again, this time spreading radioactive material outside. Great.

Quote from Shotglass :

i rather doubt that an event that has a miniscule probability of happening even in japan really factors into the fault probability of one of these power plants by any significant amount

Miniscule probabilies MUST be calculated for nuclear power plants. A fault can lead to a huge area being uninhabitable for centuries. If an event is so possible that it has a maybe 1% chance of happening during the plants lifetime, it should absolutely be made able to resist it. If a 9.0 earthquake happens every 10000 years in Japan (number pulled from nowhere), and the plants lifetime is 100 years (probably longer though), it should be engineered to cope with this event IMO.

There was a huge flaw in the Fukushima plant. The plant was NOT made to resist an earthquake and a tsunami at once. Probably even the tsunami alone would molest the plant. The word tsunami even comes from Japan, and they didn't know tsunamis happen with big earthquakes? Some engineers need to rethink their careers.

I'm in.

Current team..

Driver 1: Buemi (STR)
Driver 2: Trulli (Lot)
Chassis: T128 (Lotus)
Engine: RS27-2011 (Lotus)
Fuel: BP (Wil, His, Vir)

Oh god do want.

Quadruple post **** yea.

A few insurance companies here are non-profit.. They only keep the prices at a level to make it go around, and if they earn a profit in a given year it gets paid back equally to all members.
Seems like the best way to go about it tbh..

It's still cheaper for a young girl to insure her car compared to a young guy though.

Danish people are that short?