Quote from tristancliffe :

No, it's not obvious that there is something of huge mass. Obviously there is huge mass towards the middle, but nothing to say it's a single entity. Why can't it be lots of stars orbiting each other very very fast.

Well, science usually works like this:
1. You have an experiment, and you can't explain the result.
2. You make up a new theory (trial&error) that covers your result (without contradicting previous experiments)
3. You make predictions. (Your theory will have other consequences).
4. Until you find an experiment which contradicts your theory, it stands.

Now, back to topic, black holes are not a theory in this process, because there is, as you pointed out, indeed no direct need to have them. There is no experiment where the only solution would be a black hole. And more importantly, the thought that there might be black holes, is older than the thought they might sit in the center of each galaxy.
They are a consequence of Einstein's General Relativity. Thus if there were no Black Holes, Einstein'd be proven wrong.
OTOH his theory made pretty good predictions so far (like the already mentioned bending of light). So it seems likely that black holes exist, and it'd make sense if they sat in the center of galaxies. (If we assume they exist, they'll surely form clusters around them.) That's why people search them there and find many hints that they might really be there. There are still some missing parts though, see Hawking radiation for example..

So long story short: While your bag of stars could maybe lead to the same galaxy appearance (you'd have to explain why we can't see them, although we can see all other stars), it'd be so much nicer if it was a black hole

Not really christmas.. just some snowy mountain..

Quote from thisnameistaken :

A couple of years ago I got odds of 150/1 for Button before the start of the season. He finished 3rd in the championship behind both Ferraris, so I lost my £20 , but it shows the bookmakers often haven't a clue about motorsport.

Well, the odds don't reflect the opinion of the bookmarkers, they reflect the opinion of the public. Bookmarkes tend to build their odds so that they'll win - regardless of the result

FWIW these are the current odds (bwin):

Quote :

Fernando Alonso (ESP/McLaren) 2.40
Kimi Räikkonen (FIN/Ferrari) 2.75
Felipe Massa (BRA/Ferrari) 6.00
Heikki Kovalainen (FIN/Renault) 18.00
Jenson Button (GBR/Honda) 20.00
Giancarlo Fisichella (ITA/Renault) 25.00
Rubens Barrichello (BRA/Honda) 30.00

(all others have 60+, Hamilton not included at all)
So.. who is the #1 @ Renault?
Alonso's chances seem overrated, but I guess that's just the "reigning champion bonus".

Quote from Clownpaint :

I'll keep my reply short and sweet too then.

We are led to believe that all races are equal, we aren't supposed to pretend men have babies and go through the menstrual cycle, which would be sexual equality.

They are not the same difference. That argument is a straw man and completely irrelevant whilst also being a ridiculous analogy.

Sorry, what has the menstrual cycle to do with the ability to be president?
I'd say exactly as much as a black skin has to do with he ability do drive a race car - nothing at all. You seem to think differently on the former?
Otherwise, my analogy still stands.

Edit: Just to make it clear: We're speaking about two people who differ in a) skin color b) gender, do the same thing with the same success a) race driving b) politics, but one gets more credit because (s)he is a) black b) a woman. I don't see the flaw, unless the one getting more credit actually starts with an ability-disadvantage. (It wouldn't work with a blind man winning a regular marathon)

Last edited by TheDeppchef, Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:06.

Quote from Clownpaint :

I feel it's unfair to the asian, white and all the other drivers who worked hard or achieved similar titles and didn't get half the recognition, simply because of their skin. In my eyes, it's a form of racism.

Hm, I just cleared everything I wrote, because it went way off-topic, so I'll condense it into a single question: Would I be sexist against males if I noted that hypothetical next president of the US, Hillary Clinton, is the first woman to be president?

Well, the german variant is not that much better either:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Zeichen_114.svg

Quote from Racer Y :

And I don't think you caught the hook I put in my post.

Guess we're even then.
My point was that things should be allowed or banned based on whether it makes sense to allow or forbid them, not based on "someone could do it anyway".
I didn't even say guns should be banned (although I think they should). I just pointed out that your argument WHY they should be allowed makes no sense at all.
I don't criticize you for having a gun either, you are probably better off with it. I merely wanted to make you think WHY you need one, when I clearly don't.
Obviously banning guns only makes sense, if you can enforce it - and it's really too late to do it in the US.

Edit: Oh, and when I said "nor virtually anyone I meet.." I really meant "Nobody I meet has a gun" and not "Everybody you meet has a gun"

Last edited by TheDeppchef, Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:13.

Quote from Racer Y :

It's like what they say here, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

1. I was never in a situation where I would've needed a gun. And, more importantly, I don't even know _anyone_ who ever was in a situation where he would've needed a gun.
You on the other hand already needed your's twice. That could be, because your country in general is just unsafer - or because everyone has a gun.
Yes, there certainly are people who have guns here. Dealers, mafia, you name it. But when do I meet them? Never. But I do know that neither my neighbor, the wanna-be-gangsters in the street nor virtually anyone I meet has a gun.
Safe enough for me, I don't need a gun.
2. With the same reasoning like yours I could say "Let every country have nuclear bombs, <insert evil country> will have them anyway" or "Why ban heroin, the addicts will get it anyway?".
The whole point of banning things is that the average man won't have it, and people who still have it can safely be classified as what they are: criminals, drug addicts, whatever.

I didn't respond to your previous post, and I wasn't contradicting you anyway

If an officer getting away with 48mph in a 40mph zone is the worst case of policemen acting against the law and getting away with it, you should be happy to have the best police system in the whole world.
Maybe it is, I guess I know too little about your country..
Here in Germany the army is not allowed to do anything inside the country (excluding disasters like floods). Thus there are many special police units, some of them heavily armed, which I include when I say "police". That's maybe different in GB?
Including those I'd be happy if speeding was the only thing they get away with..

I'm not communicating in english in real life, I only read books (be it for fun or uni). As most here I learned it at school but what really teached me were movies, web sites, etc.

Anyway, regarding the "what will happen"-discussion:
I don't know how it is in Italy or Finland, or wherever, but here in Germany it is obvious that more and more english words find their way into German. If it continues like that German _will_ be an english dialect in like 100 years.. (We're also abandoning more and more grammar rules i.e. the genitive).
Actually, if you had a german-english dictionary that would work "as people speek", half the entries would have to be "english word - some german words, the english word".
I doubt however, that the languages will ever be identical, more like dialects, as I already said. The Italians would still say "Luigi, where-a is-a my-a pizza?", the Germans would all talk like Schwarzenegger, etc..

Quote from JTbo :

Eeeek, even uglier than my nightmares, modern car design is really something I don't get at all illepall

Why they put wheels on those things, just put propeller or few and you have nice aircraft

I'd say it's the result of Le Mans Prototype + Hacksaw.

Imho the barrier-flip and the lag-induced fly-to-the-moon-collisions are actually the same thing?
When you hit a barrier it seems that parts of the car are _inside_ the barrier (e.g parts of a wheel, just look at the massive tyre flex going on).
Which is exactly the same thing that happens when you lag into someone elses car.
I also have the feeling that the cars do not absorb enough energy through damage in those (or in all?) cases. Well, and barriers of course don't absorb anything..
So what's actually wrong?
1. When it's caused by lag you can't do anything about it, but in the other cases (barriers) it just shouldn't happen, somewhere _is_ a flaw in the collision detection.
2. When a car is found to overlap too much (as in: the collision should've been detected earlier), for whatever reasons, the force generated should be reduced/have a sane maximum.
3. When the force is applied more of it should go into deformation (be it visible or not) and less into motion. Actually simulating how much a body deforms on impact (and how much crash energy it thus absorbs) seems to be very hard in real-time (and I doubt it's done at the moment?). And then it's not that important either (it's a racing simulation after all, not a crash simulation). From the results I guess there's a "simple" formula which depending on masses, speeds and impact angles decides how much energy goes into deformation - maybe that needs a tweak..

Last edited by TheDeppchef, Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:23.

Quote from three_jump :

finally a month that hits a good taste

well, apart fomr the Sternburg Export...

Never claimed it was a good beer, but there are even worse (like Öttinger).
Anyway, I'm not that much of a beer drinker, so when I do drink beer, it's mostly to save money, hence the Sternburg ;p
I prefer a Gin Tonic, a Cuba Libre or a nice Whisk(e)y anytime

I guess beer won.. so here it is: Sternburg Export, less than 30 Cents for half a litre , mediocre taste, brewed according to german purity requirements => good deal.

Quote from herki :

you used all ascii-characters? that's evil, rot-encryption is supposed to be letters only
but every rot-encryption is solvable by replacing letters, the most basic form of encryption

Not all of them, rot47 is possible, too

That was rot42 btw

Quote from herki :

let's start of really easy:

Lhc, gung jnf ernyyl rnfl

Well, since you said it was easy, my first guess was rot13.. so:
Yup, that was really easy

My entry:

Tip: This might seem much harder, but infact - it isn't.

You guys do realise that he lives in Cairo and therefore might want to race there?

Quote from mrodgers :

http://www.tailofthedragon.com/dragon_trucks.html

I've posted this stuff before somewhere.

If that road was in Europe, trucks like those would be banned on it.

Disclaimer: This is not a criticism of the USA, all his inhabitants or whatever someone might want to interpret in it.

Quote from skiingman :

MotoGP (and other racing motorcycles) change tires when it rains because they want a better suited compound, not necessarily because the dry tires hydroplane, although they are definitely seeing rather insane speeds, so I'd guess they might hydroplane as well in standing water. The intricacies of how and why wet compounds differ from dry compounds would make for a nice senior project.

Uhm, you're not saying that MotoGP wet tyres are actually slicks, are you?

Quote from xaotik :

Actually his point about bicycle tyres stands (for on-road use) - the average road bicycle has about 120psi in those skinny tyres which effectively means it would take approximately 200+ km/h to make that to aquaplane.

What pressures do MotoGP bikes run?
Seeing they change tyres when it rains.. ?

edit: Uhm, nm, I just noticed that you were talking about unmotorised bikes.. ^^

Quote from J.B. :

And since there is no language warning for the Kimi clip I don't really understand the distinction you make between the clip and the image.

Well, Kimi's words were already quoted here, I think.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Note that I have nothing against CSR or the people who use it. I simply prefer not to, and I have my reasons which not many people share

Well, you can always turn off it's engine sounds, and just enjoy the brake squeal