To be honest, the most appealing thing about the W126 body is not the length of the front - the additional firewall separating a "motor compartment" from an "aggregate compartment" is quite common in Mercedes-Benz designs. What made the W126 a monster in crash performance was the utter disregard for crash-partner safety. The thing was a tank. Use your own, admittedly huge crumple zone, then use the crumple zone of the other guys and don't give a shit what happens to the other guy, because I AM DRIVING DAIMLER! Definitely good engineering, though it wouldn't fly today where the general consensus is that your safety designs do not only have to protect you, but also everyone else involved in a crash. They didn't give a shit about that in the late 70s.
Hehe, well. I am coming from a different side. Nothing against marijuana - I like to light one up every couple of months, if the occasion is right. However, in contrast to decent beer, wine or spirits, I would never claim that I consume grass for anything other than the neurochemical effect. Coincidentally, I like the occasional milkshake only when stoned...:P
As a German beer lover, if you had a Hefeweizen with a slice of orange and considered it good, I have to track you down and shoot you...;) What beergarden was that? I gotta teach em some style! You barely saved your ass by mentioning homebrewing and IPAs. Speaking of IPAs, I just got a sample of some Scottish IPA. Brutally good. Extremely strong in bitter hops, but with a fruity, almost citrus-like head (ok, the slice of orange is forgiven by now...). If you ever get your hands at it, give it a try!
While I generally agree, there still is a problem. Often people calling themselves "rational" are philosophical quite weak on basic epistemology. If you don't keep on questioning whether your observations are actually facts, you run into the danger of becoming ideological yourself. You mentioned a very important qualifier yourself - "solid foundations". Those are not always present in discussions with some people who deem themselves "rational". If you stop questioning yourself, you run into the danger of becoming an ideologist. That might not be "true rationalism", but I have seen it often enough advertising itself as such.
Your last sentence is quite interesting, if not insightful, but in practice, there will always be clashes. I come from the other side of things - I am a scientist and quite staunchly atheistic, but I respect religion as far as it does not intrude into my domain. The problem is, both domains are not rigidly separate, so there will always be conflicts. However, my atheist position will not ever shut my eyes to the spiritual beauty that can be found in religious ritual. It is social glue that can be perfectly benevolent. Just taking part in a well executed mass, singing with a choir, the organ, the ritual bonding all attendants together for a fleeting moment. It has its value.
That's more or less Deism - God as the Cosmic Engineer whose creation is in essence defining the boundary conditions of the universe. In my opinion, this is somewhat at odds with the "Personal God" idea of Christianity. I accept that, it actually has some beauty, but as an atheist, I don't see much that differentiates it from a pantheism in the sense that the universe as a whole is God, or, in the other direction of thought, from a rationalist perspective that states that there is nothing but the universe, but that is enough to admire it in all its perceivable glory.
Thanks. Well, I am German and spent years in a town with a yearly Wagner festival. Also, I love Iceland and have been traveling there. Norse mythology is close to home:)
Look up Canon and from there move on to the proto- and deuterocanonical books and the various councils in which the church decided which book was inspired and therefore part of the bible and which was not and therefore excluded. Early christianity was a weird mixture of mystics, gnostics, hundreds of sects soon considered to be heretics and finally groups that would be considered mainstream today.
If you can't see the difference between crack, which has one purpose and one purpose only, and the universe of tastes and smells from various alcoholic beverages, which, in addition, make you moderately high, this discussion is without sense, purpose and reason. I think I have been feeding a troll here.
Well, that is in part due to the fact that descriptive, phenomenological science is not differentiated from explanatory, theory-building science. Whether we categorize planets one way or the other has no impact on the theory how they move.
Well, some people are indeed able to take their religion as a metaphor, as a story binding our conception of the universe together. Literalism in religion is mostly a problem of fundamentalist movements. I for one am an atheist, but I see no need to blindly bash everything religious or spiritual. The GP has a quite reasonable position in my opinion. The Norse creation myth is a beautiful story, beautifully put down in the Edda - I don't see why one should not be able to interpret it as a metaphor on some level, while still being rational and avoiding blind faith.
Ok, so every alcoholic beverage is only consumed because of the alcohol? All the lovers of beer, wine, malt, rum are only in it for their addiction and would prefer milkshakes for the taste? Is it that what you are saying?
The motor usually goes directly on top of the axle - you don't want a conventional drive train in an electric car, as it is not needed and would only add unnecessary weight. The batteries would be more reasonable, however, you want to protect those during a crash nearly as much as the passengers. Discharging all the energy from the batteries due to damage is to be avoided at all cost in electric vehicles, so you do not want to make the battery pack part of a main force path, but rather direct the forces around them. It hard enough to deal with the 100g+ acceleration spike the batteries can experience even when enclosed in a protective cell - you want to avoid deformation.
To be fair - I was not commenting on nanotech at all up there, I just took the GP's comparison to GM and developed it further. Actually, I don't want to go into the safety debate on nano-modified food at all, as I have no data on that. My main point was the aesthetic component, which, for me is reason enough to avoid the stuff, so the safety aspects are rather moot for me personally. While I can't compete with your UID, I am by no means teenage, by the way. So kindly avoid lashing out, would you?
On a recent job I got some insight into current designs on handling gull-wing doors in rollovers. There are loads of concepts to handle the situation now, some of them fascinating exercises in overengineering. I have seen concepts up to explosive bolts to detach the doors...
How about you accept that tastes are different? Sweet crap like sodas and milkshakes trigger my gag reflex. Bitterness is an acquired taste, that much is sure, and I have damn well acquired it. Just because you don't like beer, which I completely accept, doesn't mean that there isn't a whole universe of different, interesting tastes in various kinds of beer. From "subtle, refined" to "what the fuck just hit my taste buds? it hurts, but in a most pleasant way".
Generally agreeing, but... in current cars, the firewall is designed to hold the engine when it gets pushed back in a frontal crash. It is an essential part of a force path leading into the tunnel structure and, via the firewall cross-beams, into the frame side members, thereby keeping the passenger cell intact. If the intrusion goes further than that, the engine is to be deflected at a downward angle, keeping the footwells mostly intakt. There is no real problem there. In fact, conversions from gas to electric, which are missing the front engine, have the problem that this force path is not there any more. That said, I am gray with envy for that Delorean!
In the case of tomatoes, I don't think the main factor was GM - people were getting fed up by watery hothouse tomato-lookalikes. I think the quality generally improved by customer demand, GM or not, over the last years. Might be the same with peaches and strawberries, but fruit are not my area of expertise, to be honest.
I am a biochemist, and as such, I do not see significant danger in most gene-modified food. I am also a gourmet, and as such, I see a loss of diversity and a flood of bland, homogeneous and uninteresting industrial food substitutes. I don't fear the stuff - I despise it for aesthetic reasons.
The crack, mods, the crack! It is not good for you. How is this a troll?
Where exactly has the food industry actually improved our food in terms of quality and taste? All I can see is a constant trend to bland, overprocessed, undifferentiated, utterly boring crap. I am no zealot, you can't escape that all the time, but whenever I got time I try to prepare my own meals from food that, as the parent stated it, was "grown in the ground, pulled out, washed and sold". I don't even care if it is healthier, it is better, it has an actual taste.
So, dear food chemists, you can take your nanotech low-fat mayonnaise and shove it. I'll keep making my own when I need some. Yep, it's full of fat, so is the cauliflower gratin I just had - lightly sauteed cauliflower baked in a mix of egg yolk, butter, creme double and roquefort, add salt, pepper, chili power, saffron and lime juice to taste. That's why I don't gorge myself on it. How about just exerting some self-control instead of lowering calorie intake by pseudo-food substitutes?
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest, the most appealing thing about the W126 body is not the length of the front - the additional firewall separating a "motor compartment" from an "aggregate compartment" is quite common in Mercedes-Benz designs. What made the W126 a monster in crash performance was the utter disregard for crash-partner safety. The thing was a tank. Use your own, admittedly huge crumple zone, then use the crumple zone of the other guys and don't give a shit what happens to the other guy, because I AM DRIVING DAIMLER! Definitely good engineering, though it wouldn't fly today where the general consensus is that your safety designs do not only have to protect you, but also everyone else involved in a crash. They didn't give a shit about that in the late 70s.
Hehe, well. I am coming from a different side. Nothing against marijuana - I like to light one up every couple of months, if the occasion is right. However, in contrast to decent beer, wine or spirits, I would never claim that I consume grass for anything other than the neurochemical effect. Coincidentally, I like the occasional milkshake only when stoned... :P
As a German beer lover, if you had a Hefeweizen with a slice of orange and considered it good, I have to track you down and shoot you... ;) What beergarden was that? I gotta teach em some style! You barely saved your ass by mentioning homebrewing and IPAs. Speaking of IPAs, I just got a sample of some Scottish IPA. Brutally good. Extremely strong in bitter hops, but with a fruity, almost citrus-like head (ok, the slice of orange is forgiven by now...). If you ever get your hands at it, give it a try!
While I generally agree, there still is a problem. Often people calling themselves "rational" are philosophical quite weak on basic epistemology. If you don't keep on questioning whether your observations are actually facts, you run into the danger of becoming ideological yourself. You mentioned a very important qualifier yourself - "solid foundations". Those are not always present in discussions with some people who deem themselves "rational". If you stop questioning yourself, you run into the danger of becoming an ideologist. That might not be "true rationalism", but I have seen it often enough advertising itself as such.
Your last sentence is quite interesting, if not insightful, but in practice, there will always be clashes. I come from the other side of things - I am a scientist and quite staunchly atheistic, but I respect religion as far as it does not intrude into my domain. The problem is, both domains are not rigidly separate, so there will always be conflicts. However, my atheist position will not ever shut my eyes to the spiritual beauty that can be found in religious ritual. It is social glue that can be perfectly benevolent. Just taking part in a well executed mass, singing with a choir, the organ, the ritual bonding all attendants together for a fleeting moment. It has its value.
That's more or less Deism - God as the Cosmic Engineer whose creation is in essence defining the boundary conditions of the universe. In my opinion, this is somewhat at odds with the "Personal God" idea of Christianity. I accept that, it actually has some beauty, but as an atheist, I don't see much that differentiates it from a pantheism in the sense that the universe as a whole is God, or, in the other direction of thought, from a rationalist perspective that states that there is nothing but the universe, but that is enough to admire it in all its perceivable glory.
Nice idea, but heck... Explosive bolts are way cooler - there's nothing that can't be improved by the addition of pyrotechnical charges... ;)
Thanks. Well, I am German and spent years in a town with a yearly Wagner festival. Also, I love Iceland and have been traveling there. Norse mythology is close to home :)
Look up Canon and from there move on to the proto- and deuterocanonical books and the various councils in which the church decided which book was inspired and therefore part of the bible and which was not and therefore excluded. Early christianity was a weird mixture of mystics, gnostics, hundreds of sects soon considered to be heretics and finally groups that would be considered mainstream today.
Fair enough. As a scientist, I completely understand your point.
If you can't see the difference between crack, which has one purpose and one purpose only, and the universe of tastes and smells from various alcoholic beverages, which, in addition, make you moderately high, this discussion is without sense, purpose and reason. I think I have been feeding a troll here.
Well, that is in part due to the fact that descriptive, phenomenological science is not differentiated from explanatory, theory-building science. Whether we categorize planets one way or the other has no impact on the theory how they move.
Well, some people are indeed able to take their religion as a metaphor, as a story binding our conception of the universe together. Literalism in religion is mostly a problem of fundamentalist movements. I for one am an atheist, but I see no need to blindly bash everything religious or spiritual. The GP has a quite reasonable position in my opinion. The Norse creation myth is a beautiful story, beautifully put down in the Edda - I don't see why one should not be able to interpret it as a metaphor on some level, while still being rational and avoiding blind faith.
Ok, so every alcoholic beverage is only consumed because of the alcohol? All the lovers of beer, wine, malt, rum are only in it for their addiction and would prefer milkshakes for the taste? Is it that what you are saying?
Unhealthy? As compared to your healthy milk shakes?
The motor usually goes directly on top of the axle - you don't want a conventional drive train in an electric car, as it is not needed and would only add unnecessary weight. The batteries would be more reasonable, however, you want to protect those during a crash nearly as much as the passengers. Discharging all the energy from the batteries due to damage is to be avoided at all cost in electric vehicles, so you do not want to make the battery pack part of a main force path, but rather direct the forces around them. It hard enough to deal with the 100g+ acceleration spike the batteries can experience even when enclosed in a protective cell - you want to avoid deformation.
To be fair - I was not commenting on nanotech at all up there, I just took the GP's comparison to GM and developed it further. Actually, I don't want to go into the safety debate on nano-modified food at all, as I have no data on that. My main point was the aesthetic component, which, for me is reason enough to avoid the stuff, so the safety aspects are rather moot for me personally. While I can't compete with your UID, I am by no means teenage, by the way. So kindly avoid lashing out, would you?
On a recent job I got some insight into current designs on handling gull-wing doors in rollovers. There are loads of concepts to handle the situation now, some of them fascinating exercises in overengineering. I have seen concepts up to explosive bolts to detach the doors...
How about you accept that tastes are different? Sweet crap like sodas and milkshakes trigger my gag reflex. Bitterness is an acquired taste, that much is sure, and I have damn well acquired it. Just because you don't like beer, which I completely accept, doesn't mean that there isn't a whole universe of different, interesting tastes in various kinds of beer. From "subtle, refined" to "what the fuck just hit my taste buds? it hurts, but in a most pleasant way".
Generally agreeing, but... in current cars, the firewall is designed to hold the engine when it gets pushed back in a frontal crash. It is an essential part of a force path leading into the tunnel structure and, via the firewall cross-beams, into the frame side members, thereby keeping the passenger cell intact. If the intrusion goes further than that, the engine is to be deflected at a downward angle, keeping the footwells mostly intakt. There is no real problem there. In fact, conversions from gas to electric, which are missing the front engine, have the problem that this force path is not there any more. That said, I am gray with envy for that Delorean!
In the case of tomatoes, I don't think the main factor was GM - people were getting fed up by watery hothouse tomato-lookalikes. I think the quality generally improved by customer demand, GM or not, over the last years. Might be the same with peaches and strawberries, but fruit are not my area of expertise, to be honest.
When he said "beer", he meant "budweiser"
Category mismatch. Does not compute...
Good oil and good vinegar salvages almost everything. Dash of balsamico, perhaps, and this sounds like a plan. :)
I am a biochemist, and as such, I do not see significant danger in most gene-modified food. I am also a gourmet, and as such, I see a loss of diversity and a flood of bland, homogeneous and uninteresting industrial food substitutes. I don't fear the stuff - I despise it for aesthetic reasons.
The crack, mods, the crack! It is not good for you. How is this a troll?
Where exactly has the food industry actually improved our food in terms of quality and taste? All I can see is a constant trend to bland, overprocessed, undifferentiated, utterly boring crap. I am no zealot, you can't escape that all the time, but whenever I got time I try to prepare my own meals from food that, as the parent stated it, was "grown in the ground, pulled out, washed and sold". I don't even care if it is healthier, it is better, it has an actual taste.
So, dear food chemists, you can take your nanotech low-fat mayonnaise and shove it. I'll keep making my own when I need some. Yep, it's full of fat, so is the cauliflower gratin I just had - lightly sauteed cauliflower baked in a mix of egg yolk, butter, creme double and roquefort, add salt, pepper, chili power, saffron and lime juice to taste. That's why I don't gorge myself on it. How about just exerting some self-control instead of lowering calorie intake by pseudo-food substitutes?