Americans would band together, at least for a while, to expel and destroy with prejudice an occupying force just so we could get back down to the business of our own politics without outside influence.
... well, if that's what it takes for you to stop letting Israel buy your politicians with your own money...
ran is huge and ancient. Iraq similar. North Korea is smaller (though still bigger than countries like Austria) so I guess that's what you had in mind.
Alaska is bigger than Iran.
Alaska and Texas are both bigger than Iraq.
We have 33 States that are larger than North Korea.
From the American perspective, they're all small countries.
And Canada is bigger than the states, and not only that, but we're on top - so from our perspective, does that make you our bitch?
And Russia is bigger than both of us combined. From a Russian perspective, ALL other countries are small.
And the financial risk to China is actually far worse than you think. They depend on us for the fundamentals of their economy. We only depend on them for loans and cheap shit that people can live without. They can't start a trade war with us, because we *can* survive it. They can't.
stuff like cell phones, computers, tvs, dvd players, lcd monitors, tractors (like the Ford-New Holland that is manufactured in China), clothing, packaged food, sporting equipment, tires, steel,... sure, you can live without that - but then you'd have a lower standard of living than the Chinese.
The more integrated a country is into the global economy and cultural exchange, the less likely it is to start major wars.
The opposite is true. Look at whose finger is in the pie in Iraq - the US. Look at the Cold War - the fighting was between the Big Two (US and CCCP) by proxy. If the US hadn't given Israel nukes, Iran wouldn't be trying to get them now.
More reasonable to bribe Israel - it's not like they're not getting billions right now... so we know they take cash. Pay them to move somewhere else, then a few tactical nukes to flatten the "holy land" so that nobody - not the jest, not the muslims, not the christians - has anything to fight over. That will give you peace in the middle east. Either that, or get people to realize that religion is stupid.
More importantly, the US is the source of Israels' 400 nukes. The US clearly violated articles 2 and 3 (the nukes can't just be left to sit in their caves - ongoing maintenance - so the violation is continual to this day).
Simpler solution: have some rabbi declare that there's been a cartographic error, and move Israel to a different neighborhood. I hear California and Nevada have lots of cheap houses.
Either that, or have an asteroid obliterate all the players in the region and call it an "act of god."
The head and manifold is where the manufacturers have made big weight savings - cast iron weighs a lot more than today's heads and manifolds.
Both a full-on head-to-head and the corner-to-corner are classified as "head-on" for statistical purposes, and combined only represent 2% of all accidents. [citation].
The most likely accident scenario is a rear impact - 29.6%, followed by side and at-an-angle (T-bone) impacts at 28.9% The type of collision shown represents only 2% of all collisions. You're more likely to hit an animal than to have an accident like the one shown in the video.
And the accident contributing the most fatalities? Single cars accidents where the car runs off the road and hits something/someone. But that just doesn't make for a good video.
The old inline 6 was HEAVY - a lot heavier than today's engines. Cast iron weighs a lot, and they weren't trying to save weight by making engines lighter back then.
Sure, the engine will be flying free - but in a head-on, it won't be torqued sideways and tear the bel-air apart - it will be going forward into the malibu.
And do you believe that the malibu will even be drivable in 50 years? As the ads used to say, "This isn't your grandfather's Oldsmobile." Good chance the airbas won't work (most people don't even know that airbags have an expiry date).
The "test" is pure publicity. A stunt. Sure, cars are safer today - but it took decades of educating the public to DEMAND safer cars. It's not like GM wanted to make them safer, just like it's not like GM wanted to make more fuel-efficient cars. Of course, now we have cars that need $3k in repairs after a 7mph bump, to replace a bunch of plastic and styrofoam...
The comparison is a bit weird - if we're going to do a head-to-head comparison, at least make the collision head-to-head. Sure, let the Bel-air engine rip free of its' mounts, but instead of twisting around in the engine compartment and ending up in the front seat of the Bel-air, let it continue forward and pole-axe the Malibu, same as an old pickup truck engine would. In those older cars, a head-on collision was safer than a corner one - the engine would absorb a lot of the energy - just don't get impaled by the non-collapsible steering column.
Besides, does anyone believe the Malibu will even be drivable in 50 years? Once the rot sets into a unibody, there's no saving it. You can't just weld some reinforcement into a cracked frame - there IS no frame.
No question about it, the engine thrashing about in an offset collision did a lot of damage. Of course, since the engine/transmission would be similarly free of any engine mounts in a head-to-head, but NOT being torqued sideways by an offset collision, a lot more energy would be directed to the Malibu instead of being diverted into helping disintegrate the Bel-air.
A realistic test would require a time machine - go forward into the future and find a 50-year-old Malibu. Of course, one of the problems with unit-body construction is that it's dependent on the shape and strength of the sheet-metal, and the continued integrity of the spot welds - there's no real frame. A 50-year-old Malibu, if you could get it to start, just might fail catastrophically at the first speed bump.
In a head-to-head, the Malibu is going to fair a lot worse than it did. I'm NOT arguing that the Bel-Air will come out a winner - just that the Malibu is going to have to absorb much more energy that, in the corner-to-corner, was dissipated by the Bel-air twisting itself to death. Sure, the bel-air will still disintegrate - but the engine and transmission will no longer be off to one side, outside the impact zone, helping to pull the bel-air apart - they'll be free - literally flying free - since the engine mounts will fail early in the accident - and they'll continue right into the Malibu.
How often do two vehicles on the highway hit each other dead-center head on?
The fact is that most accidents don't happen on the highway - you're 4 times as likely to have an accident on secondary or local roads than on the highway, and if you want realism, a LOT of those are one car blindsiding another (T-boning), or rear-ending another. On the highway, a lot of accidents are multiple-car collisions, and a lot of other accidents are single-car events (driver loses control, ends up in ditch|against concrete).
Want to make it realistic? Then you simply won't be having a 1959 Chevy Bel-Air vs a 2009 Malibu. But if you're going to do the comparison, make it a fair, head-to-head, contest.
Also, unit-body construction (the Malibu) won't last 50 years in most climates - there's no real frame - the sheet metal will have deteriorated too much by then, whereas the Bel-Air, with a separate frame, was at least drivable. It's one reason why you see more older pickups than cars.
As others pointed out, they also cherry-picked the Bel-Air as probably the worst car of its' era.
they wanted a car that was structurally sound but not a trailer queen. It drove in under it's own power...an inline 6
They went out of their way to avoid the engines colliding, because those inline 6 engines weigh a LOT. The video shows a front-left-fender vs front-left-fender collision. In a direct head-on crash, the Chevy's engine and transmission would cream the Malibus' much lighter engine/transaxle.
If you look at the video, they didn't do a head-on crash - it was left-front fender against left-front fender. In a head-on, the Bel-Airs' much more massive engine block would have cut through the Malibu.
You are so stupid. That doesn't change the fact that it's still interpreted at runtime by the JIT - the opcodes are cached during the runtime. Learn a bit about system design and how things actually work. Or better yet, just fuck off, since you obviously don't have a clue about how JIT and hot caches work.
You still need an interpreter to interpret the byte code at runtime.. The fact that you need the interpreter to do the conversion at runtime means the stuff you're running (whether it's java or.net or c#) is not a compiled language. As for the lack of citations viz Microsoft admitting that c# and.net are interpreted, just fucking google. Or read
All the.NET languages (like C-sharp, VisualBasic.NET, Visual C++. NET etc) have
the.NET Framework class libraries built into them. The.NET class Libraries also supports
File I/O, database operations, XML (Extensible Markup Language) and
SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol). For example you can develop XML Pages
by using C-sharp language.
When someone talks about.NET development, then you should understand that they are talking
about.NET Framework. It includes a Runtime environment and a set of Class Libraries which is
being used by a new language called C-sharp abbreviated as C#
(more or less similar to C/C++/Java family of languages) and all other.NET Languages.
Simply speaking C-sharp is a new language for developing custom solutions for Microsoft's.NET Platform.
The runtime which we discussed just now is also used by VisualStudio.NET.
Visual Studio.NET Provides us with a visual environment to design and develop.NET Applications.
Every language in VisualStudio.NET uses this runtime to execute its applications.
Moreover these languages compiles its source code into an intermediate language upon compilation
So there is no machine-language code - just stuff to be interpreted. c#,.net, etc., are not compiled languages - they're interpreted at runtime, when calls are made by the runtime to libraries - not by your pcode, which isn't directly executable. "JIT compilation" is another word for interpreter - different terms, same semantics. Your pcode is still there, and has to be reloaded the next time you want to run the program.
All of you would potentially face charges for poisoning.
Don't be an idiot. There's no such thing as "facing charges for poisoning." It's "willfully administering a noxious substance" - and methylene blue is classified as safe. They even sell candies with a methylene blue center, same as candles you can't blow out, etc.
And no, don't bother with the "what if someone is allergic?" argument - it holds as much water as giving a peanut butter sandwich to someone who you didn't know was allergic - there's no "willful intent".
Again, you miss the entire point - that the compiler does it once, at compile time, after which you can lose the compiler and still load and run the code directly. Hence, c is a compiled language. vb.net and c# are interpreted languages - even Microsoft admits they're interpreted. WTF do you think "JIT compiling" is? It's interpretation of the byte-code intermediate language put out by the so-called "compiler". Otherwise you wouldn't NEED a "JIT runtime + caching scheme" to get the still-shitty performance interpreted languages (including Java) give.
Or you could learn to use REAL compiled languages that don't need interpreters - like assembler and c.
Every German bank uses TAN [wikipedia.org] codes. Forget your extraneous electronic gadgetry, they just mail you a sheet of 'em in a secure envelope
What's that - en envelope without Windows?
Or an envelope mailed in a safe - wouldn't that be really pushing the envelope on what the mail system can handle easily?
Unless something got lost in translation, and the envelope really includes a condom - in which case, it's a "safe envelope", and not a "secure envelope."
Or it could be one of those Soviet Election Secret Ballot Secure Envelopes - "Here is your vote, Comrade: "Why is it sealed?" "It's a Secret Ballot, Comrade".
Or they could mail them in a plain brown envelope, but then everyone would think you were receiving mail-pr0n. Back-of-the-envelope calculation says the kid next door will steal it too often.
"sorry, culdn't resist the uns. It's like when someone explained the "Window envelope without a window" - which sounds to me like it should logically just be a plain envelope - it's an envelope with a hole (window) on the frnt for the address, but without a transparent cover (a window) covering the address window.)
Then you'd LOVE my Banana Cream Pie recipe to deter people from "sampling" pies I bake by sticking their fingers in the whipped cream while it's sitting in the fridge... 1 can of shaving cream, some sprinkles and a cherry.
Or the Crisco Ice Cream cones... looks just like vanilla ice cream.
Slashdot Mirror
stuff like cell phones, computers, tvs, dvd players, lcd monitors, tractors (like the Ford-New Holland that is manufactured in China), clothing, packaged food, sporting equipment, tires, steel, ... sure, you can live without that - but then you'd have a lower standard of living than the Chinese.
China doesn't sell only to WallyWorld.
No, but Israel got their nukes from the US, who DID sign it ...
Would Iran be going after nukes if the US hadn't armed Israel? No.
The opposite is true. Look at whose finger is in the pie in Iraq - the US. Look at the Cold War - the fighting was between the Big Two (US and CCCP) by proxy. If the US hadn't given Israel nukes, Iran wouldn't be trying to get them now.
More reasonable to bribe Israel - it's not like they're not getting billions right now ... so we know they take cash. Pay them to move somewhere else, then a few tactical nukes to flatten the "holy land" so that nobody - not the jest, not the muslims, not the christians - has anything to fight over. That will give you peace in the middle east. Either that, or get people to realize that religion is stupid.
More importantly, the US is the source of Israels' 400 nukes. The US clearly violated articles 2 and 3 (the nukes can't just be left to sit in their caves - ongoing maintenance - so the violation is continual to this day).
Simpler solution: have some rabbi declare that there's been a cartographic error, and move Israel to a different neighborhood. I hear California and Nevada have lots of cheap houses.
Either that, or have an asteroid obliterate all the players in the region and call it an "act of god."
The head and manifold is where the manufacturers have made big weight savings - cast iron weighs a lot more than today's heads and manifolds.
Both a full-on head-to-head and the corner-to-corner are classified as "head-on" for statistical purposes, and combined only represent 2% of all accidents. [citation].
The most likely accident scenario is a rear impact - 29.6%, followed by side and at-an-angle (T-bone) impacts at 28.9% The type of collision shown represents only 2% of all collisions. You're more likely to hit an animal than to have an accident like the one shown in the video.
And the accident contributing the most fatalities? Single cars accidents where the car runs off the road and hits something/someone. But that just doesn't make for a good video.
The old inline 6 was HEAVY - a lot heavier than today's engines. Cast iron weighs a lot, and they weren't trying to save weight by making engines lighter back then.
Sure, the engine will be flying free - but in a head-on, it won't be torqued sideways and tear the bel-air apart - it will be going forward into the malibu.
And do you believe that the malibu will even be drivable in 50 years? As the ads used to say, "This isn't your grandfather's Oldsmobile." Good chance the airbas won't work (most people don't even know that airbags have an expiry date).
The "test" is pure publicity. A stunt. Sure, cars are safer today - but it took decades of educating the public to DEMAND safer cars. It's not like GM wanted to make them safer, just like it's not like GM wanted to make more fuel-efficient cars. Of course, now we have cars that need $3k in repairs after a 7mph bump, to replace a bunch of plastic and styrofoam ...
Thanks, and glad to see you around :-)
The comparison is a bit weird - if we're going to do a head-to-head comparison, at least make the collision head-to-head. Sure, let the Bel-air engine rip free of its' mounts, but instead of twisting around in the engine compartment and ending up in the front seat of the Bel-air, let it continue forward and pole-axe the Malibu, same as an old pickup truck engine would. In those older cars, a head-on collision was safer than a corner one - the engine would absorb a lot of the energy - just don't get impaled by the non-collapsible steering column.
Besides, does anyone believe the Malibu will even be drivable in 50 years? Once the rot sets into a unibody, there's no saving it. You can't just weld some reinforcement into a cracked frame - there IS no frame.
No question about it, the engine thrashing about in an offset collision did a lot of damage. Of course, since the engine/transmission would be similarly free of any engine mounts in a head-to-head, but NOT being torqued sideways by an offset collision, a lot more energy would be directed to the Malibu instead of being diverted into helping disintegrate the Bel-air.
A realistic test would require a time machine - go forward into the future and find a 50-year-old Malibu. Of course, one of the problems with unit-body construction is that it's dependent on the shape and strength of the sheet-metal, and the continued integrity of the spot welds - there's no real frame. A 50-year-old Malibu, if you could get it to start, just might fail catastrophically at the first speed bump.
In a head-to-head, the Malibu is going to fair a lot worse than it did. I'm NOT arguing that the Bel-Air will come out a winner - just that the Malibu is going to have to absorb much more energy that, in the corner-to-corner, was dissipated by the Bel-air twisting itself to death. Sure, the bel-air will still disintegrate - but the engine and transmission will no longer be off to one side, outside the impact zone, helping to pull the bel-air apart - they'll be free - literally flying free - since the engine mounts will fail early in the accident - and they'll continue right into the Malibu.
The fact is that most accidents don't happen on the highway - you're 4 times as likely to have an accident on secondary or local roads than on the highway, and if you want realism, a LOT of those are one car blindsiding another (T-boning), or rear-ending another. On the highway, a lot of accidents are multiple-car collisions, and a lot of other accidents are single-car events (driver loses control, ends up in ditch|against concrete).
Want to make it realistic? Then you simply won't be having a 1959 Chevy Bel-Air vs a 2009 Malibu. But if you're going to do the comparison, make it a fair, head-to-head, contest.
Also, unit-body construction (the Malibu) won't last 50 years in most climates - there's no real frame - the sheet metal will have deteriorated too much by then, whereas the Bel-Air, with a separate frame, was at least drivable. It's one reason why you see more older pickups than cars.
As others pointed out, they also cherry-picked the Bel-Air as probably the worst car of its' era.
Good thing Bush isn't around any more - he'd buy into it.
They went out of their way to avoid the engines colliding, because those inline 6 engines weigh a LOT. The video shows a front-left-fender vs front-left-fender collision. In a direct head-on crash, the Chevy's engine and transmission would cream the Malibus' much lighter engine/transaxle.
For this reason, the video is bogus.
If you look at the video, they didn't do a head-on crash - it was left-front fender against left-front fender. In a head-on, the Bel-Airs' much more massive engine block would have cut through the Malibu.
You are so stupid. That doesn't change the fact that it's still interpreted at runtime by the JIT - the opcodes are cached during the runtime. Learn a bit about system design and how things actually work. Or better yet, just fuck off, since you obviously don't have a clue about how JIT and hot caches work.
Why aren't you interested in sex with a dumb blonde?
Don't be an idiot. There's no such thing as "facing charges for poisoning." It's "willfully administering a noxious substance" - and methylene blue is classified as safe. They even sell candies with a methylene blue center, same as candles you can't blow out, etc.
And no, don't bother with the "what if someone is allergic?" argument - it holds as much water as giving a peanut butter sandwich to someone who you didn't know was allergic - there's no "willful intent".
And while you're at it, get a sense of humour.
Same reason you don't give managers coffee breaks that last more than 15 minutes ...
Because it takes too long to retrain them.
If what killed him was a mutated version of the plague, you may be a little less regretful.
Sales of Rid and Nix, which increase every fall with the new school year starting up and winter coming, disagree. Lice are still plentiful.
Again, you miss the entire point - that the compiler does it once, at compile time, after which you can lose the compiler and still load and run the code directly. Hence, c is a compiled language. vb.net and c# are interpreted languages - even Microsoft admits they're interpreted. WTF do you think "JIT compiling" is? It's interpretation of the byte-code intermediate language put out by the so-called "compiler". Otherwise you wouldn't NEED a "JIT runtime + caching scheme" to get the still-shitty performance interpreted languages (including Java) give.
Or you could learn to use REAL compiled languages that don't need interpreters - like assembler and c.
What's that - en envelope without Windows?
Or an envelope mailed in a safe - wouldn't that be really pushing the envelope on what the mail system can handle easily?
Unless something got lost in translation, and the envelope really includes a condom - in which case, it's a "safe envelope", and not a "secure envelope."
Or it could be one of those Soviet Election Secret Ballot Secure Envelopes - "Here is your vote, Comrade: "Why is it sealed?" "It's a Secret Ballot, Comrade".
Or they could mail them in a plain brown envelope, but then everyone would think you were receiving mail-pr0n. Back-of-the-envelope calculation says the kid next door will steal it too often.
"sorry, culdn't resist the uns. It's like when someone explained the "Window envelope without a window" - which sounds to me like it should logically just be a plain envelope - it's an envelope with a hole (window) on the frnt for the address, but without a transparent cover (a window) covering the address window.)
Then you'd LOVE my Banana Cream Pie recipe to deter people from "sampling" pies I bake by sticking their fingers in the whipped cream while it's sitting in the fridge ... 1 can of shaving cream, some sprinkles and a cherry.
Or the Crisco Ice Cream cones ... looks just like vanilla ice cream.