Begs the question now means "raises the question". That's what most people mean when they say it and that's how most people interpret it. Sorry, but the old timey version lost.
Sometimes you politely have to tell people to F off. That's the problem with ebay, everyone's so wussy about protecting their precious 100% that they won't neg people or tell em to get stuffed if things go bad.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC. and SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
In March 2005, the Company renegotiated a $6,000 contingent obligation due upon delivery of the final PC version of Duke Nukem Forever through the payment of $4,250 and issuance of a promissory note in the principal amount of $500. The payment of the promissory note is contingent upon the commercial release of such product prior to December 31, 2006.
"The point about increased shear stands, even if it wasn't the failure mode."
The shear increased, but your analysis in previous posts is wrong. The shear in the beam doubled, not tripled.
-The simply supported cross-beams of total load 2P experience P shear at each support. -The lower beams apply their P 6 inches inside of the upper beam supports. -The total beam shear at the upper supports now equals P (from upper) + P (from lower) = 2P
"Actually, it didn't increase the stresses in the connectors, it increased the shear in the beam between the two connectors - the lower deck load path was lower hanger -> beam web -> upper hanger instead of lower hanger -> upper hanger as was intended."
Double the beam's shear load = Double the connection load.
"The Kansas City Hyatt was a disaster, but it wasn't because of bad design"
That's not true. Consider that:
-The original design was only ~60% as strong as required by code. -The design change halved the original design's strength, making the final strength only ~30% as strong as required by code.
Both these aspects were required in combination to get the final strength down to that critical level. Neither the inadequate original design nor the design change could have brought the thing down on their own.
The disaster was combined outcome of the design change AND the bad original design.
Slashdot Mirror
How could the lasers track and read data like that?
"Why do these discs have to rotate?"
Is this a trick question?
Seriously, just smash the thing.
Anyone can give to charity. The question is... why?
Err, to help poor people?
A good engineer will anticipate common contractor errors (such as bad epoxying) and design accordingly.
It's not enough that your design works, you have to make your design resilient to the realities of site.
The eng-tips thread mentioned in the article:
& page=1
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=159632
Begs the question now means "raises the question". That's what most people mean when they say it and that's how most people interpret it. Sorry, but the old timey version lost.
Quiet fool!, you'll ruin the story.
"it's just the idea that no one, really, knows anything."
So you know that do you?
Pounds are a unit of mass.
I don't want to switch because OO messes up the formatting of many of my existing Word documents. That's my only reason for not wanting to switch.
I'm sure this problem will go away sooner or later but until then it's just so much easier to use Word instead of Writer.
Beta wasn't a good product. That's why it lost. There's more to a product than whether it has 4% better theoretical resolution than its competitor.
I 100% agree. It's a crummy name and it drives people away.
This fairly clearly implies intelligent action.
"Hidden" doesn't imply intelligent action. E.g. "The sun was hidden behind the clouds"
Besides, something can't be hidden and yet physically interact with the universe.
Yes it can. Sub atomic particles were hidden for most of history and yet they had no trouble physically interacting with the universe.
despite being able to probe to fundamental scales (planck, anyone?)"
No-one is poking around at those scales.
Sometimes you politely have to tell people to F off. That's the problem with ebay, everyone's so wussy about protecting their precious 100% that they won't neg people or tell em to get stuffed if things go bad.
It's because they drive less. Per mile the elderly crash as often as teenagers.
Yeah yeah, Jesus is coming...
"Why is it so important to many that the human species survives?"
Because if we don't survive, then what's the bloody point of any of this.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC. and SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
In March 2005, the Company renegotiated a $6,000 contingent obligation due upon delivery of the final PC version of Duke Nukem Forever through the payment of $4,250 and issuance of a promissory note in the principal amount of $500. The payment of the promissory note is contingent upon the commercial release of such product prior to December 31, 2006.
You should have gotten metal spikes with a better attention span.
"The point about increased shear stands, even if it wasn't the failure mode."
The shear increased, but your analysis in previous posts is wrong. The shear in the beam doubled, not tripled.
-The simply supported cross-beams of total load 2P experience P shear at each support.
-The lower beams apply their P 6 inches inside of the upper beam supports.
-The total beam shear at the upper supports now equals P (from upper) + P (from lower) = 2P
I meant longitudinally along the walkway. Your analysis implies you think the offset occured along the walkway.
I'm confused by your analysis.
Perhaps you are thinking the lower rods were offset longitudinally rather than transversely?
"Actually, it didn't increase the stresses in the connectors, it increased the shear in the beam between the two connectors - the lower deck load path was lower hanger -> beam web -> upper hanger instead of lower hanger -> upper hanger as was intended."
Double the beam's shear load = Double the connection load.
"The Kansas City Hyatt was a disaster, but it wasn't because of bad design"
That's not true. Consider that:
-The original design was only ~60% as strong as required by code.
-The design change halved the original design's strength, making the final strength only ~30% as strong as required by code.
Both these aspects were required in combination to get the final strength down to that critical level. Neither the inadequate original design nor the design change could have brought the thing down on their own.
The disaster was combined outcome of the design change AND the bad original design.