Posts by JackElder
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I've also never heard the term "Chow" for Chinese; I assumed you were talking about the breed of dog.
When I was in the UK, the company for which I worked was purchased by a US firm. A number of interesting consequences ensued. One of which was that we got access to all their online training materials. One day, in among all the SQL training materials, someone found the training course on "Cultural Differences Around the World" - that is, how various cultures differ from America. And that's how we discovered that the English are polite, heavy drinkers, who don't like to put themselves forward and have trouble resolving interpersonal conflicts. The page even had a picture of a bowler hat.
I've got to say, it was very odd dealing with our US colleagues after that, knowing that this was the mental picture they had of us.
-
Was I mistaken when I heard someone from the government on Morning Report this morning describe mining as "sustainable"? If so, it's a pretty radical redefinition.
-
Except that we don't, in good conscience, compare two things by deliberately skewing the variables; quite the reverse.
Indeed. I was just saying that there's an unspoken variable that wasn't being mentioned - the driver. That's not to say that you couldn't make some kind of absolute comparison about the cars per se - I'm sure there are automated tests that could tell you about the physical characteristics of the cars. Which one had a larger engine, could generate more torque at 7000 RPM, that sort of thing. But once you get it out of the lab and actually start to use it for a specific purpose, you can't just ignore the fact that it's being used by a specific human being, on a specific day and time - which is a variable that the discussion so far didn't mention.
Noble
A couple of mates of mine have just bought a Caterham.
-
When the ambient noise level is high, quiet modern cars or trolleybuses can sneak up behind and catch you completely unawares,
The Prius dilemma. This is quite an issue for the designers of electric or hybrid cars, because people are used to telling where cars are by listening out for an internal combustion engine. One of the near-unconscious checks you do when deciding whether it's safe to step out into the road is to listen and see if you can hear anything. I had a mate who had an early generation Prius back in 2004 who reckoned it was bloody murder in supermarket carparks, because at low speeds the electric engine is very stealth, and people kept stepping out in front of him without looking.
-
Call it what you like, but which car is fastest in the context given is an objective truth.
Is it, though? It's not like the cars are piloting themselves. You're conveniently eliding the subjective element: that each car is being driven by someone. Without a driver, the car is just an inert lump. Presumably the driver's skills make a difference in how fast the car can go, even in a straight-up quarter mile drag race.
-
When were the Romans here, did I miss something?
More to the point: what did they do for us?
-
It was a good discussion. I personally wouldn't have said it got particularly bad-tempered.
Impassioned, perhaps. It was indeed a good discussion, but most people seemed not to like it - hence the characterisation.
-
Should clarify: the ZatAoMM reference was a sly nod to another thread, which got very grumpy about it this week.
You can tell the cricket's on: it's very quiet here today.
-
Because these things are doing much more work, at much higher speeds, in much more dangerous conditions, the level of engineering is justified.
So the corollary of that is that for relatively lower-performance vehicles, a lower level of engineering is justified. Which implies that bicycles aren't underengineered - they're appropriately engineered for their level of performance.
In fact I think expensive, highly engineered bikes actually move away from the whole point of the things.
Admit it - you're a fixie-riding hipster.
-
Of course you do, it shows in the whole way you've been talking. Sunday, is the answer.
Ha, pwned. Fair enough, but you did assume earlier in the thread that I didn't drive, so we're even. :)
Most people riding do NOT ride a $5k bike and there is NO WAY it's as engineered as even a lame weak car.
OK, so I was being hyperbolic. But still, the modern bicycle has a hell of a lot of design and engineering input - which, as with cars, trickles down from the high end race stuff into the lower end models that people actually ride. Certainly, if you want to ride something made out of a carefully designed carbon fibre matrix, with a precision gearbox and hydraulic disk brakes, it's going to be a lot easier to get a bike like that than a car. For example, this is probably a lot cheaper than their cars, but I'm assuming there's a fair bit of engineering work gone into it.
And the amount of engineering is not irrelevant, it's the difference between a good car and a bad one, after all.
Surely it's the quality of the engineering that's important, rather than the quantity? There's an interesting book about this - it's called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. (*coughs and runs away*)
And I'd like to reiterate my point about bicycle safety - despite the fact that you are, as pointed out, vulnerable, it's a lot safer than people think. I've had more, and worse, accidents when walking or driving. And as is well known, driving exposes you to 50% more carbon monoxide than cycling.