Callipygous

while were talking about guesses... you have any logic to justify that?

actually, your own arguement helps to explain why the building would not collapse sideways. metal is very good for conducting heat. first of all, if the fire was across the entire floor then the heating would already be fairly uniform. second, your comments on heat conduction only help that. the heat dispersing into the parts that arent under as much direct flame would help keep the softening of the metal constant across the entire structure, helping it collapse as one. "If I douse that same corner in lighter fluid," it wasnt one corner doused in jet fuel, you dont even have to study it to know that the explosion went clear through to the other side. you can plainly see it in the footage.

"You'll argue that whole beams were in flames so dissipation is minimal" yes, thats exactly what ill argue. its not like there was a jet fuel camp stove sitting under the beam with a healthy breeze blowing by. there was an explosion, followed by an office fire stoked by jet fuel, inside a fairly closed space. sure, there was a gaping hole from the plane, but on the scope of the entire floor, it was mostly enclosed.

I like how you keep mentioning "a few fires" as though its some trivial thing. this is not like someone left a toaster on and the napkins went up in a blaze. jet fuel burns a wee bit hotter than that. "280°C steel does not melt." i think everyone on both sides of the discussion has stated that the beams probably did not melt. you have a building that is already under extreme stress, daily just from the weight, but especially now with some of its supports taken out. the beams dont have to melt, they just have to get softer.

a herd of dry sheep.

you slow down. you no longer have any force contributing to your forward momentum. you do, however, have friction with the air and the ice.

depends if you hit the gas or the breaks or coast. also depends on whether your on a slope.

he said second letter, but close.

my grandfather frequently sends me emails, most of which are highly inappropriate, but this one isn't and i felt compelled to share it: Far away in the tropical waters of the Caribbean, two prawns were swimming around in the sea - one called Justin & the other called Christian. The prawns were constantly being harassed & threatened by sharks that inhabited the area. Finally one day Justin said to Christian,"I'm fed up with being a prawn, I wish I was a shark, then I wouldn't have any worries about being eaten." A large mysterious cod appeared & said, "Your wish is granted" & lo & behold, Justin turned into a shark. Horrified, Christian immediately swam away, afraid of being eaten by his old mate. Time passed (as it invariably does) & Justin found life as a shark boring & lonely. All his old mates simply swam away whenever he came close to them. Justin didn't realise that his new menacing appearance was the cause of his sad plight. While swimming alone one day he saw the mysterious cod again & he thought perhaps the mysterious fish could change him back into a prawn. He approached the cod & begged to be changed back, & lo & behold, he found himself turned back into a prawn. With tears of joy in his tiny little eyes Justin swam back to his friends & bought them all a cocktail. (The punch line does not involve a prawn cocktail - it's much worse). Looking around the gathering at the reef he realised he couldn't see his old pal. "Where's Christian?" he asked. "He's at home, still distraught that his best friend changed sides to the enemy & became a shark" came the reply. Eager to put things right again & end the mutual pain & torture, he set off to Christian's abode. As he opened the coral gate memories came flooding back. He banged on the door & shouted, "It's me, Justin, your old friend, come out & see me again." Christian replied,"No way man, you'll eat me. You're now a shark, the enemy, & I'll not be tricked into being your dinner." Justin cried back "No, I'm not. That was the old me. I've changed....... "I've found Cod. I'm a Prawn again Christian"

most people dont think that much in depth. when i think lethal dosage i think of it in terms of the average person, not per kilo, or whatever the actual standard is. granted, im pretty sure im wrong for doing so.

how does that work? wiki is telling me that the power to spin the rotor is provided by "aerodynamic forces alone once it is in flight". what aerodynamic forces make the rotor spin? the only options i can think of seem counter to what i know of physics...

wow... i couldnt even read that until you said it was the quicksilver logo : P

where are you seeing this logo?

the longer something has been out of production the more it is worth. were not making new land anytime soon. the prices arent going to be significantly affected by the materials themselves.

the quicksilver logo doesnt make you think maybe the guys buy their surf clothing from quicksilver?

they arent accepted because well edjucated people know that it just isnt possible. any device you design that doesnt have an energy input will not have energy output. the absolute best you can ever accomplish would be 100% efficiency, as in if you pushed it to get it started it would continue to go that speed. as soon as you took any energy out it would start to slow down. these devices are designed by people who dont have a solid understanding of the physics involved they are very creative, ill give you that, but they are never, by any means, functional.

is that a guess or something? you can clearly see the buildings, and briefly, the edge of the bridge at numerous points during and after the explosion. O.o and considering the amount of water that can be thrown up with a simple dry ice bomb in a swimming pool id say 3 sticks of dynamite is plenty for that reaction. how they would get a hold of dynamite and throw it into a river in a city without ending up in prison is another story.

only 19 over... lol count yourself lucky the ticket was only 129. i cant wait till someone catches you doing some of the really stupid stuff and nails you for a few hundred bucks. on a public road, there is nothing safe or careful or smart about driving 150mph. you should stop using those words.

all the ways you would test that are based on assumptions about how their brains work. humans can count, recognize themselves and remember where their food is. that doesnt mean that other animals who can do the same things are going to act the same way. you cant ask the animal if it can do those things, you just assume based on how it acts. if its brain is different in a way that makes it so when it sees itself it has a different reaction you wouldnt have any way of knowing.

i agree, im just saying that may be where the discrepency is in their mind, that is, why its ok to tease other minorities, but not them.

i think the problem is they still feel too trampled to be treated equally. if your going to treat someone equally on the negative side you have to give them equality on the positive side too. not that im saying gay jokes are off limits, im just guessing that thats why they feel its off limits. this concept sprouts off into womens rights in my mind too. they want to leave the kitchen and enter the work world, but very few want to help the men onto the life rafts or pick up the check after dinner. i personally think the concept of a housewife is outdated and is definately something we should leave behind, but they still expect their special treatment in other areas of life. they hit you, your not supposed to hit them back, they are the first out of burning buildings, hold the door for them, etc. in the same sort of way, i think gay jokes need to be accepted, but there is sort of an issue if we havent given them equal treatment yet. we want to be able to tease them, but we wont let them get married. but of course, as usual, it was a joke and therefore i still think the solution is for everyone to just lighten up a bit.

so? it still offended many people and still was not hidden from them. you can choose to change the channel, you can choose not to rent the movie. its really not... they arent offended about seeing them kiss, they are offended by the stereotype that followed it. the real point, as far as my example was concerned, was people being offended. not about any particular offense. people were offended by brokeback mountain, and while it might not have shown them kissing, the preview did make it fairly obvious that they were homosexual. given that thats all it takes to offend a lot of right wing christians, the movie doesnt have to be on tv. the preview itself was offensive.

its difficult to decide what an animals brain can do when its completely different from ours. maybe they are communicating on a very high level and we cant tell because they are doing it with a part of their brain that we dont have. they could be more intelligent than we realize since we dont understand how they work.

lots of things offend people. i'm pretty sure broke back mountain offended quite a few right wing christians, yet i seem to recall seeing numerous previews for that, and i don't see it hidden in the back of the video store lest the easily offended spot it... ive seen far more offensive things on tv. many of them dont get pulled off the air. instead they become huge hits, like chappelles show and mind of mencia. the only difference i see is that the groups that are usually attacked in those shows are ones that dont have legal discrimination against them anymore. The fact that you cant get married is no reason to throw a fit about completely unrelated jokes. I don't care what the joke is, or how many people are offended by it. if you get offended at any joke then you don't understand the word well enough. (yes, i'm aware of the hole i just dug myself, the ladder is coming next) that was a combination of me misinterpreting your intent and you seeing more malice in my response than was intended. the commercial was clearly intended to be funny, i don't think anyone has denied that. all anyone cares about is their own self-contained interests. Acts of "charity" are done to make people feel better about themselves. the right i have to crap on other peoples distress comes from the fact that when i dont like a commercial i ignore it. i dont stir up a big fuss and crap on other peoples enjoyment. the people in the ad were afraid of accidentally kissing each other, and therefore felt the need to ward off the homosexual situation they just encountered. the manner in which they did that was absolutely retarded (which is where the joke is). so the commercial made those people look like morons. the only thing we know about those people is that they think homosexuality and manliness are mutually exclusive (and their love of snickers). so really the commercial was making that bias look ridiculous. the complaint here was against the display of that bias. so the commercial was, in the end, against such a bias, and the homosexual community is against that bias. and yet they feel the need to complain about it. all of the above is a long winded way of saying, in this case, yes it really does. this is one of those things i do a lot and really need to start changing. the word "you" from that quote was meant to mean "the part of the homosexual community that complained about the ad" not "sayanara"

ok... is there any such thing as a funny, not mildly amusing, joke that doesnt stereotype?