circular logic 101.
step 1.ignore the actual question.
step2.introduce your own premise.
step3.then proceed to chase your own tail round and round and round and round until the person who posed the question head explodes.

>> ^chingalera:

Scale it the fuck up and put it orbit!!


Evil mastermind 101 the only weapons allowed in orbit are lasers.

In reply to this comment by ant:
Sí, señor(it)a.

In reply to this comment by pumkinandstorm:
>> ^ant:
ICN (I care not).
>> ^pumkinandstorm:
In reply to this comment by ant:
FAKE POO FIGHT! FAKE POO FIGHT! FAKE POO FIGHT! FAKE POO FIGHT! FAKE POO FIGHT!
In reply to this comment by pumkinandstorm:
In reply to this comment by ant:
>> ^lantern53:
Can't wait to make a turd for my wife's bathroom.

/me throws wet brown toilet paper rolls at pumkinandstorm!

FAKE POO FIGHT! try saying that 5 times fast

Not really what I meant...but you get top marks for enthusiasm! Now get ready to run into your anthill - I'm about to whip this sopping wet paper roll at you and it's gonna hurt...


Oh reallllyyyyy???? Is THAT why you're hiding out on YOUR profile instead of daring to come over to mine to say that????

>> ^ant:
ICN (I care not).
>> ^pumkinandstorm:
In reply to this comment by ant:
FAKE POO FIGHT! FAKE POO FIGHT! FAKE POO FIGHT! FAKE POO FIGHT! FAKE POO FIGHT!
In reply to this comment by pumkinandstorm:
In reply to this comment by ant:
>> ^lantern53:
Can't wait to make a turd for my wife's bathroom.

/me throws wet brown toilet paper rolls at pumkinandstorm!

FAKE POO FIGHT! try saying that 5 times fast

Not really what I meant...but you get top marks for enthusiasm! Now get ready to run into your anthill - I'm about to whip this sopping wet paper roll at you and it's gonna hurt...


Oh reallllyyyyy???? Is THAT why you're hiding out on YOUR profile instead of daring to come over to mine to say that????

Planet Terror was great, Deathproof was 95% girls spewing out ill-fitting Tarantino Dialog and 5% car chase.>> ^chingalera:

>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^HugeJerk:
Any villain list without Rutger Hauer's Hitcher is incomplete. Also, Death Proof is an awful movie and nobody should be reminded of it.

I really liked Deathproof!

Yes ma'am, Deathproofs' a piece of work, HugeJerk knows nothing!!

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^HugeJerk:
Any villain list without Rutger Hauer's Hitcher is incomplete. Also, Death Proof is an awful movie and nobody should be reminded of it.

I really liked Deathproof!


Yes ma'am, Deathproofs' a piece of work, HugeJerk knows nothing!!

>> ^HugeJerk:

Any villain list without Rutger Hauer's Hitcher is incomplete. Also, Death Proof is an awful movie and nobody should be reminded of it.


I really liked Deathproof!

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Hang on... just a minute there! Tyler Durden was a villain?
And Roy Batty?
And Vincent and Jules? Ok, they weren't good guys, but they certainly weren't the villains.
Also, if we have to have a villainous Disney cartoon cat, I see your Scar and raise you Shere Khan.


I think Tyler became a villain, it's sort of the best villain because it's where internal conflicts beat on eachother for a time and then one wins out. Very interesting to think of that movie in terms of them actually being two people instead of what it ended up being. Imagine Tyler was his friend that slowly went insane and controlling until you had to eventually push the big red button and stop the madness.

Although I have to say me personally, I was all for Tyler. His last stand was certainly not hurting anyone and it was a great idea, which is why I suppose it wasn't a thing when it happened to go down anyways, it was a fitting climax. Jack though was reacting because the situation had gotten out of control and he could predict where it would lead. He didn't trust Tyler, or himself really. Pretty cool.

>> ^CrushBug:

5:17 the Asian gentleman yelling


I believe it's Matsudaira from Jusannin no Shikaku (look at me, showing off 3 of the 5 words of Japanese I know!).

And if you've seen the movie, you'll agree he deserves his place on the list. If you haven't seen it and you like lots of people being killed with swords, it's a damn fine movie.

>> ^kulpims:

promote


<3

>> ^jqpublick:

I think it's more likely that this system extends the drive time of whatever battery cells he has installed in the thing. It's not that he's getting free energy, it's just that at 40 the system is going fast enough that even though there's a net loss, the additional energy stored in the batteries gives a longer running time. I think that's just about all that there is here.
>> ^rkone:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

Agreed. I'd downvote the video if I could. People, if you're in doubt, think of it this way - if the fan could generate more power than the loss of pushing it, then you could just keep adding more fans until it becomes a perpetual motion machine..



Problem, nothing happens at 40 miles an hour in physics for a decrease wind resistance and drag. If anything, the faster you go, the more of a problem wind becomes. There is no possible way that this is extending his drive time. This is exactly equal to holding your hand out the window. If you could turn that blockage into electricity, it will always be less energy than the amount of momentum it sapped via drag. Or else ALL CARS WOULD ALREADY DO THIS! The reason you don't is because it doesn't work.

A simple instance where something like this IS used is the emergency ram air turbine for jumbo jets. When there is a complete loss of power, a ram air turbine drops down to generate emergency power for the hydraulic systems. This increases drag, but it is so small that it isn't a problem. But it is also why air planes don't have windmills on them, anything you use to block the wind is slowing you down more than any recoverable amount of energy via electric conservation of kinetic energy. This is physics 101, entropy, it's a bitch!

Now, if he compressed the incoming air, added a combustion chamber with kerosene or gasoline, then he would have himself a turbine engine for his car, but now, he just has a lesson in why physics is hard.

here's Episode #2.

Trollage 101

haha, @bareboards2, you seem quite eager to jump into epithets, dear.. even before responding to the question I'm actually asking! It isn't slut shaming so much as it is an inquiry into the facts of the case?
There's a lot of dubiousness when it comes to "he said/she said" accusations, let alone what constitutes "consent" between adults behind closed doors.

Let me reiterate for the third time (since you seem to have missed it the first two times I stated it) that I am not making any claims or suggestions about the facts or issues pertinent to the particular case described in this video (and, while you're attempts to suggest that I am are entertaining, I do feel somewhat insulted by them). My query simply poses the question as to whether a plaintiff's google searches are always immaterial or if there are special hypothetical cases (which I raised as such in my first and subsequent posts on this thread) by which that would not be the case.

In other words, where/how does one draw the line (without casting ad hominems at your interlocutor)?


>> ^bareboards2:

@Trancecoach, an interest in bondage is very far removed from being choked and raped.
This is classic slut shaming, honey. Interested in kinky sex? Oh, but then you changed your mind because you are a dirty dirty girl and are so ashamed of what you did.
The google searches are irrelevant.
What is relevant is what he did to her.

Uh...the point of the video was that the term "Blow-Back" and what it stands for was NOT made up by Ron Paul. That it is a real thing and that RP was using the term to correctly explain his point of view. The fact that most people watching the debates including the people participating have no idea what blow-back is doesn't do a lot to support your claim that ""Blowback" is a widely known term"...perhaps in certain circles this is true...but not for most people.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Welcome to foreign policy 101.
"Blowback" is a widely known term and concept that goes back decades. Chomsky has written extensively about it since the 70s. Ron Paul did not invent or popularize this term. In fact, Ron Paul is 30 years late to the party, which I guess is pretty good for Ron, considering he is still stuck in the 1800s with regards to economics.