I'm not saying it IS bullshit, it just seems a bit weird I've never heard of it before. There's a point where "with this one weird trick" style videos have to be taken with a skeptical eye. I've been an adult for the entire lifetime of the internet, and with no previous information, I have to wonder if a Bic lighter has enough BTU's to heat up that nut, as the wheel stud and wheel make a decent heat sink.

In reference to your other post, paraffin wax (candle wax) is actually a component in surfboard and ski wax. I just think it's more effective at preventing rust, rather than seeping into it. As it is similar to kerosene, the video might be somewhat correct. I just doubt the Bic lighter part.

Wow, talk about pointless.

Anyone who does any work on cars will have a torch and a can of penetrant. Those work far better and faster than a candle and lighter. Seriously, use the proper tools for the job.

@Mordhaus

"We have always been a gun violence culture up until the post WW2 era. Think frontier, wild west, duels, and mafia shootouts. We glorify violence everyday, we even give sickos who shoot up groups of people mass media coverage. "

Don't you think that that idea is outdated in 2016? Fine, that's the culture. Change the fucking culture.

When I grew up in Ireland, nobody gave a second thought to driving drunk. Sunday after church, people went to the pub, had a few pints with the neighbours, the kids played space invaders and then the whole family got back in the car and drove home.

And most of the time, it was absolutely fine. People got home, there was the occasional accident, but ya know, what can ya do?

Until it wasn't fine. And it took decades, but eventually, it became socially unacceptable to drive drunk.

"I'm just extremely leery of package deals like lets ban everyone who ends up on a list from having weapons based on a government decision."
I get that. But be reasonable. You're ok with not letting people fly, but you draw the line at owning weapons?

That is some fucked up list of priorities. I would be far more concerned with restricting someones right to travel (essentially restricting their freedom of movement, or a lighter form of incarceration) than whether they can own a gun.

You say that owning a gun is a constitutional right whereas travel isn't. I say that freedom of movement is a fundamental basic human right... oh, look at that, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."

I'm completely willing to say that it should be a lot harder to put someone on this kind of list, but there's no way the right to own a weapon is more important than freedom of movement.

Finally, re: slippery slopes
"The Patriot Act, meant to be a well intended set of rules to help us protect ourselves, has been perverted to lessen quite a few of our rights."

The Patriot Act wasn't a slippery slope, it started at the bottom of the slope and went straight over a fucking cliff. It should never have been passed in the first place.

Yeah that was weird, they had the big block of "Digital Artists" (which could mean anything, including lighters, modelers, animators, compositors) at 20K a pop, and then later 3 "CG Artists", 3 "Modelers", 3 "Animators" making about a million each.
What's the diff? I'm an animator, by the way, and I couldn't tell ya...

Well, she's probably lighter than a navy SEAL.

They have without doubt some of the most quality engineered laptops on the planet. I have a Macbook and my wife has an Asus Macbook clone (straight down to the silver-polish finish). And yes, hers cost less and has a dedicated GPU so she could play games on it (if she had any interest in games) but the Macbook is lighter, keeps the battery charged longer, has a much more beautiful display (Retina vs Full Hd), is much more comfortable to type with, and the touchpad is just freaking heaven to use. I now hate having to use touchpads on any Windows laptop, even my bootcamped Mac!

And you hit the nail on the head about using the right tool for the right job--I work with video as part of my job sometimes and I don't think I can ever go back to video editing on a Windows machine. I can do it easier and faster on an OSX device.

I think also the initial outward simplicity of Mac operating systems makes them ideal for people who don't want to or don't have time to become "computer people" and worry about dealing with downloading the latest drivers or all of the other BS that you need to constantly deal with on a Windows machine. I especially wish my dad, who is constant calling me and my brother for help with his PC, would just switch over to a Mac as it would solve probably 95% of the issues he calls us about.

As Charles De Mar aptly stated in the 1985 film, Better Off Dead -

"Get the lead out. That is all."

Now I'll go back to my lighter fluid eggnog.

That's been refuted now http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

If you read the comments there, it's clear that it wasn't a performance test, but a fly by wire program trial and tune.

But of course that doesn't make head lines like sensationalism.

EDIT: Looks like Arse Technica also ran follow up story:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/f-35-project-team-says-dogfight-report-does-not-tell-whole-story/

Even still I would still expect a F-16 which weighs less than 1/2, and has a better thrust to weight ratio to be fully capable of waxing the F-35 in a guns only dog fight. That's just physics. I'd also expect an even lighter and zippier F-5e to do the same to the F-16. And people did have that critism back in the early 70s.

But as I've said above many times. Dog fights haven't existed since WW1.

The F-35 can do everything better than any other plane. It's weapons are better, it's senors are better, and it's communication and situational awareness is much better. Thanks to the stealth, it has better survivability.

The only area it has some disadvantages in performance are the acceleration and maneuverability. Which is a small disadvantage, it still accelerates incredibly fast, just slower than a lighter plane, which is just physics. But it's not a slouch by any means. Plus the maneuverability is still being worked on, it's all fly by wire and they can do some really magic things with those systems once it's all tuned. They haven't started pushing it to the limits yet from what I've heard. (and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole "our plane sucks" thing was another tactic of spreading misinformation).

Here's the other thing. The F-16 can out maneuver and out accelerate the F-35. But every Russian fighter can out accelerate and out maneuver the F-16, anyway. Yet the F-16 always comes out on top. Why is that? Superior sensors, weapons, comms and tactics.

The F-35 is the best plane to achieve air superiority, because not many pilots have a death wish. Air combat is about survival, not about kills. Even in the Gulf war, the Iraqi's didn't want to fly against the F-15s because they knew they'd get just get shot down. They never even took off. So imagine how they would feel against a plane that can't be detected, let alone locked onto. A plane that can lock onto you and fire without you knowing. Not a good feeling knowing that at any moment you could explode without warning.

The A-10 is bullet proof, but not missile proof. It's a sitting duck against shoulder mounted IGLA's. Only the cockpit is bullet proof BTW which is great for the pilot, but not so great for the rest of the plane

I agree that the F-35 for the current war is overkill, but electronics and technology keeps getting cheaper day by day, and in 10 years time, even the current enemies will start buying more sophisticated systems. It's better to be prepared. As being reactionary like in WW2 and Vietnam was quite costly to the lives of allied forces. The F-35 will probably be in service for another 30 years, so it needs to try to meet as many requirements as it can for that time period, until the next plane comes out shooting lasers instead of missiles.

Also close air support these days is already done mostly by soft skin planes like the F-16. So not much difference there. Apart from the expense I guess. It's not low and slow either. You have a plane fly at such speed and high altitude the people on the ground never even know about it.


If you feel like it I'll give you a game of DCS World some time. It's a free flight sim (also used to train US national guard and other nations too). It really demonstrates the value of good sensors and weapons over flight performance

Now when it comes to being a waste of money, only time will tell. I guess either way it's win win though, because if there is no conflict that needs this plane it's only a good thing. And if there is a conflict we have the plane ready. But for the time being it really does seem like it's a waste of money. A lot of money, especially in a time of debt.

But, at least in the first one, the sword isn't 'magic', it's just stronger and lighter than other swords. If one has no sword skills, the sword does nothing for you.

That is exactly the wrong kind of thinking and the reason why so many people are obese these days.

It's just not that simple. All calories are not created equal. WHAT you eat is just as important as HOW MUCH you eat.

Sure if you burn a shit ton of energy, you can pretty much eat whatever you like, but most people don't do that much exercise.

If you have a limited time to exercise (and most people do), you will get a much greater effect by eating smart than by increasing your exercise.

Of course, the flip side to that is that losing weight doesn't make you fitter, just lighter.

On a lighter note.
http://www.centennialbulb.org/

In the opening question she blew it. What if the rock is lava rock, which is LIGHTER than water? That means you can't figure out the answer without knowing the density of the rock.
Archimedes equation is only useful in figuring out weight for things that are buoyant. Anything more dense than water (or whatever medium you're in) will only displace it's own volume in water, not it's mass.
That's why I think the wood block should weigh more in a vacuum. It displaced more air, so was more buoyant, and so had more buoyancy to lose. It seems to me she set it up poorly again, because if they weigh the same in air, but are different densities, they would seem to need to have different masses to achieve balance, but she said they have the same mass, but I think she should have said 'they weigh the same'....just as @Barbar and @Stormsinger indicated above.