And that's why dragsters have 4 super strong straps attached to the blower. Without them, it could easily have launched into the stands/pits.

It sure did blow up good, though.

Your video, Super-Strong Tiny Robots Pull Heavy Loads, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

... But they actually forgot to mention Post-its. 3M was trying to create a glue, but it didn't work. It WAS a complete accident that they created post-its because that glue was supposed to stick - and it doesn't - which gave them the idea to market it as Post-Its.

"In 1968, Dr. Spencer Silver, a chemist at 3M in the United States, was attempting to develop a super-strong adhesive, but instead he accidentally created a "low-tack", reusable, pressure-sensitive adhesive." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-it_note

>> ^Jinx:

Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.


I think what's interesting is that like the man says, everyone assumed it was NOT the impact but the jet fuel that brought the buildings down. Unless the offical line is now changing.

I doubt the impact of a fragile aircraft that that disintegrated into a million pieces was enough to bring down a super strong structure designed to resist all that nature can throw at it. To bring down a building that size you would normally have to demolish it...

Still my issue is what the proposed rigging of the building would have looked like. What are they proposing exactly? Would only certain points and floors require rigging?

Things i noticed:

- Isn't it a bit sexist of her to assume that the robots in transformers weren't their equivalent of female?
- Ditto District 9, though we couldn't pronounce their names nor tell if they were conversing.
- I thought there was a bit in watchmen where older/younger silk spectre spoke about something other than a man - at least for a bit.
- The bourne supremacy has 2 named women talking to each other about old assassination missions and capturing a rogue assassin. As does the third one because it follows directly on from the second. Does this qualify as 'talking about a man'? If so, that is a very arbitrary line to be drawn.
- Isn't wall-e about robots?
- Austin Powers are films lampooning the objectifying of women/the wallflower stereotype.
- The wedding singer has the two named sisters talking about the degree of tongue acceptable at weddings. Again, i say that if you can bend the rules to say that is technically 'talking about a man', then you could equally bend them another way in this and other examples.
- ^ Such as X-men where there are many group conversations involving named women. I'm not an expert on those films so i can't say for sure if there's a clear conversation between 2 named women, but group convo's with multiple named women there are.
- Interview with a vampire has a conversation between the child vampire (who is of course a woman trapped in a child's body, this is a big point in the film) and the woman selected to be bitten to be her mother, both are named.

If you make a film based anywhere in history past 50-60 years ago, you're going to hit the culture factor. You can't just manufacture women into places where they wouldn't have been in a time where women were not considered equal. You may as well complain about racism in a film taking place when black people were used in slavery.
- Shawshank
- Pirates
- Gladiator

There are films with a very powerful and strong female protagonist battling against the odds and coming out on top. Some of these films don't even pass the test - how can this be when it's basically saying "Women can be better/stronger than men?"
- GI Jane (vs. GI Joe) - fights against all the odds and eventually shows people how wrong they were.
- Fifth element - she saves him, he saves her, she saves the planet?
- Alien 3
- Tomb Raider
- Arguably 'Wanted'

^ It almost feels like she's mocking her own theory/criticism by naming these films. "Hey look everyone, even films with a super-strong female character kicking everyone's ass and showing how women aren't wallflowers........................is perpetuating the stereotype that women are submissive wallflowers!"

It's almost like naming examples of where the theory fails to be true. Which ...renders the theory useless?

I do think there's a point to be made, but i don't think it's as bad as they want to believe it is, and i certainly don't think that this is demonstrated by the films listed. Show films like pulp fiction, se7en, etc. even fight club. Those convince me. The others make me think "I don't think these people will be happy until we make 2 versions of every film with the sexes mirror'd."

If they can't value the fifth element, alien and tomb raider as films that fight against a stereotype, when exactly are they going to be happy?

Furthermore, how in the blue hell can you put forth an argument against the legalisation of pot based on law enforcement redundancy? It's exactly the same as if we'd continued capital punishment because ridding ourselves of it would put hangmen out of business, not to mention all the large ceremonial axes that would suddenly go unsold. Then whetstones to sharpen them, gallows and rope sales would go down rapidly, gallows builders would have to retrain and possibly go on unemployment, our jails would get fuller, it's all a terrible terrible idea.

You need to have your head examined pal. There are SO many reasons for legalisation of cannibis, and i've yet to hear one against it other than "i don't like it" which often equates to "i don't know anything about it".

All this talk about addiction is fine, but what about alcohol addiction? What about tobacco addiction? You really, really need to think about that in detail and just exactly what the differences between tobacco and pot are. Pot is actually better for your long term health than tobacco, less easily habit forming, and there are no real solid proofs anywhere of mental health issues that i've come across to date. So it's better for you than tobacco, but it makes you giggle and/or trip out a little.

So does salvia, and THAT'S FUCKING LEGAL, WHERE IS THE FUCKING SENSE?

The next argument against pot we'll see is the "strong strains such as skunk are blah blah blah" well you can shove that right up your arse too. I've never tried skunk, never tried any kind of "super strong" strain of it. I've smoked some basic run of the mill weed which i could grow for myself, and i had an absolutely fantastic time doing it. I also alleviated a migraine with it. Never hurt anyone, never hurt myself, never woke up feeling like a sack of vomit and diareah unlike some legal social drugs, never stole anything in my life, never considered harder drugs (other than i'd love to try LSD in a controlled environment with supervision), and i'm pretty damn intelligent to boot.

Spare us all the bullshit and get right down to the truth - you're scared of something you don't understand and have never experienced, and why are you scared? Because that's how you've been brought up, indoctrinated, call it what you will.

Got a kick out of this too.

8. Stone Boy - Dag Wintem, better known as Stone Boy. Well Dag had this idea. Perhaps his ability to turn to stone might do some greater good in the universe. Thus he contacted the Legion of Superheroes to see if they could use him. So what else could Dag do? Was he super strong? Nope. Did he control rock in any way? Uh-huh. All he could do was turn to stone. Once in stone form Dag couldn't move or talk. All he did was just turn into an unmovable hunk of stone. Anyhow, the Legion didn't feel they had any use for Dag, but then the Legion lacked imagination. Dag joined the ranks of the Legion of Substitute Heroes, a group of Legion rejecties who formed their own superhero group to fight evil when the Legion was otherwise tied up on another mission. Led by Polar Boy and Night Girl, the Subs found lots of good uses for Stone Boy. For instance, hoisting Stone Boy above their enemies heads and dropping him was about as effective as dropping a piano on a bad guy. Also, they could often use Stone Boy as a hard object to throw villains into. Stone Boy made a great battling ram as well. I mean, with a bit of determination, imagination and know how, Stone Boy had his uses. However, that doesn't stop him from being kinda lame. Stone boy (Or Dag as he's more affectionately known) now runs a large video voting site called videosift.

Why don't consumer vehicles have mounted guards above their passenger compartments? That would have the same effect and you could have that installed yourself.

Wah?

Ok... so let's think about it for a second... we can either: do the relatively simple thing of installing a side barrier along the length of that gap on the truck AS DONE IN MANY COUNTRIES.
OR
By your suggestion... retrofit ALL cars with super strong front rollcage things for some ungodly amount of money.

You have many things going against your ridiculous suggestion:
a) The number of cars vs the number of trucks
b) The ease of installing a barrier on the side of a truck vs somehow incorporating it into the myriad of different car bodies which have no easy place to do so safely, cheaply or in an aesthetic manner.

I mean, what's with the anti European attack? Um... yeah, they are doing it better... live with it, the US doesn't do everything in the best way you know. Not by a hell of a long way.

I agree with you, but to play devil's advocate for the system for a moment, the potential 'upside' from the levelling system is that it keeps things "interesting", since you still have a "challenge" rather than a cakewalk throughout the later game.

It also keeps the random sites/dungeons interesting.

Of course, they could've done the same thing by doing away with the level-dependent enemy strength, and instead mixing up easy and tough places. Controversial choice and on the whole I agree with you, mainly because of the absurdity of finding thieves and bandits sporting glass armour and other riches when this stuff is supposed to be some sort of luxury.

Making things stupider is the fact that the 'other' NPCs don't level up (or at least, not as much... but I think not at all is in fact correct), so guardsmen are liable to get smacked down on higher levels by enemies that would otherwise pose no threat to them. Sad.

At least the bears and wolves seem to have a level cap, eh?

>> ^cybrbeast:
I actually think Morrowind was better, as far as gameplay is concerned, than Oblivion. Oblivion has this stupid leveling system, where basically all the enemies are always about the same strength relative to you. So when you level up, the creatures just do the same. This really robs you of the RPG element of feeling your character getting super strong. And it makes everything too easy. In Morrowind there were areas where you just couldn't go at a low level, except on very risky missions to maybe grab some cool items. In Oblivion is is not even possible to get cool items as a low level, they only start appearing as you level up. In Morrowind you had to work really hard to get a great set of armor together but in oblivion all the good stuff just appears as you level higher. I think all this was done to make it more accessible for the console kiddies.
Modders have tried to fix these problems, but they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

I actually think Morrowind was better, as far as gameplay is concerned, than Oblivion. Oblivion has this stupid leveling system, where basically all the enemies are always about the same strength relative to you. So when you level up, the creatures just do the same. This really robs you of the RPG element of feeling your character getting super strong. And it makes everything too easy. In Morrowind there were areas where you just couldn't go at a low level, except on very risky missions to maybe grab some cool items. In Oblivion is is not even possible to get cool items as a low level, they only start appearing as you level up. In Morrowind you had to work really hard to get a great set of armor together but in oblivion all the good stuff just appears as you level higher. I think all this was done to make it more accessible for the console kiddies.
Modders have tried to fix these problems, but they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

I'd rather rip them open for the super strong magnets inside. I have quite a few magnets from my old drives.

"Arthritis is an autoimmune disorder."
Remember, there are multiple forms of arthritis. The most common is osteoarthritis which is basically wear and tear. It's mostly traumatic arthritis. The autoimmune types, like rheumatoid and lupus-associated, are less common.

This was damn fascinating. I'd never heard of this ape. If this was a "mutated" chimp, it would be startling evidence from the wild that a sudden, chance, and dramatic mutation could be beneficial. It could have allowed him advantages over others in the wild. His lack of interest in the chimp ladies would have prevented his passing on his mutation, but it seems maybe his preference for the ladies was influenced by who he was around during sexual maturation. Beggars can't be choosers. Seems like he was doing his best to get some romancing. Who knows, in a dim-lit smoky bar and a few whiskey sours, he might have had some luck.

A "super strong chimp army" could be easily enough defeated with booby-trapped bananas. The Soviets should have known that.

wikipedia does not agree with you Devlin,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana

"Contrary to popular belief, continued folding will not create a "super-strong" blade; once impurities are burnt off and the carbon content homogenized, further folding offers little benefit and will gradually burn out the carbon, leading eventually to a softer steel less able to hold an edge. The number of folds varied from sword to sword, but those with more than about a dozen folds are uncommon, and authentic swords with more than two dozen folds are completely unknown. A blade folded 12 times will have more than 4,000 'layers' underneath the initial blade to begin with, and 20 folds would produce a blade with over a million layers. Beyond this number, the molecular structure of the blade is such that further folding would most likely serve no further purpose. Even before this point, more layers does not equal a better sword; though folding does burn off impurities and homogenize the blade, a very even and clean composition is obtained early in the process, and control of carbon content has a much greater effect on the blade's functionality. Thus, the best results were usually obtained at 8-10 folds."