|
On February 27 2015 18:24 DSK wrote:
It definitely looks white and gold/dark orange to me.
I guess TL cracked down on this question so I won't go on.
+ Show Spoiler +I feel like thinking the dress was white and gold was like believing in Santa Clause and now that all I can see is blue and black (with a little hint of gold/brown) it's like + Show Spoiler + finding out he wasn't real I want to go back to it being white and gold!
Although I have to thank it for inspiring me to see politics in a new way.
I was absolutely sure I was looking at a white and gold dress when I first saw it. Or at least I was seeing the colors white and gold represented on the screen.
But now knowing I downloaded an image I was sure was white and gold and now all I see is blue and black it's hard to accept that what I saw wasn't reality.
Now it makes a little more sense when people deny what seem like obvious facts to some and even when presented with proof they are wrong or how what they saw was distorted, still can't reconcile the reality with how they see it.
|
What is wrong with you people? It was obviously black and blue. I couldn't even believe that this was debatable until Najda linked that article.
|
On February 27 2015 19:41 IgnE wrote:
What is wrong with you people? It was obviously black and blue. I couldn't even believe that this was debatable until Najda linked that article.
lol too funny. See what I mean about the political part?
|
On February 27 2015 19:41 IgnE wrote:
What is wrong with you people? It was obviously black and blue. I couldn't even believe that this was debatable until Najda linked that article.
I thought it was greyish brown and blue.
But photos are exceptionally tricky, because light conditions play a very important role in how colors look in photos. Anybody who has a camera in which you can adjust the white balance should be able to think of that. Or who has taken a photo with and without flash of the same object.
Not to mention monitor adjustments and lighting conditions when looking at the photo on a screen...
|
On February 27 2015 19:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 19:41 IgnE wrote:
What is wrong with you people? It was obviously black and blue. I couldn't even believe that this was debatable until Najda linked that article.
lol too funny. See what I mean about the political part?
Except the reality is that the dress is blue.
|
On February 24 2015 14:34 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 08:38 FiWiFaKi wrote:On February 24 2015 03:59 farvacola wrote:
You're a mechanical engineering student, surely you know someone at your school better versed in automotive engineering than TL's general population. There is not a simple answer to your question lol. Surprisingly not. I've asked several peers and two professors, and the best answers I got were hypothesizing reasons and radiated shaky confidence at best. I was almost mad that my prof for Advanced Mechanics of Materials had no idea. Seems like such a fundamental concept, but I cannot find very much meaning information easily. I can give you some shakily confident reasoning as well...  A big wheel rolls better than a small one, in the sense that small bumps will break a big wheel less than a small wheel. That would be a reason to make the wheel as big as possible. A big (thus heavy) wheel has more inertia to accelerate to a certain speed than a car with the same total weight but smaller wheels, as you have less energy stored in the angular momentum of the wheels. Can't imagine that being a huge effect for normal cars, but would be a factor if you tried to build a vehicle where the wheels take up a significant fraction of the mass. More importantly, large wheels take space, in the sense that they you wouldn't fit in seats above too large back wheels, and the front wheels would go through the top of engine lid which probably isn't a good idea for a number of reasons (vision, stability and shooting pebbles at people comes to mind). I get the impression that most car wheels are essentially as large as they can get without going through the top of the car while still leaving space for suspension. Actually, after some google image search for "car", I see that many sporty cars have little bumps over the front wheel, allowing for as large wheels as possible (reducing ground friction) without breaking through the top. Also, if you want to go in rough terrain, it is more important to have big wheel (as you can expect larger scale bumps), which is why city-cars can get away with smaller wheel than a more terrainy car, but I think you already knew that. edit: and the reason you don't just build high cars is that you get more drag at high speed. Although some certain cultures seem to prefer to do that anyway, and just stuff in stronger engines to make up for the drag... >_>
I'm a bit late to the convo but I wanted to chime in with my 2 cents as well.
Tire + wheel sizing and construction has alot to do with what was mentioned previously but it has much more to do with handling than anything else. The contact patch is heavily affected during cornering because of how the car chassis and the suspension tie together. Different constructions allow for better maintenance of that contact patch during cornering i.e. independent suspension vs. solid axle. A wider tire/wheel will be able to maintain straight line contact better than a small wheel, however during cornering a more narrow wheel will be able to ride the interior of its wall better (i.e. motorcycle tire/wheels and cornering). In addition wall height and total tire height have a large impact on the angle that is generated between the tire and ground while in a turn (any turn really not just high speed turns due to the change in geometry caused by inflexible parts that all need to connect somehow). The contact patch is key to accelerating and breaking and is thus tuned to the respective power /weight of the car. The undampened mass of the wheel/tire/axle also has a big effect on braking. your best bet for detailed numbers and figures would be any reference on suspension design and/or chassis.
EDIT: Also tire tread depth is more important for water than it is for snow as it acts like a pump that traps water along the center groove, and pushes on the in-compressible water to shoot it out the side.
|
On February 27 2015 19:41 IgnE wrote:
What is wrong with you people? It was obviously black and blue. I couldn't even believe that this was debatable until Najda linked that article.
I dunno. My girlfriend saw white and gold when she saw it this morning. It was a nice relationship while it lasted.
|
I saw it white and gold. I had to squint to see it blue and black. On my phone it was very obviously blue and black though.
So I have this uh, affordable IKEA-type bookshelf and I put a humidifier on top of it and found out that the bottom of the humidifier gets wet sometimes, causing the "finish" of the bookshelf to get damaged, like there are a bunch of little bumps where the humidifier was. It's not very obvious but it's enough to annoy me. Is there any way to fix or to conceal this easily? I'd assume not but I thought I'd ask.
|
Your best bet is probably to put some sort of tablecloth on top of it. Other than that, if it were real wood, you could simply grind off the top layer and put a new coat of paint onto it, but the IKEA type stuff is usually mostly cardboard with a layer of stuff that looks like wood on top, so if that layer is damaged there is not really anything you can do.
Edit: You could try to find out if IKEA or whatever sells a replacement top board for that shelf, i have no idea if they do or don't.
|
On February 28 2015 17:08 Simberto wrote:
Edit: You could try to find out if IKEA or whatever sells a replacement top board for that shelf, i have no idea if they do or don't.
And if you do, use a varnish to seal the shelf the humidifier sits on.
|
In the history of SC2, in offline tournaments, who has played the most greedy play ever, and actually made it work?
ie. Something bonkers like 5 hatch before pool. Must be pro-level players, you know - not a pro going up a gold leaguer in an open tournament.
|
On March 02 2015 04:44 fruity. wrote:
In the history of SC2, in offline tournaments, who has played the most greedy play ever, and actually made it work?
ie. Something bonkers like 5 hatch before pool. Must be pro-level players, you know - not a pro going up a gold leaguer in an open tournament.
I think it was in a GSTL finals if I remember correctly, Gumiho went for a pretty fast 4 CCs against zerg. I don't remember the build exactly but something like he had his natural up and quickly build his 3rd and 4th CC in his main and ending up winning the game (actually all killed the finals too). It may have been off no gas as well, maybe someone else remembers better. That is the first one that comes to mind.
|
Caldeum1977 Posts
There was a PvP game I want to say herO vs Rain where like both went nexus first but then one of them actually took a hidden 3rd right after. It's not too greedy, but considering it was in a PvP it was super risky. It went unscouted and won the game.
|
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes?
|
On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes?
I guess it's working as intended. If there is not enough public information to prove guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he shouldn't be punished in court. I guess the lawyer is under some kind of oath of not making public what their client tells them?
But I'm not a lawyer, so this is just me rambling. 
|
On March 03 2015 10:34 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes? I guess it's working as intended. If there is not enough public information to prove guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he shouldn't be punished in court. I guess the lawyer is under some kind of oath of not making public what their client tells them? But I'm not a lawyer, so this is just me rambling.
He should win the case for the defense, then after it's over say "but seriously, he's guilty"
|
The legal system is just the least evil compromise we've managed to agree upon yet. There is room for improvement. If the guy did do it and went free its a false negative and therefore it failed.
|
the legal system generally thinks of false positives as worse than false negatives for criminal trials; innocent until proven guilty and all that
|
Zurich15365 Posts
On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes?
In this case the recommended path for the lawyer is to move to NYC and to work for Al Pacino's big law firm and then throw crazy sex and gore romps.
|
On March 03 2015 23:49 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes? In this case the recommended path for the lawyer is to move to NYC and to work for Al Pacino's big law firm and then throw crazy sex and gore romps.
Magpie approved
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
