EPTHouseHold Hacker (legit?) - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
LeGeNdZs[FcG]
Canada163 Posts
| ||
|
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
On April 14 2008 05:31 Funchucks wrote: sith, I don't think you're grasping the difference between a common misconception which must be taken into account to avoid confusion, and an accepted meaning. The word "inflammable" used to be a common one, meaning "flammable." It is still written on many older signs and labels, and in older books, laws, and regulations, always meaning "flammable." It is important to understand this meaning correctly. Many people are ignorant of this fact, but this does not make their misunderstanding correct. It is never correct or acceptable to use "inflammable" to mean "nonflammable." It is best to use "flammable" rather than "inflammable" to avoid confusing ignorant people. There is no conflict between these rules. It's not correct but it is used. In common conversation if my friend said his inflammable I would probably take that to mean it's not flammable. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On April 14 2008 06:39 5HITCOMBO wrote: The CD one works for sure. I don't know why everyone is so dubious of it just because it's on the internet. The toothpaste works, if you choose the right kind of toothpaste, although it doesn't make the CD surface "good as new." The rest of it does nothing. He even used the wrong kind of toothpaste (I think... it's hard to see exactly what he has). Gel doesn't work. You want an abrasive paste. It's a joke. He switched CDs offscreen. | ||
|
gusbear
333 Posts
On April 14 2008 07:01 fusionsdf wrote: I was really hoping for infinite solutions yea lol that series was funnier imo. some people will probably watch it and think its real just like HH and thats just srsly sad. I always thought the tl community was well educated esp with the anti religion threads. | ||
|
Mandalor
Germany2362 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
geno
United States1404 Posts
| ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
On April 14 2008 07:15 gusbear wrote: yea lol that series was funnier imo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ioal_-iqDLg some people will probably watch it and think its real just like HH and thats just srsly sad. I always thought the tl community was well educated esp with the anti religion threads. I dont think any with access to a microwave could be stupid enough to believe that one. Microwaving a bannana for 2-3 minutes can reverse the aging process? lol | ||
|
potchip
Australia260 Posts
Most toothpaste contains abrasives (for obvious reasons, the 'whitening' ones of course work better). The same can be said with most commercial polish compounds. For years in model car making people used toothpaste as a cheap alternative as a rough, starting polisher, and use finer compounds later. So it is no surprise toothpaste can remove/reduce scratches since it works like a gentle sandpaper (better with a damp cloth). As for the onion gatorade battery...i have my doubts. Besides, if the cost of material is more expensive than the item it is supposed to replace (battery) then it is not a hack, it is retarded. | ||
|
Raithed
China7078 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On April 14 2008 05:11 Funchucks wrote: Look through it at sunlight reflecting off of water and turn it. The angle where all of the light passes through it is the positive terminal. The angle where none of the light passes through is the negative terminal. and straight on till morning? wtf did you say, made no sense. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
!BigBlind!
69 Posts
Anyone who thinks inflammable means not flammable is an idiot. | ||
|
Bub
United States3518 Posts
On April 13 2008 18:58 Latham wrote: The fixing CD thingy... I so want to call bullshit on that! But my friend uses toothpaste alone and it removes/fills up the scrathes so... =\ Yeah some people I know use lotion. It does work. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On April 15 2008 01:56 !BigBlind! wrote: This is all fake. Anyone who thinks inflammable means not flammable is an idiot. Howso? I mean, I know now that it doesn't, but that is because of a Latin translation that is anything but well-known. The prefix 'in' generally means the opposite of the word it is in front of. The fact that they are now reverting back to flammable due to confusion should show you that it is a very common mistake, and therefore either A, the vast majority of people that aren't you are idiots, or B, you are making a gross generalization based on faulty logic. I am going with option B. | ||
|
!BigBlind!
69 Posts
On April 15 2008 02:24 Lemonwalrus wrote: Howso? I mean, I know now that it doesn't, but that is because of a Latin translation that is anything but well-known. The prefix 'in' generally means the opposite of the word it is in front of. The fact that they are now reverting back to flammable due to confusion should show you that it is a very common mistake, and therefore either A, the vast majority of people that aren't you are idiots, or B, you are making a gross generalization based on faulty logic. I am going with option B. The prefix "in" doesn't usually mean the opposite. The majority of people are idiots. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On April 15 2008 07:06 !BigBlind! wrote: The prefix "in" doesn't usually mean the opposite. http://www.iee.et.tu-dresden.de/~wernerr/grammar/prefixes_eng.html I am sorry, but you sir, are incorrect. | ||
mikeymoo
Canada7170 Posts
| ||
| ||
