Search results for:

the-smiling-buddha I think I must be a consequentialist too then, I probably won't mention it to the next copper who tugs me though, he might think I was being 'smart' or summit

:)

the-smiling-buddha Au contraire, organisms are defined by species, and a species is defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, therefore to have an egg you have to have chickens

[in a french accent]

no no no !

'Species' is the mistake. In evolutionarily terms 'species' is a rather nebulous term as there is no clear point at which one ancestor evolves into it's next stage (perhaps my use of 'stage' here falls in to the same category error ?).

On the evolutionary path from non-chicken to chicken, there was was no point at which things changed radically, there were vanishingly small incremental changes.

That is why the answer would be to let the questioner define what he or she means by 'chicken'. Once he or she has picked at what stage of the evolutionary line he feels the creature can be called a chicken - it is reasonable to say that they did not change from a non-chicken to a chicken after the zygote.

Is this reasonable ?

My real feelings are that the question is flawed as the question lacks the correct input. Kind of like asking what it 5 + B ? - My answer would always have to be 'what number are you ascribing to B.'

asm that question may be trivial to such a mega-brain as yourself tynan, but questions like that (and also "can you step into the same river twice?") are a really good way to make kids think. I find it fascinating!

Don't misunderstand me ! I agree, it's all good, and I completely understand why the answers are not important, it is simply that in this case the answer is trivial.

And it is not simply that it is trivial, it is that it is trivial and at the same time often asked like it is a deeply profound enigma, my comments are really about that.

You are right in that it probably holds some fun for kids.

Last time anyone called me 'mega' anything - it didn't have brain on the end. :)

the-smiling-buddha it was very serious thought provoking question, if you go through a red light and no -one sees, its like you never went through that red light at all

That is why I am a consequentialist.

chris crash all right smarty which came first the chicken or the egg?

The egg.

Again you must initially define what you mean by chicken or egg (specifically an egg that will become a chicken but not necessarily having come from a chicken.)

Once you have defined what you consider the point in the long line of ancestry from non-chickens to chickens you would like to label a 'chicken' - simply go back one generation to the non-chicken immediately before the (defined) chicken and watch as it lays the first egg that will become (as you define) a chicken.

The egg. (well technically the answer is the zygote, but you get the idea)

Again it's all definitions.

the-smiling-buddha not if I get to 'confession' first old bean - confession absolves me of all sin - handy that

Damn you Catholics are fast, but of course you're truly fucked when Shiva finds out.

asm [quote]I think the real use of that question is that, by evoking a sense of mystery, it provokes thought in providing an answer. What is important is not the answer, but the fact that it makes people think.

Don't get all philosophical on ma' ass ! ;P

I agree 100% that answers are often the trivial part, but in this case the set-up is so basic that the thought provoked by this crap question is pretty shallow, it is essentially a trick question, equivocation.

the-smiling-buddha My God is not a rathful vengeful kitten killing God instead he is an omnipresent loving and forgiving God that turns a blind eye to the odd minor green cross code infraction

Omniscience and omnipresence means it is impossible for him to turn a blind eye, you are going to hell sonny Jim.

the-smiling-buddha ask yourself this,if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody's around, does it make a sound?

To answer the question simply define 'sound'.

If by 'sound' you mean an energy wave dissipating through the air, yes a sound is made whether someone is there or not.

If by 'sound' you mean that same energy wave hitting a person's ear drum and being converted to an electrical signal that is detected by the auditory cortex - then there would be no sound.

This question (and its variations) is often set up as some kind of deep-seated profundity, but is in fact a trivial mechanical question that relies on equivocation for it's 'mystery'.

As for the red lights, I am a consequentialist.

My prediction is that as technology becomes increasingly available and people become increasingly accepting of government incursion we will - very likely - have cameras specifically targeting cyclists at lights. Maybe.

BringMeMyFix Where do you want it rubbed in - your front or your rear :O?

How am I doing ?

The 'too small sweater' is actually a normal sized sweater, it is what is in the sweater that is causing the topological/sartorial distortion.

hippy The rims I can handle but destroy those fkn tyres before they make all your penises floppy and turn all roads to black ice.

Being generally ignorant and specifically ignorant about road tyres can you tell me what makes Contis so terrible, are they very sketchy in the wet or something ?

(this is not me trying to argue or defend continental tyres, like I said I know very little about what it good and what it bad in the world of circular rubber - a genuine question from a Conti owner who is looking to get something new/better)

[color=white]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[size=60][b][color=red]?

go on, rub it in.

Not sure if any of these three have been posted before:

turpe I can see the similarities with a Concept, but the seat-tube doesn't have the cutout like on the Bianchi, which is one of the more obvious differences. The headtube angle is around one degree off - the Bianchi is 74-75, depending on frame size, the Merckx is 74-73 (as in, it's steeper on the smaller frame sizes). I also think it's a lot more of a 'sloping' geometry, as opposed to the Bianchi's more traditional track geo.

Good point about the geometry, I failed to notice the back wheel being held a few inches off the ground, when that wheel is down and the thing is level it certainly will reveal a more sloping top tube.

I will down grade my obsevations to 'look's a bit like the . . . ' ;P

Very nice bike by the way, anyone know how much the frame/fork would set you back ?

hippy That's taken your flip-flopping a bit far :)

I am not so sure, with a flip-flop front you would be able to go backwards.

BringMeMyFix Or possibly a front hub...

I'll get my coat . . .

briankwan
brand new, 32h, 120mm rear spacing, double fixed

The hubs in the picture (the lower one at least) appears to be single sided, not double fixed ?

bikenut what would be a reasonable weight?

It's not hard to find frames around half that weight ~3.5lb without heading off to ultra-lightweight carbonland.

the-smiling-buddha

the 'enlightenment' is dead, killed off by disinterest and boredom, the 21st century will be the century of the global religious wars, so long as the war is 'rightious' does anyone really care if it is 'just'..?

• 1
  

dogmatic There are quite some Merckx bikes around but since Merckx is the most famous name around in cycling, the prices are higher than for comparable frames of other brands, lots of demand too...
I'm looking for a 2nd hand one of these, cheap:

(shot at the Ghent 6 days)
;)

That looks to be very very close to a Banchi Concept.

Even the indentation down the side of the fork.

bikenut sparton say its 6.5 pounds in weight

That is very heavy.

lpg tynan are you trolling?

I love a good trolling. :)

I don't think so, just stating my opinion, I always feel the need to reply if someone has been kind enough to dig up and post a link on something he or she feel I might have an interest in.

And until his operation is complete the-smiling-buddha: is definitely a 'he or she'.

the-smiling-buddha Aidan, Tynan

Hugo Grotius is you man, 'De jure belli ac pacis' is your manual

I shall avoid getting into the 'Bush lied, people died' debate

the-smiling-buddha http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/grotius/Law2.pdf

If you have trouble sleeping...;)

Thanks for the link, but I cannot honestly bring myself to read anything written by a Christian apologist any more than I can take seriously the work of a vehement advocate of astrology.

Hugo Grotius is basically a nutter, very learned, but a nutter nonetheless.

eeehhhh +1

And I'm getting sick of reading in my uni's student newspaper how science and creationism are compatible when the writers use things like "I find those arguments have logical problems. They are wrong. I do not see any problems with creationism. Therefore it is right."

:(

What college is that ?