Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 2]
Discussion
drivin_me_nuts said:
grumbledoak said:
GTIR said:
Do wimins, when initially meeting a male, look at their crotch area?
Yes (it's been studied, not boasting).It's almost like they know when a man will look away. It's a gift.
GTIR said:
Wimins are very subtle at perving on men whereas men are just blatant (Which is partly why gheyers are so promiscuous and that "look" with another guy, that is just a little bit too long, is "Gaydar" that them lot go on about. "Hi, fancy a bum?" "Yeah, sure") but if you watch them wimin, obv when they can't see you and are not looking at you, they do do it.
It's almost like they know when a man will look away. It's a gift.
Life would be a lot simpler if women were as direct in their communication and as ready to have sex with a stranger as men are. The human race would also be dead from the clap within a year.It's almost like they know when a man will look away. It's a gift.
CRA2Y said:
Since it's possible for many years to land a helicopter full of tourists on top of Mount Everest, why the hell do people risk their lives climbing it?
Just wait a few more decades and you can take the cable car and visit the gift shop!
Saying because I can / because it's there is about the equivalent of going on a Spanish holiday and choosing to avoid the airport and use a bicycle instead.
Because it's almost impossible to land a helicopter on Mt everest as its at the top of a good proportion of helicopters upper operating limit meaning that to do it you need to minimise everything from fuel to passengers and even then you risk not being able to take off again.Just wait a few more decades and you can take the cable car and visit the gift shop!
Saying because I can / because it's there is about the equivalent of going on a Spanish holiday and choosing to avoid the airport and use a bicycle instead.
Edited by CRA2Y on Thursday 9th May 07:22
Only 1 helicopter has ever done it, well he hovered on the top and even then he nearly didn't make it back, here's the video
Oh and of course it's massively illegal to land on Mt.Everest.
The A10 at Foxton has those rubber cables stretched across the road near the level crossing (two on the approach and two on the departure). There are also temporary cameras watching the crossing (about 50m closer to the crossing).
The crossing has permanent CCTV. So what are they monitoring? Speed of approach?
The crossing has permanent CCTV. So what are they monitoring? Speed of approach?
AstonZagato said:
The A10 at Foxton has those rubber cables stretched across the road near the level crossing (two on the approach and two on the departure). There are also temporary cameras watching the crossing (about 50m closer to the crossing).
The crossing has permanent CCTV. So what are they monitoring? Speed of approach?
Monitoring traffic.The crossing has permanent CCTV. So what are they monitoring? Speed of approach?
The two sets of rubber sensors measure what type of traffic is using the road.
Silent1 said:
CRA2Y said:
Since it's possible for many years to land a helicopter full of tourists on top of Mount Everest, why the hell do people risk their lives climbing it?
Just wait a few more decades and you can take the cable car and visit the gift shop!
Saying because I can / because it's there is about the equivalent of going on a Spanish holiday and choosing to avoid the airport and use a bicycle instead.
Because it's almost impossible to land a helicopter on Mt everest as its at the top of a good proportion of helicopters upper operating limit meaning that to do it you need to minimise everything from fuel to passengers and even then you risk not being able to take off again.Just wait a few more decades and you can take the cable car and visit the gift shop!
Saying because I can / because it's there is about the equivalent of going on a Spanish holiday and choosing to avoid the airport and use a bicycle instead.
Edited by CRA2Y on Thursday 9th May 07:22
Only 1 helicopter has ever done it, well he hovered on the top and even then he nearly didn't make it back, here's the video
Oh and of course it's massively illegal to land on Mt.Everest.
I'm not saying landing on Everest is easy or anything, but getting there isn't at the limit of technology from 40 years ago, never mind today.
C
R1-Jay said:
why is it that when you lay in the sun with your eyes closed, when you open them and go inside, everything is mainly blue in colour?
Blue is the opposite of red, as far as the eyes are concerned.The red blood cells in your eyelids filter out blue light, so you get something like the eye turning up the gain on the blue to compensate.
When you open your eyes, it takes a while for the gain to be turned back down again.
This auto-adjust feature is also used to hide the red blood cells moving about in your eye, and it'll mess up when a white blood cell passes and leave a tiny bright dot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_field_entoptic_p...
Wait for a clear sunny day, look up and try and see your blood cells!
When did films stop having intermissions? For the youngsters, the were a break in the movie when he curtain came down, the lights went up and you could buy orange squash and little tubs of ice-cream from a lady with a tray.
And when did films stop being shown as part of a double bill? Back in the day, when they had intermissions, there were always two films shown, the second one was never as well known as the first one, bit like a B side on a record single.
And when did films stop being shown as part of a double bill? Back in the day, when they had intermissions, there were always two films shown, the second one was never as well known as the first one, bit like a B side on a record single.
Ayahuasca said:
And when did films stop being shown as part of a double bill? Back in the day, when they had intermissions, there were always two films shown, the second one was never as well known as the first one, bit like a B side on a record single.
About the time Mr Pearl met Mr Dean.So, other than the flat earthers, we agree the world is a roundy bally shape. But not round.
So.. assuming you could go up in the air to a height for you be able to see a horizon of say a 100 mile RADIUS. How far different in height would you be if you repeated that at the rounder or the flatter part of the earth?
So.. assuming you could go up in the air to a height for you be able to see a horizon of say a 100 mile RADIUS. How far different in height would you be if you repeated that at the rounder or the flatter part of the earth?
drivin_me_nuts said:
So, other than the flat earthers, we agree the world is a roundy bally shape. But not round.
So.. assuming you could go up in the air to a height for you be able to see a horizon of say a 100 mile RADIUS. How far different in height would you be if you repeated that at the rounder or the flatter part of the earth?
Holy fSo.. assuming you could go up in the air to a height for you be able to see a horizon of say a 100 mile RADIUS. How far different in height would you be if you repeated that at the rounder or the flatter part of the earth?
k! That is some goddamned EVIL maths you just invoked.....drivin_me_nuts said:
So, other than the flat earthers, we agree the world is a roundy bally shape. But not round.
So.. assuming you could go up in the air to a height for you be able to see a horizon of say a 100 mile RADIUS. How far different in height would you be if you repeated that at the rounder or the flatter part of the earth?
well, I think the poles are about 10 or 12 miles closer to the centre of the earth than the equator, but whatever the height difference created by that would be dwarfed by the various changes in elevation all over the planet and the seasSo.. assuming you could go up in the air to a height for you be able to see a horizon of say a 100 mile RADIUS. How far different in height would you be if you repeated that at the rounder or the flatter part of the earth?
the earth is not really smooth or evenly shaped, and it's all wiggly and moving about anyway
WeirdNeville said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
So, other than the flat earthers, we agree the world is a roundy bally shape. But not round.
So.. assuming you could go up in the air to a height for you be able to see a horizon of say a 100 mile RADIUS. How far different in height would you be if you repeated that at the rounder or the flatter part of the earth?
Holy fSo.. assuming you could go up in the air to a height for you be able to see a horizon of say a 100 mile RADIUS. How far different in height would you be if you repeated that at the rounder or the flatter part of the earth?
k! That is some goddamned EVIL maths you just invoked.....How much this is affected by the bulge at the equator (which means that you're 42.72Km from the centre of the Earth than if you were at one of the poles*) depends on the two points you select.
Are you asking for the answer at a pole, and the other answer at the equator?
ETA: at the extremes, and if my calculations are correct, the difference in height is about 45ft lower for the poles, or 45ft higher for the equator. Baseline is 6660ft, which is also the correct height at somewhere near the 45th parallels North and South.
Suitable answer?
C
* The South Pole isn't at sea level, it's actually at about 9300ft, but lets just say it was at sea level.
Edited by CraigyMc on Thursday 16th May 13:10
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff