CannonBall

I've heard that the part of that chase where the mustang spins out in the dirt causing the motorcyclist to bail was an unintentional mistake and after that they pulled McQueen from the stunt driving for the rest of the chase. I've always dreamed of having a 68 charger and a good friend of mine from high school has a "british racing green" 2+2 mustang not 68...in high school we'd talk about reenacting the chase. It usually ended with us arguing over which car was better and which one would have to crash into the gas station and explode. I'm not a real big ford fan, but I really did like that commercial, the newer bullit mustangs are pretty sweet too. -Nate

Not so much to about the link in the post but a slightly similar situation. Last year I was in a junior design class for mechanical engineering. One of the tasks was to shoot a can as accurately and as far as possible (two separate tasks.) We used somewhat of an odd looking design, we were ridiculed for a out of the ordinary looking project however we had it up and running before any other teams. We won the competition in every aspect, and in the end won the "people's choice award" even receiving votes from very critical people. Our project was named the John Galt. It was named after the line and not the individual, as I had not finished the book before the completion of the project. Granted it wasn’t for money or anything, but we dominated, was that a rip off, or a respectful reference to the book? -Nate

I remember about 8 years ago I was at a car show and someone had a 68 camaro with a fuelie 350 he said he got over 20mpg and that it tore up the track. I know cars are doing things like that today, just look at the z06. Proper weight loss and balancing are going to be key. I'm going to have to ditch a lot of unnecessary metal and replace necessary metal (fenders, hood, bumpers) with fiberglass. Obviously I’d ditch the d60 that comes in most old mopars for a 9” for weight, and basically a well setup suspension with the right tires on a car that isn’t a pig should be able to do it. I’d sacrifice speed for efficiency, that is, I’ll take 12’s in order to maintain a daily street drivable car. The rear suspension is going to be a 5 link with coil overs, unless I can find a way to make leafs perform as good as link suspension, but I doubt it. I think my best bet would be a cuda/challenger or a duster. The Road Runner, GTX, Charger chassis might just be too big. -Nate

I will be fine if the lights in every major city in the US went out, but the looters will not, that is GOOD and moral. That said, Bush won, so we can add a few more years onto the electrical supply of NYC. -Nate

You like the convert that much to pass up on the z06 option? You have spectacular taste in cars. A good friend of mine made money in real estate and bought a millennium yellow z06 at 23 years old (I’m jealous I must admit, driving a $300 Mercedes diesel that does 0-60 in about 30 seconds) he let me drive it once and I will tell you that it is painfully fast, and the handling is borderline uncomfortable, 0-60 in 3.9 ¼ in low 12’s and 1g on the skid (405hp version), it is amazing what Chevy can do with a pushrod v-8. My dream is a late 60’s MOPAR with a EFI v-8 running in the 11’s, getting decent (15-20mpg) mileage and able to hold it’s own on a track, I think I can build one, I have the suspension figured out and have most of it built in CAD, I'll need to figure out the weight bias once I set the engine back to get the right spring rates, but I'm confident I can hook up on a track and still keep a solid axle planted to the ground around turns. My other 4x4 dream is a Mercedes diesel unimog. -Nate

I'm sorry I'm not allowed to state hyperboles; apparently one has to earn that right on this forum. I’ll take ignorance on this, rational ignorance. At this time it is not worth my time or effort to research this subject enough to refute what’s been said in regard to my claims that Newton was a hack. I did discuss this with my professor who had made the claims about Newton “stealing” calc and he seems to be respectfully critical of Newton. I was out of line in calling him a hack, and put on the defensive I irrationally attempted to back up my claim without addressing the facts that were presented. Once I realized I couldn’t do that without spending a whole lot of time I tried to lazily search the internets (sic) for a rebuttal. I’ve had my ass handed to me in every sense of the expression, however, if I ever get the time or motivation to further pursue this topic, I’d like to form a rational response to why Einstein is a “greater genius” than Newton, until I have the time (I just took the FE…etc…etc…) I have to concede that I’m ignorant on the subject. Thank you for putting me in my place. Gross exaggerations are accepted in most of the forums I frequent and not taken literally, what I said was out of line in this forum. My apologies. Don’t blame the school system, blame ME, I made a gross exaggeration and instead of saying that I was not serious or wrong I attempted to back it up, pride issues, like I said before, I have been duly put into my place. I needed that, thank you. -Nate

Like I said in my previous post, this is not the place for personal attacks, or maybe it is. If you want to refute what I've stated as being fact that's fine, I see you've done that. Again, if you have an issue with me, I'm not going to turn this into an internet pissing match, e-mail me, PM me...anything, I'll admit more than anyone that I have a lot to learn and I'm arrogant. I'll also admit as I've said before, I do not literally mean Newton to be a hack, he gets more credit than he deserves. Like I said, I've been told more than once that Leibniz had calculus before newton, by people who I regard far more than you. The reason behind the publishing of what Newton did and his credit was due to his clout. A few people on here stated that calc was a reason that Newton was a "greater genius" than Einstein. I like how everything I say is taken literally by you, but it's my character flaw that I don't understand implied internet sarcasm. Thank you. -Nate edit: honetsly I'll argue this with you on IM, over e-mail or through PM's, but it's getting out of hand for a public forum. Maybe you do give professors more credit than to say Newton stole calc from Leibniz, perhaps you shouldn't. "When someone offended him, he deleted all references to their names in his papers" this just came up as the first link after a search, but what do Euler or Bernoulli know, right?

If you find me "obnoxious and ignorant" you should discuss this with the professors who sparked these ideas, I’m sure they’d love to argue with you. I can see how Einstein was humble about Newton, but don’t doubt for a second that we would be exactly where we were today without him (Newton). The LaGrange equations were absolutely not formulated in a vacuum, obviously (what are you getting at? I’ve addressed this earlier, care to read?). I will stand by my regard for Newton, that’s great if smart people around the world and you guys here on objectivism online want to give Newton a great cosmic thank you, I do not disagree with that. However, in my field, what I use and what I do I would be fine without him. If independent confirmation of genius means anything, which apparently it does because everyone is regurgitating quotes from others, I have yet to find a professor or engineer at my college who places Newton at a “higher level of genius” than Einstein. I’m sorry, that I’ve been released too soon, I’m sorry that people in industry don’t use Newton, I’m sorry he’s all but obsolete. I was unaware on Newton’s influence on the grand unified theory. Honestly, to demean Einstein to the level of virtually a puppet of Newton, get real. And I can’t site my “ignorant and offensive assertions” other than I have been told that time and time again by certain professors in applied math and engineering, like I said earlier, take it up with them, maybe I should try and get a refund. -Nate Edit: Can the same quotes by Einstein for Newton not apply to Einstein, or a number of other geniuses for that matter? Furthermore, these attacks on my character and the personal insults are not proper for this forum. If you have a problem with what I say, reply. If you have a problem with me as a person, send me a private message, an e-mail or IM me.

It is not difficult to judge between the two. As I've said before, he shouldn't get the credit for calculus that he is getting (our modern calc is based on what leibniz did, not newton) The physical equations are nice for basic physics but when one gets into complex dynamics the LaGrange equations are far more useful i.e. faster and easier. Yes, what he did was revolutionary, but not as much so as Einstein's findings. (I'm in a computer lab on campus so I can't get into this right now) I've said all this before in my other posts, I don't see why you have to ask my reasons if you've read any of the other posts by me in this thread. -Nate

The new E320d gets 37+ mpg does 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and is quiter than the gas model. MB has once again outdone themselves.

I think we can agree that calculus was invented independly of newton, and in the method that we use today, that we use in the...LaGrange equations. Honestly, use them for a while and one might want to punch Newton in the face. I have pages of work that can be summed up in 5 lines by the lagrange equations. The problem is, most people can't do LaGrange because they don't understand calc, and therefore don't see how much better it can be. I respect Newton, alright, I was wrong in calling him a hack, but he is getting credit where it is not due. He was a genius but not the genius Einstein was. -Nate

What book do you use? I've used Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers I found it to be one of the worst modern physics text books out there. I'd say if you're having serious problems with the book just have a chat with the professor, or another professor, they get excited chatting about this stuff. I would also recommend "A Brief History of Time" Hawking explains things much better than any of my professors have. -Nate

I don't know what you're talking about...my opinion is based completely on what I've learned in 4 years of using a lot of calc and a lot of physics. No Newton = no real loss, no Einstein and all satellites would do would be pretty little objects floating around showing off to the world. Besides, LaGrange equations are so much more useful that Newton's equations...try it sometime. I'm not a philosophy buff, I go on what I see. The "Newton was a hack" was a little harsh, but he certainly gets too much credit. -Nate TV to color TV? I say it's more comparable to the people who said we had a geocentric universe to the people who realized that wasn't the case, or those who said the world was flat to the realization that it was in fact spherical. edit #2: As an engineer I rarely use Newtons Equations. Like I said earlier, his calc style was not similar to what we use today, at all, it would obviously be recognizable. It's also funny to me, I had a problem with this post and went and talked it over with one of my professors and a few friends (engineers, math and physics majors, yes I'm a nerd) The "vote" was unanomys for Einstein. -Nate

I read somewhere like 85% of w123 mercedes-benz's are still on the road, that model was early to mid 80's. I personally know of over 1/2 dozen that have well over 300k miles. They are slow, but I give everyone a hard time cause I bought a mercedes benz when I was 20. I love the subaru's, nice pics. -Nate edit: here's a link to the first pic, because I suck at the internets http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid1...05.jpg.orig.jpg

Newton was a hack. Leibniz designed modern calculus, however Newton is often given credit for it. Newton in fact had a very crude style of calc which wasn't nearly as clean or easy to use, Leibniz proposed his ideas and Newton, who was a Sir by this time and very powerful, blocked certain publications and essentially took credit for Leibniz's work. His theories in physics (classical mechanics) aren't correct although they hold up for anything not close to the speed of light, so they're just crude predictions of what is to be expected to happen. Relativity alone is enough to put Einstein over Newton in every way imaginable, that's without mentioning his other achievements. -Nate edit: basically, so many people were coming up with ideas at the time, Newton just had the power and hi-jacked calculus. No newton, no problem, just different names.

There is my jeep, winter driven, fun vehichle, chopped the top because the windows were broken off roading. Lockers front and rear, axles swaps, all work done by me. My other vehicle is attached (if it works) it's a 1982 240d mercedes-benz 4-speed with well over 300k miles, runs great and I bought it for $300. I run it on waste vegetable oil, motor oil, diesel, biodiesel and pretty much anything else that can end up in the tank. It's the vehicle of choice for when the lights go out in NYC. Getting WVO for free makes fuel about 40 cents a gallon in the summer, and since I have to run lower ratios in the winter up around $1-1.50 depending on the weather forcast. -Nate

Just celebrate Festivus! "A Festivus for the Rest of Us!" -Nate

Very much so! We need a clean slate, the lights of LA would do, maybe even DC. The looters need their life lines CUT, that is why. -Nate

One should vote for Kerry to speed up the decline of America. The lights will be out sooner in New York if people like Kerry are in office, that is the most valid reason to vote for Kerry. -Nate

I’m sorry, I must have been hung over the day they solved grand unified theory in physics. Either you're comfortable making great leaps outside of logic or perhaps you might be just itching to refute something you only wished I had said or you wish were true. Either way, it might be fun to call off the dogs and take a detour on the physics wagon to look at some facts. It is a FACT that we don’t know what happened at the beginning of the universe. If you refute this than I suggest you go take a trip to Oxford, have a few cups of coffee with Steven Hawking and solve all the questions of the universe. If not, you cannot objectively say that you know what happened the beginning of our universe. It is FACT at this time that we don’t have general equations that relate microcosmos and macrocosmos, again if any of you have answers to these questions it could prove very lucrative to you. Please tell me what I have said that was false, and how objectivism says that there are right and wrongs in respect to unknowns? -Nate

How is any of my last post illogical? I didn’t conclude God from the argument; I said it might suggest a God, it might also suggest that we are a science fair experiment. Your post further proves that it is not an issue in which the absolute answer is known, hence there can be no right or wrong answer. You are trying to use the law of logic to battle the laws of science, if the laws contradict at the beginning of the universe, one of them must be wrong. As an engineer I chose science, you may take logic. I suggest you also re-read my post as you restated a lot of it with different wording. Is it that hard to admit even the possibility of a gray area? -Nate

I really should read all that, and when I get the time I’ll consider it. However, now in my naïve youth I prefer question my elders. That said, the fact that the higher power debate is delegated to the arbitrary precisely means that a hard argument either way is pointless. You can say "yeah, there's probably no god," that's fine given the evidence, but you can't absolutely say that there is not one. You argue that just because there is a final answer means that we are aware of that result. I was considering trying to claim that evidence of a higher power is the fact that matter exists. The laws of thermodynamics say that you can’t get something from nothing; no matter is created or destroyed. This would suggest that at one point in time the matter in the universe had to come from somewhere, a higher power? No, not necessarily, all it proves is that there are phenomena that we do not comprehend and that exactly proves the argument that "there either is or there isn't, no middle ground" is a logical fallacy. -Nate

I just don't see how one can say without a doubt that there is no higher power? Unless you say, no God until proven God, if that is the generally accepted concept then I'm pretty much dead in the water with anything I've said. -Nate

I'm a big Bukowski fan, I’ve read most of his novels and lots of his poetry. It's good entertainment, I don’t really agree with his philosophies but it's fun reading. -Nate

Hmm what is The Nobel prize is given in Physics, chemistry, lit, peace, econ, and medicine. Which of these disciplines requires the ability to know about the environment and global temperature trends. That sounds like an irrelevant point. I know the guy is gone, but anyone that sees 50% of the Nobel laureates agreeing on something as being relevant to almost any point needs to reconsider the facts. -Nate