Channel 9 Forums - Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

pepper — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:49:33 GMT

Russian president dissolves government

Israel Snaps Photos of Nukes?

Jakarta 8.0 Quake

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

Rossj — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:30:51 GMT

pepper wrote:

Russian president dissolves government

Israel Snaps Photos of Nukes?

Jakarta 8.0 Quake

It is worse than that, Putin accepted their resignation (rather than dissolving them) - Israel is accused of attacking Syria and there were apparently two quakes (7.9 and 8).

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

Bent Rasmussen — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:44:14 GMT

Preempt the thread shutdown! - Please begin technical discussions of nukes!

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

PerfectPhase — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:47:23 GMT

esoteric wrote:

Preempt the thread shutdown! - Please begin technical discussions of nukes!

Any one ever seen 'Trinity and Beyond'?

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

harumscarum — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:53:04 GMT

I had a Chick-Fil-A chicken biscuit this morning and it was awesome. I am so glad a Chick-Fil-A opened up down the street from work.

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

GoddersUK — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:04:02 GMT

pepper wrote:

Russian president dissolves government

Israel Snaps Photos of Nukes?

Jakarta 8.0 Quake

Oh, and foot and mouth.

Again.

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

W3bbo — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:15:04 GMT

harumscarum wrote:

I had a Chick-Fil-A chicken biscuit this morning and it was awesome. I am so glad a Chick-Fil-A opened up down the street from work.

In my 8.5 hours on college I had all of 1 hour of classes, the rest were:

08:30: Experimented with some different RDP ports, but it looks like the college IT guys have decided to perform deep-packet inspection and block all ouitbound RDP, regardless of the port it's on (evil!), fortunately I can still access my OWA. It means I'm going to have to write an ASP.NET app to remotely shut down Azureus rather than the desktop app I wrote a while ago
09:00: Went looking for my physics teacher to explain the non-certification thingie
09:01: He was AWOL, as usual
09:02: Went back to the library, did some FP2 exercises (which I'm not meant to start until January 2008)
10:00: Begin the first physics lesson of the new year, a single hour
11:00: Went back to the library, typed up my notes, and downloaded the homework piece. Wrote an email to the teachers telling them not to save homework documents in *.docx format... then went for lunch
12:00-13:30: Played some Red Alert 2 on my laptop in the library
13:30-14:00: Played some Treasure Mountain (the most repetitive game... ever)
14:00: Stuff
17:00: Got on bus

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

GoddersUK — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:37:51 GMT

W3bbo wrote:

Wrote an email to the teachers telling them not to save homework documents in *.docx format... then went for lunch

Lol

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

SecretSoftware — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:48:59 GMT

Russian army 'tests the father of all bombs'

This is 4x more powerfull than the American MOAB (Mother of All Bombs).

I think its good to see some sort of power balance.

Looks like the Russian Bear is back.

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

Cybermagellan — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:31:46 GMT

SecretSoftware wrote:

Russian army 'tests the father of all bombs'

This is 4x more powerfull than the American MOAB (Mother of All Bombs).

I think its good to see some sort of power balance.

Looks like the Russian Bear is back.

Wow, if this statement wasn't biased.

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

SecretSoftware — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:42:16 GMT

Cybermagellan wrote:

SecretSoftware wrote:

Russian army 'tests the father of all bombs'

This is 4x more powerfull than the American MOAB (Mother of All Bombs).

I think its good to see some sort of power balance.

Looks like the Russian Bear is back.

Wow, if this statement wasn't biased.

How? I mean its 4x MOAB's power. The Russians call it = to a nuke but without radio active fallout.

Please explain how is my observation biased and feel free to go to details.

Thanks:)

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

ScanIAm — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:27:20 GMT

Rossj wrote:

pepper wrote:
Russian president dissolves government

Israel Snaps Photos of Nukes?

Jakarta 8.0 Quake

It is worse than that, Putin accepted their resignation (rather than dissolving them) - Israel is accused of attacking Syria and there were apparently two quakes (7.9 and 8).

And you know that GWB planned all of them to distract us from the Iraq report.....

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

dahat — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:19:48 GMT

SecretSoftware wrote:

Russian army 'tests the father of all bombs'

This is 4x more powerfull than the American MOAB (Mother of All Bombs).

I think its good to see some sort of power balance.

Looks like the Russian Bear is back.

Good idea SecretSoftware, why let your rampant anti-Americanism get in the way of things like say... reality? Or don't you realize the fact is that the FOAB is utterly worthless in the grand scheme of things and does not affect the balance of power in the slightest.

Why? The Russians do not have an effective delivery mechanism for it.

The MOAB weighs in at ~9.5 tons... well beyond the carrying capacity of any kind of current missile system, so you need a conventional aircraft to drop it. Unfortunately due to the shear size and mechanics of such a weapon you can't just drop one from a run of the mill bomber, instead you need something more like a C-130, a largely undefended cargo aircraft with a top speed that doesn't even hit 400 mph.

Translation... a sitting duck.

Let's say that the FOAB is a remarkable piece of engineering and despite having a yield 4x the MOAB, weighs exactly the same... the Russians do not have any kind of strategic bombers that could carry such a load, let alone do so quickly or stealthily which means that they too would be limited to using defenseless slow moving cargo aircraft.

Now the question... who could better attack and/or defend such a slow moving target... if you honestly think the answer is the Russians then you haven't kept up with their air force or ours.

But like I said... why let reality get in the way of your anti-Americanism?

In terms of military threats from foreign nations... wake me when another country has developed the kind of precision guided weapons that the US has AND has developed aircraft capable of delivering them without being detected.

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

TimP — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:12:42 GMT

dahat wrote:

Why? The Russians do not have an effective delivery mechanism for it.
The MOAB weighs in at ~9.5 tons... well beyond the carrying capacity of any kind of current missile system, so you need a conventional aircraft to drop it. Unfortunately due to the shear size and mechanics of such a weapon you can't just drop one from a run of the mill bomber, instead you need something more like a C-130, a largely undefended cargo aircraft with a top speed that doesn't even hit 400 mph.

Translation... a sitting duck.

CNN said it fell from a Tu-160, much faster than a C-130 (1,380 MPH).

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

SecretSoftware — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:13:29 GMT

dahat wrote:

SecretSoftware wrote:

Russian army 'tests the father of all bombs'

This is 4x more powerfull than the American MOAB (Mother of All Bombs).

I think its good to see some sort of power balance.

Looks like the Russian Bear is back.

Good idea SecretSoftware, why let your rampant anti-Americanism get in the way of things like say... reality? Or don't you realize the fact is that the FOAB is utterly worthless in the grand scheme of things and does not affect the balance of power in the slightest.

Why? The Russians do not have an effective delivery mechanism for it.

The MOAB weighs in at ~9.5 tons... well beyond the carrying capacity of any kind of current missile system, so you need a conventional aircraft to drop it. Unfortunately due to the shear size and mechanics of such a weapon you can't just drop one from a run of the mill bomber, instead you need something more like a C-130, a largely undefended cargo aircraft with a top speed that doesn't even hit 400 mph.

Translation... a sitting duck.

Let's say that the FOAB is a remarkable piece of engineering and despite having a yield 4x the MOAB, weighs exactly the same... the Russians do not have any kind of strategic bombers that could carry such a load, let alone do so quickly or stealthily which means that they too would be limited to using defenseless slow moving cargo aircraft.

Now the question... who could better attack and/or defend such a slow moving target... if you honestly think the answer is the Russians then you haven't kept up with their air force or ours.

But like I said... why let reality get in the way of your anti-Americanism?

In terms of military threats from foreign nations... wake me when another country has developed the kind of precision guided weapons that the US has AND has developed aircraft capable of delivering them without being detected.

According to a national geographic video of the MOAB, it has to be carried in a B-52 bomber, because it weighs approx. 22 tons.

Now if Russia does not have this delivery mechanism, how was this test conducted? I mean it is delivered in the same way that MOAB is delivered, namely para-shoot it from a B-52 bomber, only the Russians have their own version of B-52 bombers.

The Russians don't spend money on useless technology, especially in the military sector.

Secondly, I am not anti-American. I am anti-bush. That is a big difference. I like the American people, I just don't like the administration nor the foreign policy.

You need to change your perception of me, to a person who likes America, and not Bush's America.

God Bless the USA (but not Bush).[A]

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

dahat — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:45:26 GMT

SecretSoftware wrote:

According to a national geographic video of the MOAB, it has to be carried in a B-52 bomber, because it weighs approx. 22 tons.

Your inability to achieve accuracy never ceases to amaze me.

Your info is doubly wrong... it weighs closer to 21000 lbs, not 22 tons and can only be dropped by a C-130 or theoretically a similarly configured cargo craft. (1) (2) (3) (4)

SecretSoftware wrote:

Now if Russia does not have this delivery mechanism, how was this test conducted? I mean it is delivered in the same way that MOAB is delivered, namely para-shoot it from a B-52 bomber, only the Russians have their own version of B-52 bombers.

I said they don't have a 'effective delivery mechanism', ie a fast and effective way to drop it on the enemy without being adequately detected and prevented through either speed, stealth or defense (through onboard counter-measures or escort craft).

SecretSoftware wrote:

The Russians don't spend money on useless technology, especially in the military sector.

The sole reason FOAB exists is to try to one up the US and say “see, we can do something militarily/technically better than you”... something that has gone on since the start of the cold war and never truly ended... it’s just been rather hard for the Russians to be able to even compete until relatively recently.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Secondly, I am not anti-American. I am anti-bush. That is a big difference. I like the American people, I just don't like the administration nor the foreign policy.

Your general anti-American and pro-terrorist attitude and comments says otherwise.

SecretSoftware wrote:

You need to change your perception of me, to a person who likes America, and not Bush's America.

My perception is based on your comments, assuming you were to stop supporting terrorists and making death and legal threats against me you might have a chance... but given your propensity for both as well as lack of grasp of reality... you’ve got little chance.

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

dahat — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:02:42 GMT

TimP wrote:

CNN said it fell from a Tu-160, much faster than a C-130 (1,380 MPH).

That is also what is being reported by the Russians however as far as I can tell there has been no independent verification of that and I don't want to sound conspiratorial... however I have a difficult time believing that a Blackjack could carry a weapon the size and weight of a MOAB given strategic bombers are designed for significantly smaller ordinance, even when the total payload weight is greater than that of a MOAB.

I could be wrong though... the Russians very well could have modified a Blackjack to drop such a thing, or even something smaller if they really were that efficient at reducing the size of the weapon... in which case it is still only of limited effectiveness as the bomber would still be detectable and interdicted.

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

SecretSoftware — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:42:01 GMT

dahat wrote:

SecretSoftware wrote:
According to a national geographic video of the MOAB, it has to be carried in a B-52 bomber, because it weighs approx. 22 tons.

Your inability to achieve accuracy never ceases to amaze me.

Your info is doubly wrong... it weighs closer to 21000 lbs, not 22 tons and can only be dropped by a C-130 or theoretically a similarly configured cargo craft. (1) (2) (3) (4)

SecretSoftware wrote:
Now if Russia does not have this delivery mechanism, how was this test conducted? I mean it is delivered in the same way that MOAB is delivered, namely para-shoot it from a B-52 bomber, only the Russians have their own version of B-52 bombers.

I said they don't have a 'effective delivery mechanism', ie a fast and effective way to drop it on the enemy without being adequately detected and prevented through either speed, stealth or defense (through onboard counter-measures or escort craft).

SecretSoftware wrote:
The Russians don't spend money on useless technology, especially in the military sector.

The sole reason FOAB exists is to try to one up the US and say “see, we can do something militarily/technically better than you”... something that has gone on since the start of the cold war and never truly ended... it’s just been rather hard for the Russians to be able to even compete until relatively recently.

SecretSoftware wrote:
Secondly, I am not anti-American. I am anti-bush. That is a big difference. I like the American people, I just don't like the administration nor the foreign policy.

Your general anti-American and pro-terrorist attitude and comments says otherwise.

SecretSoftware wrote:
You need to change your perception of me, to a person who likes America, and not Bush's America.

My perception is based on your comments, assuming you were to stop supporting terrorists and making death and legal threats against me you might have a chance... but given your propensity for both as well as lack of grasp of reality... you’ve got little chance.

A) Approx. was a key word .

B) What you think of me, is not important. I don't care about the way you perceive the world or me. YOU are the type that reads and presumes things even though they have never been said nor implied nor meant the way you think. Yet you have made your mind, and hence you can think whatever, but it does not mean that what you think is reality .

Anyways, I am tired of politics. I will talk only code. If you think this is something you can do, then your welcome to talk in that area, otherwise count me out (unless its something REALLY interesting).

So until the next technical topic.. GOOD DAY![A]

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

dahat — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:00:53 GMT

SecretSoftware wrote:

A) Approx. was a key word .

SecretSoftware wrote:

Anyways, I am tired of politics. I will talk only code. If you think this is something you can do, then your welcome to talk in that area, otherwise count me out (unless its something REALLY interesting).

So rather than gracefully admit that you were wrong... you try to claim that 22 tons is approximately 9.5, change the subject (this was not a political thread until you made it so) and resort to personal attacks?

Right... I forgot who I was talking to.

SecretSoftware wrote:

B) What you think of me, is not important. I don't care about the way you perceive the world or me.

Oh come on... if you are going to lie at least make it a believable one... or have you already forgotten that you threatened to sue me for saying what I thought of you.

SecretSoftware wrote:

YOU are the type that reads and presumes things even though they have never been said nor implied nor meant the way you think.

So... you can't get the basics of US weapon systems right with the help of Google and the rest of the internet and you presume to be able to so accurately label me?

Boy, the doctors (8 MD's, 2 PA's & 4 misc technicians) who've been trying to figure out what is wrong with my hands for 9 some months now would LOVE to talk to you as they still have no idea how I work.

Oh right... it's ok for you to share your opinion about me, the wobut it’s not for me... and if/when I do I risk death and legal threats.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Yet you have made your mind, and hence you can think whatever, but it does not mean that what you think is reality .

So what? Your labels and perceptions are more accurate that mine? Given your track record of paranoia, conspiracy, hate America and pro-terrorist speech and lack of support of what you say from other 9ers... your reality sure doesn't seem all that solid.

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

SecretSoftware — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:25:55 GMT

dahat wrote:

SecretSoftware wrote:
A) Approx. was a key word .

SecretSoftware wrote:
Anyways, I am tired of politics. I will talk only code. If you think this is something you can do, then your welcome to talk in that area, otherwise count me out (unless its something REALLY interesting).

So rather than gracefully admit that you were wrong... you try to claim that 22 tons is approximately 9.5, change the subject (this was not a political thread until you made it so) and resort to personal attacks?

Right... I forgot who I was talking to.

I see now you are hopeless. You are the one who said it weighted 9.5 (see your post above). I said its approx. 22 tons, and you wikied it to find it 21000 (its actually 21800 that is from the guy who made it ).

dahat wrote:

...Some Paranoid lies.

Boy, the doctors (8 MD's, 2 PA's & 4 misc technicians) who've been trying to figure out what is wrong with my hands for 9 some months now would LOVE to talk to you as they still have no idea how I work.

Oh right... it's ok for you to share your opinion about me, the wobut it’s not for me... and if/when I do I risk death and legal threats.

...Another paranoid lies.

Are you sure they are MD's? and not veterinarians? Some veterinarians might not be specialized in Orangutan physiology. You might want one with a Ph. D. in orangutan physiology. In your case, they will take only 9 min to identify what is wrong with your leg.[A]

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

dahat — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:03:19 GMT

SecretSoftware wrote:

I see now you are hopeless. You are the one who said it weighted 9.5 (see your post above).

See my post above and you'll see I said it weighed ~9.5 tons which is inline with even the weight you quote (there are numerous weight values out there, hence the use of the ~).

SecretSoftware wrote:

I said its approx. 22 tons, and you wikied it to find it 21000 (its actually 21800 that is from the guy who made it ).

Yes you did... and you were still wrong. Before you disagree... your math assumes that that 1 ton equals 1000 lbs, which is wrong, a ton is equal to ~2000 lbs. By your math, your 22 ton bomb weighs in at between 44000 and 49280 lbs (depending on the measure of ton in use), roughly twice that what you and I quoted.

SecretSoftware wrote:

dahat wrote:

...Some Paranoid lies.

...Another paranoid lies.

For them to be lies... I would have to know the truth and deliberately say otherwise and yet... I speak of things as I know them... the same thing you claim to do... and yet my statements are provable given existing and available facts and quotes (many of your own) and yet all you can do is call my statements lies and is so often the case... can support your assertions with nothing but personal attacks, conspiracy theories, hate speech, anti-American and pro-terrorist rhetoric and YouTube links.

What does that say about the accuracy of your statements? It either means that you are to lazy to prove me wrong... or incapable of it.

Given this is a pattern... I'm more inclined to believe that you cannot... but then, I could be wrong... and proving such would require you to do so.

Come on... prove me wrong, once.

Sadly though you'll have to do it elsewhere though as despite your assertions of being done with this thread (provably false yet again as demonstrated by you)... I am done with this thread as you've dug yourself into another hole here and am more than happy to let you remain without any additional help from me.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Are you sure they are MD's? and not veterinarians? Some veterinarians might not be specialized in Orangutan physiology. You might want one with a Ph. D. in orangutan physiology. In your case, they will take only 9 min to identify what is wrong with your leg.

And even more personal attacks. Didn't Charles tell you just yesterday:

Charles wrote:

SecretSoftware and anybody else being a jerk, be respectful or go away. Clear?

Since you didn't take the first bit of his advice... why don't you take the second and just go away?

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

RoyalSchrubber — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:45:48 GMT

SecretSoftware wrote:

I see now you are hopeless. You are the one who said it weighted 9.5 (see your post above). I said its approx. 22 tons, and you wikied it to find it 21000 (its actually 21800 that is from the guy who made it ).

lol, pure PWN4GE

Didn't you say you live in US? Lbs is abbreviation for pounds - 1 kg = 2,2 lbs. Not everybody uses metric units, you ought to know that.

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

SecretSoftware — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:19:23 GMT

dahat wrote:

The MOAB weighs in at ~9.5 tons... well beyond the carrying capacity of any kind of current missile system, so you need a conventional aircraft to drop it.

We are talking same units of measurement of the weight. Namely Tons.

So , you can reboot your brain.

As for Royal...

Read it again, and recalculate. We are talking in Tons. I said Approx 22 Tons, he said 9.5 Tons. THen he Wikipedia'ed it to find I am right.

Then his brain went like that:

"COULD NOT COMPUTE"

"ABORT...ABORT"

"We Are going Down!"

And down the tree it went.

Just....Like....Dat.[A]

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

Dharma Punk — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:25:34 GMT

It weighs 9.5 metric tons.

A metric ton is 1,000 kilograms.

A ton in the English system is 2,000 lbs.

So it weighs 21,000 lbs. or 10.5 English tons or 9.5 metric tons.

Heh, me...with the liberal arts degree...

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

SecretSoftware — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:29:07 GMT

dahat wrote:

...

Dual Personality conflict stuff...

SecretSoftware wrote:
Are you sure they are MD's? and not veterinarians? Some veterinarians might not be specialized in Orangutan physiology. You might want one with a Ph. D. in orangutan physiology. In your case, they will take only 9 min to identify what is wrong with your leg.

And even more personal attacks. Didn't Charles tell you just yesterday:

Charles wrote:
SecretSoftware and anybody else being a jerk, be respectful or go away. Clear?

Since you didn't take the first bit of his advice... why don't you take the second and just go away?

He included you, with "anybody else being a jerk". But I did not expect you to gather that.

Secondly I am being respectful. I respect those who respect me and them-selfs. Respect is a mutual thing.

I was simply making an observation, no personal attacks. This is so because a personal attack would mean to say something that is not true about you. I made an observation. .

Thirdly, you want me to leave Channel9? For Real?[C]

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

RoyalSchrubber — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:38:22 GMT

SecretSoftware wrote:

dahat wrote:

The MOAB weighs in at ~9.5 tons... well beyond the carrying capacity of any kind of current missile system, so you need a conventional aircraft to drop it.

We are talking same units of measurement of the weight. Namely Tons.

So , you can reboot your brain.

As for Royal...

Read it again, and recalculate. We are talking in Tons. I said Approx 22 Tons, he said 9.5 Tons. THen he Wikipedia'ed it to find I am right.

Then his brain went like that:

"COULD NOT COMPUTE"

"ABORT...ABORT"

"We Are going Down!"

And down the tree it went.

Just....Like....Dat.

Omg. How can you be so incredibly, immensely foolish? Wow, just wow.
Go back and check your wikipedia articles again - moab weighs around 22000 lbs and all three definitions of 'ton' (metric, uk, us - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton) are around 1000 kg. So the right answer is something around 10 tons and _not_ 22 tons.

Again, I'm amazed. How old are you actually?

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

SecretSoftware — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:58:06 GMT

RoyalSchrubber wrote:

SecretSoftware wrote:

dahat wrote:

The MOAB weighs in at ~9.5 tons... well beyond the carrying capacity of any kind of current missile system, so you need a conventional aircraft to drop it.

We are talking same units of measurement of the weight. Namely Tons.

So , you can reboot your brain.

As for Royal...

Read it again, and recalculate. We are talking in Tons. I said Approx 22 Tons, he said 9.5 Tons. THen he Wikipedia'ed it to find I am right.

Then his brain went like that:

"COULD NOT COMPUTE"

"ABORT...ABORT"

"We Are going Down!"

And down the tree it went.

Just....Like....Dat.

Omg. How can you be so incredibly, immensely foolish? Wow, just wow.
Go back and check your wikipedia articles again - moab weighs around 22000 lbs and all three definitions of 'ton' (metric, uk, us - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton) are around 1000 kg. So the right answer is something around 10 tons and _not_ 22 tons.

Again, I'm amazed. How old are you actually?

1 Ton = 1000 Kg

22 Ton = 22 000 Kg (what I said).

He said, 10.5 Tons = 10500 Kg.

Then I said he was wrong.

Then He goggled it as saw it was 21000 Kg = 21 Tons from Wiki (weak source).

So I don't know how to explain it anymore. Do you want to explain it in bananas and apples?

As for my age, I am old enough so as to not be not to be young enough.

Lastly, Do you want me to leave Ch9? How many of you don't want me here?

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

RoyalSchrubber — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:05:30 GMT

SecretSoftware wrote:

RoyalSchrubber wrote:

SecretSoftware wrote:

dahat wrote:

The MOAB weighs in at ~9.5 tons... well beyond the carrying capacity of any kind of current missile system, so you need a conventional aircraft to drop it.

We are talking same units of measurement of the weight. Namely Tons.

So , you can reboot your brain.

As for Royal...

Read it again, and recalculate. We are talking in Tons. I said Approx 22 Tons, he said 9.5 Tons. THen he Wikipedia'ed it to find I am right.

Then his brain went like that:

"COULD NOT COMPUTE"

"ABORT...ABORT"

"We Are going Down!"

And down the tree it went.

Just....Like....Dat.

Omg. How can you be so incredibly, immensely foolish? Wow, just wow.
Go back and check your wikipedia articles again - moab weighs around 22000 lbs and all three definitions of 'ton' (metric, uk, us - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton) are around 1000 kg. So the right answer is something around 10 tons and _not_ 22 tons.

Again, I'm amazed. How old are you actually?

1 Ton = 1000 Kg

22 Ton = 22 000 Kg (what I said).

He said, 10.5 Tons = 10500 Kg.

Then I said he was wrong.

Then He goggled it as saw it was 21000 Kg = 21 Tons from Wiki (weak source).

So I don't know how to explain it anymore. Do you want to explain it in bananas and apples?

As for my age, I am old enough so as to not be not to be young enough.

Lastly, Do you want me to leave Ch9? How many of you don't want me here?

1Kg = 2.2 lbs

Moab is not 22000 Kg, it's 22000 lbs or 80,000 bananas.

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

brian.shapiro — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:50:47 GMT

SecretSoftware wrote:

Secondly, I am not anti-American. I am anti-bush. That is a big difference. I like the American people, I just don't like the administration nor the foreign policy.

I think most Americans think there are problems with politics today, and that includes problems with the politics of the Bush administration. Americans believe government is corrupt, politics is ugly, and that a lot of the foreign policy that preceded Bush and which Bush extended with his war is wrong. Most Americans also believed going into Serbia was wrong. But at the same time, at least an equal amount of Americans supported Bush in elections as supported Democratic rivals. And at the same time that most Americans think the war is a mess and that we should find ways to withdraw, most also believe we have a responsibility to make sure Iraq is secure before we leave.

So the point here, is just that when you say you aren't anti-American but anti-Bush, remember that about half of Americans supported Bush in an election versus his opponents, because about half of Americans supported his foreign policy versus the foreign policy outlined by his opponents.

People may be unhappy with Bush, but don't see good solutions from those who are anti-Bush.

Why do you think Hillary Clinton is trying her best politically to carve out some position in the middle without alienating her party base? She knows this fact.

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

Massif — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:52:31 GMT

Oh look! Cats!

Coffeehouse - Good Morning! Not.

evildictaitor — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:10:52 GMT

dahat wrote:

SecretSoftware wrote:
I see now you are hopeless. You are the one who said it weighted 9.5 (see your post above).

See my post above and you'll see I said it weighed ~9.5 tons which is inline with even the weight you quote (there are numerous weight values out there, hence the use of the ~).

9.5 tonnes (~22tons) not 9.5 tons.