My last "They didn't go moon trip".
09-11-2007, 04:10 PM
#301
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
This is a example of how engineers design new technology but big business ignores and stiffles its growth in order to increase their profit margin.
I bring this point up because as an engineers you know the design aspect of the topic and as consumers you understand the benifits of such an invention.
I bring this point up because as an engineers you know the design aspect of the topic and as consumers you understand the benifits of such an invention.
09-11-2007, 04:25 PM
#303
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Posts: 47,585
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
This is a example of how engineers design new technology but big business ignores and stiffles its growth in order to increase their profit margin.
I bring this point up because as an engineers you know the design aspect of the topic and as consumers you understand the benifits of such an invention.
I bring this point up because as an engineers you know the design aspect of the topic and as consumers you understand the benifits of such an invention.
how the hell did we go from proving they landed and walked on the moon to how greedy big business is in the US?
09-11-2007, 05:02 PM
#305
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
The moon landing was to motivate the people.but if you read the thread that I told you to "make sure you read" you would understand the impact it had on the people also the timelines reflect that the missions ended the same time the Vietnam war ended. You guys are not reading everything so I'm wasting my time.
I gave the example of how even technology is controlled by greed in big business.
You guys don't even know that fuel injection was developed in WWII. The fuel injection allow the planes to fly faster and higher. Which means it was developed in 1945. Fuel injection should have been in main stream earlier. The 1956 Corvett had fuel injection but because it did not consume gas like a carbs big business forces GM to revert back the carb.
This is another example of influence for the wrong reason.
It's just like the tuning, people don't understand.
sorry I wasted you guys time
09-11-2007, 05:27 PM
#306
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
Are you implying that ppl stood to make money riding the wave in after NASA called it a success?I could say that I don't understand tuning and testing as well as Ichi, but I can also say that he doesn't understand engineering like I do. If I tried to learn about tuning, the engineering knowlege I have will fill in the gaps better as opposed to learning cold turkey. If you learn cold turkey, you just know that x leads to a y outcome and assume all other outcomes behave like that. That is not being an engineer. As opposed to "fuel injection allows the planes to fly higher and faster", I can reason why and how. Actually, fuel injection doesn't necessarily makes planes fly higher and faster though it does improve engine efficiency with a proper closed loop feedback control system. We could start talking bout this, but it would take this on a tangent.
Last edited by samurai; 09-11-2007 at 05:48 PM.
09-11-2007, 05:29 PM
#307
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
09-11-2007, 05:51 PM
#308
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
apparently so were my explanations.
EDIT - You start saying they didn't go to the moon because of the tracks and the "POS" lander so therefore they didn't go. Then I voiced a simple belief that they did go and you say not to believe in it. Since I pretty much told you that having something look like a POS doesn't mean it will work like a POS, you start mulling over the tracks being inconsistent and looping over and over again that since x =/= y, it just doesn't add up. I use analogies to explain what I see and you call them bantering. I use different theories to explain things (which are perfectly legal) and you call me inconsistent without using anything remotely science or engineering related to back it up. I give as simple an answer to your simple question and you laugh it off.. etc etc etc. And I can't follow along?
EDIT - You start saying they didn't go to the moon because of the tracks and the "POS" lander so therefore they didn't go. Then I voiced a simple belief that they did go and you say not to believe in it. Since I pretty much told you that having something look like a POS doesn't mean it will work like a POS, you start mulling over the tracks being inconsistent and looping over and over again that since x =/= y, it just doesn't add up. I use analogies to explain what I see and you call them bantering. I use different theories to explain things (which are perfectly legal) and you call me inconsistent without using anything remotely science or engineering related to back it up. I give as simple an answer to your simple question and you laugh it off.. etc etc etc. And I can't follow along?
Last edited by samurai; 09-11-2007 at 06:03 PM.
09-12-2007, 10:07 AM
#311
this is almost like a religious discussion 
person A: "there's archaeological photos of bone structures to show how humans evolved"
person B: "no, that's just coincidence. besides, god said we're from adam and eve and he created us so he wouldn't lie."
person A: "there's archaeological photos of bone structures to show how humans evolved"
person B: "no, that's just coincidence. besides, god said we're from adam and eve and he created us so he wouldn't lie."
09-12-2007, 10:08 AM
#312
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
09-13-2007, 02:23 PM
#313
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
Google looking too