guineasmithpig

ROFL thats the best i've ever heard

theres a couple of vids on youtube of people gettin caught by housemates. think they might be linked in Best of the Internet somewhere one guys beatin off to a World of Warcraft character, and another one is walked in on, and it turns out theres a guy under the desk suckin him off! And people think getting caught havin a tug is bad!? anyways, walked into the bathroom to find my brother lyin on the floor havin a wank. didn't know what the hell to do. just laughed my tits off everytime i saw him for the next few days. still dunno why he didn't use the lock as for me? never got caught 'at it', but once had ma missus in her brothers bed and got a bit o protein on the wall somehow (boy got range, innit!) and we never noticed. he did. ooooops Smithy

whats the best thing about shaggin ninety nine year olds? they can't run away! how dya make a toddler cry twice? wipe you knob on his teddy afterwards Michael Jackson and the doctor are walking out of the delivery room after his wife gives birth to their son. Michael says, "How long before we can have sex?" The doctor says, "At least wait until he's walking." A woman is shopping in the local supermarket. She selects some milk, some eggs, a carton of juice, and a package of bacon. As she unloads her items at the cash register to pay, a man standing behind her in line watches her place the four items on the belt and states with assurance, "You must be single." The woman looks at the four items on the belt, and seeing nothing unusual about her selection says, "That's right. How on earth did you know." He replies, "Because you're f**king ugly!"

did exactly the same mate, but i sold my trials bike. Had a bash at BMX and didn't like it, currently sorting a dream spec dirt/street bike for summer. Got a revell 450R frame on its way (currently running trailpimp frame, but decided on racing 4X next year) and going for a pair of Pike's after xmas. Pics as soon as its done... Would advise against selling the trials bike. Perhaps spend some time off, and go back to it with a different view of what you want to achieve. I got fed up of not being able to do what i used to after time out through injuries from tryin to go big and progress. However, i miss it a little now and luckily kept hold of my old Giant Team Trials frame, so gonna build a proper old skool rig for summer to play on, remind myself of the good old days when I was havin fun!!!! Smithy

Congrats man! Theodore sounds a cool name. But seriously, you gotta have Logan as the middle name! (Bill & Ted) Do it!!! Smithy

Eh? Explain how? Oh, I see, but it doesn't work with this form of the riddle that bit ruins it good effort Didn't think this was possible, or was a trick question. Did a quick search about and its an old riddle thats generally agreed to have no answer unless written in a certain way, in which case there can be many interpretations of what could be a right answer. Answers and explanations

wide, with a fat tyre more boing from your bonks, and better grip/cushioning for gaps to front wheel i was running a koxx rear rim on a hope xc with a 2.35in dh tyre on the front! weighed a bit, but was grip-tastic!

got 3 and a half bikes in my bedroom, on the second floor. 2 are insured individually (xc and street/dirt bikes), one (bmx) is going in the post this week (yay for space!), and the other half (trials frame and bits) is being claimed as parts in the event of a burglary. gettin my xc bike up the stairs is a freakin nightmare! the hall is only as wide as the bars, and theres a 180 turn around the banister at the top of the stairs which is even slimmer! and my housemate hangs all her handbags and coats on the end of the banister to make it even harder. damn it! the two insured bikes are still locked with thatcham approved locks in my bedroom because thats what the insurance policy states. my home contents policy doesn't cover bikes as its a student property, which sucks ass, so have to spend as much on insurance for each bike (dirt bike will be double after upgrades) as i do for £3000 of stuff under home contents! look after your bikes people, if only for the sake of the people who've had bikes nicked and don't have mummy and daddys insurance or wallet to front the bill for a new rig. don't give the thieving b*****ds the pleasure of making someone else miserable smithy

can't find you. entered name and pass and it says 'user has different game code?

liking it! old skool frames ruled. couldn't bring maself to sell my old giant. very fond memories of some of my bestest riding ever. sold the long low piece o crap thing. gonna put the giant back together in an old skool spec for summer fun. don't ride trials no more, bu fancy a bit of hopping on the side is that a wall ride? or wall plant from the kerb? smithy

whats red and crawls up legs? a home-sick abortion

I wantd to prove it myself, but i got a report to write. so read up munchkins and tell all us clever people your sorry Airplane on Conveyor Belt - Deconstructed Posted by Swood having to do with Riddles I have been doing a lot of thinking and research into the "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" conundrum. For some reason, I find this thought experiment to be extremely compelling. You can tell a lot about a person's thought process (and background) by the way they defend their position. It really is amazing. As I've said previously, this problem tends to divide people radically. There are some people (very few) who just "get it" right from the start. Then there are those who believe that their initial, intuitive answer must be the right one... there's just no other way. I must admit that I was in the camp that immediately said "no way, that thing can't possibly fly... it's obvious!" Eventually, after giving the problem at lot of though, I finally understood what was going on. The Problem: An aircraft is standing on a runway that can move (a conveyor belt). The aircraft moves in one direction, while the conveyor moves in the opposite direction. This conveyor has a control system that tracks the aircraft's speed and tunes the speed of the conveyor to be exactly the same, but in the opposite direction. There is no wind. The pilot begins to add thrust to the engines... The question is: Will the plane take off or not? The Result: Yes, the aircraft will proceed down the conveyor-belt runway in exactly the same way it would down an asphalt runway. It will take off as normal. If you were watching from the sidelines, the take-off roll would look identical to any other that you may have seen. The only difference being the rate at which the wheels are spinning. They would be spinning approximately twice as fast. The aircraft does not suddenly lift vertically (like an elevator) as some proponents of the "No, it won't fly" camp seem to think we are proposing. That would be physically impossible, assuming no wind. The Assumptions: In order to avoid any messiness, let's make one basic assumption. 1. Let's assume no friction at the wheel hubs. ie... the aircraft wheels can spin as fast as they want. This isn't a deal breaker or a shortcut, in fact, it's not really even necessary. It is merely a way to dismiss the completely irrelevant argument that "there's no way an aircraft's wheels could spin 500mph without burning up." Yeah, that's fine... but it has no relevance in our thought experiment. Nobody is going to build a giant runway conveyor belt either. The Solution: Here are the keys to understanding this problem: 1. The wheels of an aircraft are "free-wheeling". They do not provide propulsion, and therefore do not "push against" the action of the conveyor belt. 2. The thrust for aircraft movement comes from jet engines or propellors... not the wheels. Therefore, the thrust being applied to the aircraft body is completely decoupled from how fast the wheels happen to be spinning. 3. Thrust acts according to Newtons Third Law of Motion - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The thrust of the engines is acting against the air. Because the wheels are free-wheeling and we have assumed zero friction at the hub, it follows that the conveyor belt, no matter how fast it is moving, CANNOT EXERT ANY FORCE on the aircraft with respect to forward motion! There is no force in our experiment that can oppose the thrust vector of the aircraft. If the conveyor belt cannot exert any relevant force on the aircraft, you can completely ignore it. Ergo, the aircraft takes off as if nothing unusual is happening. Addressing Some Common Arguments: 1) "The conveyor belt will cancel out any forward motion of the aircraft. The plane will not move at all." Short Answer: The belt has no way to exert force with respect to the forward motion of the aircraft. All it can do is make the wheels spin faster or slower. Long Answer: Your conditions are illogical. * You claim that the aircraft will not move * If the plane doesn't move, then the conveyor belt doesn't move either * If the belt is not moving, then how is it cancelling any forward motion of the aircraft? 2) "The plane will remain stationary, but will lift into the air... thus taking off." Answer: This is an aerodynamic impossibility (assuming no wind), which should be obvious. 3) "But if you said the the conveyor belt matches the speed of the WHEELS, it wouldn't be able to take off." Short Answer: See Argument #1. Long Answer: Once again, your conditions are illogical. The conveyor belt can never "match" the speed of the wheels unless the aircraft does not move. With a tremendous thrust vector behind it with no opposing force, the aircraft will move. Once the aircraft begins to move, we enter into a paradoxical situation. * X = Wheel Rotational Speed * X = Conveyor Belt Speed, as per your conditions * Z = Speed of Aircraft = Some non-zero positive number The equation is: X = X + Z, which is illogical. Example. The aircraft is moving 10mph (X = X + 10) with the wheels rotating at 10mph. Therefore, the belt must react and accelerate to 10mph. But now the wheels are rotating at 20mph... and so on to infinity. 4) "You can't just ignore the conveyor belt as you claim. Take this situation for example..." A guy is standing on the conveyor. He sees a plane moving forwards away from him at 10mph on the conveyor. He also knows that the conveyor itself is also moving at 10mph in a forwards direction. The total velocity of the plane in relation to the ground must be 20mph. If the conveyor can be ignored then why is the plane's total velocity twice what it would normally be if it was moving along on tarmac. The fact that you cannot explain this indicates that you've either ignored or overlooked some of the forces at play between the conveyor and the plane. I don't see any violations. You state that the aircraft is moving 10mph relative to the conveyor (perhaps as measured by a speedometer on the wheels). The conveyor itself is moving 10mph relative to the ground in the same direction. The total speed of the aircraft relative to the ground (tarmac) is 20mph. I don't see any problem with this. Ignore the conveyor by making it pop out of existence and you suddenly have an aircraft traveling down the tarmac at 20mph. You can change your point of view as much as you like, but you still end up with an aircraft traveling 20mph with respect to the ground. References and Further Investigation: The Straight Dope - "An airplane taxies in one direction on a moving conveyor belt going the opposite direction. Can the plane take off?" AVWeb.com - Pilots Lounge #94 - "Conveyor-Belt Runway" Airliners.net Tech Ops - "If A Plane Took Off A Conveyor Belt..." Tempus Fugit Blog - "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" PhysOrgForums - 275 pages of discussion!!! click here

good man! how do people not get this? does a plane get propulsion from air shoved out the back of the engines? or the road underneath it? because if its the latter, how in the hell do they keep movin in the sky? right, i'm sure some people won't even understand this. i'm on a mission for visual proof, to shut them up and let this thread tumple to the depths of hell. not calling anyone stupid. i just don't see how some people are still not seeing it after all the wonderfully blatant explanations that have been posted smithy

413 pages! and i thought this had dragged a little! plane does fly. fools

hehe read some of the others, but not the whole thread. jolly good show lads! sorry if this is a repost, and also for sticking a racist joke up what would you call the Flinstones if they were black f**kin niggers how do you make a dead baby float? half a bowl of ice cream and two scoops of dead baby whats brown and gurgles? Baby casserole Whats blue and orange and found at the bottom of swimming pools? A baby with burst armbands And my grand finale (hopefully not a repost! My favourite joke ever!) A baby is still born. The little dead baby gets to the gates of heaven, and the guy minding the gates says 'Sorry, heaven is full. You can't come in.' The dead baby says 'Oh, but I really wanted to go to heaven.' 'Well,' says the guy at the gates 'I tell you what. Here's some wings, you can be a cherub.' So off flies the little dead baby, now a cherub, with his little harp and a little smile. The next day, another baby is born dead. The little dead baby gets to the gates of heaven, and the guy minding the gates says 'Sorry, heaven is full. You can't come in.' The dead baby says 'Oh, but I really wanted to go to heaven.' 'Well,' says the guy at the gates 'I tell you what. Here's some wings, you can be a cherub.' So off flies the little dead baby, now a cherub, with his little harp and a little smile. The next day, a little black baby is born dead. The little dead black baby gets to the gates of heaven, and the guy minding the gates says 'Sorry, heaven is full. You can't come in.' The dead black baby says 'Oh, but I really wanted to go to heaven.' 'Well,' says the guy at the gates 'I tell you what. Here's some wings..... .....you can be a bat.'

I name tomorrow Kill Spangler Day! absolute b*****d. And I was so restrained, not looking to see how long it was incase i caught the punch line. Damn you!

that sucks! how did you manage to get the CCTV footage? my uni (oxford brookes) won't even let me view because of 'confidentiality' reasons. its my freakin £700 kona gettin nicked! they say they didn't see anything suspicious, but they don't even know what bike they're supposed to be looking for! anyways, hope someone manages to recover yours. and if hope something nasty and painful happens to them thieving bas***ds smithy

just to add to this, some people are saying that they are twisting anles quite regularly without any real pain. This due to instability of the ankle and simon can fix this! I kept falling over on mine, and it can eventually lead to broken ankles and such as nothing is stoppping the foot from rolling and if it happens under a lot of force, it can lead to your ankle/lower shit hitting the floor, and that hurts a lot! get instability looked at asap! I wouldn't recommend A&E/NHS to anybody for further treatment. I went in after simon confirmed total separation of ATFL and PTFL ligaments, and the physio gave me exercises to do and tried to make me walk out not using my crutches! when there isn't anything holding my foot to my leg! they're dangerous i tell you! anyways, can't recommend simon highly enough. he's helped me and other riders i know back to more than full health and has very good reputation, so you can definitely trust his advice and recommendations. Smithy

nope. and it's likely to hurt your tyre, especially if it sticks to your rim. then it'll cost even more to replace. just save some money and get a new rim. or sell somthin you don't need smithy

as above, and getting it welded will probably cost more than a new rim anyway!

yeah people. as rich has already said, simon is more than willing to help, as most of the injuries sports persons incur aren't what the nhs wants to deal with. they just patch up people as if they're just old ladies who need to be able to walk to the post office and back! for instance, after rupturing/tearing the ligaments in my ankle multiple times, and being sent away from A&E with nothing more than a tubigrip (not even crutches!) i trashed my ankle again, and got the same treatment from NHS again. i was soon put in touch with simon, and he travelled over to take a look. on further inspection he assessed that the ankle was beyond healing itself and action was called for. he sorted it out good and proper, and after as much rest as he saw fit, it is now (literally) stronger than I ever remember, and its holding up to falls and rigours off biking that would have had flat on my ass last year! sorry for caps, but.... IF YOU HAVE AN INJURY THAT IS BOTHERING YOU, GET IT LOOKED AT!!!!! as i'm slightly older than a lot of kids who ride trials these days, i fed up to the back teeth of people not wanting to get sorted because it means time off the bike. thats fair enough, but you don't realise what a recurring problem will result in until you get to my sort of age and after years of abuse, that little niggle is now causing you shedloads of trouble and even more time off the bike. i wish i could of got mine sorted when i first did it about 5 years ago, because it wouldn have compiled into an almost useless ankle that needed 4 months to fix! at least speak to simon, he'll be able to get a fairly good idea of your issues just over msn or something, and you would thank yourself for it if you could see a couple of year into the future! it'll take far less time to sort now than when you've mullered it a few more times. thanks simon, from a very grateful patient! Smithy

lace as normal, in 4 groups of 8 spokes (2 groups on each flange), missing a spoke in between each group. is it as simple as that?

Burgtec stuff is made at BETD/Goldtec as far as i know, so i'm guessing that with 48ep's, the hubs run the same 2+2 pawl system. The EN24T steel in them pedal axles is hella strong. Though i agree, you gotta have the dosh floating around your house to spend that much on pedals. And i thought atomlabs and eastons were a bit pricey!? smithy

i'm waitin for 12in wheel scrapper to come through the shop i work at. got one from halfords when i worked there and we had MASSIVE fun on it! we built a miniramp in my mates back garden that summer and was riding it on that. because they are so small its actually easier to hop on the front wheel than the rear! ultimate trick was tryin to manual the thing without smashing ur ass to bits! anyways, i do appreciate what your tryin to do and ain't gonna kick up a fuss like others have. though i do agree that maybe startin her on a normal kids bike teachin her to ride without stabilisers and then along small balance beams might be a good start. after all, most of us started on regular bikes before moving to something more specialised! well, at least all the oldies like me! neways, keep us posted on your progress however it goes! and defo get a helmet on her too! best startin em young! smithy

is it actually that the bolt is bigger than the dropout? or is it just really thick paint? i've had similar paint issues before! you could file the dropouts out a little, as long as u maintain good axle support