Search results

Well, a hit to the leg could kill if it hits a big artery. If you use a gun on someone you shouldn't be surprised if that person dies, that is the sole purpose of firearms. Better to use "less than lethal" weaponry, even if it can go wrong there as well.

I would say "No. No." If the crime has already happened, then it's no longer self-defence, it becomes revenge. But if it's an ongoing crime with physical risk for another person, I think laws should be a little more forgiving.

I don't think there's anyone here or anyone with an ounce of sanity promoting acquitting rape. So why would there be research with that motivation? Who would be willing to conduct it, and who would fund it? "Burying" the guy who suggested it makes me think the forum was full of neurotic...

I completely disagree. Cannibalism, rape and murder are prevalent in other species, and they're certainly common amongst chimpanzees and other higher apes. To rule out the biological factor in humans, or associate it with an attempt to "make up excuses for rape", is a fallacy. If anything...

I have absolutely nothing to lose, and would intervene only to fight to the death. Then again, self-defense is often illegal in Sweden (a guy got one year in jail for hitting an armed and psychotic robber in the head, giving him a "lasting migraine"), so that could be a reason why people...

Well, I made hummus yesterday.

I would rounhouse that fucker in the side of the head. Also, how did they know he was homeless?

So where you from, Fermi?

It's not true. Welcome nonetheless. Troll?

There are plenty of non-fake execution and accident videos on the Internet.

Our doctors take cash and taxes.

Master's programme in Aerospace engineering at KTH.

Slipstream isn't the same as flow separation. There's a whole field concerning the aerodynamics of cars. As I said, today's cars aren't optimal from an aerodynamic point of view.

A car could be made a lot more functional than it is today. Just sayin'. Aerodynamics are just the tip of the iceberg. But even so, there's little interest, because it's a very established industry with specific design traditions that change slowly. Not to mention there's a shitload of other...

The dimples have to be depressions. So you either need to make a second layer, like they did, or punch them into the car.

Well, I can't really be sure why they don't do it, only assume. So here's me "talking out of my ass", i.e making an educated guess: For instance, making dimples all over the car probably reduce its crashworthiness. This is a structural engineering/material science problem. Cars are designed...

I know why that happens, and no, they're not. The costs and problems associated with the dimples don't outweigh the speed gain. And it's not really news. It delays airflow separation by making the air turbulent Separation is a huge problem on non-aerodynamic surfaces such as a car and a golf...

Completely irrelevant, that wasn't my point. They're malnourished, and not because they don't eat meat. Also, had you actually read my post, you'd know that your precious meat industry wouldn't survive either without crop imports.

But by that logic, you'll no longer be able to eat meat either, as there'll be no crops for cattle to eat. Also, stop it with this "you can eat this and that only because..." and "veganism is a luxury" argument. It's a logical fallacy, and I'm getting sick of pointing it out. The fact of the...

Up to 96% meat content sure.