...There's just no way that this holds up. Watch and see.

If everything that affects anyone is your problem, then you've got about a billion problems to deal with. That's not feasible. So that's just plain stupid.

This all falls well within the not-my-problem camp. There are problems in this world that are not mine, nor are they not my responsibility to solve. There are plenty of women alive to solve them. And if 1 in 6 have this problem, then there are literally hundreds of millions to solve them. Why the hell do you need me to do anything? If 1 in 6 women is too lazy to do anything about it, then really it doesn't fall on me to solve the problem for them.

I've got problems of my own, and I don't ask 1 in 6 women to solve them for me. I think they are more than capable of solving this one for themselves.

Last I checked, male university students don't get free escorts home at night, yet female university students around here do.

Me solving their problems would go against everything they fought for. I supported women's equal rights. Let them enjoy their equal rights.

They have the equal right to solve their own problems. I sure as hell won't fight their battles for them.

I'd love a definition of fresh that doesn't allow for six months of warehousing before I eat it, thank you very much.

...destroying their ability to learn *without them*.

Whether or not that's a bad thing is a totally different discussion. Do you think the future of learning is with or without computers?

Welcome to focus and opportunity cost.

I've avoided tablets, laptops, and smartphones until now, purely because I can't possibly get any work safely done on any of them, and I've got zero interest in infotainment as recreation. I don't need to watch youtube videos of concerts -- I just go to the concerts.

But this is actually suitable as a minimal desk when I'm on vacation -- which means that I can stay on vacation longer with less cover. All I need is a car adapter and I'll be done.

Look at me, I'm finally buying a portable computer. Wow, 2014.

"advertising" used to be about "advertising" the existence of a product or service. After all, how would I know that something's for sale without it being advertised?

But really, I think we've fallen far far away from that. I know that laundry detergent exists. I know where to find laundry detergent too. If you want to advertise your detergent in the aisle at the store, that'd be great. But I really don't need you to yell your detergent brand at me when I'm at home. I'm not going to suddenly get up and go buy even more detergent.

I'm not going to have ads on my fridge. Aside from buying commercial-grade fridges that don't even have water dispensers, let alone lcd screens, I do buy my fair share of duct tape -- for which I've never seen an ad. Actually, I buy Gorilla tape -- for which I've also never seen an ad. Both tapes do a great job of covering up LCD screens.

But more than anything, this is what confuses me. I'm not going to spend any more money. I simply don't have any more money to spend. It's not like more ads will convince me to buy more of anything. So aside from shifting my brand loyalty from one brand of printer paper to another, I really just don't see the point.

No, you're absolutely right. I meant that in more of the current technical application for brakes in racecars and such. Personally, and professionally, I love aluminum. And because it's a lot more sturdy, it holds a structural shape much better than steel does.

Though it does have some properties that just totally killed it in one of my projects. It shields radiation so well that I couldn't get a wi-fi signal through it at all. Steel didn't have that issue.

But by far, the funniest part was when I grabbed a steel nibbler and tried to use it on aluminum sheet. I've never seen a professional tool break so easily in all my life. I was bewildered.

I think you'd have a hard time keeping the lead there. Lead's pretty soft and melts easily, if I remember correctly. So it'd probably fall off faster than it would do anything else.

I find it interesting to note that all of your examples are of structural, non-frictional components, which doesn't really apply here. I'd have argued that while most metals are readily engineered for differing properties, 90% of those efforts fail miserably in frictional, high-heat, high-wear applications, where the base material undergoes chemically-significant physical forces -- like friction.

In any event, my comments were not intended to describe all steel and all carbon. Instead they were meant to describe the steel and carbon being used in the report. I don't really care about any others in this thread.

On the other hand, if you'd like to get into my personal experiences with aluminum on hang gliders, or my professional expreiences with aluminums and steels in commercial environments, or my pseudo-professional experiences with aluminums, steels, and irons in kitchen environments, my knowledge is narrow but deep in the first, broad and deep in the second, broad and shallow in the third.

oops, my mistake. I didn't mean to type fibre. Thanks!

Umm, whatever your industry's definition of "strength", you'll find that it morphs across the three disciplines involved here. You'll also note that your own industry's definition of "strength" doesn't distinguish between various directions. So if I were to say that steel is stronger laterally, vs carbon's strength longitudinally, I'd still be within your industry.

Your industry also flexes in terms of the definition of the term "failure under load". Failure in some instances means breaking under the stress applied, but in others in means breaking as a result of the stress applied. In this case, we're talking about a spinning disk. If the material can withstand the load without the spinning, but then breaks due to the spinning, the term "strength" either does or does not cover the actual environment being discussed.

All of that aside, you'll note that this is not a materials sciences web-site, nor is it a theorhetical sciences journal. It is a site specifically for autistic yaps who make billions of dollars by transforming complicated depths into familiar fundamentals.

So why are you here?

I think people forget that "stronger" is meaningless. In the case of steel vs carbon, carbon is going to be stronger for a given weight, but that just makes the word "stronger" even more meaningless.

Steel usually wins out against most materials when it comes to survival. Steel bends, and bends back. Just about everything else loses by being brittle. Aluminum is the best example, being about three times lighter, but incredibly brittle. Carbon is also very brittle, just at the microscopic level. It'll fray, and slowly degrade until it comes a part -- like most fabrics.

Steel deforms, and then melts back together and deforms again. In order for friction to destroy steel, it needs to actually wear it away one particle at a time. Being so much heavier/denser, there are that many more particles to wear away. That's the win.

Why are people surprised when mass wins in a mass-bound effort? The challenge here is to get a heavy car to go really fast, and to then slow it down. That's always been a mass vs mass game. More mass always wins.

My question remains: if the carbon solution were as heavy as the steel solution, would it survive? But we all know that you can't cram that much carbon fibre into the same style of braking system.

Electric is simply to inefficient to collect-produce-transport-distribute-convert-convert-convert, and in the end it necessitates highly active infrastructure. Perhaps in the heart of a metropolis that can work, but it might as well power bicycles in that environment.

Hydrogen, as many have said, sucks in the practical convenience of transport. Everything's pressurized, nothing's stable, and it's constantly trying to get away.

I'm a Mazda fan. I like the idea of making the car more and more efficient to the point where in can run on less and less gasolene. At some point, it'll be so efficient that it won't need such a purely refined fuel, and could wind up burning anything -- like orange juice.

With less-refined fuels be required, there are oh-so-many-more options available, including solid fuel components.

So that's my distant-future foresight: two cubes that ultimately get crushed/melted/dissolved/vapourized into something that combusts. Transporting stable and solid fuels in incredibly easy; there's effectively no direct loss during transport; and there's zero active infrastructure to maintain. If it's stable enough, you could leave giant piles of it by the road, and just run a vending box, like the old curb-side newspaper boxes.

Yeah, all of that is known as growing up. If you've made it to forty, and can't govern yourself, then you've simply failed as a productive part of society. You can't possibly keep up with a 20-year old on their strengths, and you're ignoring all of the strengths of being a 40-year old. I'm certainly not going to hire a 40-year old to work under me. I'm 35. But I won't contract a 20-year old as a supplier either. Expertise, experience, and accountability as key things that come with calendars. Ignoring your own benefits is just idiotic.

And besides, according to you, 99.99% of people fall into your incapable categoy. Bullshit.

But hey, keep importing more H1-B foreign workers for the jobs, keep paying welfare to your unemployed, keep screwing yourselves out of every bit of your lifestyle. It all works in my favour. I wind up benefiting from all of it.