JackC

You have answered many question. Except the one I asked. You contribute, therefore you are entitled to leech. Others contribute, but they should not be allowed to leech because they would rather eat than take a joy ride. Your hypocrisy is pathetic. Changing the subject does not answer the question. When people WORK for money, it's called a job. You are opposed to welfare, the above quote is proof of this.

Apparently I did since you still don't seem to understand the question. Many welfare recipients have also contributed to society and will do so again given the opportunity. I don't give a fuck about Bush. How do you reconcile your apparent willingness to leech of the tax payer to go joy-riding, when you are so vehemently opposed to others who do similar in order to eat? I'm not the one who is opposed to welfare for those who need it.

PhillyKev: Would you spend tax payer money to take that joy ride? Ron: Yes, I would. joy ride NOUN: Slang 1. A ride taken for fun and often for the thrills provided by reckless driving. 2. A hazardous, reckless, often costly venture. How do you reconcile your apparent willingness to leech of the tax payer to go joy-riding, when you are so vehemently opposed to others who do similar in order to eat?

Yes, I would. For the record I have been one of 4 jumpers in a C-130 that was flown from VA to Ft.Bragg for the sole reason of flying me and my three buddies for ONE jump in the middle of nowhere (Laurenburg DZ.) with no one around. How do you reconcile your apparent willingness to leech of the tax payer to go joy-riding, when you are so vehemently opposed to others who do similar in order to eat?

Actually, with a few subtle alterations here, and a bit of creative editing there... voila!

peacefulljeffrey on the moral highground: (found here) (emphasis in original)

160,000 guns were confiscated in a population of 58 million people.

I've never come across a diff oil filter. The worst you will find when you pull off the cover is a magnet stuck in the bottom that will becovered in crap. Just clean it and put it back. Most cars don't even have that. A gasket is just the seal that stops the two mating faces from leaking oil. Usually paper, sometimes cork (don't over tighten these or they are guaranteed to leak), sometimes rubber.

Get yourself a sports drinks bottle, the sort with a spout like this -->clicky. Make sure it's good and squeezable. Put a piece of tubing over the spout and fill the bottle with the new oil. Pull out your filler plug, stuff the tube in the hole and squeeze the bottle. Repeat until the oil in the transmission is level with the filler hole. Some transmission oil manufacturers have already thought of this and give you a bottle that will do the job. If you need to pull off the diff cover (the big plate held on by 8 bolts) to drain the oil, make sure you clean the old gasket off, clean up the two mating faces and fit a new gasket with some silicon sealer or your new oil will be all over your drive in no time.

There is a recess in the tank underneath the badge, that recess has a mounting bracket welded into it. The mounting bracket has the holes in it, not the tank itself. I've never seen a double skinned fuel tank, unless the bit you see is only a cover, in which case you can take it off to reveal the airbox, frame and other assorted shite which may include the real fuel tank underneath.

Neither one of those will work well, fuel tanks are ussually "double skinned" so expanding the inner skin will not nessacarily fix the outer skin. However if the inner skin is blown out properly you can just bogg up the outer skin

I know the heaters are necessary but in the schematic there are three lamps wired in parallel to the heaters that are presumably only to indicate that the heaters are on. I'm pretty sure I can get away with one although it's not that important. From the tranformer circuit, there appears to be three output wires marked V*, BR and OR. The ones marked BR and OR power the HT side of the 4 tubes in the preamp circuit but V* appears to be surplus. The foot note says it dissapears into the XFMR which I presume is short for transformer, is that correct? If so what does it connect to cos I really don't want 240v loose under my left foot. Unfortunately, that's the best one I have, it looks OK from my end. Sorry 'bout that. What I want is to add a bypass loop to cut out the whole thing so the input jack connects directly to the output jack with nothing in between. What I want to know is: do I have to do anything special or can I just wire in a cut out loop? I really appreciate your help.

Anybody know anything about electronics? I've been looking around for a tube amp for my electric guitar and came across a schematic for a Matchless HotBox tube preamp which apparently are the mutts nuts. (see atatched schematic) I think I have it figured out exept for one or two points. 1) Presumably the three lamps (bottom of the diagram near to where it says "to heaters") aren't strictly necessary and I could get away with one or even none right? 2) Also it seems that the power output from the transformer gubbins marked BR and OR connect to the amp power input marked BR and OR, but WTF do I do with the one marked V* ? I guess the foot note corresponds to this where it says "* violet wire dissapears into XFMR" but what the hell is an XFMR? 3) If I wanted to wire in a bypass loop, can I just put a switch similar to that's marked S1-A and S1-B (same physical switch I presume, just two different contact breakers) cutting in directly after the input jack and before the first resistor and in again after the switch S1-B before the output jack? 4) Anything else I'm likely to fuck up if I don't know what I'm doing. "You just pick a chord, go twang, and you've got music" - Sid Vicious

Jealous? What of exactly? Off the top of my head... - The extent of freedom that we enjoy. - Our dominating success in the world economy. - The relatively short period of time that it took us to achieve that success. - Our overwhelming military strength as the one and only superpower. - The controlling influence we have over world affairs. Jealousy? Nah. Personally, I wouldn't want to be an American, I don't much fancy the sense-of-humour bypass or the ego augmentation.

We know. http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6240658%255E1702,00.html

It might be the index.dat file, the we-know-where-you-been files that contains your entire web history. They don't show up on a find files search cos windoze hides them (even from show all files). In Windows 2000 and Windows XP there are several "index.dat" files in these locations: \Documents and Settings\\Cookies\index.dat \Documents and Settings\\Local\Settings\History\History.IE5\index.dat \Documents and Settings\\Local\Settings\History\History.IE5\************\index.dat \Documents and Settings\\Local\Settings\History\History.IE5\************\index.dat \Documents and Settings\\Local\Internet Files\Content.IE5\index.datCookies\index.dat, History\History.IE5\index.dat, Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\index.dat. You can't delete them manually in windoze cos they're classed as system files, you have to do it in DOS. Or there is lots of code available to splat them.

I might have said yes if his horse wasn't stood on my rose bush. Apart from that, they're all top blokes. Even the lasses.

Yep, it's highly amusing to open your door to a 9ft snorting war horse with some toffee nosed twat on board saying "Excuse me old chap, but our quarry seems to have taken refuge in your out-buildings. Might we flush the little blighter out so we can continue in our sport?". erm.. no you may not. Now fuck off.

So I expect that you've never had a pack of hounds and a dozen horses steaming through your back garden? Personally, "The Hunt" can go fuck themselves.

Not an isolated incident it would seem.

No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived! So nobody knows what it actually said. The extant manuscripts contain numerous textual variations! So those that read it couldn't agree on what nobody knows what it actually said, said. Important old manuscripts were found in the last 200 years! So there is more to the story than those that read it who couldn't agree on what nobody knows what it actually said, said. The meanings of some biblical texts are unknown or uncertain! So we don't even know what more to the story than those that read it who couldn't agree on what nobody knows what it actually said, said; actually meant. Ancient languages are very different from modern languages! So we can't interpret what we don't even know what more to the story than those that read it who couldn't agree on what nobody knows what it actually said, said; actually meant. Every "translation" is already inevitably an "interpretation"! Except that people try to interpret what we can't interpret what we don't even know what more to the story than those that read it who couldn't agree on what nobody knows what it actually said, said; actually meant. All living languages continually change and develop over time! So that which people try to interpret what we can't interpret what we don't even know what more to the story than those that read it who couldn't agree on what nobody knows what it actually said, said; actually meant, has changed. Cultural developments require new sensitivities in language! And now we must change again that which people try to interpret what we can't interpret what we don't even know what more to the story than those that read it who couldn't agree on what nobody knows what it actually said, said; actually meant, has changed. I always wondered why they call it the wholly babble.

I assume you mean solve y'=x+y for y=f(x). If y isn't a function of x the expression is x+y=0 No. What you have there is f(x) = x^2/2+x f(x) which isn't a solution. Substitute it into the original expression and it doesn't work. Yep, for regular (1 dimensional) differentiation thats right. Nope, that's partial differentiation. To differentiate xy with respect to x where y=f(x) requires implicit differentiation, this is: d/dx{xy}= y + x dy/dx To solve the original differential equation, you need to use the integrating factor method shown in my previous post, or do what most folks do, and guess a trial solution and substitute it into the differential equation, then see how it works. For example, solve y'-y=x. First solve y'-y=0 (solutions are known as the complementary function) by guessing y=C exp(ax) so that y'=a C exp(ax) which gives a C exp(ax) - C exp(ax) = 0 Which is correct only if a=1, so we know that the complementary function is y=C exp(x). Next we solve for the particular integral y'-y=x by guessing y=ax so that y'=a giving a-ax=x. This doesn't work so we try again. Let y=ax+b so that y'=a giving a-ax-b=x. This only works if a=b=-1 So we know that the particular integral is y=-x-1 Put them together and we have the general solution which is: y=C exp(x) - x - 1, the same as using the integrating factor method. Solving differential equations is a bit more tricky than just looking for the reverse of differentiation.

Solve y'-y = x Using the "integrating factor" method for first order linear differential equations of the form y'+P(x)y=Q(x) where the integrating factor is : R(x)=exp( integral{ P(x) dx }) In this case P(x)=-1 so R(x)=exp(-x) Multiply through by R(x) to give: exp(-x) y' - y exp(-x) = x exp(-x) The LHS is just d/dx{ y exp(-x)} which we substitute to give: d/dx{y exp(-x)} = x exp(-x) Integrate both sides with respect to x to give y exp(-x) = (-x - 1) exp(-x) + C where C is the constant of integration. Rearange to give: y=C exp(x) - x - 1 We can check that this is correct by substitution into the original expression. So y'-y = (C exp(x) - 1) - (C exp(x) - x -1) = x as required.

For your enhanced viewing pleasure, we urge you to pay attention to the end credits.

No 16 No 51 No 13 No 13 again. No. 76 No. 6 Come on guys, you're not even trying there's at least another 500 to go. My personal favourite it no 32.