This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Slaninar
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 45
51
« on: 20 April 2020, 08:55:50 am »
I think Kawasaki Versys is closer to the spiritual successor of the Fazer.
52
« on: 14 April 2020, 09:04:12 pm »
53
« on: 14 April 2020, 05:26:52 pm »
If I had to choose one book, it would be "Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy" by Douglas Adams - quite possibly the best book ever written. Had me physically laughing out loud on many occasions and the only book I've read 3 times.
54
« on: 13 April 2020, 02:33:02 pm »
Last ones: Edward Snowden: Permanent Record - surprisingly well written. Take it all with a grain of salt, but it is informative, more than entertaining, or enlightening. Isaac Asimov: Robots, Empire and Foundation series. I love Asimov and SF in general, while the link has all the books listed in their "in-book-universe" chronological order. Suppose it makes most sense reading them that way, though it's not crucial. Now reading some Serbocroatian collection of Noam Chomsky's works - couldn't find an English publication of that "compilation". It's not bad, but not too good either, anyway.
55
« on: 13 April 2020, 02:07:09 pm »
If stored properly, even 6, or 7 years in storage is often fine. Tyres won't rot if stored properly. They might loose a bit of grip, but not too much. This goes especially if the pavement where you ride has enough rocks in it, so that it is grippy. A guy I met from England explained how UK pavement is a lot less slippery then in our country, but the downside is that tyres get worn a lot faster. Once a tyre is mounted, the "real" aging starts. Pressure, exposure to sun, cold, heating and cooling cycles. That is when tyres start to loose their attributes, even if they are not physically worn. So, depending on the motorcycle storing and riding conditions, after 2 to max. 5 years - replacement is needed. Sooner if they get worn, ofcourse. Or if a motorcycle is parked and left in direct sunlight, for days and months (especially in the summer). Wrote at great length about when should a bicycle tyre be replaced. It's not the same as with motorcycles, but some things are similar enough. Though - Metzeller for example makes steel tyre casing (at least the models I've used), while Michelin and Continental for example, use some sort of fabric - that can be cut more easily and can rot more quickly.
56
« on: 08 April 2020, 01:53:02 pm »
I actually got bored doing it and lost interest. Yes the second one is a bit tricky  
Yup - I often don't pull long enough and end up in neutral!
57
« on: 07 April 2020, 10:02:18 am »
Hope everyone is doing fine. I found this interesting over the weekend to pass some time and take my thoughts off the grim present situation:
https://test.mensa.no/
P.S: I do believe the test is flawed, because, instead of the results, it keeps showing my shoe size. Could be my browser, or something.
Let me just say something, there is NEVER a good time to do that test. From half way onwards was not a comfortable feeling at all. 
While we may never get to Mensa - we'll always have FOC! 
58
« on: 06 April 2020, 10:36:26 am »
Hope everyone is doing fine. I found this interesting over the weekend to pass some time and take my thoughts off the grim present situation: https://test.mensa.no/P.S: I do believe the test is flawed, because, instead of the results, it keeps showing my shoe size. Could be my browser, or something.
59
« on: 03 February 2020, 07:35:15 am »
might you get a problem with chain length then though? going up on the rear.
If not changing the existing chain (using a new one and cutting it to size)? Most probably. Especially since getting the desired gearing by using a larger rear, requires more than 1-tooth difference. Good point.
60
« on: 02 February 2020, 11:25:03 am »
A lot of electricity is made by burning coal. Not that long ago most of the electricity in the UK was made by burning coal.
The UK no longer uses coal to generate electricity.
Scotland’s electricity is now 70-80% renewable, the target is 100% and which much increased capacity to take care of increasing demand from, for example, electric cars.
At the end of the day the world has only one single energy source – the sun.
The point is that renewable is not equal to "not damaging the environment". Getting half the electricity we need from the Sun alone is still not realistically feasible for all I know.
61
« on: 02 February 2020, 08:25:07 am »
A lot of electricity is made by burning coal.
Or destroying river ecosystems by building dams. In my country, there's a devastation of small mountain rivers by private "eco-friendly" power plants.
Solar and wind energy? Both take A LOT of space per KW produced.
Nuclear power, for all I know, is the cleanest of all - as long as all the safety measures are taken and the spent fuel is safely stored.
Very counter-intuitive. But still true.
Now we come to the vehicles. Sure, a battery run one will not pollute directly the city it is driven in. However, adopting many e-cars/bikes will require even more electricity.
Also - batteries. Even when they are recycled, there's a lot of pollution that comes with making them.
Another aspect is how much pollution building a car makes. Any car. Modern trend, that is favoured by capitalism, is getting a new, more eco-friendly car, at least once in 5 years. But this results with more waste made by making more cars. I still think that buying one Golf 2 diesel every 30 years, driving it only when really necessary (say 2000 km per year), is more eco-friendly than getting a new e-car every 5 years and going everywhere using the car.
The really eco-friendly option would be: banning privately owned cars and offering good public transport. And, of course, fewer humans - there's more and more of us each year. As well as more people "packed" in cities, globally, with villages being less and less populated.
62
« on: 02 February 2020, 07:50:32 am »
As per the title. Thinking of going down one on the front. I moved up to inters last year on the track, and I rode faster as a result. while the fazer has very decent braking and allows me to brake later and harder than others in the group, those same bikes simply blast past me out of the bends. Id like a little more punch out of the corners, hence the thought of going down one on the front. It appears it would give me +6.3% on acceleration, but -6.3% on top end. Since the bike cant get to the top end before the end of the straights,m I don't think Ill miss that loss, and the acceleration gain will allow me to get there quicker.
I'm also either going to have to mod the fairing lowers, or leave them off. After wearing a hole in them leaning over, i fitted replaceable slef lube nylon sliders, and wore them too, so I'm thinking off cutting the lowers and fastening them somewhere higher up the machine, but Ill lose the edge return at the bottom of the fairing.
Any thoughts anyone?
Lower gearing makes it more convenient for in-city traffic. Less often being necessary to shift into the 1st gear. I like it. Having said that, the front sprocket is small enough already. Good option could be adding a larger rear one. Larger sprockets seem to last a bit longer.
63
« on: 02 February 2020, 07:38:32 am »
Anyway, that's what happens when political correctness overcomes the common sense.
"I started imagining a world in which we replaced the phrase 'politically correct' wherever we could with 'treating other people with respect' "
- Neil Gaiman.
Respect is not the same as doublespeak. Recently I came across this: https://hbr.org/2015/10/what-to-do-and-say-after-a-tough-reorganizationSuppose now people don't get fired, they get "affected by reorganization"?! When US kills women and children, it's "collateral damage". To me such things look like adding insult to injury, not showing any respect. Not really. I may be conservative, but find it hard to see how a person's gender can be "other". Pick one for God sake! Can imagine a white guy from South Africa, getting a US citizenship and getting insulted when not referred to as "African American". Might make a decent Monty Python sketch.
64
« on: 30 January 2020, 06:24:22 pm »
I thought the original reply was sarcastic - joking one.
Anyway, that's what happens when political correctness overcomes the common sense.
As far as computer-driven cars: I would be surprised if, by the time my grand-kids get to the driving age any person is still allowed to drive a car - humans will surely be considered too unreliable. Just like new cars today can't be sold without an ABS (correct me if that's still allowed within the EU at least).
65
« on: 19 June 2019, 08:59:05 pm »
66
« on: 07 June 2019, 09:35:24 am »
During WW2, Yugoslavia had a very strong guerilla partisan movement that created a lot of problems to the nazis. Being caught as a partisan, or helping them, meant the whole family (often even the entire village) got killed. My friends mother was a small child during the WW2. She told me they had a German patrol in their village on one occasion. The German soldiers were nice to them and she had started talking to one (our province had many Germans and many people spoke some basic German). And told him her name is XXX, but her partisan nickname was YYY. Her family was helping the partisans. The soldier just smiled and walked on. It is to be expected he knew what they would face had he reported it and it took some personal courage to be hush about that. She doesn't tell many war time stories and none seem invented so I believed this one. My grandfather fought with the partisans, got wounded, but survived the war. Another friend of the family had survived a nazi death camp. Both of them never hated Germans and said most of them just fought for their country. Noting a huge difference between Wermacht and the SS. I don't think an average German soldier was any worse, or better than most other soldiers. In the recent history my country did some horrible war atrocities. Not everyone could escape the draft, even if they openly opposed the policy and the wars. Some got killed, wearing the uniform of the country who's regime they had openly opposed. You get drafted, sent to the front, and shot at - you can either shoot back and obey the orders, or get shot by one side, or the other.
67
« on: 06 June 2019, 06:54:19 pm »
Cannon fodder...I don't like that phrase, especially when applied to our troops in that war. They were fighting for a real, just cause. Even Montgomery, say what you will about him, was very conscious of the dwindling British manpower reserves throughout the ETO, and did all he could to keep British casualties to a minimum, such that the Germans complained about our massive use of material resources, especially when it came to artillery, and our American allies complained about his reluctance to commit.
The Russians otoh did often treat their soldiers as cannon fodder with frontal assaults on well defended positions, where pure numbers were used to overwhelm their enemy.
Russians fought desperately with what they had. And it was them (and the Yugoslav rebellion prolonging the invasion of Russia, buying them time - and the winter) who played a decisive role in defeating the nazis. Had D-Day been done in 1942, it would have been a great (though most probably futile) attempt to relieve the Russians and help them with their fight. But in 1944, it could be considered a strategically unnecessary risk (which in no way diminishes the courage and the effort by the soldiers, quite the contrary). Cannon fodder? When you put on a uniform and go to war, you can expect to be sent to die without a good strategic, or tactical reason. You can be certain that at least some people you know will die such deaths. War brings out the best in some, the worst in others. Some of those are commanding officers. I believe the "problematic" term was coined when reflecting upon the effect of artillery (and machine guns) to a frontal infantry assault. In my language, similar term is used that in literal translation means "meat for the cannons".
68
« on: 07 April 2019, 12:13:48 am »
Youtube autoplay leads to some dark corners of them Internets... Don't know who these are, can't even pronounce the name, but enjoyed it.
69
« on: 07 April 2019, 12:12:19 am »
Isn't everyone over seas from Britain?
70
« on: 07 April 2019, 12:09:02 am »
71
« on: 19 December 2018, 08:33:14 pm »
Yes, racism exists.
 Trololo.
72
« on: 12 November 2018, 04:44:28 pm »
I often see Remainers say that the Brexiteers don't know what it was they were voting for. So, to be clear:
1. To be able to make our own laws without having undesirable/unsuitable ones thrust upon us.
2. To be able to control immigration in a way that suits us.
3. To be able to make our own trade deals around the world.
My question is, is there anyone here who doesn't want those three things for the UK, aside, obviously, from VNA, whose only concern is Scotland, and then only those Scots who agree with him?
During the 90s civil wars, my city of 200.000 got around as many refugees. Didn't like the change, even though those people speak the same language. However, the alternative was even worse - letting them die. Another example is a sysetms administrator in my country earns up to 1000 euros per month (that's considered a top pay). Without an EU passport, you can't apply for jobs in EU countries, UK, USA and Switzerland (especially) being very tricky. So the world is still a bit like the middle ages - depending on which family you're born into determines pretty much what you can "afford". On the other hand, let 1.000.000 of my countrymen enter Switzerland and you no longer have Switzerland. Hence, if you include ethics into making the decision, not just money, it's even harder to be objective and wise. It's all a mess, not black and white. Especially since I think the working class of all the world's countries is opressed by the big capital. Those who started the mess in the middle east are the real problem cause IMO, the real "enemy". People destroying rivers, forrests and other countries, killing people for profit... So whatever UK chooses, I expect it to get harder and harder to get by on an "average" wage from year to year.
73
« on: 04 November 2018, 07:03:18 am »
I think there's no need to worry about this. Propaganda will get the majority to vote in whichever way suits the big capital best - people are easily manipulated and media is a very powerful tool.
My impression is, in the long run, "ordinary/working class" will have less and less as years go by. Just gradually, so there are no riots.
Did the number of say school teacher monthly pays to buy a flat, or a car increase, or decrease from, say 1998, 2008?
What about the living costs - heating, bills, food - percentage of monthly pay to pay for it rises, or drops?
74
« on: 11 October 2018, 10:12:05 am »
Welcome, you're at the right place. ...I mean, having bought a shitty, break-down prone good for recycling and not much else motorcycle, you'd need all the advice you can get... Joking. Enjoy your bike and take it easy, especially in the spring, if you make a winter break from riding that is.
75
« on: 09 October 2018, 01:12:56 pm »
Electric cars can help an overpopulated city have a bit less pollution, but the planet as a whole - not so much, if not worse IMO.
My country now gives incentive for "renewable" power sources. So people with money put dams on small, beautiful mountain rivers, and make small power plants. This destroys the mountain rivers/streams, kills all the fast water inhabiting fish (trout I think is the English name). Even affects the surrounding forrests.
Similar thing happens with wind-turbines - haven't seen it for myself, but was told they tend to decimate flocks of birds, who don't see the fins. They even make them with some whistles, to allow birds to notice them, but then you have noise pollution.
Solar panels - they take a lot of room, and have a limited life span - not sure how eco-friendly their production is.
Coal - no need to even explain that.
Nuclear power plants - these seem like the most eco friendly, in terms of pollution per MW produced. As long as there are no disasters and the waste is stored safely and properly.
All those sources are either time, or/and resource limited. Electricity is produced, then converted to charge batteries. Then converted again to run an electric car engine from the batteries. With losses at each transformation (smaller, or larger). OK, when the electric car is run in a busy street it doesn't pollute then and there. It did use pollution to charge the batteries, but that came from hundreds of miles away. It will affect the ecosystem and the climate, probably, but the busy city street will be a bit cleaner, more "eco".
Batteries need to be replaced from time to time, even the rechargeable ones don't last forever. This also creates some waste, and takes effort to re-use what can be re-used, so there's a bit less waste. But there is waste.
Banning private cars, with good quality public transport and bicycle infrastructure are a sensible, long term option. For several reasons. Same, unfortunately, goes for motorcycles as well. Though we needn't fear, common sense is dead and buried. I would expect my son to get to see cars/motorcycles run by humans outlawed, for "safety concerns" though.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 45
|
Show Posts
