how many times do we need to point out that the question the OP posted is not the same question they addressed in the mythbuster's episode?

> A10 wrote:

> >no way you're this stupid; im done feeding the troll.

That must be your way of admitting you're wrong.

most everyone in this thread still believes you're wrong. so obviously it isnt.

in the movie, i think you only saw him in a suit during press conferences, you only saw him in a thong in Vietnam, and you only saw his "submarine" when he was in a fairly private place, so you couldnt really tell, if you didnt read the comics.

"Ok I concede that the above is right up to a certain thrust from the engine."

correct. BUT when the 747 becomes no longer stationary, the wheels are moving faster then the conveyor belt; right? do you understand that? now the original post in this thread asks, if the plane can take off if the conveyor belt matches the speed of the wheels. so he's asking if the plane can take off before the engine's thrust makes the wheels travel faster then the conveyor.

> Einstein wrote:

> Yes they apply a bias, no they should not apply their own personal bias.

I do not want an anti-gun judge ruling on my self defense with a gun (if it should ever happen) with his bias included.

Nor would you want a judge giving you ten years for spraying a tag on a wall when he has a crusade against it.

what bias do you think they're applying if it isnt personal bias? what people want, isnt relevant, im saying how it is, Judges are biased, not that i want judges to be biased, or that its good that judges are biased, simply that judges are biased.

edit: also, im pretty sure i never said they apply their own personal bias, but that they apply bias, and you have already admitted that, they do apply bias; so my point is made, and the lone opponent has conceded the point.

"The second sex scene was to point out the difference in the person (without having his outfit on he couldn't get it up. But once he was in the uniform he was a very different person) You don't see it as much in the movie. but in the Novel Dan (owl guy) is an unsure guy who does some stuttering and isn't very confident. Once he's in his suit he's authoritative, commanding and confident."

yeah, but the fact that Dan was more confident in his uniform or that he was pretty timid when he wasnt, didnt really make a difference in the movie. instead of doing something like batman, it was more something like Hellboy; where they're trying to make a great comic into a movie, instead of making a great movie out of a great comic.

did they give him a speedo anytime other then when he was huge?

they didnt need more characters, they needed the characters they had to be deeper. it wasnt as bad as the characters in hellboy and hellboyII though, those were really cheesy characters.

the 2nd sex scene was poorly done. it was almost like, yeah, she's hot, we know all you guys want to see her naked, so here is her naked. it didnt advance character development or the plot of the movie, and it seemed centered around the nudity more then the sex. unlike the first sex scene that was with Dr Manhattan, where it was actually about the sex and it actually advanced character development and plot. and im not counting the scene where the guy wasnt able to get it up as a sex scene, so there was only 2 sex scenes in the movie, when you dont count that as one.

"how do you unbiasedly interpret the constitution and laws of the land? you dont. every human uses their past experiences to judge things, judges are no different, and those past experiences are what bias is."
"ever notice how the most successful judges are the ones with a bias either towards republicans or democrats?"

Judges are supposed to be unbiased, int he view of the masses. in reality, they're supposed to be biased. their job is to be biased. they look at the facts of the case, and then apply their personal bias, to determine outcomes. thats their job.

you're not thinking hard enough because i understand the part you're repeating excellantly "The plane does not drive like a car. The wheels are free spinning. The engines/props move a plane."

the problem is that the question was if the the conveyor moves as quickly as the WHEELS. when the engine/props move the plane forward, the conveyor is moving slower then the wheels are. for the plane to move forward, it must break the condition given in the first post. for the plane not to break the condition of the first post, it must be stationary. if its stationary it cant take off.

now instead of repeating yourself, because we both agree with what you're saying, say whats wrong with what im saying.

i dont know, i think the first sex scene was definitely necessary, i'd imagine, you're talking about the other one, the one when they're in the flying contraption. i think it wasnt needed, but it wasnt like overboard, i dont think it detracted much from the movie. overall, i was pretty underwhelmed by the character development. maybe its just because i never read the comics.

you gotta be a troll, cant be this stupid. its not a matter of the conveyor slowing down the plane, its a matter that the wheels are unable to move forward without going faster then the conveyor. for the plane to move forward, it wouldnt be able to use wheels. a 747 cant take off without using its wheels.