Get yourself down your local bike shop (Halfords even) and get her on a few to see what dose and doesn’t fit). It’s what I’ve always done with my kids when they were young.

I’d give all people:

A reasonable education, a reasonable level of intelligence, and the skills of independent thought and critical thinking. I’m probably being a bit naive (see, if only someone gave ME a reasonable education & a reasonable level of intelligence), in thinking that would solve a great many of the world’s problems.

The Met are apparently stopping cyclists who are not wearing helmets to offer them “education and advice”:

Gosh, almost worth moving back dan saff for a week or two with some facts and figures to counteract their “education and advice”

Involve your MP, that is what they are there for.

If only people that complained were consistent with their animals welfare stance. Why aren’t they also complaining about Halal and Kosher meats (i.e. meats not stunned before slaughter) not having to be labelled as such, and consequently some meat product we buy has those parts of the animals that Jews and Muslims are not allowed to eat in, hence we are either unwittingly or unwillingly supporting animal cruelty.

It’s an unfortunate fact of life, that often, to protect something, one must monetise it. And of course managing livestock involves selective culling. Which is why the World Wildlife Fund use to be involved in elephant hunting until people who knew diddly squat about anything outside a town kicked up a stink.

Worse conditions I’ve driven in were in Denver Colorado USA in February 1994, they’d had record snow. With drifts, snow was reaching up to single story building roofs. We had hired a 4×4, but with non-snow tyres it was a hairy 3 hour night drive to Steamboat Springs where we were staying.

The fact that you are are deemed old enough and responsible enough to drive but not drink in this country always baffles me!

Legal age for drinking is 5 in the UK.

Lower age of consent to 15? Really? Whereas that might be applicable to females who (according to published NHS data) on average reach physical maturity by 15, males don’t do so until 18; the current age limit of 16 already legalises paedophilia (‘paedo’ meaning ‘child’ in the medical sense, nothing at all to do with any arbitrary age limits which change from country to country and culture to culture). If people were REALLY concerned (instead of merely pretending to be concerned) about paedophilia, they’d want the age of consent raising to 21 (when the vast majority of both sexes will have reached physical maturity).

FYI. The age under which no consent can be given and statutory rape starts is 13.

If all other things were equal, D-locks are better, but I imagine a decent chain lock is better than a poor D-Lock.

For a decent chain lock I’d highly recommend the Kryptonite Keeper Value Armoured Key Cable Lock 20 mm x 110 cm.

Well, unless you want the narrow DoF, he’s quite correct.

Um, so he isn’t correct then?

If you only have a prime and need to zoom, just walk closer to the subject…

Isn’t that one of the infamous Ken Rockwell gems, along with not needing fast lenses because excellent high ISO performance and VR make them redundant? :roll:

Eeek, showing bra straps, pet hate of mine.

I became aware that ‘chain wear indicators’ were basically useless because they also measure roller wear, which is not really important. It’s so unimportant that Shimano’s £50 top of the range TL-CN41 chain wear checker DOES NOT include roller wear. There’s a website around that has lots of pretty pictures explaining why roller wear is inconsequential. I have heard (but not experienced) that some brand new chains may show worn on some chain wear indicators.

So, checking with a steel rule (whilst on the bike, as quick as using a chain wear checker), I replace chains at 12 & 1/16” (0.5%) as recommended by both Jobst Brandt & Sheldon Brown.

If we apply basic common sense logic (i.e. is their the tiniest shred of peer reviewed court admissible evidence to support the claim?) then the claim can safely be dismissed.

Still, it got the brother some air time, and it’s well documented what some will do to be ‘famous’, even on STW there are regular threads about just knowing someone ‘famous’.

Is the car not a gift from an admirer? That would be my take on the matter.

The Nikon 50mm f1.8 is very highly regarded.

It’s price/performance thing. The AF lens is one of the poorer iterations of the 50mm f/1.8 line. The Ai is the best, then the Ai-S.

The old AF 35mm f/2 is optically superior, and arguably a better focal length for DX, but costs twice as much.

I always get confused between Lily Allen and Lily Savage. I don’t how how, one is attractive and feminine, and Lily Allen is neither.

I’ve built three using Sheldon’s guide, and (by all accounts) I’m not very clever. Mind you, I got that from a guy that believes unicorns might be real, so make of that what you will.

This was the same bloke whose landlady had to untie him from his bed and in whose room £20,000 worth of women’s clothes were found. Just saying, like.

Who was also extremely intelligent (genius?) and would have loved nothing more than posing an unsolvable puzzle upon his death?

I knew I was missing something! :oops:

It’s very area (prices, salaries) dependent.

Where I live now £25,000 would make me reasonably comfortable. Where I lived before £40,000+ was a struggle.

You can believe those things if you want. If you do, and you can give me a good reason why, a reason that is worth something or does some good, then I won’t argue with you.

Superb! The money would make all the causes I would donate to very happy indeed. How are you paying?

Sorry, I missed this.

My argument is that you have no way of knowing how likely it is,

No, I do. The fact the whole concept was dreamt up millions of years after the earth was formed by goat-herders, and (and we’ve been here before as well) there is not one single iota of evidence to support the notion and for that reason, being a semi-educated adult capable of logic, I can safety dismiss the notion.

As for your arguments including DK – you are aware that it could be working both ways, aren’t you?

No it couldn’t, because I don’t think I’m clever. In fact, I spend most days trying to improve my knowledge and understanding. You however are trying to suggest that your are more clever than me. In respect of the Duning-Kruger effect, we are clearly defined. You might well need to get someone else to explain it you to (and I don’t mean that flippantly).

Let’s recap – your argument is that the current evidence means it’s extremely unlikley that God exists.

My argument is that you have no way of knowing how likely it is, which makes it a matter of faith BOTH WAYS.

So, according to your argument, it’s a matter of faith (and a justifiable position) that (and we’ve done this already):

Mermaids are real
HM the Queen is a lizard
Unicorns are real
I’m a time traveler
and (wait for it!)
You owe me £100,00,000!

Yes?

And you truly can’t see anything ridiculous about that? Nothing at all?

And you avoided answering my question regarding the intelligence levels of the people I listed. When you’re ready.

Anyone else think that Tucker needs to calm down a bit before he has a stroke.

Obviously not. Regardless, I couldn’t be any calmer. But thank you for your concern, I’m touched (though not nearly often enough, but that’s for another thread).

At the risk of ridicule, is the astro-dog one real?

If you’re lacing on to a hub with the same dimensions, worth keeping one whole spoke from each side to double-check spoke lengths (he says, talking from bitter experience).

And just for the record molgrips, do you consider this thread to now be beyond the capabilities of people like (were they all living now):

Stephen Hawking
Richard Dawkins
Charles Darwin
Leonardo DaVinci
Peter Higgs
Alan Turing
Sigmund Freud
& Noam Chomsky?

Are they also not very intelligent, not very bright?

You know what, for the edification of others, here’s what Dr David Dunning and Dr Justin Kruger concluded:

“The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else’s, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people’s responses as superior to their own.”

It was going to be a banana and homemade strawberry jam sarnie, but the Missus has taken the last of the bread, so it’s a banana with jam spread on it. Does that count for two of my five a day? :)

I am against religion because of the negative affect it has on others. It really has no effect on me. I’m male, heterosexual, and my genitals as are as they should be.

Those who do chose religion often talk of the benefits to themselves.

I wonder if we can take anything from that.

I was highlighting the fact that a correlation between religious people and atrocities does not indicate a causal link. Do you accept that?

Between all atrocities, yes, between specific atrocities, no, not at all. Would children still have their penises mutilated were it not for the bibles? Almost certainly not.

You chose a bad example. Financial tranasations have a strictly limited context. You have a bank balance, your money is defined as the combination of that and any cash you have. Financial transactions are clearly defined.

My example stands. You made a bet with me and lost, don’t tell me you don’t remember, you owe me that money. Prove otherwise. You can’t. Period. YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE.

Please enlighten me!

I’m not sure that I can because thus far you seem unable to grasp some fairly simple concepts. Intelligence (my definition) is the ability to take information and process it, to be able solve, to be able to deduce, to adsorb information and from that information provide answers. The ability to calculate, invent, design.

I’m not making ad hominem attacks. I’m not replacing argument with insults, I’m giving lots of arguments. But I also don’t think you’re as bright as you think you are.

As I’ve already said, twice, I don’t think I am that bright. Read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect again.

If my argument is running rings around yours, which it clearly is, because not only is my argument supported by the whole of science, and yours by nothing at all, not even a credible reply, then what makes you think you are qualified to judge my level of intelligence, competence, or brightness?

Now read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect once more.

According to the Hans Rosling derived test question 2 on the BBC’s Ignorance Quiz here, Petropavlovsk (Eastern Russia) is in the continent of Europe, so I’d take anything he said with a pinch of salt.

If the van is signwritten and they’ve expect you to take it home at weekends and in the evening, it can be negative. Not everyone wants a commercial vehicle parked on their property. Ditto in their area.

Whilst addressing me directly molgrips you have said

You aren’t that intelligent then

That’s a really stupid argument.

and

I think the debate has moved past your level of competence Tucker.

Perhaps I should make you aware of the concept of ‘ad hominem’ (it’s Latin), where someone feels compelled to attack the person making the argument because they are unable to attack the actual argument they are offering.

You’ll notice I haven’t needed to resort to calling you names, your responses do all the work for me.

I said

“A: It’s nonsense.
B: Religions as a whole (including Christianity), are (or have been) responsible for homophobia, subjugation of woman, and child genital mutilation. No amount of ‘good’ makes that acceptable.”

You replied

That’s a really stupid argument.

That’s like saying that people have been responsible for wars and death, therefore Sesame Street is evil.

I responded

“REALLY?

**** me, I must be thicker than I thought (and I think I’m quite thick). Explain to me just how that is in any way similar.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, you didn’t offer an explanation.

I posted

“Where no evidence exists FOR something, it can safely be dismissed. It’s basic common sense”

You retorted

No, it can’t, and no it isn’t.

SOME things can be dismissed without evidence, based on extrapolated probability. You know where money comes from and what it is, and how people deal with it, so you are unlikely to be owed £1bn by any of us and we’re unlikely to have it.

I replied

“But unlikely isn’t the same as PROOF is it. So, you cannot disprove it. It’s really an extremely simple concept to embrace. If unlikely WAS the same as proof, no gods exists.”

You ignored me.

You posted (in response to someone else)

go on about religious people being really stupid because they believe in God, but it’s YOU that’s apparently too stupid to understand their thoughts and opinions of intelligent people. Dunning Kruger at work.

You clearly have no idea what ‘intelligence’ means and you’ve obviously used the Dunning-Kruger effect in reverse, which, if you think about it, is rather amusing and also QED. One cannot be ‘intelligent’ and believe in things for which there is absolutely no tiny iota of proof, the two things are non compatible, indeed, polar opposites.

Ditto.

I think the debate has moved past your level of competence Tucker.

We’ve already seen what you think molgrips, which clearly undermines your ability to make that call.

Would you like me to post the questions that have you stumped and your ridiculous attempts at answers?

For me, when something really horrible happens, it just kind of leaves me adrift in a chilly ocean of confusion and loneliness, which is rubbish.

For me, I just go ‘shit happens’ and move on. Nothing confusing about that.

Whether people get a feel-good feeling from their beliefs is for another thread. Hitler got a feel-good feeling from some of the nonsense he believed in, are we suggesting it makes his beliefs more acceptable?