Thank you

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by Vekke

When you read topics here you need to do your own research and see what is true or not. Is there any physical reason to valid or not. I trust physic laws more than anything else.

Absolutely.

On that video Julian calculated accuracy of 0,6% to other direction and 0,7 percent to other.

Julian says only 1% accuracy is possible on onroad testing, because I believe thats the limit he has said in his books or that is what it possible for him. Opinion in the matter is not possible to get turned otherwise.

You don't seem to understand the very important differences in the concepts 'resolution', 'accuracy' and 'repeatability' (which is one reason you are misquoting me). Without understanding these concepts, we'll go around in circles.

[Hersbird]

I got somewhere into page 2 and old Jewels had gone off the rails. Everyone seems to be ignorant and that's why the US is in such a bad state?
Got any opinions on blacks or women you care to share?

You may not want to play games, but you should remember everything you post on the internet is forever.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I got somewhere into page 2 and old Jewels had gone off the rails. Everyone seems to be ignorant and that's why the US is in such a bad state?
Got any opinions on blacks or women you care to share?

You may not want to play games, but you should remember everything you post on the internet is forever.

If you are going to paraphrase me, you should at least be accurate. I actually said:

Edgar Julian actually believes that a discussion group should give advice founded on fact. Bizarre, eh? What an extraordinarily notion!

"But if they want to keep thinking that their way of thinking is better than mine that's fine because that's what I do to them."

Maybe that's why the US is in the state it is currently in? (And after such a glorious technological history....)

Because people babble absolute crap like this?

[freebeard]

If you are going to paraphrase me, you should at least be accurate.

Yikes!

So another person here who doesn't accept what the standard dictionary says, but instead has their own definitions of words.

So... Math is wacist? Trigonometry was a plot perpetrated on my by my teacher, Mrs. Lohfgren?

Seriously?

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Yikes!

So... Math is wacist? Trigonometry was a plot perpetrated on my by my teacher, Mrs. Lohfgren?

Seriously?

When you are writing in English, you use the definitions of words supported by English dictionaries.

When you wish to create confusion and misunderstanding, you do otherwise.

Look up the definition of 'tangent' in an English dictionary and tell me what is says.

Wonderful - another black = white because a poster here says so. Why am I not surprised?

[freebeard]

Look up the definition of 'tangent' in an English dictionary and tell me what is says.

I'm not your monkey, but I will indulge you:

Originally Posted by DDG

tan•gent tăn′jənt►
n. A line, curve, or surface meeting another line, curve, or surface at a common point and sharing a common tangent line or tangent plane at that point.
n. The trigonometric function of an acute angle in a right triangle that is the ratio of the length of the side opposite the angle to the length of the side adjacent to the angle.
More at Wordnik from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

Two definitions for a single word. Who knew?

Which of the definitions is more actionable?

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Which of the definitions is more actionable?

Well, that's very easy to answer:

1) The more common use of a word should always be applied, unless specific circumstance demand otherwise (eg here in a highly mathematical treatise). But don't take my word for it - see any book on writing.

2) In this discussion (about the angle of a rear hatch extension) the relationship to the 'trigonometric function of an acute angle in a triangle' is an irrelevant obfuscation.

You would say 'tangent' not 'angle' only if you were trying to create confusion, or the angle related to a curved surface.

It's a good example of where some people here try to make things as complex as possible - I don't know why.

[freebeard]

This is getting tiresome, but actionable <is not equal to> applicable.

[JulianEdgar]

Originally Posted by freebeard

This is getting tiresome, but actionable <is not equal to> applicable.

I agree it is tiresome.

It is tiresome when people choose to make things confusing and difficult for others. It's one of the reasons why there is so much confusion around car aero on this sub-forum - obscure terms being used when there's absolutely no need to do so.

Suggesting that 'tangent' should be used instead of 'angle' when describing the angle of a flat rear hatch extension is quite ridiculous.

Why on earth do you want to make things more difficult than is actually necessary?

[samwichse]

You know what's tiresome? This thread.

"Look at me, nobody appreciates how great I am, I'm leaving!"

*6 days and 20 comments later*

You want to go? Please do. Or shut up.

Pick one and do it.