Posts by EnderX

Schools:
Same reasons you've been throwing out for restaurants, somehow given magically more emphasis because it's children who're being 'targetted' by the smoke.

Hospitals:
Which reason do you want? The 'secondhand smoke veddy bad fol patient' one? Or the one about how the smoke might somehow damage the delicate machinery of someone's life support (or the pre-lifesupport vital sign readers)? Or how about the one where it's a really bad idea to keep any kind of open heat source near compressed oxygen or highly-oxygenated atmospheres? Which of those did you want?

I know this thread is rather old, but I just saw an interesting headline on the MSN website. One of the 'week in review' articles had the caption "Cleaner wins suit over missing pants."

CoP: Cost of Production. Doesn't deal with performance except for indirectly.

About alternative sources: So far, no known combination of non-fossil, non-nuclear fuel sources can meet the energy needs of the modern infrastructure. Yes, wind, water, biomass, and muscle (horsepower, for example) were once utilized. But they aren't effecient enough to provide the energy we soak up on a daily basis. And, again, that's assuming we're allowed to go through with this legally; lawsuits against an alternative power supply (at the moment, hydro and wind are the ones I can think of that might come under fire) could easily cripple that system as well.

About batteries:
I'm still having trouble seeing a battery system charging a battery system. True, the system loses some power over time even in a normal car. But I'd expect a battery-powered one to go down much more rapidly. And trying to charge a second battery off of the dynamo still requires that the other battery put out a great deal more energy to power the moving parts of the dynamo, especially considering the friction in a belt-driven system.

About the car example: I think I understand what you're saying now, thank you for clarifying.

Given what I know of the state of Texas, not really. Some of our other states, perhaps, but I'm fairly sure that if the UN tried to force Texas to join Mexico they'd fight back. Or else they'd deal with the terroristic actions you just described …

Thanx for clearing that up! But do you know what sarcasm is?

If you are presenting what seems to be a serious argument, with no external or additional commentary indicating that you are being sarcastic, I will treat what you say with utmost seriousness and respond accordingly.

'Heavy Water' refers to water with a concentrated count of Deuterim/Tritium, as opposed to being composed mostly of Protium. Last I checked, it's not a non-newtonian fluid.

Um, 'heavy water' means water with a highly-enriched count of deuterium/tritium, if I recall correctly. I'd think that's at a level a bit too low to allow someone to walk on it. And I'm having trouble picturing the existence of a chemical that could increase surface tension that much without causing harm to his feet...remember, he did take his shoes off for a short distance.

Regarding electric cars and oil consumption for electricity production : take a look on this one. http://www.teslamotors.com/images/content/us_oil.gif
Source is US Annual energy review.

I looked at the image, but it's not answering my original question. I'll try to make that clearer.

Let us assume two cars, Model [G] and Model [E]. [G] runs on gasoline, [E] runs on pure electricity. Both cars in my hypothetical scenario weigh ~1.75 tons (estimated), and can carry a load of ~500-750 lb. Over a single course of about one thousand miles, with both straight stretches, gentle curves, and turns, which of the two cars fuel CoP values will be greater? The direct fuel CoP of the Model [G], or the 'transform into electricty first' fuel CoP of the Model [E]?

Also - alternative power sources for electricity generation - sun, wind, tides, dams, there are so many.

I know what the commonly cited alternative power supplies are, I'm asking how they'd be useful. From what I've seen, the simple effort involved in getting one working on a large enough scale to do any good would vastly outweigh any benefits it might provide, not including the probable costs of various legal matters. I probably will start another topic on this count; I'm starting to get a bit too heated in my response. (Now if we could only harness that energy!)

Electric cars - I am pretty convinced that if some great minds put it together they will figure out how …

On Oil:
We'd have more than that if we were allowed to drill the dark side of the moon...er, ANWR.

On Electric Cars:
How good is the battery/capacitor setup in them? And what's the fuel Cost of Production (CoP) for the electricity that will be used to power them? If the fuel CoP for an electric car is greater than that for a 'normal' car, then the electric ones provide net negatives, not positives.

Or, for that matter, what about other 'alternative' energy sources? Any comments on those? Or should I start a new thread about them?

I am deeply convinced that a lot of things happen that remain hidden from the masses, and only a bunch of people benefit from what happens.

Um, maybe I'm not reading that right, but something in that paragraph doesn't quite make sense to me. Care to explain what you mean?

I am even convinced that things happen behind the back of the government, as someone from behind the scene pulls the strings in a way that certain companies or groups of people will benefit from it.

Such as?

our government gets like 60% of its taxes from alcohol and tabacco so i doubt they would ever have an all out ban. here a small pack of cigarettes is like £5 (£10?)

Of course. I don't remember who said it, and I'm probably going to mangle the quote some, but I recall seeing something once along those lines.

"If the government says they're going to tax something to make it rare, you know they're lying. They're making money off of it, so they'll want it to be as common as possible."

Couldn't hear; was watching with sound off. But, based on what I saw, I'd say dwarf (or perhaps the term is 'differently-heighted person' these days?) confederate. Not sure about how the legs were done...can't remember how long the skirt was. Wouldn't be surprised to find a contortionist under there, though.

Dear Josh,

I would not agree with what you say. Everyone knows that this great country was built by immigrants who came from all over Europe. You are my friend a child of an immigration couple whether your ancestors came a 100 years ago or 200 years ago but we all know that you cannot be a child of a local born native american unless you are??

I'm not Josh, but I'm willing to answer this one on my own part anyway. I am actually part Amerind, on my father's side. It's not enough to let me run a casino (bad joke), but it's still there. I think the total is either 3/128 or 3/256...can't recall the exact number of generations back. The rest is, as you submit, a mishmash of various European nationalities.

Majority if not all of the great people who are known to this world have come from other countries to settle here or were born here to an immigrant family unless they are from a native american family. Einstein , was an immigrant. you cannot deny this. Ok if you dont want to go that far, look at recent events. One of the co-founder of Google is an immigrant. founder of Hotmail is an immigrant. what else the list can go on and on..the fact is clear and we don't need to hide it or explain it..it is just crystal clear.

Immigrants are the backbone of this nation, period. so my friend, denying the immigrants …

You've pointed out some individuals who held that belief. Granted, some, like Augustine, were considered to be influential in other areas, although your own reference document indicates that the beliefs on the flat earth weren't very influential on the church as a whole.

Can you prove that the flatness of the earth was ever a part of the doctrine of the Church as a whole? Or can you prove only that certain men among those named as church fathers held it?

Wow, I really like the kind of stuff you say. It's good to have someone that questions the norm and isn't just a mindless follower of the government/party/bureaucrcy/etc.

Does the /etc. value include the white-coated priests of the lab?

hmm.. yea.. I prefer actually reading books myself..

Strange, from what you've said elsewhere I thought you preferred other media formats. I guess I was mistaken.

Guys,

Don't you think that the CIA is just a decoy for the real 'secret service' in US?
I mean - the CIA is so popular already that it is not secret anymore. In my opinion they were most active during the cold war and the mid 60's early 70's. Now CIA is a face to show to the masses, that keeps the attention away from the real 'secret' agency.

Okay, so in your opinion, who are the real secret agenc(y|ies) we ought to be worrying about?

And besides, about the recently opened archive and published malicious intentions - there is much that goes on behind the back of the masses. The big players on World's political scene play a game, that has been planned ages ago, we are all just part of the scene and we cannot change a thing.

Are you certain there's no way to change things? Not even by coordinated planning along RFC 1149 transmission networks? That type should still be valid even if other transmission networks get compromised.

You believe you're free...that's what they want you to believe, that's what will keep you from asking the questions that shouldn't be answered. So, in case you ask the wrong questions, ok - find your answers in the CIA archive, be glad that you were right the CIA are the bad guys and keep on believing in what they want you to believe in.

The 'bad guys' from whose perspective? And which 'they'? The …

>Isn't that the nature of science? Present a hypothesis, test it, find flaws, refine it, retest, ...?

OR present a hypothesis, test it, prove it, and hear criticism from Dave Sinkula.

Have you truly proven the hypothesis? Or has it only been 'proven' within a very narrow range of definition? Have you, as Dave's links tried to point out, accounted for all possible variables other than your original test variable? If not, your experimental tests are worthless.

Even if there is some validity in your scientific evidence, it can easily be overshadowed by the junk science surrounding it. Ever hear of something called hormesis? The evidence for it seems to be fairly well defined, even if not widely known. However, it tends to have a bad reputation because when the effect was first discovered, it was used to buttress the blatantly bogus theory of homeopathy. The Junk Science drives out the Good Science.

Give an example of how the bill of rights has been stretched out of context.

How about the entire deal with the supposed Civil War and the Radical Republican Congress immediately thereafter? The entire point of what happened at that time was to negate the intent of the Ninth and Tenth amendments, even if they weren't able to do so completely. The idea of "State's Rights", contained within those two amendments, has been negated pretty much since the time of President Abraham Lincoln.

And what is up with you and your hate of science? …

Actually, I'd say early 90's. Although there were a few points along the way where there might have been comebacks...

I suspect the point there is that most of us wish it had been us; we tend to feel that we could have stood firm where someone else fell. However, that does sidestep the facts that, had we been born into such a situation, we wouldn't have been who we are now, and it's that 'other' version of us that would be dealing with the situation. And on that grounds, I strongly suspect that you are correct, quint.

A few things to say about that one EnderX. For one, we all know the Da Vinci Code is a novel, but what are you referring to when you say "forged documents"?

I'm saying that the 'evidence' for the Priory of Sion, and the entire 'Merovingian = bloodline of Jesus' deal, were from forged documents that surfaced in France during the first half of the twentieth century. One of the best indications they were forged is that they seemed to name the guy who found them as the rightful heir to the French throne.

If you are saying that some books weren't included because they were written too long after the events took place then why are the first five books of the Bible included (thought to be written by Moses I believe)?

I may not have made my statements clearly enough. That particular requirement was for the Gospels; the Gospels had to have been of apostolic origin, meaning either they were written by one of the apostles, or were taken from the testimony of the apostles. (For example, the Gospel of Mark is the testimony of Simon Peter, as recorded by John Mark.) Books written 100+ years after the time of Christ (such as the Gnostic Gospels) would not have been valid based on this account. [This was not the only requirement for acceptance as valid; I simply bring it up as it was the one in question here.]

And the church actually did believe the Earth …

yeah right he's doing that.
well he might have that weird effect like a pond skater, where he distributes his weight more than normal?
Who knows

Highly unlikely; unless he's done something to the water to drastically increase its surface tension I'm betting he'd still go through. And if he'd done that, I'd bet instead that everyone in the pool would be stuck in place. (Hmmm...Jello swimming pool?)

Don't know what it was, glass is just my theory. But whatever it was, it had to be fairly narrow, and I'm betting glass.

Notice how carefully his feet seem to be going down most of the time. He's trying to avoid stepping off of his 'zone', whatever it is, would be my guess.

The camera showed someone swimming underneath where he was walking at one point. Hence, I'm going with the 'extended platform' idea rather than the 'blocks' idea. Although there could be both...

@Dave Sinkula

Just read the cato.org article. Very interesting. One quick question: The study mentioned the EPA classed second-hand smoke as a 'Group A Carcinogin'. On what grounds within the studies they did use was that drawn from? And do you know what portions of the smoke were supposedly carcinogenic?

Probably too late for you to see this beforehand, C, but best wishes!

Assuming he didn't have some form of glass platform under there (water would have probably obscured it from the camera, but I did see someone diving through his path, partially above water, which kind of works against this idea), then I'm at a loss as to how he did this.

Sorry I'm late posting to this; I got busy doing other stuff the past couple of days.

DaVinci Code:
From what I've seen, this was written pretty much as an 'In your Face, Church!' slam against Christianity. The original data Brown used in compiling his 'theory' was a set of forged documents written during the early-mid twentieth century. And I'm not sure that Brown cares about his credibility; there are some people who'll believe anything, no matter how absurd or how little evidence is given for it. See for example the 'punctuated equilibrium' theory of evolution.

As to the rest:

I never heard much controversy about Opus dei.. People were just pissed off about the idea that Jesus had a kid.. Which is completely reasonable. Most jews got married and had kids.. it was looked down upon if such a thing did not happen. I would not be surprised if Jesus and Mary Magdeline had married.. The dead sea scrolls seem to represent this idea clearly.

As Christina said, Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ, was most decidedly not 'most jews'.

That's absolutely true. It would seem that if Jesus didn't have a wife there would be an explanation for such a thing in the Bible but there isn't.

It would seem more likely to me that if He had taken a wife, that would have been more likely to be recorded. Even if you believe that only the 'teachings' of Jesus went into the Gospels, …

junior

Eh, well.. We haven't ever encountered something with infinite mass, infinite energy, infinite time (immortal), etc. Infinity is just a mathematical concept used to perform certain calculations.. it is quite useful; however, I don't think it is applicable in the case of the universe..

What about something extra-universal then?

Thank you for your assistance. I found what appears to be the correct file, and found the error. Turns out to be a miscalculation on my part; I was attempting to aim at the wrong target, so to speak, and kept getting the connection severed as a result.

Is there a final turtle?

<bizzare_interjection="Faulty logic in the original premise.">

The first statement was that everything was resting on a tortoise, a land-dwelling creature which requires a solid substance underneath to support it. In this case, yes, there would have to be something underneath. (Possible tautology here?)

End result: Can't be a final tortoise.

However, when you swap the creature at issue off from a tortoise to a turtle, as seems to be the case in most of those arguments, then this issue doesn't hold. A turtle large enough to match the 'tortoise' argument would have to be a sea turtle. It'd have to be scaled up to hold the world, but so would the tortoise.

It would be possible to have a final turtle. Sea turtles don't require a constant surface under them. Sea turtles can swim.

</bizzare_interjection>

Yes, I know this has nothing to do with the actual issue at hand. I just felt like tossing it out.

Yea, the religious industry makes tons of $$ from all of its suckers.

I wouldn't use the word 'suckers', but congratulations, Josh! You've found a religious topic that, for reasons of my own, I agree with you on.

Don't get me wrong. I do accept the scriptures as God's word, and I do believe that they still carry their full meaning and worth...but the quickest way to hide something is to dump it in a mess of almost-identical items.

Let us assume that the Bible is God's word. If that's the case, why do we need all of these variant translations? Two reasons.

1. This 'proves' that the scriptures are 'editable' works of man, rather than God's own words preserved even unto the modern age, and
2. Variant bibles can be copyrighted and trademarked.

Or in other words, the only reason that so many versions of the bible exist are to engender confusion (among the multitudes) and personal wealth (among the publishers). I would presume the logic is at least superficially similar to that of a counterfieter.

Most Atheists don't really give a damn.. You try to debate religion with them, and they're just like hm, okay. Whatever.

Congratulations, then. You're special.

Perhaps it's just a matter of the medium, but I find that most of the known atheists I've run across actually will tend to argue religion. (Argue, not necessarily debate.) However, I've only known one person I know to be an atheist in that nice little bubble we call 'reality'. Most of the confirmed atheists I've met (such as you, Josh), I've met via the Internet. As a result, I suspect it's the 'not quite real' nature of 'net contact that leads to the exchanges I've experienced. Either that or I just have a weird tendancy to only run into the vehement ones.

Yes it is.

What? I can't see all scientists posting data simply because their publishers and benefactors said to.. Theres no way that some scientist wouldn't publish truthful information.

It's not always a matter of publishing truthful information, it's a matter of making certain the truthful information is made widely known. I don't have the exact reference on hand at the moment (I'll try to grab a notebook and write it all down later today) but I remember a fairly interesting bit I read recently involving research done on the chemical substance we call DDT that faced that exact problem.

The basic gist was this:
1. Experiment done. Result: "Ooh, DDT Bad!"
2. Results published in well-known magazine.
3. Experimental error found. Experiment redone. Result: "We were wrong before."
4. Results taken to same well-known magazine.
5. Well-known magazine rejects new-experiment story because it isn't anti-DDT.
6. New-experiment results finally published in mostly-unknown magazine.

Yes, the truthful information was eventually published. But those who only read the well-known magazine, and not the little-known one, never heard about it. It goes back to my description of the gatekeepers of the community. It's far easier to keep popular opinion going the way you want if you emphasize the side you agree with and de-emphasize that you disagree with.

Besides, global warming has two sides. The Republicans would rather it not be happening, its in their best interest if businesses didn't have to spend a buttload of …

You, and your damn conspiracy theories.. What are the chances that the 7 year rule of the antichrist is in our lifetime? Why would there be clues as to when and where the antichrist is arriving? It is quite evident in the bible that your god wishes this to happen when no one is thinking about it.. its supposed to be a surprise.. and he obviously wants you to suffer for 7 years, as he doesn't send his son until after the antichrist's reign.. Seems to me that your god enjoys drama.. he likes to give up control of this planet to the antichrist so that he can stage a dramatic come back victory! You know what? I'm the antichrist.. I didn't want to tell you, but seeing as your so hot on my tail, I'm just going to tell you.. hopefully this puts an end to all your lame antichrist conspiracies.

Given that Josh seems to have abandoned this thread, I'm not sure he'll ever see this one, but...

The (presumed) seven-year reign of the Antichrist is a time of tribulation and destruction. The evidence I've seen in the scriptures indicates that those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ will not be caught up in it the way the rest of the world will. Some people think that all believers will be miraculously protected during that time, others hold that all believers will be removed from the earth before that happens. (This event is the one usually …

I am trying to build a program for ftp transmission purposes. I have been requested to use another program written by my predecessor as a model.

At one point, my predecessor's code makes reference to an item called flstvwBags, a TFileListView object. I cannot find this component on my own system, and have been tracking it down online. However, the versions I have found all seem to be for Delphi 4 or earlier; I am running Delphi 7.

I basically have just a few simple questions I wish to ask.

1. Is the TFileListView component a default component for Delphi 7, and if so, which of the palette tags would it be on? (Standard, Additional, System, etc...)

2. Does anyone here know of the location online for a copy of the TFileListView component that is designed for Delphi 7? Or alternately, does anyone know whether or not I'll be able to use the copies of this I have found that are for earlier versions of Delphi?

3. Does anyone know of any other components or coding sequences that might be able to substitute for the TFileListView component?

Thank you for your consideration.

I don't hate Christians, or religious people at all; what I do hate though is people who read religious texts literally (evangelicals, if you will).

Or in other words, as far as you're concerned it's only valid if it isn't treated as being valid?

Aww, thats kinda mean.. Many Geek's lounge threads involve a wide variety of topics which are very interesting, and sometimes fun to debate (until a bunch of idiots start blaberring away, and think they're right, when actually they're completely wrong..)

Anyway, most of the time I'd rather post in the Geek's lounge myself than troubleshoot idiotic people's problems in the Tech forums..

I'm personally here to at least attempt to learn a few tricks on the coding side; as I learn new languages, I try to find things out about them, or I ask questions. Eventually, I'll know enough I might be able to help someone else out. And until then, I'll be sticking my big nose in threads around the Lounge as well.

And Josh, from what I've seen, it's not a debate without someone starts 'blabbering away', as you put it, because you seem to imply that about everyone who takes any position that doesn't match up to your own currently held one on the topic. If I am incorrect, please point me to examples thereof.

I'm trying to figure out how to send files via FTP in Delphi. A program written by my predecessor makes use of the Indy package IdFTP component, but I'm having some trouble figuring out how to use it. Searching google only gave me sites in non-english languages, and I'm having trouble trying to make sense of the translations. I note that there was a reference to the IdFTP component in a thread on this board approximately a year and a half ago, but the demo link in the final post points to a blank page. (Not an error page, a simple white sheet with nothing on it.)

Would someone please post either a link to an english-language reference on how to use the IdFTP component, or list a textbook-format reference I can seek out?

Thank you.

And in that day, Terror didst rain upon them, even as with Whipped Cream and Strawberry Filling didst it rain.

Depends, Narue. You sure you're not trying to go beyond hurting her feelings?

This, I believe, is generally where most people get their argument from:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

It's interesting to note that most people (sadly, myself included most of the time) tend to stop there...let's see the rest of the preamble, shall we?

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

You are changing the meaning of what I was saying.. Scientists do not publish research that contains simple logical mistakes.. They are not idiots.. they went to college.. they have intelligent colleagues.. they have intelligent people reviewing their work..

No, they publish research that agrees with the current consensus.

Let's look at the word 'publish' in two separate ways for a moment, shall we?

Way 1: To put forward a written paper on a topic.

Way 2: To have such a paper evaluated and officially included in some publication.

Insofar as Way 1 goes, I'm fairly sure that Josh is correct; there are plenty of scientists out there evaluating both sides of the equation, and most of them probably write up and present their findings to others. (Some may not, usually because they feel that they don't have enough evidence to support any theory one way or another.)

With Way 2, though, there's an additional hurdle to jump. At the moment, most of those individuals who have the right to evaluate material for publication (editors and their ilk), even in Science-based magazines, are adamantly in favor of the 'known' theory of Global Warming. As a result, those scientists whose research shows the consensus belief is in error are likely to be simply dropped during the evaluation stage as not matching what the editor 'knows' to be true. Those scientists whose research tends to back the consensus will be published in the written medium …

There is a lot of misinformation about the number of the beast. It is 666. But the beast is not a person. Beasts in Scripture always denote governments.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

So the beast is a government? John also writes that the beast will have one of its heads wounded to death, and then healed, and that the world would wonder after it. And that the world will worship the beast. How can a system of government be wounded, or healed? How can you worship a government?

The letter waw is the 6th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. So 666 is waw waw waw.

Except that the number isn't, as you imply, 6-6-6 (six six six), it's a true 666 (six-hundred sixty six). And that doesn't seem to correlate with the Hebrew alphabet in any way.

Waw is equivalent to the English letter w.

So 666 is www.

The beast will be a government that forces a cashless society on us over the World Wide Web.

Quite possible, but not necessarily for the reasons you proclaim. As to your speculations on waw/waw/waw = web, I've seen something similar elsewhere accusing the web of being the beast's seal...at the time, it was in a 'Bill Gates si teh antikrist OMG' screed, pointing out that the Roman Numeral VI can be sometimes …

Tolkein's original intention?

>The Hobbit was largely backstory for the LotR trilogy.

Thats why I said prequel

I hate stories with so much detail.. useless detail too.

Prequel doesn't automatically imply backstory. I can see where you're coming from; my point was simply that The Hobbit served to lay out vast amounts of information about the world where the series took place, moreso than a normal book would. I apologize if I did not make this clear enough.

As to Tolkien's original intention: J.R.R. Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic, and he intentionally 'bled' some of that through to the world he was creating.

Yea.. Lord of the Rings books were so damn boring.. Actually, I only read the prequal, A hobbit's tale or something.. It's filled with way too much detail..

The Hobbit, or There and Back Again. And it's filled with detail because A) That's the kind of author that J.R.R. Tolkien was, and B) if I recall correctly, The Hobbit was largely backstory for the LotR trilogy.

But I suspect that the main reason you disliked them, Josh, would be because you were picking up on Tolkien's original intention and attempting to reject it.

@joshSCH: You're getting it backwards. I'm not saying all atheists are communists, I'm saying that, from what I can tell, most communistic systems are atheistic as well. Or maybe instead of atheistic, polititheistic...State or Party replacing God.

@joshSCH:
If Mind Control == Religion, then what's with all the Communist governments that were using it during the latter part of the twentieth century? I seriously doubt you'd classify them as 'religious', given that atheism seems to be a central tenet of communist thought. Am I somehow incorrect in my understanding of this?

I don't know about damage, but light flashes can play some rather nasty tricks...

I remember reading a while back about a supposedly 'cursed' segment of roadway in France; the curse was linked with members of a prominent family, as a large number of them ended up getting into fatal accidents along that stretch. In the end, the situation was found to revolve around three things: Time of Day, Speed, and a predisposition to photo-sensitive Epilepsy. Apparently, the trees along the roadside were spaced 'just so', and at certain speeds, the setting sun would flash in and out quickly enough to trigger an epileptic seizure. (Note: read about this in a rather old book, and haven't found the time to verify yet.)

In what way or ways?