Re: Untitled

From Toxic Shama, 10 Months ago, written in Plain Text, viewed 3 times. This paste is a reply to Untitled from Sludgy Motmot - view diff
URL https://pastebin.freepbx.org/view/66b0ad62 Embed
Download Paste or View Raw
  1. https://moscow-dating.watcheshut.org.uk
  2. https://moscow-dating.looselucys.com/
  3. https://moscow-dating.world-action.co.uk/
  4. https://moscow-dating.webdesigndienst.de/
  5. https://moscow-dating.weblinkportal.de/
  6. https://moscow-dating.suweb.de/
  7. https://moscow-dating.leopari.it/
  8. https://moscow-dating.infiniteewebdesign.com/
  9. https://moscow-dating.webkatalog-thunder.de/
  10. https://moscow-dating.oldmanclan.de/
  11. https://moscow-dating.nlnv.de/
  12. https://moscow-dating.webterrace.com/
  13.  
  14. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  15.  
  16. REPLY
  17.  
  18. 2Kirsten August 3, 2011 at 2:06 PM
  19. NikkiB:
  20. You don’t get less good at safe sex simply because you have more sex – contrary to popular opinion – the condom has the same chances of breaking each time. It’s not cumulative.
  21.  
  22. Actually, this is factually incorrect.
  23.  
  24. Long story short:
  25. It IS cumulative.
  26.  
  27. Long story long:
  28. A (maybe not so) quick lesson from a reliability engineer here, if I may. :-)
  29.  
  30. There are two ways to specify reliability. For things that are used over an extended period of time, such as an automobile, it is specified in failures per amount of time. Other devices don’t fail in an analog manner over time, but rather digitally because they are used only once rather than continuously or repeatedly over time. These are called one-shot devices. An example would be an explosive such as fireworks. The reliability is expressed instead of failures over time as a percentage of failures out of a number of tests.
  31.  

Reply to "Re: Untitled"

Here you can reply to the paste above