Really? You're saying there are only a trivial number of people in Australia for whom $1500 is pocket-change? You're also saying that out of the rest, none of them feel so strongly as to see $1500 as a price worth paying to batter someone they dislike?
No, you did falsely paint the medical consensus as 'extreme'. You have now invented a position - people should take every vaccine (which no-one is arguing, and certainly is certainly not the medical consensus). Let's be clear: do you consider the position held by the bulk of the medical community, to be extreme?
You started with a piece of bad logic that claimed that a person not getting a vaccine increases your risk to getting a disease. This was shown to not change your risk to getting a disease or virus by any measurable amount.
Do we have to go through this again? Having conceded that my logic was actually sound, you have now moved from reasoning about category to reasoning about degree, and have simply assumed that the degree is vanishing. by any measurable amount is just your guesswork, it is absolutely not 'shown to be'.
I stand by my claim that it's empty scaremongering. It falsely assumes that the medical community hasn't thought to account for individual variation or for 'overloading' the body with administration of several vaccines in a short period.
There is no scare mongering, the doctor said what many vaccine producers already admit and recommend.
You're referring to the 'official line' on the matter of when not to get a vaccine? With which view, then, are you disagreeing?
The doctor was surely claiming that we did not do enough of those things, because people _do_ have reactions to vaccines and those reactions can rarely cause permanent damage.
Unless these extremely rare serious side-effects outweigh the benefits, to describe vaccination as insanity really doesn't hold up.
Actually, the energy lost to heat/sound/etc isn't an important factor here.
The postage-stamp version: the law of conservation of energy decides the total amount of energy 'released' in the discharge. Conservation of momentum dictates that the 'forward' momentum of the bullet will equal the 'backward' momentum of the gun. Momentum = m * v. Kinetic energy = (m * v^2) / 2. The mass of the bullet is much less than the mass of the gun. Seeing as we know that the m * v of the bullet is equal to the m * v of the gun, and we know that the m is much less in the bullet, that means the v must be much higher in the bullet, meaning the (m * v^2) / 2 will be *much much* higher, on account of the ^2.
(As I've put elsewhere, it's probably better to get that from a proper article than from my quasi-mathematical explanation.)
Sounds to me like they're just twisting price matching. If as you say they're not selling the same product as the other retailer, they should really just 'fail to match' on account of them not being the same product.
Again, no, you are conflating momentum and kinetic energy.
(Do you really think I linked to two different sources explaining the physics of firearms, only to get it tragically wrong? It is painfully clear you haven't taken the time to read either of them.)
Which effectively meant, it a competitor saw our system at work, copied it and patented it we'd probably be willing to pay them a license fee just to get off our backs
Please, please stop this culture of disclaiming things that were never claimed.
Disagree. It's important to give the 'whole story'. It follows quite naturally - jones_supa conceded that the 'everyone can contribute' aspect of Open Source can be held back by the need to be a domain expert, but then went on to make it clear this wasn't a fatal blow to the whole idea.
Reading comprehension be damned, it's a more useful comment for being complete.
Seconded. As I understand it, Microsoft have promised not to sue anyone if they implement the published standard Common Language Infrastructure stuff. Mono has implemented this and more: they've implemented the WinForms GUI API, which is not covered by Microsoft's promise.
Despite this, Microsoft still haven't sued Mono. In this particular instance, I can't see a way to paint Microsoft as the bad guy.
It’s not a contradiction, but more of a conflict of interest. I would like to help those who have struggled as I did, but I’m not willing invest my time or money at my family’s expense.
Right, gotcha.
I need cheap products and services made by those less fortunate than I so I may reside in the middle class.
Interesting point. I can't say I know much about what would really happen if wealth were somehow magically flattened across the population.
I’m not sure what logic you used to deduce that from my wondering statements...
The deduction doesn't seem unreasonable given there has to be losers for some to be winners.
No one would be rich and no one would be poor if money was divided equally – we would just be communists
Of course, but no-one is suggesting a communist total flattening of wealth. I wasn't suggesting anything. As the video points out, it's silly to pretend that it makes you a communist to think there's something rather worrying about the absurd distribution of wealth in the USA today.
Walmart was one of the few places us less well-to-doers could afford
A good point in defence of Walmart. Penn & Teller used it in their 'Bullshit!' episode on Walmart hatred.
Assuming it's a small community with few visitors, and assuming that community benefits significantly from this thing (in terms of cost-savings), the odds of this happening might not be that bad.
The energy-distribution guys who they're putting out of business might be tempted, I guess.
A lot of people like myself have come from humble backgrounds, and I want things to be easier for struggling families especially when I can relate. Yet, it's important to remember that there has to be losers for some to be winners.
I don't follow. Is this not a contradiction?
It sounds like you're trying to say there's just not enough money in America for everyone to be rich, which simply isn't the case.
It wouldn't be good for you, sure, but, comparable to a gunshot wound? Absolutely not, no.
If you get shot, the bullet hits you at two or three thousand feet-per-second. The fact that the bullet penetrates your tissues is not in itself the really nasty part. The hydrostatic shock, and possible expansion/fragmentation of the round, will do the real damage.
A gunshot wound to the chest can kill you by means of brain-damage. It is not the equivalent of being stabbed with a bullet-sized knife - it's much, much worse.
A rifle with a sharp stabby butt would leave you bleeding, but wouldn't cause hydrostatic shock and damage surrounding organs.
You've also simply ignored the point I have been stressing: the amount of energy transferred to the victim is not equal to the amount of energy transferred to the shooter (even despite energy lost as the bullet flies). The two sources I linked to explain this.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? You're saying there are only a trivial number of people in Australia for whom $1500 is pocket-change? You're also saying that out of the rest, none of them feel so strongly as to see $1500 as a price worth paying to batter someone they dislike?
No. Your position is absurd.
No, you did falsely paint the medical consensus as 'extreme'. You have now invented a position - people should take every vaccine (which no-one is arguing, and certainly is certainly not the medical consensus). Let's be clear: do you consider the position held by the bulk of the medical community, to be extreme?
You started with a piece of bad logic that claimed that a person not getting a vaccine increases your risk to getting a disease. This was shown to not change your risk to getting a disease or virus by any measurable amount.
Do we have to go through this again? Having conceded that my logic was actually sound, you have now moved from reasoning about category to reasoning about degree, and have simply assumed that the degree is vanishing. by any measurable amount is just your guesswork, it is absolutely not 'shown to be'.
I stand by my claim that it's empty scaremongering. It falsely assumes that the medical community hasn't thought to account for individual variation or for 'overloading' the body with administration of several vaccines in a short period.
There is no scare mongering, the doctor said what many vaccine producers already admit and recommend.
You're referring to the 'official line' on the matter of when not to get a vaccine? With which view, then, are you disagreeing?
The doctor was surely claiming that we did not do enough of those things, because people _do_ have reactions to vaccines and those reactions can rarely cause permanent damage.
Unless these extremely rare serious side-effects outweigh the benefits, to describe vaccination as insanity really doesn't hold up.
Actually, the energy lost to heat/sound/etc isn't an important factor here.
The postage-stamp version: the law of conservation of energy decides the total amount of energy 'released' in the discharge. Conservation of momentum dictates that the 'forward' momentum of the bullet will equal the 'backward' momentum of the gun. Momentum = m * v. Kinetic energy = (m * v^2) / 2. The mass of the bullet is much less than the mass of the gun. Seeing as we know that the m * v of the bullet is equal to the m * v of the gun, and we know that the m is much less in the bullet, that means the v must be much higher in the bullet, meaning the (m * v^2) / 2 will be *much much* higher, on account of the ^2.
(As I've put elsewhere, it's probably better to get that from a proper article than from my quasi-mathematical explanation.)
Nope. You'll find it is you who is in fact comically wide of the mark.
You're right, I'm not a physicist, but no, I'm not wrong about this. You're not the only one to say I'm wrong while ignoring my points and failing to read the articles I linked to, though.
You too are presumably conflating momentum and kinetic-energy. Please go and read the articles I linked to.
Sounds to me like they're just twisting price matching. If as you say they're not selling the same product as the other retailer, they should really just 'fail to match' on account of them not being the same product.
Again, no, you are conflating momentum and kinetic energy.
(Do you really think I linked to two different sources explaining the physics of firearms, only to get it tragically wrong? It is painfully clear you haven't taken the time to read either of them.)
No. You are wrong. Go read the articles I linked to. They both get the same momentum.
When I put, this I meant it:
This follows from conservation of momentum, and the definition of kinetic energy.
Which effectively meant, it a competitor saw our system at work, copied it and patented it we'd probably be willing to pay them a license fee just to get off our backs
Prior art, surely?
A good underling
Good for whom, exactly?
Interesting enough that it's worth a link.
You're right, I was wrong to say it would enable everyone to punch whoever they please. If you'll allow me another attempt:
It would enable the wealthy to punch whoever they please.
Better? (This of course ignoring the wider fact that civilized societies do not profit by normalising violence.)
Your username is a fine one-word explanation as to why this suggestion is stupid.
Don't like someone? Go ahead and punch them out, just be sure to drop a Google Glass beside them.
Please, please stop this culture of disclaiming things that were never claimed.
Disagree. It's important to give the 'whole story'. It follows quite naturally - jones_supa conceded that the 'everyone can contribute' aspect of Open Source can be held back by the need to be a domain expert, but then went on to make it clear this wasn't a fatal blow to the whole idea.
Reading comprehension be damned, it's a more useful comment for being complete.
Reasonable point, but I suspect there's a lot of value in simply being listed on Amazon.
Seconded. As I understand it, Microsoft have promised not to sue anyone if they implement the published standard Common Language Infrastructure stuff. Mono has implemented this and more: they've implemented the WinForms GUI API, which is not covered by Microsoft's promise.
Despite this, Microsoft still haven't sued Mono. In this particular instance, I can't see a way to paint Microsoft as the bad guy.
I agree that self-publication on the web would probably generally be a good thing for authors and readers, but I can think of a few obstacles:
And which terms are onerous, exactly?
It’s not a contradiction, but more of a conflict of interest. I would like to help those who have struggled as I did, but I’m not willing invest my time or money at my family’s expense.
Right, gotcha.
I need cheap products and services made by those less fortunate than I so I may reside in the middle class.
Interesting point. I can't say I know much about what would really happen if wealth were somehow magically flattened across the population.
I’m not sure what logic you used to deduce that from my wondering statements...
The deduction doesn't seem unreasonable given there has to be losers for some to be winners.
No one would be rich and no one would be poor if money was divided equally – we would just be communists
Of course, but no-one is suggesting a communist total flattening of wealth. I wasn't suggesting anything. As the video points out, it's silly to pretend that it makes you a communist to think there's something rather worrying about the absurd distribution of wealth in the USA today.
Walmart was one of the few places us less well-to-doers could afford
A good point in defence of Walmart. Penn & Teller used it in their 'Bullshit!' episode on Walmart hatred.
wait until some asshole shoots it with a rifle
Assuming it's a small community with few visitors, and assuming that community benefits significantly from this thing (in terms of cost-savings), the odds of this happening might not be that bad.
The energy-distribution guys who they're putting out of business might be tempted, I guess.
Ahh, Slashdot: where the few ACs who (might) actually have a point are sure to make up for it by just being assholes for no apparent reason.
That all sounds right to me. (I'm not a 'real physicist' or anything, mind.)
If they're actually saying the same product, is this not fraud?
A lot of people like myself have come from humble backgrounds, and I want things to be easier for struggling families especially when I can relate. Yet, it's important to remember that there has to be losers for some to be winners.
I don't follow. Is this not a contradiction?
It sounds like you're trying to say there's just not enough money in America for everyone to be rich, which simply isn't the case.
It wouldn't be good for you, sure, but, comparable to a gunshot wound? Absolutely not, no.
If you get shot, the bullet hits you at two or three thousand feet-per-second. The fact that the bullet penetrates your tissues is not in itself the really nasty part. The hydrostatic shock, and possible expansion/fragmentation of the round, will do the real damage.
A gunshot wound to the chest can kill you by means of brain-damage. It is not the equivalent of being stabbed with a bullet-sized knife - it's much, much worse.
A rifle with a sharp stabby butt would leave you bleeding, but wouldn't cause hydrostatic shock and damage surrounding organs.
You've also simply ignored the point I have been stressing: the amount of energy transferred to the victim is not equal to the amount of energy transferred to the shooter (even despite energy lost as the bullet flies). The two sources I linked to explain this.
Nope, no idea. Perhaps you'd care to explain.
(I've not mentioned force, which the Wikipedia article does.)