Greg H.

The conflict arises when scientific findings run counter to long held religious beliefs that people are unwilling to let go of. Geo-centrism in the middle ages and evolutionary theory in the last hundred years, for example.

The issue is religious belief are a form of prejudice - it is a preconceived notion that a particular set of religious teachings are correct. To paraphrase Sydney Smith

Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned in, and it cannot be reasoned out.

Well, is getting joy out of killing sadistic?

No, or at least it shouldn't be. Sadism is taking joy and/or sexual gratification from causing pain and/or suffering in another. Hunters want a clean kill with as little suffering to the animal as possible. Most of them pride themselves on being able to put an animal down with one clean thoracic shot which is intended to minimize the suffering of the animal. Sort of sounds like the opposite of a sadist to me.

Torturing an animal isn't hunting - it's torture. It's no different than torturing a human being - it's wrong, and shouldn't be tolerated. I will agree that cruelty to animals is a warning sign or other, more serious, behavioral issues and demonstrates a general lack of empathy.

The sticking point is whether hunting is "cruel" by definition. I doubt we'd reach a consensus on the matter.

People who enjoy killing animals are psychopaths. Very sick individuals indeed.

^{[citation needed]}

There have been many human activities in our history that were considered 'normal' but are now not.

I agree with you on that point. I disagree that hunting would be considered one of those activities.

Hunting to eat is one thing, hunting so one can have a picture taken happily smiling with a dead animal is another. Motive matters. Tradition is not a substitute for ethics.

I'm not arguing the right or the wrong. Right and wrong are subjective - we can argue about that until we both grow old and die and I doubt either of us would change our stance one wit.

I was arguing against the specific claim that this is abnormal behavior for human beings.

No reaction to every action would result in less motion in the world. For example when you swim you push against the water and the water pushes against you. If Newton's third law was not part of nature then you would not be able to swim, for example.

Or walk for that matter.

Your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled, on the matter has been noted. Of course, you left out any reason objective reasons why, so there's really not much to discuss, since trying to argue against someone's opinions is generally a fruitless endeavor.

On the other hand, I would argue that hunting animals is far more normal than not hunting them, since we - as a species - have been doing the former a lot longer than the latter.

 

It is a rule that it requires more energy to turn them than you can get out.

 

TAANSTAFL

 

Or:

You can't win (first law of thermodynamics)

You can't break even (second law of thermodynamics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

And my favorite: You can't quit the game.

My grandmother would just leave them on the line another day until they dried.

Maximum height for a UAV without aviation authority permission is 400 feet in US, UK and Australia. If one owns the first 500 feet above, then any UAV over your property can be deemed as suspicious and reportable..

Technically, you could file a police report for trespassing as well, since it's "on your property without permission".

I'm a huge fan of shooting it down, personally. I wonder what the range on one of those bean bag rounds is?

From Wikipedia:

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all public airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Public air space is classified as the 'navigable' airspace above 500 feet.[1] The general rule is that airplanes must fly high enough that, in the event of an engine failure, the pilot can land the plane without undue hazards to persons or property on the ground. The exact altitude requirements (except for purposes of takeoff and landing) are as follows. In congested areas, airplanes must stay 1,000 feet (300 m) higher than any obstacle (building, antenna, etc.) within a 2,000 feet (610 m) radius of the aircraft. In non congested, sparsely populated areas, or over bodies of water, the pilot must remain at least 500 feet (150 m) from any person, vehicle, vessel, or structure.[2] Private landowners retain their right to exclusive use of the airspace for the reasonable enjoyment of their property up to 500 feet above their lands.[3]

So, at least in the United States, if you wanted to hover above 500 feet, you'd need permission from the Federal Government. Below 500 feet, and you need permission from the owner(s) of the property below you.

In either case, you wold probably still need some kind of certification from the FAA that the craft is safe to be up there in the first place.

The English language is, unfortunately, getting less complex by the day. Words that used to have very precise meanings get usurped by pop culture and butchered until people forget what they mean.

I will never forget the principal that had to issue an apology for racist comments because he used the word niggardly.

And I weep for the future.

This thread is nothing more than an inflammatory rant. As such, reported for trolling.

Technically, aren't you generating force from magnetism as opposed to generating it from nothing?

A stopped clock is exactly correct twice a day.

 

It takes one circuit by A for T to aquire A's angular velocity or cycle time.

 

T can then fire at the appropriate point of A's second circuit to score a hit, whatever the angular velocity of A.

While in real life, I would agree with you, the simulation I'm using isn't that smart.

@imatfaal: Thanks for the explanation. It confirms that I was on the right track, just in a terrible way.

The weapon attached to T can be considered to be mounted in a turret with a fixed rotation speed of T₁. Sorry, that wasn't clear.

If it helps, imagine a tank with no tracks, but the turret still spins, being orbited by an airplane at a fixed distance. Given the fixed rotation speed of the turret, and the fixed radius of the orbit, find a minimum value of V such that the tank can't track the plane and shoot it down.

Scenario:

Let us suppose we have a stationary Target T being orbited in a perfect circle by an Attacker A. The circle has the radius of R in meters. T has a weapon that can track A at a set rate, T₁ measured in radians per second. Given those conditions, I want to find the minimum velocity (V) in meters per second at which A can move around the circle of the fixed radius (R) and still exceed the value of T₁.

Let us also suppose there are no outside influences to consider.

So here's how I worked this. First, we know the circumference of a circle is

[math]

2\pi R

[/math]

We can then write a formula based on the velocity that determines how long it takes A to complete the circle.

[math]

T_2 = \frac{2\pi rad}{\frac{2\pi R m}{V m/s}}

[/math]

which can be rewritten as

[math]

T_2 =\frac{ 2\pi V rad \cdot m}{2\pi R m \cdot s}

[/math]

where the top of the fraction is in terms of radian meters, and the bottom is in meter seconds.

Here's my question: Should the [math]2\pi [/math] and the meters cancel each other out, leaving us with a value in radians per second that is only depended on the velocity and the radius of the circle?

[math]

T_2 = \frac{V}{R} rad/sec

[/math]

And since we need a value of V which yields a T₂ greater than T₁, the final equation would be

[math]

V > T_1 \times R

[/math]

Running the formula with some actual numbers, the orders of magnitude look right - for example, if I have a 3,000 meter circle and a T₁ of .004, V needs to be greater than 12. But something feels off to me, so I thought I'd ask for help.

I've read on pretty much all of the above, but I just prefer paper. Maybe I'm old fashioned, or a traditionalist, or whatever, but to me the experience just isn't the same without the weight of a book, and the feel of the paper under my fingers. I'll read things on a tablet or whatever, but it's not my preferred method.

Unfortunately, the legal system thrives on exactly the kind of bullcrap you're describing. If it didn't, we wouldn't need lawyers.

There isn't a logical fallacy here - what the defendant in this example is doing is called gaming the system. They're using the available rules of jurisprudence (in your example, arguing against answering the summons, and again against the summary judgement), to delay the legal process as long as possible. Every step they make is completely logical - from the the point of view of protecting the defendant by delaying the case as long as the rules allow.

 

You've rolled your car. There's going to be some body work necessary. That's already a given.

 

Any idea which standard that is? I don't see anything it would fall under on this list

Actually, no. It was mentioned in the article I found the video in, which is here: Link

But they didn't give any specifics.

You blow the explosive bolts. (Assuming you own a Mercedes SLS AMG). Video here

Turns out that, at least in the United States, it's federally mandated that the doors have to be operational in the event of a roll over crash.

From what I remember GR does not specifically preclude the idea of time running backwards - that is to say, the equations will resolve regardless of the sign on the time variables.

Getting time to actually run backwards is another matter entirely though.

Changing the density requires changing one of two factors - the mass or the volume.

For an object at a given fixed distance away from the center point of the planet, such as a moon, one of two things can happen:

1. If the mass increases, then the gravitational attraction of the object also increases.
2. If the volume decreases, then the gravitational affect on the distant object remains unchanged.

In both cases, the surface gravity of the planet would increase, as given by

[latex]

g = \frac{4\pi}{3}G \rho r

[/latex]

I think at some point it will have to. Otherwise, a single state could simply say you know what, we recognize gay marriage, and we refuse to recognize any marriage performed in a state where they are illegal.

And watch the chaos ensue.

I can see Ginsburg's point, but in common usage not recognizing the marriages of one state in another leads to all sorts of issues concerning rights of survivorship and the like. You can argue that Article 4 doesn't explicitly call out marriages, but I think SCOTUS understands that a common sense application of the article needs to be used to avoid the utter chaos that would erupt if states could suddenly stop recognizing marriages from other states, regardless of the legality of the marriage itself in either jurisdiction.