I think ideally, as momentum must be conserved, that the ball would come in, the other ball would be ejected, and decelerated until it escaped the magnetic pull going the same speed as the incoming ball was before it started accelerating.

On a real physical track like this with friction and sound energy loss, I think the ball would be ejected, not overcome the pull of the magnet, and get sucked back pretty quick. It may strike hard enough to send the other ball out a bit, but after very few iterations, they would be all stuck together.

I haven't thought yet about the effect of the magnet moving towards the first ball as it approaches. Maybe this has no net effect at all.>> ^oritteropo:

Well it's only a guess, since I'm too lazy to do the calculations , but I don't think the kinetic energy from the impact would be sufficient to overcome the very large magnetic force, so click and no ball ejected.
>> ^messenger:
[...] Now I want to know what would happen if there was only one ball after the magnet. What do you think?

Counter Strike
Battlefield 2 +
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare +
Team Fortress 2
Halo
Mass Effect
GoldenEye 007
Half-Life 2
Mario Kart 64 +>> ^sixshot:

I recognize all but one. Can someone help me fill in the missing info?
Battlefield 3
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2/3
Team Fortress 2
Halo
Mass Effect
(a James Bond game)
Killzone
Mario Kart (64?)
Which iteration of Mario Kart did they introduced the blue shell? Was it on the N64?

I recognize all but one. Can someone help me fill in the missing info?

Battlefield 3
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2/3
Team Fortress 2
Halo
Mass Effect
(a James Bond game)
Killzone
Mario Kart (64?)

Which iteration of Mario Kart did they introduced the blue shell? Was it on the N64?

She does good on this one. I figured this "problem Archimedes?" dilemma out using AutoCAD to maintain that after 50 or so iterations, the shape still appeared to be a circle (it does).

>> ^CaptainPlanet:

>> ^budzos:
But Joker doesn't care what anyone thinks or feels. Not even Batman. He only cares for his own amusement and he's mostly amused by people dying .

each reboot has brought with it varying interpretations of these characters. the unequaled cruelty and sadism portrayed in TDN makes ledger the most memorable villain of all (to me)


Yeah sometimes people seem to get all tangled up in the analyzing and defamation of one iteration of a series or another. It doesn't ever bother me, I just watch what I want to watch and I either like it or don't. I didn't really like the American version of the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but only because it changed a character dynamic that drew me into the series in the first place. I still think it's a good movie, it's just not for me...the difference is I'm not going to go around telling everyone how it's shit and they suck if they don't ONLY like the Swedish versions.

No one has done that here I'm just saying, it's something people do that annoys me...particularly with the Star Wars movies.

Old nuclear power plants produce deadly, cancer causing, bone deforming, face-melting radioactive sludge that will constantly be a threat to every human in a 50 mile radius for 10,000 lifetimes, so obviously nuclear power has one extremely large and worrisome drawback in its current iteration.

>> ^Kreegath:

Old nuclear power plants aren't impervious to tsunamis and powerful earth quakes simultaneously, so obviously nuclear power is bad.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^bcglorf:

I'm not entirely a layman. I'm basing my opinion on searches through peer reviewed journals, ones like this. If you go and take a look, you'll find it is a pretty much bullet-proof decimation of the statistical methods used in the infamous hockey stick graph. It's not a run and gun hit job by hacks funded by big oil either. Mann's team that generated the original hockey stick graph already came to the same conclusion(with gentler wording) in their own most recent work.
Read Mann's article for yourself, he's one of the most vehement of those claiming the science is 'settled'. His most recent paper's calculations with different statistical methods though show that the earth was just as warm(or warmer) twice before in just the last 2k years.
The science that is settled is that the planet has been warming for the last long while. The science is settled that the planet has been warming over just the last 100 years that we've had instrumental record. The science is settled that mankind is inputting measurable and even significant levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. The science is settled that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. The science is settled that CO2's overall contribution to the greenhouse effect is less between 5-15%, while water vapor accounts for 60-90%. Science is well agreed that the role of water vapor in long term climate change is very poorly understood.
I challenge anyone to dispute the above assessment of the current state of scientific understanding, as my searching of peer-reviewed journals shows the experts in each relevant field agreeing with the above statements. Putting those together doesn't exactly add up to 'time to panic'. The only smoking gun that every was considered was the hockey stick graph that appeared to show that the last 100 years of warming was abnormal and unusual. The evidence for it is being thrown out though, and the newly recalculated data, even by the original team, suddenly looks a lot less worrying and much more normal.

That's probably the first rebuttal to climate change I've ever read that doesn't spout nonsense and lies. Kudos to you.
Out of interest, you say you're "not entirely a layman". May I ask if that means you have studied climatology or simply that you read the papers?
As for water vapour, it's not really a "forcing agent", it's reactive. It's better explained here.


My background is computer science but that requires a strong math background as well. When doing any manner of computer simulation of a complex and unknown system, the purely theoretical models are rarely sane. The reason being you can't model the bare physics of a complex system, so you have to essentially estimate(fake) the macro effects and properties. You get good computer models by comparing the results to real data and iterating back and forth until your model starts doing a better job of reflecting reality. The big red flag for me with climate models is the really limited real world data available to compare models to. I don't models aren't worthwhile, scientists are building them because they are useful. The trouble is what they are useful for. By definition, the models have to be treated as less reliable than the raw data we calibrate them against and run our sanity checks against. Neither does it matter how many different models we run, all that gets is closer to the same reliability as the real world measures that we have.

That ties into the article I linked, where the climate guys trying to rebuild temperature data to calibrate computer models from where themselves not strong enough in statistics to notice very significant flaws in the methods they were using. Flaws that systematically produced the results they initially deemed significant. Without a strong grounding there, I have to assess we are still left with a long road to go before really saying we understand this.

As for water vapor being reactive, I would very much disagree. Any climate scientist trying to tell you that is trying to simplify things for you to the point they are no longer being accurate. Ice caps melting, oceans rising, and cloud cover doubling is going to drive climate. It is going to force climate more strongly than anything else. The big unknown is just what parameters water vapor works under, it's simply not well understood yet. Computer models don't even know what sign to assign it as a forcing agent for pitysake. Most likely because it can act as both positive and negative based on environmental factors which are dependent on temperature among other things. When it comes to what kind of forcing H2O does the honest answer is that it's role is so complicated we just simply do not know. What we DO know is that currently, it contributes to 60-90% of the overall greenhouse effect. That tells me it's role in forcing is a much more worthy area of focus and study than CO2 and it's a crying shame so many more dollars are spent on CO2 than H2O when what we really need is to understand the whole system in order know what is really going on.

What do you when confronted with misandry in all its various iterations? I've come to the conclusion you've got to be forceful, sarcastic, and impolite. At this point, you actually need to offend people to shake them out of the pattern. Sad conclusion, we'll see how the experiment goes.

I agree with you in principle but s**t man, relax. It's only the internets. >> ^jackhalfaprayer:

argumentum ad hominem. it's not my job to do better; it's rockstar's job to do better. we weren't talking about me or anyone else until you changed the subject. i'd say that bethesda has been doing better open world games since the mid-to-late 90's, konami's silent hill series has been better at telling stories (read: making one feel like playing through a movie, which rockstar wishes they could accomplish), and just about any third-person game from tomb raider to max payne has a better 3-rd person targeting system than that broken-ass excuse rockstar has been trying to fix for 10 iterations or so. so pretty much everything that GTA has been mashing up into a huge meaningless sandbox of drivel has been done before in a less broken fashion, with more variety, less linearity, less repetitive gameplay, and without falling back on hopelessly cliche, hackneyed mafioso stereotypes and slipshod driving mechanics.
but if you wanted to give me money to write a game and pay some programmers and artists and designers, absolutely! i'd be happy to present to you a game that is better than anything rockstar has produced to date. until then, fanboy, defend this mediocre studio with some actual points instead an ad hominem logical fallacy... or just stfu about what i or anyone else should be doing better than rockstar. rockstar puts out unoriginal crap with semi-impressive tech and people like you eat it up, bloat their egos, and line the pockets of corporate lackeys that are afraid to do anything new with an old IP. there's better work out there. you must not hear about it because it's not mentioned in your gamepro subscription. so go preorder this re-hash bullshit, and rest ignorant of the knowledge that people like you are destroying this industry, and this community, by buying into the hype machine of some fake gangster-sim crap with nothing new to offer since version III. and don't tell me that I should put up with it because there's nothing better out there, wtf sort of defense is that?
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
GTA III was the last time there was any innovation in this series. I'm tired of sandbox missions with a half-assed organized crime drama throughline. I'd rather watch Goodfellas or something where there's real writing and acting. Rockstar games are overhyped and underdeveloped.

You...or ANYONE do better. Seriously we've seen other sandbox games try and fail...this is like criticizing WoW for being what it is. Do something better or accept that this is as good as it gets right now and shut up.

argumentum ad hominem. it's not my job to do better; it's rockstar's job to do better. we weren't talking about me or anyone else until you changed the subject. i'd say that bethesda has been doing better open world games since the mid-to-late 90's, konami's silent hill series has been better at telling stories (read: making one feel like playing through a movie, which rockstar wishes they could accomplish), and just about any third-person game from tomb raider to max payne has a better 3-rd person targeting system than that broken-ass excuse rockstar has been trying to fix for 10 iterations or so. so pretty much everything that GTA has been mashing up into a huge meaningless sandbox of drivel has been done before in a less broken fashion, with more variety, less linearity, less repetitive gameplay, and without falling back on hopelessly cliche, hackneyed mafioso stereotypes and slipshod driving mechanics.

but if you wanted to give me money to write a game and pay some programmers and artists and designers, absolutely! i'd be happy to present to you a game that is better than anything rockstar has produced to date. until then, fanboy, defend this mediocre studio with some actual points instead an ad hominem logical fallacy... or just stfu about what i or anyone else should be doing better than rockstar. rockstar puts out unoriginal crap with semi-impressive tech and people like you eat it up, bloat their egos, and line the pockets of corporate lackeys that are afraid to do anything new with an old IP. there's better work out there. you must not hear about it because it's not mentioned in your gamepro subscription. so go preorder this re-hash bullshit, and rest ignorant of the knowledge that people like you are destroying this industry, and this community, by buying into the hype machine of some fake gangster-sim crap with nothing new to offer since version III. and don't tell me that I should put up with it because there's nothing better out there, wtf sort of defense is that?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
GTA III was the last time there was any innovation in this series. I'm tired of sandbox missions with a half-assed organized crime drama throughline. I'd rather watch Goodfellas or something where there's real writing and acting. Rockstar games are overhyped and underdeveloped.

You...or ANYONE do better. Seriously we've seen other sandbox games try and fail...this is like criticizing WoW for being what it is. Do something better or accept that this is as good as it gets right now and shut up.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

>> ^Phreezdryd:
With the "OnKneesforJesus" in the corner of the video, I'm assuming they thought this video exposed Dawkins in some way, or maybe it showed O'Reilly had nailed him.
Ass handing is in the eye of the beholder.

If you look at the other videos on the OnKneesforJesus youtube channel, it's obvious that the poster is no friend of organized religion. I suspect the name of the channel is sarcastic.

I have seen the light of OnKneesforJesus at youtube and blogspot. It's cute how they're up to their 4th iteration of the youtube channel, no doubt due to rabid religous complaints and threats.

>> ^Duckman33:

I know full well about the man's past. I don't need to google it. I'm a 9/11 "truther" remember? But a man's past does not necessarily constitute what he is currently doing, or what he will do in the future. People change. Not saying he has. More than likely he hasn't. Just saying. If people judged me on the things I did in my past. I would have no friends, and I'd most likely be in jail right now. I'm a different man than I was 20, hell even 10 years ago. I'm sure I'll be a different man 20 years from now, if I'm still alive.
And oh, yes, asking tough questions. So hard on Obama, poor him! I really should lay off of him because he has it so rough.
As a US citizen it's my obligation, and right to ask tough questions. Much like the reporter. I'm glad there are people like him still in journalism. We need more people like him in journalism. A lot more.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.
By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.


I never asked if you believe everything you read on the net. I asked if you had even attempted googling the man's past. If that's asking you to believe everything you read on the net I do believe you are doing it wrong.
If you bother doing any of your own searching, you'll find Alwaki repeatedly and proudly advocated and recruited people to wage jihad against American civilians. That strikes me as equivalent evidence against him as the 'targeted killing' list approved by Obama.
Before you declare victory in agreeing with the parallel, choose if you truly believe in holding the same burden of proof up for both men. If you do, then you conclude both are innocent, or both are guilty.
If both are innocent, why are you riding Obama so hard?
If both are guilty, Alwaki supported the murder of civilians in a holy war, and Obama supported the targeted killing of Alwaki for his support of murdering civilians in a holy war. In this case again, why are you riding Obama so hard?



Your gonna go with 'people change'? Tell me, your study of Awlaki, did it include where he was and what he was doing when he died? Seems as though his past and present were still in harmony, no?

I'm all for asking Obama tough questions. Unfortunately the 'tough' questions being asked here are banal, obvious and easy to ask. It's the underlying problems that are hard. Instead of asking about the legalities and controversy around killing a mass murder in Yemen, maybe they could probe something both tougher and more helpful. Like what's his position on supporting a dictator in Yemen opposed by Al-Qaida dominated rebels? But it's more politically beneficial to ask the flashy and sexy questions about one dead bad guy.

I know full well about the man's past. I don't need to google it. I'm a 9/11 "truther" remember? But a man's past does not necessarily constitute what he is currently doing, or what he will do in the future. People change. Not saying he has. More than likely he hasn't. Just saying. If people judged me on the things I did in my past. I would have no friends, and I'd most likely be in jail right now. I'm a different man than I was 20, hell even 10 years ago. I'm sure I'll be a different man 20 years from now, if I'm still alive.

And oh, yes, asking tough questions. So hard on Obama, poor him! I really should lay off of him because he has it so rough.

As a US citizen it's my obligation, and right to ask tough questions. Much like the reporter. I'm glad there are people like him still in journalism. We need more people like him in journalism. A lot more.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.
By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.


I never asked if you believe everything you read on the net. I asked if you had even attempted googling the man's past. If that's asking you to believe everything you read on the net I do believe you are doing it wrong.
If you bother doing any of your own searching, you'll find Alwaki repeatedly and proudly advocated and recruited people to wage jihad against American civilians. That strikes me as equivalent evidence against him as the 'targeted killing' list approved by Obama.
Before you declare victory in agreeing with the parallel, choose if you truly believe in holding the same burden of proof up for both men. If you do, then you conclude both are innocent, or both are guilty.
If both are innocent, why are you riding Obama so hard?
If both are guilty, Alwaki supported the murder of civilians in a holy war, and Obama supported the targeted killing of Alwaki for his support of murdering civilians in a holy war. In this case again, why are you riding Obama so hard?

>> ^conan:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.

Wow. Thank god for the internet. If google says it's true it sure is. If google says the next guy on the street is a bad man i say let's sent some drones and kill him. just so, no judge. And there i was thinking of life as being so complicated. Have to get me some of those penis enlargement pills. google say they work just fine.


Right, asking someone to do even the barest semblance of their own research into something is akin to 'the interweb told me so'.

Please enlighten, what burden of evidence has so convinced you of Obama's guilt, and can you be troubled to study that same source's information on Alwaki as well?

I know, gray areas are so uncomfortable for young idealists, but you really should try to see the shades between black and white.

>> ^Duckman33:

I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.
By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.



I never asked if you believe everything you read on the net. I asked if you had even attempted googling the man's past. If that's asking you to believe everything you read on the net I do believe you are doing it wrong.

If you bother doing any of your own searching, you'll find Alwaki repeatedly and proudly advocated and recruited people to wage jihad against American civilians. That strikes me as equivalent evidence against him as the 'targeted killing' list approved by Obama.

Before you declare victory in agreeing with the parallel, choose if you truly believe in holding the same burden of proof up for both men. If you do, then you conclude both are innocent, or both are guilty.

If both are innocent, why are you riding Obama so hard?

If both are guilty, Alwaki supported the murder of civilians in a holy war, and Obama supported the targeted killing of Alwaki for his support of murdering civilians in a holy war. In this case again, why are you riding Obama so hard?