Extremely simple to explain. You guys are making it too difficult.

They both have the same vertical forces and same height, therefore they will hit the ground at the same time. Just draw free body diagrams. The only thing acting on both (in a vacuum) is gravity in the downward direction.

>> ^deathcow:
I'd say YES all stars are round. Planets become spherical (or oblately spheroidal ; ) at much smaller sizes than required to become stars. So naturally, stars would be spherical or oblate spheroids for very fast rotating stars.


Aren't some stars are oscillating in vibrational modes? That would mean they have a constantly changing shape:

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/09/25/0803748105.DCSupplemental/SM2.gif

Though I guess that means spheroidal and oblately spheroidal.

This should not be in the geek, engineering, or howto channels.

The idea that you could put a laser in any arbitrary container, including a lighter housing, is obvious. So too is the idea that you could use a laser to light cigarettes. The wiring "diagram" presented at 1:20 is not a diagram but a photograph, and it does not show how to wire the parts at all. An explanation of a critical part of the engineering--securely mounting the laser diode so it points out of the hole--is omitted. It appears they omitted the actual engineering too as at 2:02 and 2:04 you can see the end of the lighter glows blue from the beam hitting the inside of the housing. But worst of all, at 2:15, while admonishing the viewer to not point the laser at people, they are clearly shining it directly into the face if not the left eye of the guy with the cigarette. If the laser was actually intense enough to light a cigarette, that individual would now be permanently blind in his left eye.

This is either parody, a viral for the website advertised at 1:08, or it should be in the EIA channel.

I must have spent an hour laughing my ass off at the hotchickswithdouchbags.com...Thanks for an hour of silliness!

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Probably way too late, but here's a way to get educated on the type of douchebag described in the video: http://www.hotchickswithdouchebags.com/

In reply to this comment by choggie:
Representative of a certain type of douchebag??

I don't understand-I consider most of the people on VS who have labeled others douchebags to be authentic douchebags themselves. Help a brother out. Is there a solid set of parameters which makes codification simpler?
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/424/flowchartho5.jpg
^this diagram did not help.

Probably way too late, but here's a way to get educated on the type of douchebag described in the video: http://www.hotchickswithdouchebags.com/

In reply to this comment by choggie:
Representative of a certain type of douchebag??

I don't understand-I consider most of the people on VS who have labeled others douchebags to be authentic douchebags themselves. Help a brother out. Is there a solid set of parameters which makes codification simpler?
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/424/flowchartho5.jpg
^this diagram did not help.

Representative of a certain type of douchebag??

I don't understand-I consider most of the people on VS who have labeled others douchebags to be authentic douchebags themselves. Help a brother out. Is there a solid set of parameters which makes codification simpler?
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/424/flowchartho5.jpg
^this diagram did not help.

If you have questions about the scientific merit of a given medical practice, then contact an expert (i.e. an M.D. Ph.D.) and discuss your concerns with them. Go to a library, and read the actual scientific literature pertaining to a given topic.

It is true there is a business side to medicine, but no one controls science. And in the rare instances that science has been influenced by business, it has always corrected itself. (e.g. Some poor graduate student spent 2 years trying to confirm single molecule transistors and never got it to work. The original data was eventually proven fraudulent. See Jan Schon) Since their conception in 1796, vaccines have proven to a be a valuable way to control the spread of viruses.

In conclusion, it is good to question science and medicine. Questions, however, need to be reinforced with controlled scientific experiments, otherwise they are out of ignorance.


>> ^dag:
^Yes, how dare anyone question the all-knowing oracles of medical knowledge.
I think the reason that many geeky type people always toe the main-stream medical line is because they conflate medicine with science (which we all love). Yes, it's almost the same, but if I had to draw it as a venn diagram, there would be a crescent of over-hang. Medicine to me is 80% science and then the rest is filled in with dogma, patriarchy and business ($$).
That crescent of non-science is the part that makes me squirm. I don't think it's that wrong to question medical programs like vaccinations- with the idea that it may be being pushed non-scientifically by the medical industrial complex. (big pharma).
Bill Maher is not a kook.

>> ^dag:
^Yes, how dare anyone question the all-knowing oracles of medical knowledge.
I think the reason that many geeky type people always toe the main-stream medical line is because they conflate medicine with science (which we all love). Yes, it's almost the same, but if I had to draw it as a venn diagram, there would be a crescent of over-hang. Medicine to me is 80% science and then the rest is filled in with dogma, patriarchy and business ($$).
That crescent of non-science is the part that makes me squirm. I don't think it's that wrong to question medical programs like vaccinations- with the idea that it may be being pushed non-scientifically by the medical industrial complex. (big pharma).
Bill Maher is not a kook.


As Raigen said, in this instance Bill is being a kook. Yes, we need to question everything, especially medicine. But at the end of the day one has to look at the science behind the medicine and make an informed decision. The science, as Frist said, shows that vaccines work and will save your life.

I think it's really funny how, in the last few years, people have begun to fear and distrust vaccines. Smallpox, a disease that killed 300-500 million people in the 20th century alone, was eradicated thanks to vaccines. Thanks to vaccination the occurrence of Polio went from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 1300 cases in 2007.

Vaccines work, ignoring the science kills people. Bill Maher ignores the science. In this instance he is a dangerous kook.

>> ^dag:
^Yes, how dare anyone question the all-knowing oracles of medical knowledge.
I think the reason that many geeky type people always toe the main-stream medical line is because they conflate medicine with science (which we all love). Yes, it's almost the same, but if I had to draw it as a venn diagram, there would be a crescent of over-hang. Medicine to me is 80% science and then the rest is filled in with dogma, patriarchy and business ($$).
That crescent of non-science is the part that makes me squirm. I don't think it's that wrong to question medical programs like vaccinations- with the idea that it may be being pushed non-scientifically by the medical industrial complex. (big pharma).

I'm with you, Dag, on most of those points. Questioning things is what makes someone a skeptic to begin with, and you could apply that Venn Diagram to almost any (if not all) avenues of science. Scientists need funding, and not all are unbiased in their pursuit of knowledge. Please, question "the all-knowing oracles of medical knowledge" until you're blue in the face, but make sure that when you're done you've seen, understood, and accepted the evidence and the facts. Not testimonials and anecdotes. Maher did bring up that Frist used an anecdote, however I'm confident Maher fails to realize that the entire "alternative medicine" movement is based on anecdotes and the placebo effect.


Bill Maher is not a kook.


^And there is where we disagree on the subject of medicine and Mr. Maher. He is plainly a kook when it comes to such a serious subject as this, because he employs the exact same tactics as those religious kooks he fights against. If I could send him an amazing book I own called "Snake Oil Science: The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine" what do you think the chances are he'd read it? And if he defied logic and actually read it, would his mindset allow him to see the truth, based on research and evidence into these sorts of things?

He reminds me of my mother. She's not "spiritual", but she believes almost entirely in "alternative treatments". She once argued with me to get off of my insulin treatment for Diabetes and seek an Acupuncture and more "natural" route to cure it. I calmly told her to look into these things from unbiased sources.

I lent her that book.

She threw it at me.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yeah, I suppose I was trying to say that. The professional/practice component is where the dogma, patriarchy and business surface - and for me at least brings medicine out of the pure science realm into something else. We aren't cowed into carrying umbrellas at monthly check-ups with meteorologists.

In reply to this comment by longde:
Re: 20% dogma, patriarchy, and business. You could say the same for the pure sciences. To me, medicine is as much a science as physics and biology, with the difference that there is a professional/practice component that isn't there with the 'pure' sciences.

In reply to this comment by dag:
^Yes, how dare anyone question the all-knowing oracles of medical knowledge.

I think the reason that many geeky type people always toe the main-stream medical line is because they conflate medicine with science (which we all love). Yes, it's almost the same, but if I had to draw it as a venn diagram, there would be a crescent of over-hang. Medicine to me is 80% science and then the rest is filled in with dogma, patriarchy and business ($$).

That crescent of non-science is the part that makes me squirm. I don't think it's that wrong to question medical programs like vaccinations- with the idea that it may be being pushed non-scientifically by the medical industrial complex. (big pharma).

Bill Maher is not a kook.

Re: 20% dogma, patriarchy, and business. You could say the same for the pure sciences. To me, medicine is as much a science as physics and biology, with the difference that there is a professional/practice component that isn't there with the 'pure' sciences.

In reply to this comment by dag:
^Yes, how dare anyone question the all-knowing oracles of medical knowledge.

I think the reason that many geeky type people always toe the main-stream medical line is because they conflate medicine with science (which we all love). Yes, it's almost the same, but if I had to draw it as a venn diagram, there would be a crescent of over-hang. Medicine to me is 80% science and then the rest is filled in with dogma, patriarchy and business ($$).

That crescent of non-science is the part that makes me squirm. I don't think it's that wrong to question medical programs like vaccinations- with the idea that it may be being pushed non-scientifically by the medical industrial complex. (big pharma).

Bill Maher is not a kook.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^Yes, how dare anyone question the all-knowing oracles of medical knowledge.

I think the reason that many geeky type people always toe the main-stream medical line is because they conflate medicine with science (which we all love). Yes, it's almost the same, but if I had to draw it as a venn diagram, there would be a crescent of over-hang. Medicine to me is 80% science and then the rest is filled in with dogma, patriarchy and business ($$).

That crescent of non-science is the part that makes me squirm. I don't think it's that wrong to question medical programs like vaccinations- with the idea that it may be being pushed non-scientifically by the medical industrial complex. (big pharma).

Bill Maher is not a kook.

>> ^gwiz665:
I heard someone this once:
There is always an asshole in a room of more than three people. If you look around and you can't spot who that is, then YOU're that asshole.

*Looks around*

I don't think that's a correct statement, you all seem like good peo—oh dear, I see what you mean...

this is a diagram of my reality, alright...

The proof is that there is no proof he didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990. Isn't that obvious? I'll make you a Venn diagram explaining his guilt.

>> ^EndAll:
Uhh.. what proof is there that he did that?