Just bought tickets to see them live in Denver November 22!! No idea what neck of the woods you reside in doll, anyway you could make it out here and join me? I know it's a shot in the dark but I imagine it would be hella fun to go to a show with ya so figured I would throw it out there! Word around the interwebs is that they put on an amazing show.

I also figured it would be lower because, well, physics. I think the spinning block was ever-so-slightly lower, but they were so close, practically millimeters it seems, that I am still curious about the lack of a greater difference.

The only thing I could think of that would cause this is that the initial rate of angular rotation on the spinning mass made up for the lower amount of direct kinetic energy from the bullet.
The bullet still conveyed the maximum amount of potential kinetic energy, but instead of transferring it solely to the objects linear acceleration, it transferred half to the objects linear acceleration, and the rest to the objects rotational acceleration, and by some principle of centrifugal or centripetal force that rotational energy somehow caused the block to reach the same height.

A shot in the dark, but that's my guess.

This is really just a silly Hyundai Elantra commercial where they also talk to one of the Walking Dead creators about his work. There are roughly 3 different versions of the car depicted, and none of them are feasible.



Of course no one would pick a compact coupe as the foundation for an armored car if they had any kind of choice in the matter (and if they don't, there's no reason to talk about what a great choice their only option is). There are a couple key areas in which this car really shows the limitations of the basic platform (a compact coupe): Height, Carry Capacity.

Basics:
An Elantra weighs about 2,800lbs unmodified (and roughly 3,500 - 4,000 as imagined), has about 150HP (not impressive numbers from a 1.8L engine), and has a sunroof roughly 4'8" feet off the ground.

Height:
The idea of a turret on top of the car for offense is great, except for the part where he's talking about a car with a height of less than 5 feet. The average person is about 5'6" with an arm's reach of at least an extra foot. So, the person in the protected turret is still likely in range (the hypotenuse of an arm reaching to this height would be slightly longer than the ~4'8" car height plus the roughly foot and a half of turret). Have you ever stood out of a compact coupe's sunroof while the car was in motion? There's not a lot of room in that car period, there's certainly no room for a person to stand in the center of it while it's in motion in a high stress situation.

Carry Capacity:
The Elantra has a roughly 900lbs carry capacity (this weight includes driver and passengers, plus armor and such). I'm going to assume the weight of the cow catcher is about equal to an average small truck snow plow (250lbs), and that it's for hitting zombies not clearing the road of vehicles, and I'm going to place a fair shot in the dark of roughly 172.5lbs for the rest of the armor (assuming 7 gauge sheet metal is ideal, and assuming 23 square feet will cover enough glass). So far we've got 477.5lbs of carry capacity for driver, gunner, passengers, and gear. Each person likely weighs roughly 200lbs which means the car has enough capacity to deal with a driver, a single gunner, and two moderately well stocked bags of supplies. Any more than this and the car will start to run into issues, a lot more than this (say, loading it up with passengers and gear) and you risk significant damage to the car's ability to continue driving. All of this assumes they don't want to beef up the rear of the car to allow the vehicle to be able to "safely" ram other obstructions in the road (in a demolition derby drivers drive, and crash into each other, backwards to protect all of the sensitive components in the engine bay).

Other:
The roman chariot style blades on the wheels of a car was tried in an episode of the tv show Top Gear and it threw off the wheel balance to the point of making the car entirely undrivable for any more than a mile or two. Also, just about the last thing you want to do when dealing with zombies is damage their legs because it's much easier to see a zombie walking than a zombie crawling (our soldiers crawl when they want to be harder to see in modern combat for a reason). The general purpose of a compact car is to be accessible (read: inexpensive), and often they utilize a small fuel efficient engine. Increasing the weight of this car by about 40% is not doing any favors to the already under powered car, and the fuel economy is going to suffer. Realistically, speed and acceleration are meaningless (of course the car will exceed the 3 mile per hour average human walking speed).

Improvements:
*Start with a different type of vehicle. Perhaps something that was designed to be large.
*Ignore the mad max spikes.


research tools:
http://www.hyundaiusa.com/elantra/specifications.aspx
http://www.hyundai-forums.com/197-i30-elantra-touring-forum/140546-load-capacity-2012-touring.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee
http://www.fisherplows.com/fe/showroom/homesteader
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gauge-sheet-d_915.html
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/sheetmetal.html

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/In-the-Cut-Part-I-Shots-in-the-Dark-Knight

although he was trying to score , he was not trying to do EXACTLY what he did ,

its the equivelnt of sumone firing a shot in the dark with the intention of hitting a bird.

but obvously evan though its imporbable whoever took the shot having a ultral pro player atempt a shot in the dark like this is far more likely for it to sucseed than if it was a total noob.

and the resulting outcome is pretty cool , I just wouldn't directly attribute it to a full intentional goal its probably more analguse to when sumone takes a shot at the goal from the half way line and it happens to bounce over the keeper.

For the record, I never mentioned high school. You're not the only one who attended university, Farhad2000.

I don't remember ever writing that FDR was the cause or the only reason why the effects of the depression were felt for decades. I don't presume to know everything about economics.

Contrary to what you wrote,one can say that certain policies created by FDR extended the Great Depression. One can "blame him" with good reason.

Don't take my word for it, though.

Just to mention one example of an expert opinion: Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian published the findings of their 4 year study in the August 2004 issue of the Journal of Political Economy citing FDR's policies as one reason that the great depression dragged on. I believe they even put an exact figure on just how long he lengthened it by.

But let's not focus only on FDR. Considering how complex the US economy is, let's spread the blame out a little. There's plenty to go around to.... say Herbert Hoover, as well.

I understand that there are many different schools of economics, but we (the non-experts) must take the recent findings of the experts and base our actions and our votes on their reports. Otherwise, we are just taking shots in the dark. The economy doesn't perform well under the "guess-and-check" method.


That being said, I'm curious: Which economic school told Barack Obama that his economic policies, in regards to small businesses, would be good for our economy (one that is driven by small business)? Any single one of those policies, when applied to my business, hurts. Therefore, it is bad for my employees because it hinders my profits, which stifles growth, which limits the number and dollar amount of raises, which causes poor employee moral, which........



Lee E. Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research
Harold L. Cole, Ph.D., professor of Economics UCLA, National Bureau of Economic Research


>> ^Farhad2000:
Really?
You know I got taught in university that one cannot simply focus on FDR's presidential policies and blame them for extending the depression considering the problem was based on a multitude of factors at time of limited understanding of economic policies as a whole which lead to Keynesian theory of economics.
And yes imstellar you are a Ayn Rand wank. Because you actually think economic theory of markets is simple and straight, you do realize all theories of economics are simply theories, all of them rely on model behavior, all of them are constantly revalued due to incompatibility with the real world. We debated this over and over in your economic propositions on the blog.
But hey American high school must be much better than that!

Thanks for recommending Shot in the dark, just saw it and liked it A lot of physical comedy of course, but there were a few really well written jokes as well. One could definatly see that this film has inspired later generations of comedy writers.

You should check out A Shot in the Dark (considered the 2nd Pink Panther movie) and The Return of the Pink Panther. Also, check out The Party. I don't want to hype it too much, but suffice it to say if you don't expect it to be a big Hollywood movie, you'll walk away really liking it. It falls apart a bit at the end, but Peter Sellers is pretty damn funny in it.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
Nope. There are so many Sellers movies I want to see. I need to win the lottery or something so I can just sit naked and hunched over on my couch watching classic movies all day. On another note, I've seen Dr. Fu-Manchu...can't recommend it Favourites are Lolita, Strangelove, Being there and the first panther movie.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yeah, it's still cool to see a Seller's movie. Have you seen The Party?

Republicans do get research, they believe that the private sector can handle research tasks for society, which is not really true since Pfizer and other biomedical firms would not go undertaking research or publish their work if there is no monetary pay off at the end, especially given that almost 80% of research ends with no pay off.

These firms are corporations seeking a profit, not a social good. Viagra was a shot in the dark, they were trying to make something for the heart when they noticed that alot of the testers mentioned getting boners.

Furthermore I think the investment priorities have been heavily skewed in the favor of defense and security industries, along with the usual military research (flavor of the month? Network centric warfare). Even then alot of these projects are being funded by the government, alot of them as well end up having no viable real world application, if you really think everything researched or built has an application we must live on different planets.

I believe in government funded research but I also think that for the last 8 years there has been alot of wasteful spending on high tech military and security projects, panic has lead to a shotgun like application of funding resulting in a massive growth in the security industry and creating its own lobby component in Washington - look for them to push forward various threats to guarantee continued growth/existence, not an announcement that America remains safe.

This kind of approach has meant that the US has overlooked other threats such as biochemical and cyber attacks. There isn't a cohesive plan, only more investment into network centric warfare, which as a doctrine of war has been marvelous in conquering uniformed armies but is unable to bring victory in Iraq and Afghanistan because the doctrine was not written to fight a asymmetrical war with combatants being part of the civilian population, so you have very few soldiers trying to pacify very large populations.

Okay I didn't mean this to turn into an essay.

I doubt either candidate will reign in government expenses. The whole "pre and post 9/11 world" thing is highly political and would mean a continued military and security industrial complex for the foreseeable future. Alot of it will consist of eavesdropping on Americans themselves.

"On Our Way" by Christina Aguilera. Just a shot in the dark.

I know you're working on it, but things are really going crazy with the unique view counting now. I assume to make it work, you must be maintaining a list of who has viewed each post while it's in the queue. Currently there seems to be some function that removes members from that list while a post is in the queue. It's like some kind of weird db corruption. This is not just for saved vids, but requeued as well. I can't tell yet if there are any posts still on their 'first pass' for which this is happening - it seems like there were, but I can't say for certain. I've been trying to imagine scenarios in which a user could get removed from the list, and the only thing I can come up with is user A opens a thumbnail, but doesn't play the vid (kind of a "half-load"). Then when it's closed, the system wants to remove user A, but just takes the last one off the list, even if user A was never added. Just a shot in the dark since I have no idea how your code works. If there are any specific debug tests you'd like to have run or anything else we can do to help track it down, just say the word.

Side note about saved vids -- Since it's probably silly to retain the unique view list for posts discarded out of the queue, how about initializing that list for a saved vid with the list of those members who have voted on it. This would maintain the maximum ratio of 1.0 and keep posts from being effectively stickied at the front of the queue when they are saved.

Music BTW is "A Shot in the Dark" by Henry Mancini from the second Pink Panther movie of the same name.

My guess is it's through the new beta that YouTube has going. But other then that shot in the dark I'm not sure.

Are these speaker's arguments getting very much attention?? Do they get any time? Or is this lecture and presenter just a shot in the dark.

I say this because I wanna repeat the description: DeLanda challenges some commonly held beliefs about economic control and government. Which is wonderfully explosive, controversial and raw stuff. Too hot to handle