Full auto Gauss machine gun firing slugs into a laptop. has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo on that post.

Essentially my guess is that the bullet can only transfer so much kinetic energy to accelerate the block upwards. Above that threshold it finds other ways of disposing of this energy. Why this threshold/diminishing return might exist idk.

So yeah, I think there must be some change in the efficiency of the transfer of energy in the two examples. Does smacking the bullet right in the centre create more sound? Does the bullet deform/heat up more in the first example because the block simple can't get out of the way fast enough? You'd think that spinning a block would take comparitively little energy compared to all those other inefficiencies. Perhaps if you were to increase the velocity of the bullet you might not see that large of a difference in the height it rises - rather the block would sustain more damage, the slug would pancake more etc etc.

It does seem raher counter-intuitive though. I'd like to know the explanation.

Ok ant, that was a joke! So, I am gonna up vote this viddy on-accounta I learned a new word (HOON- gotta love it as an onomatopoeia) and I have never seen a POV viddy of a car being driven into a pond before, not-counting Hollywood renditions...

My own hoon stories could fill a small journal. One of my favs was the assassination of a Datsun B-210 with RPM, then shotguns-The poor car lurched struggling to a stop, belching oil and smoke as we double-tapped the engine block with slugs Fun-time, victimless country hooliganism-

Your fanaticism is in not being able to see that I'm not arguing against you, nor really against your true hurdles (the guy in the video above who will never see the merit in slugs or snails regardless of your evidence). I'm arguing against the need to see the other side as a combatant and instead as a group that has a different expertise and perspective. The 2nd voice in a complex evaluation at a national or global level.

Science minded people can easily project the benefits of research and have a lot of faith in science's ability to provide exponential benefits in the future. It's because this IS the case that this is even a debate. What WE seem incapable of doing is accepting that even exponential benefits and aggregate benefits can fall prey to scope and mass.

People on the other side don't see the long term or the exponential benefits however because theyre not science minded. Their focus has likely been somewhere else like business, healthcare, politics, social issues, etc. and so they will know more about THOSE lasting impacts than science minded people (including you and I). Unless youre suggesting science minded people are more experts on these topics as well?

So when using the explicit or implicit "greater good" as a measure it can be surprising how things unfold. I say "greater good" like that because the idea that the future benefit of current research is worth current spending over immediate problems implies "the greater good of society over time" and if you disagree with that then we can discuss that some other day.

Let me assist you quickly in countering my own comments so you can see why I feel we're not on the same page. The counter to the arguments i've expressed would be that "greater good" evaluation from moment to moment is NOT the correct way to fund research. Because the value that the general population will put on immediate issues (or support through public policy/voting/opinion) will always carry more weight than solving problems in the future (the immediacy bias of humans) it can not be used as a forward thinking way of funding research.

In other words, we don't need to convince people of greater good or of researches value over other uses of resources. The reason is that the only way to properly do science research is as a ongoing project on a mass scale with inter-dependencies that are too complex for anyone but the most informed to evaluate.

Arguing dollars and cents through cost benefit analysis or some other method would ultimately work against research funding, particularly when arguing with business and fiscal spending experts that can play on immediate human need/emotion.

As an aside, i enjoy this discussion but I truly think that there is a miscommunication about what topics you and I are concerned about and what our exact stances on them are. Perhaps this is my fault for not making my stance or opinion more clear because I was not trying to chime in on the debate at large, but chime in on the way people were undertaking the debate.

I believe research funding is even more important than immediate needs and that the justification for them does not have to meet any "greater good" measures because, having studied economics in college, I'm aware of how bad our evaluation of non-concrete goods/services are (ie the evaluation of human life or environmental impacts expressed in real world terms like money).

Because I believe this, I have to accept that it is an IMPORTANT balance to have people as biased in the opposite direction around to offset my opinion and I welcome open discussion (ie without assuming they don't know what theyre talking about from the beginning) with those people because it helps me to feel that our society IS actually meeting the needs of both types of people as best it can.

What I don't do is raise my nose at them as being uninformed and incapable of understanding the issues at large because I believe they do, but with a different process all together which still has value. I also don't assume that my fact and science based arguments will always win out over arguments with immediacy and immediate human benefit (which are very difficult to put a value on).

I apologize for harping on greater good, but it was being thrown around and wielded (even if implicitly) as though it was a single edged sword when it is in fact a double edged sword when the issue is viewed with the proper scope. I also didn't feel the need to be yet another voice clamoring for science funding when the opposite side had little to no presence. Group think is dangerous and without voices to temper the enthusiasm it's easy to forget that debates have 2 sides and both typically have merit even if the other side wouldn't care to admit it.

@dirkdeagler7

You keep saying I'm being fanatic, or aggressive. Nothing in that quote could be construed as such. It was a direct response to the following quote from your previous post:

"Explain to someone who has no insurance or has a problem with medical bills or has no job or has family members fighting abroad or is getting foreclosed on....that we need to spend money to better understand hermaphroditic snails and the intricacies of their mating rituals in order to better understand evolution and reproduction to maybe one day apply that technology to genetic research or fertility programs."

Presumably you would also argue that they would not be convinced by the need to study the intricacies of sea-slug gill withdrawal reflexes. Your posts seem to suggest that someone other than scientists (some vaguely defined "greater good") should be dictating which specific research aims should be funded. You suggest we should be "asking" these people if that money should be spent.

My contention is that scientists have spent their (already meager) funds with remarkable efficiency. My example was meant to illustrate that asking lay people what science should be funded is likely to have prevented some of the most critical research of the last century from ever having taken place. They don't understand the broader impacts of the research, and thus lack the expertise necessary to evaluate its merit. Sure, someone in pain will probably balk at those sorts of studies. However, if you ask them "are you glad someone did the necessary research to develop ____insert_medical_procedure here____," then I think you'll find they're happy their forefathers spent a few pennies studying snails. The fact is the reverse argument does not hold up. We all, scientists not withstanding, are experts in basic human needs and suffering. For many, scientists that's what drove us to the work. You act as though we can not evaluate the merit of research with respect to the larger picture. I think you're wrong. We do it all the time.

Also, I'm a bit insulted by your reference to people with medical bills, or family members fighting abroad as I fall into both categories. We all have our cross to bear. I don't think I'm alone in responding "I'll be fine, spend the money on the future."

Excuse me, what? This isn't us being fanatic. This is more simple dismissiveness. You haven't convincingly demonstrated significant wasteful spending. Your arguments are all hypothetical or anecdotal. Give me data to sink my teeth into and I might bother to show you fanatical.

Of course there are other priorities, but maybe basic science and medical research don't even register in the budget. You're the one defending defense research, remember? I would send citizens buried by medical expenses (like myself) knocking on your door. I wouldn't suggest they consider cuts to research that experts in biological sciences have agreed show promise. I hate to think how many advancements we aren't funding as it is.

Where I will fault science is in their incapacity to efficiently communicate. Our job description amounts to summarizing the unintuitive. For my money, this communication gulf accounts for most of the perceived waste in science. When you're inside you see how all the ant work science (both metaphorical and literal) contributes. Most of the great discoveries end up looking more like great summaries. Every field has someone come along once a decade or two, but it's hard to know who. Then the universe is easier to understand; and everybody wins.

Here's an example. Studying gill-withdrawal responses in sea slugs provided the foundation for what we now know about neuronal learning and memory. This was circa 1952. Reasoning similar to yours would have prohibited that expense. That would have been dumb. I agree if your point is simply that we should do a better job of convincing you of that.

Dang Big Snail, taking away all the hard earned money Muricans slugged away for

LooiXIV , LOOOIE!


Lemme address all yer whack points from free-associative angles:

The reality of some increased level of moral or ethical degradation of a society or a segment of her constituents shouldn't frighten you away from availing yourself of tools needed for the job. Sadly, the U.S. is full of developmental disability but please tell me it's not going to be people whose process is so skewed who will take us all into a kindler and gentler future?? What do we do, reeducate?? Sensitize and sanitize the environment we share? A fantasy.

Biden clips, Biden clips, ok, BIdens' first of all, a fucking idiot on camera, off, and an ineffectual sack of meat as a Vice President. His interview with the slug from Parent's magazine was embarrassing and worthy of scorn. What he has to say on the issue parrots on a 3rd-grade-level the horseshit dialog coming from Feinstein and her ilk so simply using what he had to say as a talking point screams moral weakness and a lack of will.

One may expect a confrontation in life to whatever degree, DAILY! The last thing I would do in a situation where someone was either in my home or attempting to break in would be hide somewhere until they were gone. If I saw that they had a weapon, it's my house-I know where 20 objects are in my personal space with which to disable or disarm someone better than the burglar....He's fucked.

How many slugs are in this blaster, Chino?

>> ^00Scud00:

It's going to be hard to keep calling it "Silly" Putty, once you've managed to kill someone with it.
>> ^chingalera:
Easy wound clean-up??
Ballistics would have fun but they don't even try with shotguns anyhow.
"Suspect was killed by Silly Putty" would make great news.



According to shuac it is now to be referred to as "Serious Putty".

It's going to be hard to keep calling it "Silly" Putty, once you've managed to kill someone with it.
>> ^chingalera:

Easy wound clean-up??
Ballistics would have fun but they don't even try with shotguns anyhow.
"Suspect was killed by Silly Putty" would make great news.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

Why didn't they shoot it at a block of silly putty?


Because they don't want to DESTROY THE UNIVERSE?!?

Or something useful, like ballistics gel
>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

Why didn't they shoot it at a block of silly putty?

Your video, Silly Putty Shotgun Slugs?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 101 Badge!

Oh! Would that be why it doesn't mind being eaten?>> ^lv_hunter:

Though to be corrective that isnt a jellyfish. Thats a colony of hydroids called a porpita porpita.