I always spell his name wrong...

Yes...see this fight VS Akebono...weighs were 180 lbs VS 486 lbs


EDIT: Granted, Akebono has a way to go before he's going to carry any 640 kg logs, but he is a 'professional fighter'...of a kind.

In the opening question she blew it. What if the rock is lava rock, which is LIGHTER than water? That means you can't figure out the answer without knowing the density of the rock.
Archimedes equation is only useful in figuring out weight for things that are buoyant. Anything more dense than water (or whatever medium you're in) will only displace it's own volume in water, not it's mass.
That's why I think the wood block should weigh more in a vacuum. It displaced more air, so was more buoyant, and so had more buoyancy to lose. It seems to me she set it up poorly again, because if they weigh the same in air, but are different densities, they would seem to need to have different masses to achieve balance, but she said they have the same mass, but I think she should have said 'they weigh the same'....just as @Barbar and @Stormsinger indicated above.

The practicality gets me. Someone untrained or such perhaps.

I still ponder his sparring partner's lack of proper/effective defense. The dropping of his guard looks like he is catching the leg and holding on to it rather than blocking much less avoiding the attack.

Your point about weighing less seems salient.

I have seen many videos with this move over the past 5 years. Not sure how practical it is, but I have heard people comment that it works well when the attacker weighs less than the target since it leverages well.

You don't think a whale dropping on you will kill you ? you know how much that stuff weighs. that'd flatten a volkswagon beetle !

* edit, oh I get it, you see a body that is left in a kayak motionless and you are thinking, " wow, they must be super duper to be alive after that " .

I have driven one of those, they are the same as driving a small one but you are way the hell bigger and weigh the hell more.

@newtboy.

I don't see the word fat as anything other than descriptive. That dancer was fat. I am fat. It is just a word. No "calling out" was intended.

What I meant by I wouldn't complain "as much" if men's bodies started being as constrained in the media was my inarticulate attempt to bring a sense of equality to my rant. I agree with you that there are more average looking women on TV. But "more" isn't many. What I was trying to say was -- right now, average looking men are everywhere in the media, way out of proportion to average looking women. That pisses me off. When there comes a time when average looking men start disappearing, my anger over the gender inequality of numbers will fade.

My anger over the under-representation of average-looking won't fade, though. I'll be equally as pissed on behalf of both genders.

I'm glad that you are engaging with me, and much more respectfully than I have engaged with you. I knew I shouldn't use the term "willfully blind." I was peeved and that wasn't fair nor kind. I apologize.

I will stick to "blind," though. The studies are there. Any casual watching of movies and TVs supports my position. So why are you blind, then? The facts don't support your position. Your claim to research is a puzzle to me. What research, when all the research supports my points? I concede your point that it is better than it used to be, but "by far"? No, my friend. Not "by far." Not even close to "by far."

Every little bit helps, though. Thank god for Gabourey and Melissa and Amy Schumer who proudly weighs a stupendous 160 pounds and makes fun of Comedy Central for trying to make her starve herself into stickness.

I remember weighing 160 pounds, when I was in my late 20s. I thought I was fat. Hell, I thought I was fat when I weighed 140 pounds. Now I weigh 240 pounds, and I really am fat. I wish I had Amy back then. Of course, she is a product of the latest wave of feminists who are calling bullshit on... well, the list is long. I'm so proud of her.

And I'm proud of my contribution that made it possible for her to do what she is doing. Yippee for us!

Thanks for such a respectful exchange. My apologies again for my ill-chosen, ill-mannered words.

@dannym3141,
tl;dr is always the risk when trying to also provide actual backing to something complicated, I understand the temptation, but by skipping over what I've said you've not understood me.

On the IPCC scenario, I used the RCP4.5 scenario, the one that is most widely quoted by them as their best estimate. It also the estimate they use when comparing model projections to observations, and the observations track well within it's error margins, albeit on the lower end of the RCP4.5 spectrum.
The IPCC says on temperatures by scenario in Chapter 12 of AR5:
global mean surface temperatures for 2081–2100, relative to 1986–2005 will likely be in the 5 to 95% range of the CMIP5 models; 0.3°C to 1.7°C (RCP2.6), 1.1°C to 2.6°C (RCP4.5), 1.4°C to 3.1°C (RCP6.0), 2.6°C to 4.8°C (RCP8.5). Global temperatures averaged over the period 2081–2100 are projected to likely exceed 1.5°C above 1850-1900 for RCP4.5
My sighting of 1.5C for 'best' from IPCC is derived from classing the 4.5 scenario as their best guess and I disagree with you that I'm materially misrepresenting or understanding them on it.

You also said:
... let us not pretend that the IPCC are above the skepticism...
Then later
I don't apologise for not reading the entire thread
I understand the thread is long, if you go back though you'll find I've made numerous references to additional peer-review journal articles backing and corroborating claims from the IPCC to make sure I'm not just cherry picking what might have been a politicized summary or assessment. So forgive, me but when you conclude with :
when you've cherry picked one quarter of a conclusion from one source
You are simply put, flat wrong.

Would you mind weighing in with your own position rather than a simply sitting on the fence calling us both too far on either side? I've been here refuting the notion that the scientific evidence tells us we face catastrophe prior to 2100, and even from some posters claims, catastrophe by 2050. I'm merely taking the stance that the science's best guess as approximated in IPCC RCP4.5, we aren't facing catastrophic collapse worthy of an action movie by 2100. I've said multiple times up thread we are facing problems, it's the severity I claimed by others that I am calling out for not being supported by evidence.

Yes, you did say all that, but you also said none of that is a problem, at least not one to be really worried about. To me, that sounds a lot like climate change denial 3.0, where 1.0 was 'it's not happening at all, don't panic', 2.0 was 'it's happening, but it's natural and normal, don't panic' and 3.0 is 'it's human caused, but no problem, don't panic'. All of those are arguments designed to stall, not to be correct. If I'm reading you wrong, I apologize, but I've heard that argument before from those definitely in that camp.

If the IPCC says it won't be disastrous, yes, we would disagree, because I say it already is, and so have they in their summaries of their last few reports. Just abnormal drought alone is disastrous in many places worldwide already, as is increased flooding in some areas. I did not read the entire PDF's, only what you quoted because they were only linked as downloads/files, and I don't download files from sites I don't recognize.

I linked the first google search pages that came up with water/glacial data, not the other dozen that said the same, or near the same thing, not the NOVA on glacial retreat that said the same thing, not the movie on the same topic with photographic proof of the retreats-Chasing Ice. You ignored that they did list their source for the 2/3 of Chinese cities low on water and the 50% loss of glacial mass per decade as the Chinese military and claimed they were source less so easily dismissed.
As for the diatoms and shellfish, I've seen numerous studies on them, and again just grabbed the first one that came up in a search with data. You seemed to dismiss it as well, but it's not alone. In one snail study I saw, the woman said the last few years it had become nearly impossible to get measurements because the snail shells literally turn to paste in her fingers and weighed nearly nothing! I'm glad to read now that you don't disagree that it's an issue, you only think it's not severe?

I'm not holding my breath on fusion or fission, we've heard the 'we're only 5 years away from fission/fusion' line before about as often as 'Iran is only 2 years away from having a nuclear bomb', but we can agree on wind and solar, except I say it is great for base load, you just need to pair it with micro hydro storage (pump water uphill with surplus solar/wind, then run micro hydro at night). Small solar/wind also decentralizes production, safeguarding from terrorism, and is quite cost effective. Mine paid for itself in well under 10 years.

My issue with your position is that what we do today just with CO2 production reduction won't really effect the atmosphere for 20-200 years (the accepted lifespan of 65-85% of atmospheric CO2, the remaining 15-35% takes thousands of years to be trapped) and that's only IF the ocean CO2 sink continues functioning, so we're already well past the point of avoiding moderate climate change. Without quick action, feedback loops like methane and/or ice sheets melting make the problem exponentially larger and difficult/impossible to manage at all. It may already be too late even if we cut to zero CO2 tomorrow, but it's certainly too late to avoid more, massive, unsolvable global issues if we don't even mitigate them before 2050.

Let's not get into the quagmire of global dimming from sulfur in coal actually mitigating a large part of expected global warming by reflecting sunlight. I've yet to hear a plan or study involving that variable.

I feel sorry for cyclists - they really should have their own little road/pathway - it's quite crazy to expect them to pedal alongside machines weighing a couple of tons, going three times as fast, and passing within a few inches of them at these speeds.

I mean, I understand it's hard to find enough space for them on existing roads, but new roads should have better planning. This planning should incorporate completely seamless cycling paths, so they don't have to duck in and out of traffic as they do at present.

Looks like the area was hit by an ice storm, everything is coated in ice. The branches were heavily weighed down causing the contact.

The unaddressed and unanswerable question is, what does the the world look like without a hegemon able to project power? Despots still abuse their citizens. Countries still invade each other. But by historical standards, the world is remarkably peaceful.

No land forcibly changed hands in Europe between 1946 and 2013. Now that some finally has, what are the democracies bordering Russia asking for? American bases.

I don't know if stability is worth $100 billion a year, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it is. What does the global economy look like if shipping isn't safe? How much production is lost when one country invades another, and refugees swarm across the border?

I don't like everything my country has done in the name of protecting world order, but I sure do like living in the most orderly world that has existed since our species evolved. It's natural for anyone under the age of 70 to take this for granted. But taking this for granted makes it impossible to properly weigh the benefits and costs of US military might.

from Forbes:

Unfortunately, this well-intended gesture is likely to either end badly or just end quietly. It will end badly if the company enacts the program as written, as Gravity is likely to experience reduced investor interest due to unusually high labor costs. A growing company with a $70,000 entry-level wage for every employee will be a difficult sell in the capital markets.

More likely, the plan will end quietly. As investors weigh in and influence company policy, the $70,000 minimum wage is likely to be drastically modified and adjusted. Conditions are likely to be placed on earning the $70,000 minimum, and industry standard wages will be subsidized with bonuses and other cash incentives to maintain the appearance of a $70,000 minimum wage. People unable or unwilling to commit to a bonus-based or incentive-based system will not select themselves for employment at Gravity. Within three years, Gravity’s pay structure will probably revert to industry standards, and Price’s minimum wage will be seen as a well-intended, but economically naïve, compensation plan.

It seems the divisions are based solely on weigh regardless. Seems women as of now are in two divisions. See divisions here http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/weight-classes

BWAAAHAAHHAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!! That's so awesome!
I grow a plant called dracunculus, which has the same, fly attracting flowers/scent, and look quite similar to yours. I grow them outside! They're both closely related to the corpse flower....


***World's Largest Flower (inflorescence) Amorphophallus titanum, or Titan arum
An enormous flower found in Indonesia, also called the "corpse flower" for its unpleasant odor. It emits the smell of rotting flesh and attracts pollinators. Technically, the Titan arum is not a single flower, but a cluster of many tiny flowers, called an inflorescence. The Titan arum has the largest unbranched inflorescence of all flowering plants. The plant can reach heights of 20 feet) and weigh as much as 170 pounds!


I would suggest putting it outside (not in direct sun) and let the flies go nuts. Congratulations on having a really weird, beautiful, and stinky flower! I hope you grow to like it (if not it's smell, at least it's look). ;-)