Well the inverse square law will take the edge off at range.. still:
'DO NOT POINT LASER INTO REMAINING EYE'

You make this point but I am guessing that you are not willing to accepts its inverse, which was the point Kofi was alluding to.

By your logic:
Syria is well within its rights to attack the US because they are actively aiding rebels.
Iran is well within its rights to attack Syrian rebels because they are undermining a client state.
Syria is well within its rights to bomb Israel because they are housing US weapons.

Or as Glenn Greenwald put it :

One could say quite reasonably that this is the pure expression of the crux of US political discourse on such matters: they must abide by rules from which we're immune, because we're superior. So much of the pseudo-high-minded theorizing emanating from DC think thanks and US media outlets boils down to this adolescent, self-praising, tribalistic license: we have the right to do X, but they do not.

@cosmovitelli he can't have understood Marx if he can't tell the difference between Communism and Socialism, and he shouldn't bother either since Marx rarely makes any goddamned sense. He's better off learning socialism from anybody else.

You make statements loudly, but you don't make a point. Yes, we need governments, but like you said, they're not agents of the people, they're corrupt and selfish power hungry institutions. I agree with you. If that's the case, doesn't it logically follow that having LESS government is the way to reduce the amount of damage the "powerful" can do to us?

@aaronfr I won't argue whether you were pandering, just that the points you made were awfully cheap, had nothing to do with libertarianism, but with the obvious and laziest misinterpretation one can make of it. Starting your reply with "Libertarian nonsense" is the easiest way to get upvotes from the videosift scum of mindless socialists that can't be bothered to read a full post worth of innacurate statements.

@dag it makes me even sadder that you seem to believe government has your best interests at heart. The government is the agent of that very wealth inequality that makes you so angry. I see limiting government as the way to limit that blatant social injustice, the very institution that tricks suckers into thinking it is "redistributing wealth", when in fact it's been acting as an inverse Robin Hood all this time, taking from everybody, and wasting or giving to the disgustingly rich 1%. Don't dehumanize me, don't dismiss me as some shill for the wealthy, as a brainwashed second-handed thinker. Can't you seriously consider the possibility that government is not part of the solution, but part of the problem? Is that too unbelievable for you?

This is more narrative than fact, but it is a fun narrative; most notable the inverse square law came around 1687 and his calculus was claimed in 1666, but only published in 1696 long after the Leibniz/Newton calculus controversy had begun. Philosophy minded people always credit Leibniz with being one of the smartest people ever, and Science people with Newton and fall in line usually with how they feel about the invention of calculus and such. The facts are always a bit more complicated than simple, cause driven narrative like this, but he is pretty much known for this kind of stuff, so whatever, Ill just have fun

>> ^renatojj:

That's how the media, left and right, treated him for the entirety of his campaign. Any respect and coverage he got was inversely proportional to his perceived chance of winning.


...And so it goes, each election more absurd than the next until who knows? Maybe some new, "New Deal" after all the cocka-roaches are gone, calling up the depressed Roosevelt-styley to help rebuild the infrastructure? I for one, hope it includes a beautification of the entire United States in the form of razing every strip-center and billboard for starters.
This includes my first act in office, criminalizing inherently evil entities too big for their britches like Walmart and Monsanto, and razing THEIR improvements on real estate assets while demanding the offspring of their CEO's to walk naked with sandwich board signs on a remote mangrove swamp with mock city streets resembling their home-towns, filled with CCTV cameras with a live feed for folks around the world to deride them for all eternity, amen.

That's how the media, left and right, treated him for the entirety of his campaign. Any respect and coverage he got was inversely proportional to his perceived chance of winning.

The cost of a cancer treatment is inversely proportional to it's efficacy.

See www.icurecancer.com.

>> ^doogle:

if the video was upside down we'd get a 1st person POV
LifeHack: Place the long edge of your smartphone against your eyebrows with the screen toward the floor. Voila! Instant video inversion! (Note: The phone should be off while watching the video on your desktop.)

Well that's a great first impression. Perhaps by being the inverse of Apple they hope to avoid their lawsuits?

I heard it's good but pity it's got no SD storage or HDMI.

>> ^bmacs27:

Brains are unnecessary for experiencing pain. I'm assuming happiness is inversely correlated with the experience of pain.>> ^Lolthien:
Well, to be fair, clams don't have brains.. so it's likely not 'unhappy'.



That is not unreasonable. For what it's worth, I do agree this is cruel in a 'little-kid-doesn't-know-better-and-mom-doesn't-either' sort of way.

Brains are unnecessary for experiencing pain. I'm assuming happiness is inversely correlated with the experience of pain.>> ^Lolthien:

Well, to be fair, clams don't have brains.. so it's likely not 'unhappy'.

This thread has gotten me very curious to try all these things out for myself.

As far as equally weighted particles go, what you describe is not what we observe. We always see the same number of particles leave as came in, no matter their total momentum. A single particle going 1m/s ejects one particle also going 1m/s (I'm talking in ideal terms). A single particle going 2m/s doesn't release two particles going 1m/s, just one going 2m/s. The same particle going 100m/s likewise doesn't release 100 particles going 1m/s, nor 50 going 2m/s nor any other combination. As the force passes through the stationary particles, there's nothing to say what the mass or velocity of the striking particle was, just what the product of those two things was.

As for different sized particles, not having seen this done, if a solid (I mean a single piece, or welded together) 2kg particle came in at 1m/s, I predict a single 1kg particle would be ejected at 2m/s. My reason is the same as above: that when one ball strikes, the only information transmitted through the stationary particles is the total amount of force, not the velocity or mass of the striking object. Thus, the force transmitted through the stationary particles would be identical whether a 1kg ball struck at 2m/s or a 2kg ball struck at 1m/s. All this force is transmitted into the last ball which leaves with the same amount of force in the form of velocity as a factor of its mass, whatever that may be.

I think fusing the two balls together would fundamentally change their behaviour. I think when two loose balls hit together, the first one hits the stationary ones, bounces back towards the second ball which then stops, sending a second shock wave through the stationary particles, thus sending two signals very close together, and releasing two particles out the other side.

To continue the thought experiment, what if it were a 1.2kg particle striking a row of 1kg balls? I think it would be one particle going out at 1.2m/s, rather than 1 particle at 1m/s and a second at 0.2m/s or two of them together at 0.6m/s.>> ^heathen:

As you said momentum is mass velocity, and force is mass acceleration.
It's the mass of the particles entering that determines the mass of the particles leaving.
As the balls in a Newton's cradle all have equal mass it's tempting to restate that as the number of particles rather than the mass of the particles.
However if you designed a cradle to have four 1kg balls and one 2kg ball then swinging the 2kg ball would cause two 1kg balls to be displaced. (The same effect as taping or gluing two 1kg balls together.)
In a normal Newton's Cradle the acceleration, due to gravity, is constant.
The constant mass and constant acceleration cause the predictability, as the only energy lost is to air resistance and other negligibles such as sound or minimal compression of the balls on impact.
The forces introduced by the magnet scale inversely with distance, making the outcome a lot more unpredictable.

>> ^messenger:

I know that multiple balls hitting one side will cause multiple balls to be released from the other side, but momentum isn't measured by counting the incoming particles; it's measured by mass velocity, and that's all. One ball hitting with great speed usually releases one ball at great speed out the other side. Two balls with very low speed, even with less total momentum than the single fast-moving ball, will release two balls from the other side at the same low speed. It's something about the number of particles, not their momentum, that determines how many are ejected.

As you said momentum is mass*velocity, and force is mass*acceleration.

It's the mass of the particles entering that determines the mass of the particles leaving.
As the balls in a Newton's cradle all have equal mass it's tempting to restate that as the number of particles rather than the mass of the particles.
However if you designed a cradle to have four 1kg balls and one 2kg ball then swinging the 2kg ball would cause two 1kg balls to be displaced. (The same effect as taping or gluing two 1kg balls together.)

In a normal Newton's Cradle the acceleration, due to gravity, is constant.
The constant mass and constant acceleration cause the predictability, as the only energy lost is to air resistance and other negligibles such as sound or minimal compression of the balls on impact.

The forces introduced by the magnet scale inversely with distance, making the outcome a lot more unpredictable.

@bobknight33 Are you reading and comprehending?

Like Enoch already pointed out, this video is fallacious.

The argument Robbins poses is: A combination of taxing the rich PLUS cutting expenses will make the nation solvent once again.

To prove this, he attacks a weaker position: Only taxing the rich will make the nation solvent once again

Hence, straw man fallacy.

The inverse of argument: Only cutting expenses will make the nation solvent.

Is just as invalid.

Too Long, Didn't Read

Immediately eliminating all entitlements still leaves a 17 Trillion dollar debt.