Ya know, the use of the term "rocket science" as a euphemism for something really complicated and hard isn't a coincidence. Read up on it sometime; it's not nearly as simple as it seems.

Except, you know, not the solitary part. You put them in a cage where they are bars that prevent physical interactions with others, yet you can still communicate. Its not rocket science. Oh, and noone, ever, deserves the time this man was sentenced to. If he did something that awful, just fucking put him to death. Its not as cruel.

Your video, Amateur Polish rocket science, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Actually I'm about as English as they come but crucially I spent my advanced academic career studying Philosophy and rhetoric (lamentably only to Hons. due to laziness) and consequently have an ingrained habit of arguing around a problem rather than relying on established parameters (not always entirely helpful when discussing more day to day matters as I'm sure you've by now gathered but it is essential to working with advanced epistemological problems and so serves me well none the less). I'm also prone to poor punctuation and odd patterns of grammar when I'm not going back over everything I write with a fine tooth comb which has likely not helped. (A consequence of learning to describe tangent after tangent when trying to thoroughly encapsulate some conceptual problems with language alone)

That said, while I may have gone around the houses so to speak I think my conclusion is entirely compatible with what I now understand your own to be.

I didn't want to describe my original counter-point by simply working with the idea that weight is lower on the moon relative to the earth (though I did not try to refute this either) because that would not illustrate why a 2-300kg man in a space suit still takes some shifting (relatively speaking) even if there were no gravity at all. (Would have been faster to just crunch some numbers but that's not what I specialise in)

Sure you could move anything with any force in 0G (which I do understand is technically relative as every object in the universe with mass exerts gravitational forces proportionately (and inversely proportional to the distance between)) but the resulting velocity is directly proportional to mass vs force applied. Weight here then, can be seen as another competing force in the equation rather than the whole thing which it can be convenient to treat it as for a simple calculation (which is what I think you are doing).

To put that another way I was applying a different/deeper linguistic/descriptive paradigm to the same objective facts because that's what we philosophers do. Single paradigm approaches to any subject have a dangerous habit of making one believe one possess such a thing as truly objective facts rather than interpretations only (which are all that truly exist).


In other terms weight alone isn't the whole story (as I assume you well know). Overcoming inertia due to mass scales up all by itself, then gravity comes along and complicates matters. This is why rocket scientists measure potential thrust in DeltaV rather than Watts, Joules etc. right? The mass of the object dictates how much velocity a given input/output of energy would equal.

Gravity and thus the force in newtons it induces (weight) in these terms is an additional force which depending upon the direction in which it is acting multiplies the required DeltaV to achieve the same effect. Moreover when concerning a force of inconstant nature (such as pushing up/jumping or a brief burn of an engine) brings duration into play also. (the foundations of why rocket science gets its fearsome reputation for complexity in its calculations)


Man on the moon lies on the ground and pushes off to try and stand back up.
This push must impart enough DeltaV to his body to produce a sufficient velocity and duration to travel the 2 meters or so needed to get upright so he can then balance the downward gravitational force with his legs&back and successfully convert the chemical/kinetic energy from his arms into potential energy as weight (the energy he uses to stand up is the same energy that would drag him down again right?).

One could practically speaking reduce this to a simple calculation of weight and thrust if all one wanted was a number. Weight would be the only number we need here as it incorporates the mass in it's own calculation (weight = mass x gravity)

But where's the fun in that? My way let's one go round all the houses see how the other bits of the paradigm that support this basic isolated equation function and inter-relate.

Plus (and probably more accurately) I've been playing loads of Kerbal Space Programme lately and have ended up conditioning myself to think in terms of rocketry and thus massively overcomplicated everything here for basically my own amusement/fascination.


Basically few things are more verbose and self indulgent than a bored Philosopher, sorry .


Re: Your challenge. (And I'm just guessing here) something to do with your leg muscles not being able to deliver the energy fast/efficiently enough? (as your feet would leave the ground faster/at a lower level of force?). This is the only thing I can think of as it's easier to push away from things underwater and it certainly looks difficult to push away hard from things when people are floating in 0g.

So lower resistance from gravity = less force to push against the floor with?

Warm? Even in the Ballpark? (Regardless I'm really pleased to discover you weren't the nut I originally thought you to be! (though I imagine you now have some idea what a nut I am))


If I got any of that wrong I'd be happy for you to explain to me why and where (assuming you can keep up with my slightly mad approach to syntax in the 1st place). I'm an armchair physicist (not that I haven't studied it in my time but I'm far from PHD) I'm always happy to learn and improve.

Uhhh, maybe you needed the sarcasm button for THAT statement. What's "factual" is the end result all over the fucking televison and internet, a national case-study of how to fuck-up a generation of imprint-able minds. Whether the scenario TC layed-down or a dozen others from the same petri, what do need, a diagram, a dozen "expert" analyses in the form of published thesis or someone YOU trust to make the leap??

Punks from broken homes matey, males and females with no business breeding, for lack of intent or abilities. It ain't fucking rocket-science man, it's model airplanes.

Flapping my wings to create gale-force winds, my most effective defense against blowhards.
Chorizo?? That shits nasty, only people I know of who eat that shit aren't your run-of-the-mill 'Hispanic', they're hardcore Mexican.

Oh and while we're on the subject, Mexican baked goods. I know the French were only there for maybe 6 years hard, but you'd think that Mexico might have gathered a bit more intelligence on the process of making a proper croissant? Butter fat vs beef tallow - ain't rocket science!

What else ain't rocket science? Seeing shit like this video and not knowing that you are already on planet police.

Uh huh, so a headline of a paper should be laser accurate and never indulge in subjective or editorial bias, but videos can be titled with whatever the poster decides regardless of the "facts"?

You're missing the point by a country mile. You want to hold Murdoch to account, good on ya. The guy is a fucking waste of skin imo. But if you are going to do it, it's hypocritical to use exactly the same tactics he uses.

It's not rocket science, the video can stand on it's own without the need for a sensationalist hyperbolic headline/title.

uhm, because it's survival instinct to fear and hate "the other" It's not exactly rocket science.

but instincts don't go away overnight or because of a magic law.

I know you well enough though bob to know how you would answer that question though and that you're not saying it because you know you'd be run out of here.

It demonstrates perfectly why racism still exists. Sorry, but civil rights for minorities is still relatively new. We still have too many people alive that can remember when a black man couldn't drink from the same fountain as a white

If you were raised on that idea being normal, sorry, it just doesn't go away for many people. And guess what, those people teach their kids the same discrimination. They don't understand why they're supposed to hate them, but that's how they were taught even though they might even know any black people. Eventually they might meet a black and they have to make a choice as to believe what they were taught or to reject it.

Its going to take a few generations. We're not probably going to live a completely integrated society.

Gotta also remember it wasn't that long ago whites discriminated among themselves based on ethnicity. Whether or not you had a job depended on if you were Irish or Italian, etc. And they made all the same bullshit arguments against the other ethnicities that whites say about blacks and other minorities now. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. It's not much of an issue now because there are only a handful of people still alive to even remember when that was an issue.

One doesn't excuse the other. It's pretty simple. There were two violations here. The german was crazy speeding, and the cop was crazy unprofessional and discriminatory.

The german speeding doesn't excuse the cop's behavior. This isn't rocket science.

I am not trolling. If it seems like I am from my last post - then I must have done a poor job making my point - it happens - but it is not my point to troll. I was trying to show the fact that these days even a kid knows how to sweep a room.

It's not rocket science. Don't be a sheep and accept something because an "expert" told you something. Think for yourself. - if you were one of those nutcases on a rampage - don't you think you might be checking the corners before entering a room.

I was tipping around the issue, but flat out, I think this guy is capitalizing on fear and cashing in the checks. I am not saying he doesn't know his shit - I think he def does and is a genuine bad ass - but that doesn't mean these are good tactics, it means he gets paid more for teaching you this garbage than a 2 min lesson that says lock the door and turn off the lights if you are unarmed.

Having an instructor give you straight talk - like you need to grab his gun while forcibly stabbing his face/eyes and with your pen puts people out of their comfort zone and doesn't sell as well to corporations. These feel good vids like this one do sell well and give people a sense of security that is misplaced.

Prepare for the enemy you will be facing, not the one you wish you were facing..

These people are not getting the training they think are - well at least not from what I saw in these clips.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

>> ^Jinx:Firstly he isn't giving any credit to Hitler.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what he did do. It's not like he was saying he liked Hitler or something, but the one sentence that referenced Hitler gave him credit for liquifying coal.
Not sure why anyone cares, though. He mentioned a positive thing Hitler might have been involved in, and it stands to reason that there must have been a few positives to the guy. But when you bring him up, you're going to catch some shit (I guess) if you don't end up condemning him.
And now, in order to avoid hand-launched vegetables, I conclude with...
That Hitler, what a horrible guy!

Ok, you even mention Hitler and you immediately have to finish your sentence with some bullshit disclaimer. I mean, the article in the OP contradicts its title by the second paragraph by way of explaining that Mitt wasn't actually supporting Hitlers politics with this statement but then close by saying he should be more tactful? Tactful for who? For the morons who'd take something so far out of context that a offhand comment about Hitler's energy policy suddenly becomes a call for the massacre of Jews? Fuck. That.


You notice how frequently people are outraged on behalf of "some people" - This unnamed silent group almost entirely fabricated for the purpose of a narrative. This is a non story with a bunch of chumps sitting around talking about how Mitt should watch his words in case "some people" get the wrong end of the stick. Find me these vegetable launchers, and if you do please explain to me why they matter?

Its sad because I think politicians are so afraid of being eviscerated for such minor "tactless" comments that they frequently end up saying nothing at all. We the people end up paying for this allergic reaction with politicians who will only answer in platitudes. It goes for policy too frankly. Perhaps if the democrats aim was to fulfill their promises rather than avoiding raising the ire of their opponents then more would have been done in the last 4 years...

As for the advances in science made by the Nazi regime...well thats tricky. Perhaps its unfortunate that we can't put some knowledge back in the box if it was discovered unethically. Still, the idea of liquified coal is quite seperate to say, the genetic experiments in concentration camps. We use Jet Engines that were first put to practical use by the Nazis, rocket science was given a big boost by the advances made in developing the V2...the list goes on. Unfortunately war of any kind is a big motivation for inovation. Even if we could, should we forget the advances made that have a loose connection to an ideology we oppose?

That's exactly right. Most hybrids used in HPR (High Power Rocketry) are sized so that there's not enough oxydizer to completely burn the propellant grain, which would then burn through the outer housing (usually metal).

There's also a lot more rocket science/engineering that goes into a good hybrid rocket, which this guy touches on. I'd never seen a transparent motor grain, however, and that's really interesting to see!

4" - So they're supposed to not bother because you've already seen it before? It IS cutting edge, it's still the best screen/OS on the market in terms of colour, ppi and font rendering, you're only using one factor to determine what's the "best". It's also completely a user preference, some of us don't want 5" screens in our pockets, I don't even want the iPhone5 screen, I prefer the old size but market pressure is forcing us all in to these stupid sizes.

resolution - ppi is more important at these sizes, cramming higher resolutions in to screens this small achieves little. If a phone has the ppi to use retina (or xtra-high density for Android) resources for its size, that is all that is required.

nfc - I feel like people want Apple to include this so it actually gets any traction in the real world because right now, the only people who give a shit or even know of it, are Android tech enthusiasts. That's not a problem, I'm glad you like tech but reality is that this is not in anyway an important feature. It'll be in the 5S probably and it'll get popular and then you'll probably hate Apple for copying or something. Or scoff that you've had it for X years except that your phone had no influence to change the retail sector.

LTE - Yes finally and with some good international support.

video calls over network - Yes, never was a lack of capability, it was network enforced to disallow it. It is nice to finally have it natively supported.

Panorama - Yeah I got nothing on this one, I couldn't give a flying fuck but hey, not like I couldn't give you an equally stupid list of features from any manufacture about all their "awesome exclusive" features. It's called marketing, no need to cry over it.

iOS is hardly stale, it is just not what YOU want out of it, it has been faithful to me for many long years and iOS 6 while boring in new features, is the smoothest it has ever run. I don't think it is a crime to like stability in your OS. Also people always like to call the general public stupid but they're really not, my mum doesn't like her iPhone/iPad for no reason, she likes them because they're the first product EVER to understand her needs. It is a common story, you'll hear it time and time again, Apple understands the needs of regular people, not necessarily tech junkies. The regular people market is MUCH bigger, hence Apple dominance, it ain't rocket science.

On a side note, this parody was pretty funny

>> ^spoco2:

Pretty much my thoughts on the iPhone5... a big ol' pile of 'meh'.
Oooh, a 4" display, that's... um... smaller than my hardly cutting edge Galaxy Nexus
Aaah, a lower resolution screen too.
Eeeeeh, no NFC (Not that I particularly care being that I've used it all but once)
Eeerrrr, LTE... finally
Iiieeeee, video calling over the mobile network. Hello there 9 years ago!
Ughghghuhuhuh, Panarama photos... oh, gee... wizzo, sure can't do that on my current phone.
I'm sure it's well built, I'm sure it works well but:
iOS looks REALLY dated and old now, it seriously needs a new look, it feels antiquated.
You're forced to use iTunes, which is a loathsome piece of software
It doesn't stop people climbing over the top of each other to get them, doesn't stop people who have no idea about tech at all thinking that there is none better than the iPhone5. Doesn't stop Apple's continued market dominance.
But still... Such a huge pile of 'meh'.

>> ^kavalow9:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
I find it interesting that changing the word "was" to the word "is" can make a statement into a lie so easily.

I stand corrected Ryjkyj, I should have added Obama's definition changed about three months ago. Anyway this video is about something Romney allegedly did years ago as Governor, long before the President came out of the closet. Who knows, maybe Mitt will become a lifetime member of Man’s Country Bathhouse too if he thinks it will help with his LGBT fundraisers.:


Yeah... again, there's a difference between having to project a certain political opinion in order to get elected, and aggressively taking action against something. This isn't rocket science. It's something even two-year-olds understand.

I don't claim to evaluate the "soul" put into the music, I'm just saying that she doesn't seem particularly exceptional on the guitar. Her form seems awkward to me, but that comes with more experience.

It also seems as a bit of a put-on to have overly echoing vocals, but I suppose that's a matter of taste.

If this was a guy, it wouldn't have 5 votes, not that I'm judgin' on that, I'm just saying musically this isn't fucking mozart, it's just good.

>> ^chingalera:

>> ^gwiz665:
She sings just fine, but her guitar work is pretty basic.
Very cute though.

Yeah? Well the chord work for the tune as composed ain't rocket-science on the fretboard there wizzzy. Yeah, yeah, a few folks here have seen you play your guitar including myself and guess what?? Your own skills on the guitar come from rote and practice with very little soul or natural talent....
The showcase here anyhow, is her incredibly sincere and lilting voice and the SOUL that resides within her interpretation.
Soooo, thanks for the egotistical observations there,
MISTER Malmsteen!