"I think she said feck...."

Hey that's Michael Angarano (the dark haired boy), who shortly after losing this role bounced back with the role of young William in Almost Famous! Not a bad consolation prize.

Also, interesting that Jake Lloyd seems confident and pretty strong in these clips. The script, not so much... hmmm.

So at what point can scientist's finally say, "We told you so!" I bet it'll happen in the next 5 years. I'm guessing by that point, the climate effects will be severe enough to prove climate science absolutely irrefutable. For now, we can march forward in relative uncertainty with the well-funded media campaigns of climate sceptics and their message of ignorance.

There might even be a bounce-back year coming up. One where the global climate actually averages 1.0 to 0.5C cooler over the year. I'm hoping it doesn't fuel the sceptic campaign too much longer, because the trend is far too frightening to imagine if humanity misses the window.

[edit: 7/8/2012] My father in-law, a staunch climate change denier, says humorously that he was planning to die in 4 years. In order to prove me wrong and laugh in my face however, he says he will now hang on for another 6!

ChaosEngine, your comment below is understandable. I think world citizens will change their tune in the next 5 years, however. The Green Party will probably gain huge waves of support even without SuperPacs because their campaign message will be felt more and more each year. Just as organized religion had its reign and lost influence as science and society have revealed its fallacy, so too will the sceptic's argument lose out over ever-mounting empirical support of the truth: that human activities have indeed altered the Earth's climate for centuries to come. That is to say as long as we have free lines communication through tools such as the Internet.

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.

>> ^SaNdMaN:

Just goes to show you, all those scooter-bound "disabled" fat people that you see riding around the supermarket CAN become normally functioning humans if they really wanted to.


I get what you're saying, it's not completely insensitive and some people need the extra push that a little cynical doubt can bring. In fact, a lot of people need that.

BUT...

The story of people who were once very physically fit, who get injured and then bounce back, is a really common scenario. In fact, many of the pictures you see in nutrition ads and diet books of people making crazy improvements come from pictures of athletes who've injured themselves. They get hurt and then take some recovery time to allow themselves to heal up, during which they gain a lot of weight and lose muscle mass. Then they get back on the old program and sell or trade the pics for endorsements or supplements, etc.

I'm not trying to say that this video isn't impressive. Just that everyone is different.

There are two halves to the assertion. Firstly that people who are currently not wealthy would not in fact become wealthy with an injection of cash... now although as far as I know nobody has done the experiment that @quantumushroom suggests, winning the lotto seems to me to be a reasonable proxy for it and there have been studies of lotto winners, nicely referenced here:

http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=141224

The relevant part is that it really doesn't change people to have a bit more money, one study found that after 5 years on average they had spent 44% of the money, and another found that after 5 years a third had gone bankrupt.

For the second half of the assertion, that the people who are currently wealthy would (in the absence of regulations to prevent it) get wealthy again... well, I can't back up that half of the assertion. I have heard anecdotes of people who have lost everything and then bounced back, but am not aware of any studies.

I think 3 years is too soon. I think it would take 10 years.

>> ^Trancecoach:

>> ^quantumushroom:
<ad hominem deleted>. Divide up all the wealth in America and in 3 years or less, it would look close to the way it does today.

prove it. or at least provide evidence to back it up.

Nothing you couldn't bounce back from though Im sure.

>> ^grinter:

I saw that once. Trampoline hit a car. It was a stormy new years eve. Gave a freaky edge to the evening.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
That's why smarter workers say, "Screw this, there's a better way" and start their own businesses. What do the Occupoopers want? To make government point a bigger gun at the owners, take more of their wealth and redistribute it, with the heaviest showers going to do-nothings and professional gamers of the system. And no liberal has ever believed in the "rising tide", that would imply forces other than government are creating wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
But what enables the fraudsters to practice this crony capitalism? Government. And what do the Occupoopers want? MOAR government! They wrongly believe that government, if only big enough, can regulate corruption out of human nature.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.
If you removed Jugears from the White House tomorrow and replaced him with a mannequin, indicating government would do nothing the next 2 years, the economy would bounce back literally overnight. The rabble may like this welfare pimp daddy, but the American people have had it with this marxist knucklehead. They admit they were fooled and are patiently waiting for him to leave before getting back to business.

any system, no matter what its founding principles, must be to the benefit of as many people as possible. American corporatocracy is not doing that.
The Occupoopers have been a drain on the middle class. Their stupid, ineffectual protests have costs cities millions in cleanup and police overtime. Who pays for that?
Socialists think THEIR way benefits as many people as possible. It doesn't, and it's unsustainable (e.g. Europe).
Yes, things need to change, but these dummies are not the change we've been waiting for.





>> ^messenger:
There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:
These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.





You are aware that deregulation of the market is what cussed the current economic climet ?

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.

That's why smarter workers say, "Screw this, there's a better way" and start their own businesses. What do the Occupoopers want? To make government point a bigger gun at the owners, take more of their wealth and redistribute it, with the heaviest showers going to do-nothings and professional gamers of the system. And no liberal has ever believed in the "rising tide", that would imply forces other than government are creating wealth.

Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.

But what enables the fraudsters to practice this crony capitalism? Government. And what do the Occupoopers want? MOAR government! They wrongly believe that government, if only big enough, can regulate corruption out of human nature.

Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.

If you removed Jugears from the White House tomorrow and replaced him with a mannequin, indicating government would do nothing the next 2 years, the economy would bounce back literally overnight. The rabble may like this welfare pimp daddy, but the American people have had it with this marxist knucklehead. They admit they were fooled and are patiently waiting for him to leave before getting back to business.

any system, no matter what its founding principles, must be to the benefit of as many people as possible. American corporatocracy is not doing that.

The Occupoopers have been a drain on the middle class. Their stupid, ineffectual protests have cost cities millions in cleanup and police overtime. Who pays for that?

Socialists think THEIR way benefits as many people as possible. It doesn't, and it's unsustainable (e.g. Europe).

Yes, things need to change, but these dummies are not the change we've been waiting for.











>> ^messenger:

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:
These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.

>> ^nach0s:

It didn't hit him. It grazed him, though. He would have at least put his hands up to his face after being hit.


He definitely got hit. Here's the same thing, but slower. The guy get hit right in the face, and it bounces back into the cameraman's head/camera, before bouncing back in the initial direction. It's possible he was just trying to throw it up into the stands like GenjiKilpatrick says, and just really sucks. He definitely sees that he hits the man in the face, though, and ignores him after. Accident or perhaps not an accident, Michael Boley is a jerk.

[Edit] - Looks like he's talked about this, since, claiming temporary insanity. Being a player on the defense, he had no expectation or even idea of what to do on a touchdown like that, and got overexcited tying to throw the ball into the wall. Just happens to have been an intern in the way? I'd still have apologized. Doesn't look like he has afterwards, either. Oh well.

Nice! I've actually hit one that's landed on the other side of the court and through a combination of spin and wind bounced back over to my side.

^Chile has begun to bounce back, thanks to return to democracy, which prompted the dismantling of many of Friedman's edicts. However, there are still many scars left over from the Pinochet/Friedman days, such as income inequality.

History shows that Bush II ran on a platform of non-interventionism and smaller government yet increased government size more than any previous president.

Well, there was that thing with the turbaned vermin crashing planes into buildings. Even though Bush was a half-liberal who spent like an amateur one, isn't it odd how quickly the economy bounced back after 9-11, with no failouts (and the Bush legacy AFAIC, is a failure because of the ensuing failouts).

Hey, remember me? I'm the Two Years AFTER Bush II left office. Taxocrat-controlled Congress? His Earness the Spendaholic in the Red House? Have you seen the deficit lately? Government spending? Tyranny is NOW.

Is this new Republican platform simply empty rhetoric? Or is the party shifting its political paradigm?

Well dude, as elections go, you/me/we have little choice in the matter. The 'losertarians', like all 3rd parties, have little to no effect on anything. And if enough people did want to legalize the weed etc., the smarter of the Big Two parties would steal the idea and claim it for themselves. It's why RoPaul is a Republican.

The chocie is pretty clear at this...juncture. We're not going to survive another 2 years of unopposed Odumbo, the angry left-wing radical who is a "moderate" only to those left of fcking stalin. You're kicking the tires and complainin' about the business-as-usual shortcomings of pre-'06 Republicans? Won't mean shit if there's no country to defend, and obama's commicare if not repealed immediately after November 2nd, just might be the last straw before revolution.

Oyess, revolution is an option. Guvmint can't keep stealing from the productive to buy the votes or loyalty of the unproductive. Now who you want to cast as the villains in that statement is up to you, corporations or unions or whomever. The fact remains: the center cannot hold.

November 2nd, 2010 is the most important election in your lifetime (before 2012). Don't blow it.

He was out cold on his feet. You can tell because his head didn't bounce back, it just stayed back, his mouth opened, his hands dropped. The referee knew what he was doing.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Yeah, the ref was awfully quick to stop the fight there considering the condition he allowed Corrales to continue in.
Either way, still damn impressive.

Hang on here. Let's be fair. I don't know who invented touchscreens or pinch to zoom or whatever and I don't much care.
But it's Apple who have come along and made mobile devices that are nice to use - very nice. No one else was rushing to take a chance on making an iphone. If it wasn't for them I reckon we would still be stuck with devices like my Nokia 6680, which is admittedly rubbish and with each passing day becomes more annoying to use. I've stuck it out for ages but gradually, very gradually, I can hear the call of an HTC Desire.

Before this I experimented with a Palm Tungsten PDA - overall it wasn't great. You had to use the stylus and learn that grafiti thing. And there was no itunes equivalent, no desire to connect with the customer and installing programs was tedious and would be buggy when you did. It didn't make me productive and it wasn't much fun either.

Isn't the digital landscape that more fertile for everyone now thanks to Apple?

@Farhad2000 - just to be clear there's no way they're forcing you to buy their products. I'm not using any - the limitations just rub me the wrong way.

>> ^campionidelmondo:

>> ^dag:
I would also posit that the same thing has happened, albeit in a smaller way, with the iPhone and iPad. finger optimised UI, Flick to scroll, bounce back scrolling, pinch to zoom and more are innovations out of Apple's skunkworks. These innovations exist on Android and Pre phones - but to assume that this would have happened without Apple is naive.

Nope sorry, Apple did not "invent" all of these things. I know about flicking and pinch to zoom being around before the iPhone, there's even a video of a desk-sized tabled demo employing those tecniques around here, but I can't find it right now.
Good thing Apple did not invent the mouse cursor, or else we all would have to use some weird thingy like a crosshair or sth because you can bet your ass they would've patented it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm sure you could find some technology demo out there that had something similar. And you're right that Apple didn't invent the mouse, or even the windows metaphor - but my point is that we (the people) weren't using mice and windows before Apple came out with the Mac - and likewise we weren't pinching and zooming or flicking to scroll until Apple invented the iPhone.

>> ^campionidelmondo:

>> ^dag:
I would also posit that the same thing has happened, albeit in a smaller way, with the iPhone and iPad. finger optimised UI, Flick to scroll, bounce back scrolling, pinch to zoom and more are innovations out of Apple's skunkworks. These innovations exist on Android and Pre phones - but to assume that this would have happened without Apple is naive.

Nope sorry, Apple did not "invent" all of these things. I know about flicking and pinch to zoom being around before the iPhone, there's even a video of a desk-sized tabled demo employing those tecniques around here, but I can't find it right now.
Good thing Apple did not invent the mouse cursor, or else we all would have to use some weird thingy like a crosshair or sth because you can bet your ass they would've patented it.