We killed a homeless man on this bench. Me and Dru. Those were good times. You know, he begged for mercy, and you know, that only made her bite harder.

Spike ,'Sleeper'


Natter 53: We could just avoid making tortured puns  

Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.


shrift - Sep 07, 2007 6:39:33 am PDT #9034 of 10001
"You can't put a price on the joy of not giving a shit." -Zenkitty

Upside: better commute. Downside: no office

I'm not willing to get up at the buttcrack of dawn for an office. I have skewed priorities.


Jesse - Sep 07, 2007 6:40:52 am PDT #9035 of 10001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

OMG, I am starving like WOAH. (Do people still say that? Hmmm.) I think I need to go get lunch, which is ridiculous, I know.


tommyrot - Sep 07, 2007 6:41:16 am PDT #9036 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.

1) You are driving a car, and you accelerate from 0 to 25 mph. Say the amount of energy required is x. Now you continue to accelerate from 25 mph to 50 mph. What is the total amount of energy you used to accelerate from 0 to 50 mph?

OK, my intuition would be 2x. Because if you're accelerating at the same rate, it would take x energy to go 0-25 and then x more to go from 25-50. But that's wrong. It's actually 4x. That seems really unintuitive, which prompted me to do much thinking to reconcile that.

The weird thing (to me) is that an object moving twice as fast as another object (of the same weight) has four times the energy, not two. The way I finally got an intuitive understanding of that is to think of dropping an object from ten feet, and it having a velocity of y when it hits the ground. Now to get the velocity to be double that, you would have to drop the object from four times as high, not two times. It seems intuitive that carrying an object up to 40 feet would take four times the energy than carrying it up to 10 feet. Then when you drop it from forty feet it would only have twice the velocity as from 10 feet. But it would still have four times the energy.

Damn, this is difficult to explain - have I just confused everyone so far?

(to be cont.)


Steph L. - Sep 07, 2007 6:42:10 am PDT #9037 of 10001
the hardest to learn / was the least complicated

Ack! Jesse, you just reminded me that I didn't bring a lunch today. (I ate all my deli turkey [intended for a sandwich] last night.)

Hmm. Am tempted to go next door to Chipotle and get a burrito bigger than my head....


Matt the Bruins fan - Sep 07, 2007 6:42:21 am PDT #9038 of 10001
"I remember when they eventually introduced that drug kingpin who murdered people and smuggled drugs inside snakes and I was like 'Finally. A normal person.'” —RahvinDragand

Cats haven't reached terminal velocity in falls that short though, they just have more time to flip themselves over into landing position. I think they'd hit terminal velocity about the same time as similarly dense human beings... somewhere around 60 stories, isn't it?


Dana - Sep 07, 2007 6:42:28 am PDT #9039 of 10001
"I'm useless alone." // "We're all useless alone. It's a good thing you're not alone."

I'm not willing to get up at the buttcrack of dawn for an office. I have skewed priorities.

Yeah, additional sleep, even just fifteen minutes or so, will make me happy. Or maybe more, depending on how I shift my hours.

Of course, once I've spent some time without an office, I'll probably be whining about how I'd trade a little sleep for my office back.


tommyrot - Sep 07, 2007 6:44:39 am PDT #9040 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.

Why am I thinking about this? I believe that to really get an understanding of physics (or math, or science in general) it's much better to get an intuitive grasp of what's going on rather than just memorizing formulas. But it's weird to me that the physics of motion and energy seems so damn unintuitive, which made me obsessed with actually getting that intuitive understanding.


§ ita § - Sep 07, 2007 6:46:46 am PDT #9041 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

ita-level specificity

I thought it was totally commonly supposed to be true.

a cat thrown from a 10-story window is just as likely to survive as a cat thrown from a 5-story window, or whatever the minimum cat-flip-over-land-on-feet height is

I guess you're not of the school of thought that has the fall (and not the attempted landing) as being the first fatal bit, huh? Is that supposed to be true, or debunked? Also, how do you test and remain even vaguely ethical?


shrift - Sep 07, 2007 6:47:50 am PDT #9042 of 10001
"You can't put a price on the joy of not giving a shit." -Zenkitty

I'll probably be whining about how I'd trade a little sleep for my office back.

I wouldn't trade sleep for an office even if it meant getting away from Tiny the Loud Talking Sales Guy. Unless my iPod died.

In other news, Bill Clinton will be at the Michigan Ave. Borders in about an hour.


Sophia Brooks - Sep 07, 2007 6:48:42 am PDT #9043 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

Um... my cat fell out of a second story window seemingly unhurt, however 1 week later he tried to kill me. I am not sure if proves or disproves the theory.