vpozzoli

Play the ball, not the player - what does that have to do with gun crime in England? Look up "control group" and you might figure it out. Cheers, Vale

John, you are making absolutely zero sense, to the point that talking to a stone would probably be less of a waste of time. I'm done arguing with you, enjoy your recipes Vale

OK, if you want to see it that way. In that case the ban was 100% successful in preventing the particular gun crime it was meant to address. It did not prevent other types of gun crimes like f.e. armed robbery, but so what? It was never meant to in the first place. Your attempt at twisting words around doesn't make John's argument any less of a strawman. Cheers, Vale

Yeah right, I forget that you people only accept something as "proof" only if it proves your own point. As for it not having any effect on gun crime, so what? Once again, it was never meant to address that, it would have been surprising if it had had any. Are you really not getting the point or are you just playing dumb? Vale

Yeah, like you don't know already. Her is a nice news article to help jog your memory http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm It' already been pointed out in one of John's previous "England bashing" threads that there have been no further massacres in England since the ban. It could therefore be argued that the "ban" was 100% effective in achieving its stated goal. Have a nice day. Vale

John, you know damn well that England's "gun ban" was never meant to address the issue of "gun crime". The proposing legislators said so right from the start. This has been pointed out to you dozens of times yet you keep using this same BS strawman argument to prove that the gun ban was "ineffective". Ineffective in addressing an issue it was never meant to address? Big effing surprise! Your continued use of this argument reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Give it up will you? Vale

Same goes here in Italy. There are no actual regulations or guidelines at this stage, just a bunch of people arguing with each other AADs are only actually mandated for students, but of course a DZO can refuse to let you jump without one, but seeing as she has one that won't be a problem. The same DZO might arbitrarily decide to not let her jump because of her wing loading, but at her jump numbers that seems unlikely. Cheers, Vale

Aerodynamic forces scale linearly with air density, but to the square power with speed. In short this means that speeds (both horizontal and vertical) increase by the square root of the air density ratio. In your example, a 1000 ft/min descent rate at 1 atmosphere becomes, at 0.5 atmospheres, 1000 times the square root of 2 (1.0/0.5=2). That results in approximately 1400 ft/min descent rate at 18,000 ft altitude (that's 0.5 atmospheres according to the ISA standard model, reality may vary). Cheers, Vale

Ok here's my take on it, for what it's worth. Question 1 must be some sort of trick question. The first answer that comes to mind is: you use a variable of type int when you need to store an integer, a variable of type double when you need to store a floating point number with that kind of precision, but that seems too obvious. Also technically you can store an integer number in a variable of type double, you'll just have to explicitly round everything off, whereas by using an int you get automatic rounding (that is, if you are actually mixing integers and floats in your expressions, otherwise there is nothing to round off to begin with). Definitely a tricky question. As for question 2 I totally agree with your answer, i.e. to improve readability. It cannot be in order to enforce the order of the operations as in that case the parentheses wouldn't qualify as "extra", being as it is that removing them will change the result makes them part of the expression and not something added as "extra" by the programmer. And yes, operator order and precedence is mandated, both in vanilla C and C++, nothing is left to the compiler implementation. That is, unless you have a non-standard compiler, in which case you'll just have to refer to your compiler manual for that. Cheers, Vale

Just curious, Bill. If you were on your way home from the DZ and you saw a fellow skydiver and friend getting beat up by 2 guys, would you stop and help him out or just keep on driving and think to yourself "I'm glad it isn't me getting the shit kicked out of me." If you later heard another skydiver stopped to help, would you consider that skydiver a bully? Sorry to burst your bubble, but that "World Police" smokescreen doesn't fool anybody (though the movie was really funny ). If communism hadn't been the big enemy of the US at the time, they would have done absolutely nothing to help the South Koreans. Just like the US currently does absolutely nothing to help out other countries unless it has further reasons to do so. That kind of BS doesn't fool anybody any more. Cheers, Vale

Read it finally. Sounds the same as here. Sorry, you totally lost me. What should I read? And what sounds like what? I feel like I'm missing a piece of the conversation. Vale "I" read your response (red, not reed). Thanks, Italy sounds like it has the same policy as most everyone else in the west - including the US. Edit: Reviewing the e-mail string, I see you were mocking NCclimber instead of implying that the US didn't do this as I had first inferred. My bad. Actually, I was starting to suspect that you might have misunderstood my position, and weren't just being sarcastic. But my misunderstanding of your last sentence (if only English spelling wasn't so bloody arbitrary ) had me leaning towards the latter interpretation, but evidently there was some misunderstanding on my part too. Oh well, what really matters is that we did manage to understand each other, eventually Cheers, Vale

Read it finally. Sounds the same as here. Sorry, you totally lost me. What should I read? And what sounds like what? I feel like I'm missing a piece of the conversation. Vale

What proof do you have that I "have zero idea how the scientific process is supposed to work(s)"? Did you concluded that from my last two posts? Actually, I'm glad you pointed this out, as it allows me to apply your "Fool me once..." principle to my own statements thus providing a fine example of its fallacy (your principle's, that is). Firstly let me admit that I was wrong in claiming that "You have zero knowledge etc. etc.", as I cannot provide proof of my assertion based on the available data, which right now consists only of your previous posts. So, I have decided to admit my mistake and offer you an apology. At the same time I wish to reformulate my theory regarding your knowledge of the basic principles of science. My new theory is "NCclimber has shown no knowledge in his previous posts of how the scientific process is supposed to work". This does not necessarily mean you actually have no knowledge, heck for all I know you might actually be an esteemed epistemologist, but maybe you have chosen to make your statements based for example on political motives, even though you are well aware htat they are wrong but have chosen to ignore this uncomfortable truth But wait a sec, let's apply your "Fool me once..." principle to this specific situation that I have created. Since a couple of posts ago I have made scientifically incorrect statements and have admitted to this fact publicly, going as far as formulating a new scientific theory, this, according to your principle, makes me wrong again! The mere FACT that you actually indisputably appear, based only on your previous posts where you try and discredit a scientist by showing that he is in fact doing what a scientist is supposed to do, to have no knowledge of what science is about (note again the use of the word APPEAR), according to your line of reasoning should not be taken into account in any way whatsoever, simply because I was wrong once and even admitted it openly. Wow this is getting complicated, I'm beginning to get an headache Cheers, Vale

Actually, it's not so self evident to me. Care to elaborate after reading my response to your question? Cheers, Vale

Or even the citizens.... like Oriana Fallaci? And let the mud slinging start... By the way, I don't really get your reference, care to explain? Vale

As far as I know, exactly like most other countries, i.e. with very few exceptions like for instance political rights (such as the right to vote or run for public office etc.) as long as you're here you'll have the same rights as any other citizen. There are no laws that only apply to citizens and vice versa, this includes both rights and duties. In short, you cannot carry on the bank robbery you were planning to do in Italy with impunity , you'll be tried and convicted like any other citizen, which means you will have a fair trial as defined by current local law just like any citizen. Cheers, Vale P.S. This of course does not include the right to immigrate legally, that is a privilege and is given or denied according to current immigration policies. But once you're in you're not a second class person. P.P.S. Actually there is a notable exception to the "no immunity" law, and that is U.S. Military personnel stationed in Italy as part of NATO cannot be tried by the local courts, but this does not equate to actual immunity as they still have to be tried by a US court, either civil or military. That's a bit questionable if you ask me and the results are often a joke but hey, you won the war so that must make it right, no?

Wow, a scientist who adapts his theories to fit new data? Unthinkable. Fool me once, shame on you... Obviously, you have zero idea how the scientific process is supposed to work. Unfortunately, you're definitely not alone in this Bye, Vale

How about you extend to them the same rights and privileges that you afford your own citizens? After all, you're the ones claiming to have the moral higher ground, actually acting like it might do you some good. Vale

I really doubt it, after all he's not even a citizen, and he has a funny name too... Vale

Wow, a scientist who adapts his theories to fit new data? Unthinkable. And to think I always thought that science was immutable, like religion or philosophy. What will they tell us next, that the Sun doesn't really revolve around the Earth? Cheers, Vale

Ehm... I believe the officially sanctioned, PC expression is "independent contractor" Vale

Free speech applies to all parties by the very definition of universal right. This does not automatically give anybody the right to enter Columbia's premises (I'm assuming Columbia University is indeed a private institution, correct me if I'm wrong) regardless of their purpose. To claim differently would be like claiming that you cannot prevent me from entering your house if, while citing my right to free speech, I claim that my purpose is to make a speech in your kitchen, which is obviously nonsense. This has nothing to do with the previous poster's claim that a foreign citizen cannot exercise his right to free speech in a public venue, because this right allegedly should not apply to foreign citizens on US soil Incidentally, we're talking about basic human rights here, this has nothing to do with "leftys" or "righties[sp?]", let's not try and make everything a partisan issue please? Cheers, Vale

Doesn't the rights granted by the Constitution apply only to citizens? He is being granted permission, he does not have a right to speak. Man I can't believe people really believe that! The Constitution applies to every human being who falls within its jurisdiction, i.e. anyone who finds himself on anything that is currently considered to be US soil. Same goes for all other bodies of Law, if this weren't the case then a foreigner on US soil would be in fact a lawless entity free to do as he pleases (though without any rights). There are no second class individuals, the only thing the US government can do is keep somebody from entering its territory, once you're allowed in you have the same rights as everybody else. The only difference between an alien resident and a citizen is a citizen cannot be expelled from the country (even if he did, other countries would simply keep sending him back, barring political asylum of course), an alien under the right circumstances can be expelled (but there are procedures and safeguards in that regard too). Sheesh... Vale

Funny. I always thought most Universities were private institutions (at least in the US) and a national monument was by definition a public area. So now freedom of speech only applies automatically to private venues, but can be denied in public places? I always believed it was the opposite, I must have outdated information Vale

How is hanging a noose in a tree an actual crime? Did anyone confess to the 'crime'? Maybe the blacks did it in order to instigate a situation. About the noose, do you think threatening someone, either individually or as a group, is a crime? As for your crack about "the blacks" doing it, what do you think the white students were (initially) expelled for? Oh I get it, the superintendent must have been "a black" and in on the conspiracy too! No wonder this shit is still happening every day... Vale