MBiegs

In god we trust... everyone else gets an inspection.

Intent is important... if you launched yourself at her with the intent to cause substantial injury, it's abuse. If you launched yourself at her knowing you could injure her but attempting to prevent a more severe injury, it's not abuse. Back to the original story, there is probably more to it then what the news reports, but if you are spanking so hard that you have left marks that don't go away quickly, you're probably doing it wrong. If you leave discipline marks on your kid, you're probably going to get in trouble.

I agree with the laws the way they are. You can burn the flag as part of a peaceful protest... but if you’re burning it in a way that would tend to cause a disturbance, protest, riot, or violence, it's NOT ok. It’s kind of like speech. You can say what you want… with a few qualifiers (slander, threats, disorderly conduct, inciting a riot). People have died for your right to do what you want... even if that means disrespecting them for dying for your right to disrespect them. I don’t think it’s ok, but it IS your right. It's my right to tell you what I think of what you're doing though.

That's it. Track and field nerd, that's a new one.

I was saying that A would be constant in the 1st half and 0 in the 2nd half. It's actually a basic class on car accidents. My instructor was using formulas we learned in class to show how they can be used in other situations. Most of our formulas/drag factors/calculations are geared to give the drivers the benefit of the doubt and we're usually not figuring ending velocity, but beginning velocity. FYI: I got the 175 feet from the 50-60 mark that's listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres Although it says he maxes speed 50-60, i'm sure he could come close to max way before that. A olympic athlete should be able to max way before the average person... thus lowering the ending velocity. I just wanted to prove to a classmate that the answer of 45mph doesn't make sense... and show him that i could make it lower by breaking it into two parts... i'm sure it'd be lower in 3 or 4 parts, but that's overkill for what i'm trying to show. In the end my instructor/classmate probably wont care, and i probably won't even bring it up... but it's giving me something to do while putting off everything else I should be doing. Thanks everyone

You're my hero... that's what i was looking for. Care to tell me how you got that number? Honestly, I'm just trying to show that my instructor is wrong... he is saying he can prove beyond any doubt that a guy who ran 100meters in the olympics in 9.7 seconds had an ending velocity of 45mph... no questions asked... nothing else matters. He's using the following formula: Ve = Vi + 2 A T Since we don't have A we're using a formula for A Ve = Vi + ((2D - 2(Vi)(T))/ T^2) (T) (Excuse the excess parenthesis... it's hard to show division on a computer) A= Acceleration Ve = Ending Velocity Vi = Initial Velocity (0) D = Distance (325 Feet) T = Time (9.7 Seconds) ^2 = 2nd power I would like to show that the 325 foot run would yield a much different ending velocity if you broke it up into two parts. Changing acceleration DOES make a huge difference and would never be constant.

Just a project i'm working on. I'm in a college course and I KNOW my instructor is using an equation incorrectly. A man runs 325 feet in 9.7 seconds. Assuming a continuous rate of acceleration he would be running at 45mph by the end of the run... seems wrong because in reality his acceleration isn't constant. Through research I have learned a sprinter would reach max speed approximately half way through(distance). This is where I need your help... Assuming he still runs 325 feet in 9.7 seconds, also assume he reaches his maximum speed at the 175 foot mark and his speed is constant for the remainder of the run: What speed is he at the 175 foot mark? How long did it take him to get to the 175 foot mark?

Would a night tandem fulfill one of the two D license requirements for night jumps?

Makes more sense then no-permit open carry like we have in wisconsin. Personally, I'm against it. The main reason I am against carrying at all is because of the lack of training that comes with a firearms. To purchase a handgun here you submit to a background check and wait 48 hours. No license, no gun safety course... that's all fine with me if you're not leaving your home. If you're going out onto the streets with that gun around me, my wife, my children, or anyone I care about, I have a few demands... Know about how your gun works. Know how to use it. Know when you can point it at someone. Know when you can shoot someone. Know why you are shooting someone if you need to... because it's not to kill them. Know how to retain your weapon if someone tries taking it from you. Know how to store your weapon. Know what to do after you take action. Know what to do when the police arrive. There are many more things you need to know, I only have time to list a few. Realize what you see is not always what is happening... I know of a few stories in states that allow open/concealed carry where a few cops were taking action in plain cloths and were shot by someone who didn't realize what was going on. One in particular an officer was at a gas station filling up his car when he was approached by a guy wielding a metal pipe. The man demanded the officers keys to his car threatening to hit him if he didn't comply. The officer took a few steps back, drew his weapon, ordered the man to the ground and before he could even call 911 he was shot in the back 5 times. The man who shot him was carrying concealed. He saw a black man pointing a gun at a white man and took action. I can't say race had anything to do with it, but I can't say it didn't either(we all get fed what the medial gives us on TV and in the movies about what criminals look like... but that's a different thread). If you don't have training(and even if you do), when your adrenalin is pumping and you draw that gun on someone you DO get tunnel vision, hearing goes away, and you have one thing on your mind... stop the threat. I've been there in training, most cops have. Witnesses stated the guy loudly identified himself as a police officer, but the shooter didn't hear anything, nor did see the man with the pipe in his hand. With no training this kind of stuff just happens.

Huh? How so? Funny stuff though. Wendy does has a good question, why is your ex at your house when you're not there?

Yeah, that whole safe bet thing never made sense to me... I think any god that is "all knowing" would know you're just believing in it because it's a "safe bet"

There are only a few passages in the bible that make ANY sense to me... "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22) "Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period." (Leviticus 18:19)

If god wants to send me a child as a gift, and won't deliver it in person, he can send it the same way everyone else sends gifts...usps, ups, or fedex(I suppose he could even use one of the less mentioned services... but i've had bad experiences with them). PLEASE have him include a gift receipt... or it will be auctioned on eBay, thrown out, or re-gifted(i'm the worst at re-gifting).

I think EVERYONE is missing the big picture here... why are his chairs are upside down on his table... like he's closing up shop for the day... Who does that?

That's all the world needs, more children... Is that REALLY what you want?