J.C.MacSwell

No, to what exactly? Why twice? Most guitars would be fine at well over that, even over a small area. The problem is that impacts can involve forces much greater. A heavy hard shell case can afford a longer impact time for the guitar than a lighter softer one, it all depends on the design and conditions of impact. It matters not a wit whether something is decelerating or accelerating. Consider stationary bullets collided with c) Paper armour at 1000 feet/s d) 6 inch thick steel plate at 1000 feet/s Which will survive and what damage will happen to the bullet in each case? (hint: assuming you had your bullet at 1000 feet/s...these are identical to your two scenarios...exact same events looked at from different reference frames)

There is no difference between acceleration and deceleration other than choice of reference frame. A heavier case will impact more heavily with the ground, generally speaking, a greater impact force as you say, but that is not the force on the guitar. The padding allows it to displace with respect to the case, as well as spreading the force over greater area. Assuming the same outer dimensions of the case, any disadvantages of a hard case can usually be mitigated by the design of the padding inside, unless the thickness of the case significantly reduces room for it. Hard outer shells generally spread the load over a greater area of padding, which spreads it over a greater area of the guitar, Sports helmets are a little more complicated in design, but generally all have a hard outer shell.

Pardon the pun, but it is somewhat "case" dependant. If you dropped one onto a fairly solid piece of glass, supported by a foot or so of fibreglass insulation, a heavier case might break the glass, allowing a lot more time and distance to decelerate the guitar than a lighter one that would not break through. Now compare that to dropping them onto the same insulation supported by a concrete floor. Wasn't there a thread previously on this?

No. Probably more my narrower definition of "never really going to meet".You can evaluate someone, or something, in a one sided manner, without any meeting of the minds. Does that assume religion to be the forerunner of science? Perhaps in some respects it is.

Doesn't to me. They were given as examples of where science and religion meet. In the context of the discussion I don't see it.

Arguably yes. To what degree are they trying to use or accept religious faith based arguments? Examining religion doesn't really meet it, in the context of the two coming together.

Aren't they attempting to be sciences? Don't forget when debating religion the laws of science and scientific method never fully apply. For example the second law of thermodynamics: 1. You can't win 2. You can't break even But 3. You can, and often should, get out of the game

Religion and Science are never really going to meet. If any religion ever comes up with anything proven, Science will say "we'll take that!" leaving the poor religion without anything Supernatural with any verified substance to point at... So let's not begrudge them their faith based arguments, and stop trying to trick them into using scientific ones...

Yeah. But that's getting back to your original point about the physical impossibility. How do you even approach the Earth with a small fraction of that energy without it imploding into a Black Hole? You start with a nice little Merry-go-Earth project, it implodes into a small Black Hole(if you somehow strengthen things to avoid your first objection...flying apart), and everyone involved that doesn't get sucked in abandons the project and races for cover...

If at it's surface it was suddenly at almost lightspeed, for some unexplainable reason, and physical reality immediately came back into play, I think it would become a Black Hole of finite mass, with the mass depending on how close to lightspeed that "almost lightspeed" was. Some of the known Universe should escape, due to the Expansion and time required for any effect to reach the distant known Universe.

Ten oz had plenty of opportunity to state that "no", meant something other than no to the statement of Raider's that he quoted, if that was in fact the case. He did not. That was the context of the "you're wrong" of Raider's you quoted, not the "wrong" you were assuming. I doubt it would take you 3 pages to admit that or, if you didn't agree, make yourself clear.

Thank you. I will do that. Raider. Ten oz used some facts we all agree with, as INow has noted, but those facts don't support the argument that your statement was incorrect...because they simply have no bearing on it. ...but I'm sure you knew that... ... as will INow if he pays attention to context before picking sides. Ten oz has demonstrated he can't see it, or refuses to, so don't worry about it.

No, 3+3 = 6.

Raider was making a statement about someone convicted in office. You quoted him and replied "No." Then made a statement about an illegal campaign, and gave an example of a campaign you considered illegal. But you won't understand the difference if you don't make the effort. Try this: Someone makes a statement about apples. Someone else quotes it and replies"No." Then makes a statement about oranges...and backs it up with a story about oranges. Regardless of whether the statement and story about oranges are correct or not, they say nothing about apples. Pointing out that is an off base reply to the statement about apples is not disputing the statement about oranges. If you can follow that, and detach yourself from your argument...you are capable of getting the point

Very much agreed. Give yourself a cookie. You did say all that. Not the point. What in that in any way refutes my post you just quoted? Let me repeat: In reply to "As far as I'm aware, if you're convicted of breaking the laws, you're jailed and removed from office." (which you were quoting from Raider) You repied: "No, if members of ones campaign breaks the law they are not removed from office." Then you gave Trump as an example. Go back and read it all. It should be pretty clear. You need to keep better track of when you twist things...or better yet...stop doing it.

You did. In reply to "As far as I'm aware, if you're convicted of breaking the laws, you're jailed and removed from office." Which you quoted. Then you gave Trump as an example. Clearly not someone who has been convicted. Try to keep tract of how you twist things. Try to be accurate.

I will certainly admit to having done a fair bit of speculation in this thread (while making it clear that I was in fact speculating). My main point being that taking the worst case based on the accusations as we know them (other than the drugging and raping accusation) is nothing of public concern. It seems like the #meetoo movement, or at least a vocal segment of it's proponents, wants to see everything come forward. This is far more likely to effect celebrities. As we saw in the Kavanaugh case there was an awful lot thinking there must be something to it based on statistics, but those statistics were not based on celebrities, are now skewed by the #metoo movement itself. and simply do not apply to individual cases. It also brings forth accusations that take away from much more serious cases. The dialogue can be important, justice in some cases can be achieved, but there can be a significant amount of collateral damage.

Agree. It is when it becomes clear that advances are unwanted that the obligation to cease and desist becomes essential. No means no, and maybe means proceed with caution.

I don't disagree. But my point is that she did not make that claim in her accusation (if she said no, she felt she might not get the job), it's something you inferred from something she described as more of an opportunity than a threat. You may very well be right, but she did not make that claim. She implied otherwise by stating she had approached it quite naively. I can see how you might take it that way from that quote.. It is a little ambiguous ("She freely chose to come by for wine & cheese and I was delighted" seems an odd way to put it if they were already there), but you may very well be right. Assuming that's true, that makes it seem less premeditated by Tyson. Looked at another way, if Tyson had not been married and these two had ended up as a couple, how would you (anyone) view this? Would it change if she (this fictitious person) later admitted that though she liked him, she found him a little awkward and creepy at first? How many male/female relationships start with a power differential in their relationships, real or perceived?

Did she say that? It seems her accusation falls short of that. "Watson tells NPR that she went because she thought he wanted to talk about her continuing to work as his assistant when the show moved on to filming in Europe." If she was reluctantly accepting, that doesn't fit with her claim of being naive about the plans for the evening.

...and usually when also in a totally different jurisdiction known as marriage, you don't get"to have them at all...but of course it happens We probably all know a lot of couples that met and had there relationship evolve at work, often one or both were married at the time, and often one would have been subordinate to the other. When it "works out" they might be no less innocent than when it doesn't. That doesn't sound like how it had been described by either. From the link in your OP: "Tyson invited her to join him in his apartment for wine in the evening after work. Watson tells NPR that she went because she thought he wanted to talk about her continuing to work as his assistant when the show moved on to filming in Europe."

There were dishonest contractors and/or incompetent contractors a generation ago and there are dishonest contractors and/or incompetent contractors now. There certainly is a need for a sufficient amount of inspection and monitoring to protect the public, always was, and very important that those folks are honest and competent as well. This is not of course, exclusive to home building.

My problem is the damn puzzle gets bigger and more full of holes the faster I try to fill them all in...

In what manner might this car be a variable? You could paint it different colours and graph the shades...

I wo I also believe this is unrealistic, a good goal but unlikely to happen. What I would like to see is cities take the initiative and incrementally start banning certain classes of vehicles. This would also reduce congestion where it can be at it's worst. They could base it on fuel efficiency, emissions levels and what not, and make allowances for time of day (rush hour restrictions). Trucks could be allowed by permit. Contractors might be allowed in but have restrictions at rush hour etc.