jordan

No. The bullet fired straight down will hit first because you have added verticle energy to the system through the powder. The other ones that fire verticly do not have energy transfered to verticle motion. All the energy of the explosion goes to horizontal momentum. Therefore, when energy is in equal quantities for the verticle axis, the bullet will reach the destination at the same time. This is true for the horizontal axis too, but that would require a different example. 1) Bullet fired from gun and bullet dropped from same hight as gun: Both hit the ground at the same time because both rely entirely on gravity for verticle acceleration. Neither has any added energy in that direction. 2) Bullet fired from gun tilted slightly at the ground and bullet dropped from same hight as gun: The fired bullet will hit the ground first because it has some energy in the verticle axis. Though most of the energy is going horizontal, some is still giving it a push towards the ground. The exact forces the push verticle and horizontal invovle sine and cosine stuff to calculate.

Who goes by "Chop"?

Perhaps so. I'm not an expert on this by any means. I'll take your word on it. Yes, that's what he's saying. Verticle and horizontal acceleration act independently so while the bullet may be moving horizontal, it is still moving verticly towards the ground at the exact same speed as the ball that is simply dropped. Granted it will have moved a lot further horizontaly, but that energy comes from the gun. I got confused because this works is a vacuum and works very close to perfectly on Earth. I'm still having a tough time picturing it though and it's the extreme velocity of the bullet that's confusing me. But then again the bullet travels at several thousands feet per second so maybe a second to hit the ground isn't all the unrealistic. Hope that makes sense to you cause it doens't to me .

Hey Sayo, I was looking through your link late last night and playing around with some of the html tutorial. One thing I couldn't find: the frames don't seem to work for me. How do I use them? I know the tags and stuff, but I don't know how to specify what goes in which frame.

What about the factor of whether it is a puppy or a dog? Puppies would be less developed and more likely to break bones and such.

I was hoping that was cleared up by my saying that this was only a quastion I couldn't answer myself, not an arguement. I thought that would imply I didn't feel this way. Sorry for the confusion. So, we've learned recently: 1) Phi now has embraced the bold and italics tags, reserving caps for when he's angry which... 2) We learned doesn't happen because he can't get annoyed but... 3) Phi might possibly be considered annoying himself though... 4) Sayo might also be considered annoying while... 5) Jordan has problems maintaining consistency in the spelling of his name and asks far too many questions having made... 6) This thread get way off topic.

That's wasn't what I suggested (though I'm not saying it's a bad thing either). It's what society mandakes to remain stable and functioning. No problems. I was just checking because we have bold and italic tags for emphasis. Caps are usualy reserved for screaming. I was just wondering whether you wanted the screaming effect (I wouldn't have thought so) or if there was a reason you chose not to use the tags. True, but again, I wasn't implying anything needed to be done. I was thinking about the issue and I came up with the question I asked. I myself couldn't come up with a reasonable answer. I thought I'd ask and I think it might have been Sayo who said that gays don't endanger the comunity simply by being gay. Someone who's crazy can endanger the comunity simply be being crazy, and there is where my answer was found.

Phi, the point wasn't who makes me uncomfortable. It's that there are certain people you see walking down the street and you say they should be taken somwhere to be treated by a professional. There are people who just have mild mental conditions and go seek help. They don't really have much choice over whether they'll grow up hearing voices just as gays appearently can't help being gay. Why is one locked away while the other is encouraged? 1) The caps in your post make is seem as though you're annoyed with my questioning. I'm only looking for answers, not trying to prove my point right. Maybe I'm misinterpreting them though. 2) I wouldn't say a Muslim kneeling to pray has a mental condition. Noted, but it's still rather similar. Either way it is out of their hands and that's what I was getting at.

I wasn't entirely serious. I knew what they were saying, but I still don't like it. I guess that's why my math teachers never much cared for me. I always would find the simple way to these and be done. It seems too pointless to find a solution that is perfect "in theory" when "in theory" my solution would work just as well. Oh well, it's been a long time since I fought over constructions. It was fun.

Sorry to dredge this up again, but I thought of something last night. This is a serious question, not just an attack on gays. I was wondering about how much of it is a mental problem? We see people who talk to themselves all the time are put in an institution to either correct or isolate their problem. People who have numerous other mental problems go to a psychiatrist. What is different about this one that we feel we don't need to correct it at all, but rather should even encourage it?

How so?

But aren't we going for theoretical?

Personaly, I found constructions to be just about the most useless thing I've ever waisted time on in math class. I don't see how pulkit's way is at all easy. One problem I see is drawing inside a sphere with a compass. That could be difficult. But then again you were probably only going for theoretical answers. And where is the flaw in bloodhound's answer. The shadow would be the circumfrence of the circle, right? And then finding the widest point would be the diameter. And thus it meets all the origional critirea.

pulkit's actualy seems rather complex in comparison to bloodhound's. Also, finding the widest part of the circle would be the diameter. If you're impying that you can't find the diameter with guess and check, which I think you are, I would point out that using a compass has already negated any completely accurate answer.

Who said you had to do that? And besides, bloodhound himself said you use a ruler.

Optical with a wire. [edit]Forgot to answer Cap'n. I checked and they are not.

Hey, time for you to help me fix the computer again. Sorry. I do tend to do this a lot don't any. Anyway, today's subject: the mouse. A few things I've noticed recently: 1) The cursor can shake on the screen every once in a while. It's almost as though I'm violently shaking the mouse back and forth,the cursor doesn't move more than a few pixels though. It's just violently shaking and I'm not even touching the mouse. 2) The bigger problem. The cursor can randomly jump to different areas of the screen. A few favorites, the "start" button and the close window button (the "x" in the upper right). It's not a problem except when I'm clicking something and then the mouse suddenly jumps to the close window button and I click that instead, it gets annoying. Any help?

They did swim though that really didn't have much to do with the movie. I was asking, though, who would get more credit, the guy who engineered this gold-medal athlete or the athlete himself? You seem to think the athlete would get more credit. I think the reverse could come true some day.

What do you mean? bloodhound's made perfect sense. Though he didn't describe how to draw the diameter, it's pretty simple once you have a circle.

Yes, Gattaca. I remember that. Which brings to mind a point: Could we reach a point where the "athlete" doesn't recieve the medal or attention but the person who "designed" the athlete would be the hero? Almost like building a robot; no one wants to interview the robot but everyone wants to talk to the man who built him.

When you get to the Olympic level it's a little different than highschool. One factor is that many people train for the Olympics but only a few win gold. Those who are best fit would also have had to work very hard to reach their goals. That hard work and dedication of one's life would have a very good chance of rubbing off on the athlete's kids. But the kids would have the added advantage on being geneticly similar to the parent who is a proven gold medal winner. That's how I see evolution playing into it.

I don't want to tell you what to do or anything. Just thought I'd point out something that I saw happen on another forum. Anyway, let us know when it's up.

Can't it be both, with more emphasis on the second one?

I don't want to jump into this too much, but I see one problem with books: If you haven't read the book, it's tough to join the conversation. Just a thought, though.

Actualy, I find that small forums have their own advantages. I don't mind having just 20 people or so that you know well and can talk with. It makes conversations much easier. Unfortunatly, after a while you run out of things to say. What I find is that everyone wants to start their own forum and then realizes there isn't a great need for new forums right now. Everyone likes the power of being an admin, but it's not all that great unless you're sure you can get many new members. Just my thoughts.