Callipygous

do i do it for the peaceful, well educated, suburban playground that provided my upbringing or the hell-hole full of white trash with guns n' trucks where i live now?

i was thinking too hard. seems like it would be harder to scale into something small. it also seems like getting everything set up with the right lengths, and making the release mechanism might be a bit tricky. catapult just seemed simpler. just a throwing arm on a spring, with a base to hold it all together.

it might help if you defined chav and innit.

i dont do pickup lines, thats what my roommate is for. all we have to do is say "jesse, go hit on em!" one time my brother told him to go hit on some girls who were leaving a gas station and he ran out to the intersection where they were stopped, knocked on the window, and said something along the lines of "you come here often?" others include working it into a fast food order, "yeah, ill have a number 2 with large fries, your phone number, and a coke, and my friend wants..." and "am i gonna have to try really hard to get your phone number or do you just want to give it to me now?" he also likes to use hand signals to get the numbers of girls with their windows rolled up (in the back seat of their parents suv).

assuming the objects B is passing are "stationary" according to your scenario, B is still moving at .6c compared to them(A's acceleration doesnt change the speeds of B or the stationary objects, or their speed relative to each other), and therefore the contraction doesnt change. B is moving at .8 compared to A, so A might look more contracted. ive never understood anything about relativity, but these are my logical assumptions based on what ive been told. sorry for any inaccuracies.

so in summary, yes the ant would be dead if there were no air resistance, and jakiri is right in saying that you cant calculate the actual force without knowing how long it takes the ant to splatter completely flat on the pavement?

not quite, but people have sued (successfully no less) for injuries recieved while breaking into someones house. eg. robber cuts himself while breaking a window, sues the owner for injuries. and wins.

sort of... a little bit. i understand the other sides of the argument, and think they are reasonable. the views i have settled on are after taking that into consideration and deciding what i think needs to be done anyway. for example, i understand that its pretty extreme to shoot someone who is entering the country illegally. however, i think its just about the only way to really stem the flow of people who think its ok to just walk across the border. fences and walls will be climbed over and tunneled under, patrols will be evaded, and laws will be ignored. everyone listens to a big heartless gun. if they dont, thats thier problem. with the system i described it will be abundantly clear what is acceptable and what is not, and breaking into my country, especially considering recent events, is not ok. i cant believe the audacity of people who will enter a country illegally, and then protest in the streets about not being treated the same way as the legal citizens. thats like breaking into someones house and suing them for not offering you a snack.

terrorism is using tactics that are specifically designed to incite fear. poisoning a population is no worse or better than vaporising them. the ethical issue with this weapon your describing is that it kills indiscriminately. military, civilians, old and sick, young and healthy. that is what would cause your political backlash, not the specific means by which you do it.

how would that help? on all the laptops i have taken apart that just leaves you with a keyboard with a metal back. same access issues, just not attached to a computer. or do you mean to just replace it?

old enough to tell you what i think of the obnoxiously arrogant smiley you chose to use without swearing. every system is impossible to enforce 100%, were not doing a very good job with this one, but we can certainly enforce it much better than we are. id like you to give it a shot. imagine an installation on the top of a hill. when it senses someone it sets off a siren, there are signs posted in multiple languages, it states a warning. if they dont listen, and ignore the signs, they are shot. now please, tell me how thats barbaric any more than a police officer taking down a criminal who wont stop. my first two points were hypothetical, assuming you were actually right. us being a word used to descibe the group you are in (citizens) and them meaning a different group (non citizens)... thats a fact based on the english language, how else would they say it?

you can be a snot with your little rolleyes smiley all you want, but it doenst make you right. as ecoli was astute enough to notice, the system works fine, its enforcing it we have problems with. thank you for your extremely well thought out and intelligent rebuttal. Got any reasons why its either of those things? 1. baseless assumption. 2. is culture not a valid part of a society? whats wrong with protecting culture? more importantly, who are you to say that this is why we have the restrictions we do? 3. your suggesting that well educated people with money to stimulate the economy arent going to be more useful than people who are probably going to need at least a little assistance from things like welfare? we need only so much cheap labor. we have plenty already.

and i dont think he has 3 revolutionary ideas, one that controls minds, one that easily kills millions, and one that will change energy production as we know it, none of which any of the scientists that came before him have ever thought of. but is any of that relevant to his ethics question?

it depends how you look at it. on the one side, how could you not be morally wrong for creating something that is designed to kill millions? on the other, you just made it. are you responsible for how it gets used by the people you sell it to?

the keys do pop off, although they can be somewhat more of a pain to get back on right than desktop keyboards. also, depending on the keyboard, i think you can damage them if you do it wrong. you might be better off with the tweezers, or maybe a needle or something.

its a strawman because, as he explained, no one has said to close the border, just to restrict the numbers and do it in a way where they actually contribute like everyone else. note that "the wrath of the law" is also known as deportation, or "square one". wheres the risk? if they dont contribute toward society as a whole, then for the love of god YES. no system will be able to support millions of freeloaders. i dont care how much you update the system, its going to rely on everyone, or at least most, contributing for the benefit of all. not just mooching off welfare and the school system.

i did no such thing...

its a case of "i was born on the damn boat, and while i would like to not make all of you drown, i cant save all of you because my boat will sink and ill die too."

and we dont... you show up the emergency room, you get treated. however, we cant afford to do that for all of the worlds needy people, so were trying to set up a system where we can help the people who can carry at least a little of their own weight, so society as a whole has some benefit and we can maintain our hospitals and schools. your probably right though. we should let our bleeding hearts get the better of us, let in everyone, swamp the schools and hospitals till there is nothing left and no help for anyone. now go ahead and tell me im twisting your words, you may not be saying it directly, but those are the implications of what you want us to do.

how do you figure? there are plenty of legal immigrants, more everyday. the system works just fine, some people just choose not to use it, and instead make their first act in my country breaking the law. i posted this in another thread and someone decided i was joking, but im all for putting motion sensing automatic machine guns along the border. dont break into my country. we have a lovely system in place that allows you to join us legally and be a contributing member of society instead of being a drain on all the people who are here legally. take the hint. it comes from my logical conclusion that the only reason you would put a restriction on who can or cant enter your country would be because you have decided that certain people would have a negative impact on society. so removing those restictions would be deciding to no longer try to protect society.

on someone elses hard earned paycheck, since they dont pay taxes.

drink less.