atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#713: Thursday noon hodgepodge

I bit my tongue in my sleep. It woke me up. WTF.

And I wasn't even dreaming about food.

* * *

Re-virgined! Women in England get hymen reconstruction surgery for free from England's National Health Service (NHS) (AKA "Hillary-care lite" because the British can buy better health care if they want to. Hillary wants to make that kind of thing illegal if she ever gets to socialize medicine here.) Isn't that wonderful? A woman loses her virginity somewhere along the line, but when she gets married she wants to appear virginal to her husband so that her family isn't shamed.

Wow, that's so...deceitful. Well, at least she can make someone else pay for it! She doesn't have to pay out of her own pocket in order to have her hymen reconstructed; she just goes to a government hospital and has it done! Hell, while they're at it, they may as well have breast implants and a tummy-tuck. WTF! If one kind of cosmetic surgery is covered, why not all of it?

Another reason not to buy Maxtor hard drives. They come with malware pre-installed at the factory for your identity-theft convenience.

Ann Coulter. Enough said. Just read it.

McCain's campaign tries to make hay after the Clinton News Network (CNN) comes down on McCain because someone asked him "How do we defeat the bitch?" and he didn't immediately say "WHY YOU MEAN-SPIRITED EVIL PERSON HOW DARE YOU?"

C'mon. CNN, founded by Ted Turner, super-rich ex-hippie and husband of Jane Fonda--what do we expect from them?

Military casualties in Iraq compare very well to peacetime training accident deaths. According to the Defense Department figures, in 1981 and 1982 combined the military had more deaths (mostly training-related) than we've had in Iraq so far.

One reason generals get the big bucks is that they have to be able to weigh the value of the objective versus what it will cost in terms of the lives of his men. Men are not expendable; but when you are fighting a war, some of them are going to die and there's nothing you can do about that, so you do what you can to minimize casualties. Ultimately you have to consider how important the objectives are.

D-Day (in 1944) was a very important attack. We lost thousands of men in the assault but it had to be done, because you can't win a war without attacking the enemy, and it's better to attack him where he is than to wait until he comes to you.

9/11 was the result of us waiting for someone who had declared himself our enemy to come to us.

College students have to pay for their own birth control! How cruel Bushitler is! You see, female college students shouldn't "...have to make a choice between their birth control and their cell phone bill or their birth control and their gym membership and their birth control," Ortiz said. "These are choices women that women [SIC] shouldn't have to make."

How can Bushitler justify war in Iraq when University of New Mexico women have to pay for their own birth control? They shouldn't have to choose between the luxury of having a cell phone and the luxury of having otherwise unprotected sex! They shouldn't have to choose between the luxury of a health club membership and the luxury of otherwise unprotected sex! They shouldn't have to pay for birth control because it's just not fair that they should have to make choices like that.

(And when the birth control fails they shouldn't have to pay for their own abortions, either.)

Here's an idea: stop having sex if you can't afford the birth control. Or if you don't like the idea of not having sex, get rid of the cellphone, or get a cheaper plan. Or if you can't live without your phone, learn how to exercise without access to $50,000 worth of equipment. (Here is a hint: your body has mass. There are exercises you can do which take advantage of this apparently little-known fact. These arcane maneuvers have mystifying names such as push ups and sit ups.)

Part of living in the real world includes living within your means. But I guess if they haven't figured that out by the time they're in college, they're never going to learn it, anyway.

BTW you can get a box of two dozen condoms for about $15-$20. That's enough for about three weeks' worth of trysts, assuming you do it once per day. If you can't afford that--and you have both a cellphone and a gym membership--you need to learn how to budget.

I'm getting sick and tired of people acting like "free love" is a human right and that it's government's responsibility to ensure we don't have to "suffer" the consequences of sex.

<* * *>

I have been using this keyboard since late March, and it already has a worn spot on the space bar where my thumb goes. Either the plastic is too soft, or my thumb is too hard--or I just type a lot. WTF.

* * *

The other night I was thinking about acceleration and deceleration.

Specifically, I was thinking about the ultimate car. I figured it could accelerate at the limit of its tire adhesion and brake at the same rate--and that they should be equivalent. So I started thinking about accelerating and stopping distances.

Assuming the car can go 0-60 in two seconds flat. 60 MPH is 88 feet per second; so that would be 1.375 G. How far does it travel in that time?

The equation for that is simple: distance equals 0.5 times the acceleration multiplied by time squared: D=0.5*a*t*t.

The answer is 88 feet. If you go 0-60 in two seconds, you've traveled 88 feet by the time you get to 60 MPH.

If you do it in one second, it's 44 feet. Two and a half seconds, 100 feet. And so on.

Now, this hypothetical supercar--I figure it's fusion-powered and has a 250 horsepower electic motor hub-mounted at each wheel. Electric motors work both forwards and backwards, so instead of using mechanical brakes, just apply the motor in "reverse".

This car--I called it the "Scorpion"--would have an adaptive suspension, traction control, and all kinds of other nifty technology to maximize traction at all times. And I mean a really adaptive suspension, not just something that changes shock valving--a suite of terrain sensors would read the road and adjust the suspension geometry to suit what the road is like and what the car is doing at any given moment, thus allowing the car to perform to the theoretical maximum limit of its performance envelope.

The car would corner like an F1 car, accelerate like a top-fuel dragster, and stop on a dime. It would run on deuterium and get several thousand miles to the gallon.

So what about braking? Well, if the car can accelerate to 60 MPH in 88 feet it should be able to stop in a similar distance, shouldn't it? 88 feet isn't a perilously short stopping distance but it's on the short side for most vehicles. Figure a typical car can stop in about 130 feet from 60 MPH. (Assuming the "typical" car has a skidpad rating of 0.85g, that would mean the car would take 3.1 seconds to stop. Given the appropriate motor it could then accelerate to 60 in an absolute minimum time of 3.1 seconds--theoretically. Putting it into practice is the hard part.)

Where I ran into trouble was with the calculations. I was laying in bed, trying to sleep, thinking about all this...and somehow I came to the (erroneous) conclusion that higher acceleration increased the distance. I was awake enough to realize that wasn't right, that it had to be shorter, not longer...but I couldn't find the fault in my calculations.

Thinking about physics in situations where it is inconvenient or dangerous to whip out a calculator has done much for my arithmetic skills. When I was commuting 50 miles each way every day, sometimes it would occur to me that X meant Y, but in order to do the calculations to demonstrate it to myself, I had to do math that was beyond "6x4=24". So I learned how to do arithmetic in my head, something I had never been able to do until then.

I could have turned the light on, grabbed pencil and paper (I keep one of my $0.062 notebooks by my bed) and done the math to find my error, but I was trying to sleep for crying out loud. So I just tabled it.

Still, I considered the matter again when I did have time, and discovered that I had, indeed, made some mistakes, but not what mistakes. Anyway, it was fine that my instincts had been correct.

But now, looking at the column of numbers I generated, now I want to do a plot of distance-versus-acceleration to confirm my suspicion that it would be an asymptote. This stuff just never ends.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.