[equalizer]

[quote=flu]Where’s stockstrader when you need him? 🙂
[/quote]
Who needs him, I was pushing SKF at peak of March. I timed perfectly – wrong.

[equalizer]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=sdduuuude]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[/quote]

Both vehicles decelerate at the same rate (or at least close enough to make no difference, assuming crumple zones and such are somewhat larger on a larger vehicle) when they hit a stationary object.

The only case where this isn’t true is where the stationary object is light enough to be destroyed or moved by the heavier vehicle and not by the smaller vehicle.

Mass only comes into the potential energy of the collision assuming an impact with a stationary object. The large car NEEDS larger crumple zones and such because it has much more potential energy to be absorbed than the small car.

p = mv.
[/quote]
Some of us straight F guys could really use Dr. Feynman. 1988 we cry for you.

[equalizer]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=sdduuuude]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[/quote]

Both vehicles decelerate at the same rate (or at least close enough to make no difference, assuming crumple zones and such are somewhat larger on a larger vehicle) when they hit a stationary object.

The only case where this isn’t true is where the stationary object is light enough to be destroyed or moved by the heavier vehicle and not by the smaller vehicle.

Mass only comes into the potential energy of the collision assuming an impact with a stationary object. The large car NEEDS larger crumple zones and such because it has much more potential energy to be absorbed than the small car.

p = mv.
[/quote]
Some of us straight F guys could really use Dr. Feynman. 1988 we cry for you.

[equalizer]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=sdduuuude]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[/quote]

Both vehicles decelerate at the same rate (or at least close enough to make no difference, assuming crumple zones and such are somewhat larger on a larger vehicle) when they hit a stationary object.

The only case where this isn’t true is where the stationary object is light enough to be destroyed or moved by the heavier vehicle and not by the smaller vehicle.

Mass only comes into the potential energy of the collision assuming an impact with a stationary object. The large car NEEDS larger crumple zones and such because it has much more potential energy to be absorbed than the small car.

p = mv.
[/quote]
Some of us straight F guys could really use Dr. Feynman. 1988 we cry for you.

[equalizer]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=sdduuuude]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[/quote]

Both vehicles decelerate at the same rate (or at least close enough to make no difference, assuming crumple zones and such are somewhat larger on a larger vehicle) when they hit a stationary object.

The only case where this isn’t true is where the stationary object is light enough to be destroyed or moved by the heavier vehicle and not by the smaller vehicle.

Mass only comes into the potential energy of the collision assuming an impact with a stationary object. The large car NEEDS larger crumple zones and such because it has much more potential energy to be absorbed than the small car.

p = mv.
[/quote]
Some of us straight F guys could really use Dr. Feynman. 1988 we cry for you.

[equalizer]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=sdduuuude]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[/quote]

Both vehicles decelerate at the same rate (or at least close enough to make no difference, assuming crumple zones and such are somewhat larger on a larger vehicle) when they hit a stationary object.

The only case where this isn’t true is where the stationary object is light enough to be destroyed or moved by the heavier vehicle and not by the smaller vehicle.

Mass only comes into the potential energy of the collision assuming an impact with a stationary object. The large car NEEDS larger crumple zones and such because it has much more potential energy to be absorbed than the small car.

p = mv.
[/quote]
Some of us straight F guys could really use Dr. Feynman. 1988 we cry for you.

[equalizer]

[quote=barnaby33]What I love is the classic partisanship my post brought out. If you stop and think about it, how can you balance our out of control budget without the majority paying more taxes? You can’t is the answer. So you can believe the Obama promise, or you can decry it as liberal fantasia. I don’t care. Either way, your taxes are going up and so are mine.

Happy tax day.

Josh[/quote]
You always bring a bundle of joy to the party, taking away the punchbowl.

[equalizer]

[quote=barnaby33]What I love is the classic partisanship my post brought out. If you stop and think about it, how can you balance our out of control budget without the majority paying more taxes? You can’t is the answer. So you can believe the Obama promise, or you can decry it as liberal fantasia. I don’t care. Either way, your taxes are going up and so are mine.

Happy tax day.

Josh[/quote]
You always bring a bundle of joy to the party, taking away the punchbowl.

[equalizer]

[quote=barnaby33]What I love is the classic partisanship my post brought out. If you stop and think about it, how can you balance our out of control budget without the majority paying more taxes? You can’t is the answer. So you can believe the Obama promise, or you can decry it as liberal fantasia. I don’t care. Either way, your taxes are going up and so are mine.

Happy tax day.

Josh[/quote]
You always bring a bundle of joy to the party, taking away the punchbowl.

[equalizer]

[quote=barnaby33]What I love is the classic partisanship my post brought out. If you stop and think about it, how can you balance our out of control budget without the majority paying more taxes? You can’t is the answer. So you can believe the Obama promise, or you can decry it as liberal fantasia. I don’t care. Either way, your taxes are going up and so are mine.

Happy tax day.

Josh[/quote]
You always bring a bundle of joy to the party, taking away the punchbowl.

[equalizer]

[quote=barnaby33]What I love is the classic partisanship my post brought out. If you stop and think about it, how can you balance our out of control budget without the majority paying more taxes? You can’t is the answer. So you can believe the Obama promise, or you can decry it as liberal fantasia. I don’t care. Either way, your taxes are going up and so are mine.

Happy tax day.

Josh[/quote]
You always bring a bundle of joy to the party, taking away the punchbowl.

[equalizer]

[quote=patientrenter]Simon Johnson’s thesis that our government has been captured by the financial services industry is only partially true. For all our complaints, we do live in a mature democracy, with a dispersed government. It’s hard for any one minority interest to hijack the entire government apparatus.

The many, many trillions that our government is putting on the line to maintain high house prices is not just to make some bankers richer, or to put another million in the pockets of a few more Congressmens’ relatives and friends. It’s done to make homeowners happy. They are over 3/4 of all voters. Add all the professionals whose livelihood depends on free money, and you have an unbeatable force that can and does control our government.

Take away the professionals, and the voter block is still powerful, but much weaker. Take away the voters, and you can divert a few hundred billion at most, not 10 trillion (in direct subsidies and indirect guarantees).[/quote]
I’m still reading my copy, but there is disputing that financial services industry has become a huge percentage of the economy. I don’t know if you read the whole article but author does explain how this came to be. I will post later.

Everyone cant keep moving paper around, i.e. become a financial broker, etc. The lesson is that the idolization of salesman was not healthy. And that no on in DC was going to stop the party when everyone was buzzed.

[equalizer]

[quote=patientrenter]Simon Johnson’s thesis that our government has been captured by the financial services industry is only partially true. For all our complaints, we do live in a mature democracy, with a dispersed government. It’s hard for any one minority interest to hijack the entire government apparatus.

The many, many trillions that our government is putting on the line to maintain high house prices is not just to make some bankers richer, or to put another million in the pockets of a few more Congressmens’ relatives and friends. It’s done to make homeowners happy. They are over 3/4 of all voters. Add all the professionals whose livelihood depends on free money, and you have an unbeatable force that can and does control our government.

Take away the professionals, and the voter block is still powerful, but much weaker. Take away the voters, and you can divert a few hundred billion at most, not 10 trillion (in direct subsidies and indirect guarantees).[/quote]
I’m still reading my copy, but there is disputing that financial services industry has become a huge percentage of the economy. I don’t know if you read the whole article but author does explain how this came to be. I will post later.

Everyone cant keep moving paper around, i.e. become a financial broker, etc. The lesson is that the idolization of salesman was not healthy. And that no on in DC was going to stop the party when everyone was buzzed.

[equalizer]

[quote=patientrenter]Simon Johnson’s thesis that our government has been captured by the financial services industry is only partially true. For all our complaints, we do live in a mature democracy, with a dispersed government. It’s hard for any one minority interest to hijack the entire government apparatus.

The many, many trillions that our government is putting on the line to maintain high house prices is not just to make some bankers richer, or to put another million in the pockets of a few more Congressmens’ relatives and friends. It’s done to make homeowners happy. They are over 3/4 of all voters. Add all the professionals whose livelihood depends on free money, and you have an unbeatable force that can and does control our government.

Take away the professionals, and the voter block is still powerful, but much weaker. Take away the voters, and you can divert a few hundred billion at most, not 10 trillion (in direct subsidies and indirect guarantees).[/quote]
I’m still reading my copy, but there is disputing that financial services industry has become a huge percentage of the economy. I don’t know if you read the whole article but author does explain how this came to be. I will post later.

Everyone cant keep moving paper around, i.e. become a financial broker, etc. The lesson is that the idolization of salesman was not healthy. And that no on in DC was going to stop the party when everyone was buzzed.

[equalizer]

[quote=patientrenter]Simon Johnson’s thesis that our government has been captured by the financial services industry is only partially true. For all our complaints, we do live in a mature democracy, with a dispersed government. It’s hard for any one minority interest to hijack the entire government apparatus.

The many, many trillions that our government is putting on the line to maintain high house prices is not just to make some bankers richer, or to put another million in the pockets of a few more Congressmens’ relatives and friends. It’s done to make homeowners happy. They are over 3/4 of all voters. Add all the professionals whose livelihood depends on free money, and you have an unbeatable force that can and does control our government.

Take away the professionals, and the voter block is still powerful, but much weaker. Take away the voters, and you can divert a few hundred billion at most, not 10 trillion (in direct subsidies and indirect guarantees).[/quote]
I’m still reading my copy, but there is disputing that financial services industry has become a huge percentage of the economy. I don’t know if you read the whole article but author does explain how this came to be. I will post later.

Everyone cant keep moving paper around, i.e. become a financial broker, etc. The lesson is that the idolization of salesman was not healthy. And that no on in DC was going to stop the party when everyone was buzzed.

[Author]

Posts