Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:sTEM (Score 1) 50

Sure, so where is the scientific method in comsci? Math proofs? They are self contained based on closed rule sets, they are supposed to be consistent within themselves but they do not measure anything, nor do they necessarily have anything to do with observable phenomena. Formal science, OK, but not just science, or STEM would be known as STE.

Comment Re:sTEM (Score 1) 50

And I said comsci is technology,math, maybe engineering but hardly science. Mathematical proves of big O and the rest of algorithms and data structures is not a study of natural phenomena and the experiments supporting theoretical run times are not discoveries of natural phenomena, they are more reflective of the engineering effort that goes into construction of the computers that execute the theory.

Comment Re:It should be obvious (Score 0) 322

Propping up our currency did not prop up our economy. It shit on our production/manufacturing while keeping Chinese goods cheap.

- propping up USA currency provided USA with a way to buy cheap Chinese produced goods. No, it did not prop up your economy, it propped up your consumption and it destroyed your economy. However the Chinese did not do this in vacuum, USA got off the gold dollar (defaulted on the gold dollar in 1971) because it was printing so many dollars for decades prior to 1971 and it could not pay in gold for its past spending.

USA destroyed its economy by destroying its currency. At the point of currency default (1971) the expansion of the money supply was set in stone. That is what destroyed USA economy. Common sense is not that common. Once USA destroyed its own currency, manufacturing was going to leave one way or another, since no real savings can exist in that environment.

China gave you plenty of rope to hang yourself with, you took the rope, wrapped it around your neck and kicked the chair of sound money from underneath yourself. The rope was Chinese, but you put it onto your own neck and kicked the chair out yourself.

Comment Re:Absent sci-fi tech (Score 1) 574

And without calling Sir Issac Newton a liar, a bullet imparts significantly more energy onto the recipient than the shooter.

Nope, to say that you have to call Sir Isaac Newton a liar. A bullet imparts significantly less energy onto the recipient than the shooter. Recoil springs and slide rails don't absorb any of that energy, they just spread it over a longer period of time. Large muzzle brakes actually can some of the energy in the direction, but those only exist on very large-caliber weapons (mostly .50 BMG).

Comment Re:Absent sci-fi tech (Score 1) 574

Number three,and to a lesser extent two, are what people are referring to with the term "Stopping power". If a bullet is said to have more stopping power, they usually mean hydroshock temporarily interrupting nervous system function. It isn't just for the central nervous system however, it works everywhere. Think of it this way, have you ever been struck so hard or hit something so hard that part of your body went numb? Imagine that feeling applied with an order of magnitude more force through a bullet hit.

Actually, a bullet strike generally carries much less energy than many other forms of impact that you might receive, and be stunned by.

By your own admission stopping power isn't a myth, just firearms jargon you were not fully aware of.

It's a myth in handguns. And actually pretty rare even in rifles.

The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan