| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On April 25 2016 00:08 Hryul wrote: why did the guillotine came out of fashion? it seems much less painful than, say, strangulation and US is having trouble with their meds. My brother is an engineer and wonders about this. Although, his point is that if you were serious about this you'd duct tape a brick of C4 to their head and let it go boom. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
On April 26 2016 10:15 Jerubaal wrote: I feel like you're neck deep in your theoretical framework. You are the one that argued that momentum is not a primary thing, because it is a quantity based on velocity which is based on energy according to you. With that argument you already venture deep into physics territory, you just don't understand what you are talking about. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On April 26 2016 13:23 Yoav wrote: My brother is an engineer and wonders about this. Although, his point is that if you were serious about this you'd duct tape a brick of C4 to their head and let it go boom. well but that would be a bloody hell of a mess. i mean with a guillotine you at least can stitch the head back on for the coffin. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On April 26 2016 14:57 Simberto wrote: The problem is not killing people, we have a lot of ways to do that. The problem is looking civilized while doing that. Which, as it turns out, is pretty hard. I'm not sure if the guillotine was designed to look civilized. To me it was mostly designed to be efficient, easy to use, cheap to produce and give an impressive death show for the crowd. A guillotine is basically rationalism applied to your traditional beheading by axe/sword. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
the solution is obviously letting the victim kill himself however he wants; seppuku ftw | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On April 26 2016 05:24 opisska wrote: In fact, this is a non-relativistic view. In relativity, there is not much of a difference between momentum and energy, because this depends on the coordinate system. What is really conserved is four-momentum; in each coordinate system though, it's true that it is conserved component-by-component. This is probably too high level for this discussion, but the beauty of this should be pointed out nonetheless. Let me repeat what you said with more words, in case anyone cares.  In physics, every symmetry is connected with a conserved property. A symmetry here is a parameter that physics doesn't depend on: the rules of physics stays the same no matter how this is changed. A conserved property is something that cannot be destroyed or created, the total amount of this in the universe is always the same. One example is time symmetry. Physics today is the same as physics tomorrow. That symmetry results in conservation of energy (through calculations I will not go into). Another example space symmetry. Physics in Australia are the same as physics in US, and on the moon. This results in conservation of momentum. Special relativity, all that story with the speed of light, E=mc^2, time dilation and that jazz, essentially connects time and space. It says that what looks like time for some, looks like space for others. They are two sides of the same coin. Thus the concept of space-time is introduced, covering them both. This deep connection between time and space connects their conserved properties as well: energy and momentum. What looks like energy for some, looks like momentum to others. Two sides of the same coin. Physicists talk about 4-momentum, which is the combination of energy and momentum, in the same way that space-time is the combination of (duh) space and time. i realise this all sounds a bit zen-like for most, but just wanted to get it out of the system, sorry. :o) | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On April 26 2016 15:14 OtherWorld wrote: I'm not sure if the guillotine was designed to look civilized. To me it was mostly designed to be efficient, easy to use, cheap to produce and give an impressive death show for the crowd. A guillotine is basically rationalism applied to your traditional beheading by axe/sword. your are right - the guillotine was indeed designed with efficiency in mind. An axe/sword can miss or make a non-lethal glancing blow (i.e. Mary Stuart needed to be struck twice to sever the head) and thus introduces some uncertainty for efficient and "humane" executions. Any idiot can release a blade that falls down and there is little to no way for it to fail. Further, it promoted the sense of equality across the classes (as everyone deserving of a death penalty were killed in the same manner instead of either being decapitated (nobles) or hung (poor)). I'm not too sure if it gives more of a show though. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
As an example of people who are also fine with the reality of killing people, take a look at North Korea, where they have methods like "shooting by AA gun" | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
- simberto: surely talking about STR out of the blue is not the best outreach strategy, i just wanted to point out how silly it is to argue about merits of energy and momentum separately. it was not pointed at you. - jerubaal: why do you engage in physics discussions while showing disgust with "theory"? it doesn't make any sense to me. do you feel the need to diss science out of fear that you could look uncool otherwise? - cascade: you have an error, saying conservation of time instead of energy which makes an otherwise nice writeup hard to comprehend for a casual reader | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
On April 26 2016 19:07 opisska wrote: - jerubaal: why do you engage in physics discussions while showing disgust with "theory"? it doesn't make any sense to me. do you feel the need to diss science out of fear that you could look uncool otherwise?r I did not see 'disgust' as you say. Also, [Physics] is not equivalent to [theoretical framework] as he stated. So you can like speaking about the former without being limited to the latter. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
On April 26 2016 19:22 AbouSV wrote: I did not see 'disgust' as you say. Also, [Physics] is not equivalent to [theoretical framework] as he stated. So you can like speaking about the former without being limited to the latter. That's about as useful as claiming homeopathy is medicine too. Jerubaal explicitly mentioned aspects of said "theoretical framework": Newtonian physics, but didn't understand the concepts. Simberto correcting him by going into further detail on what the concepts mean within said framework (notably, their textbook definition). Subsequently complaining that it's too theoretical is silly. | ||
|
iloveav
Poland1482 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On April 26 2016 19:22 AbouSV wrote: I did not see 'disgust' as you say. Also, [Physics] is not equivalent to [theoretical framework] as he stated. So you can like speaking about the former without being limited to the latter. Physics is perfectly equivalent to "theoretical framework". That is exactly what Physics is, a theoretical framework for understanding how and why do things around us happen the way they do and for predicting the outcome of events in the physical world. Surely, you can talk about the world around you without this framework, but that manifestly isn't "Physics". | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
On April 26 2016 20:35 Acrofales wrote: That's about as useful as claiming homeopathy is medicine too. Jerubaal explicitly mentioned aspects of said "theoretical framework": Newtonian physics, but didn't understand the concepts. Simberto correcting him by going into further detail on what the concepts mean within said framework (notably, their textbook definition). Subsequently complaining that it's too theoretical is silly. I submit to your point then, you seem to agree (at least both of you) and I know I am biased against theoretical Physics at some extends. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On April 26 2016 21:01 iloveav wrote: If Feminists want women to be equal to men and all men are bad according to feminism, can we assume feminists want good people to turn bad? It is important to not generalize the entire feminist movement. Plenty of them simply want equality and do not see men as bad. A portion (a loud one) of feminists have swung the pendulum the other way and are basically campaigning for female led inequality. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45937 Posts
On April 26 2016 21:01 iloveav wrote: If Feminists want women to be equal to men and all men are bad according to feminism, can we assume feminists want good people to turn bad? Well, that's just wrong. Feminism does not state that all men are bad. Or even that men are stereotypically bad. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9299 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On April 26 2016 21:52 Sent. wrote: That question is a minefield You misspelled troll. (and thanks for spotting the typo opisska, fixed now) | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45937 Posts
On April 26 2016 21:52 Sent. wrote: That question is a minefield It's actually a really, really good example of a whole bunch of logical fallacies though Good practice. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
WardiTV Spring Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
