Printable View
It doesn't really magically go away, it's just transformed into energy, so it's not magically gone! :p And it's not really relevant in our day to day life, I think - matter around us mostly doesn't disappear or magically go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
It also doesn't just transform into a tiny amount of energy either, but a magically immense amount of energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
And we don't really have the means of tapping into that "magickal energy", either, so
Wait what
Yeah, one of my physics teachers made that same mistake once where he calculated how long one kilogram of enriched uranium would power a city. He used e=mc² for the whole kilogram.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
At least he discovered his error pertty quickly.
Well, first of all, let's not lose sight of what I was responding to: "Matter doesn't disappear or magically go away. Matter can't be destroyed." [emphasis added]Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
And as they say, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic... I think that vaporizing an entire city for the destruction of a microscopic amount of matter definitely falls in the "magically" category. (Maybe one of the physics folks here could tell us how much mass is actually consumed in a nuclear explosion... but it's shockingly tiny... that c^2 value is apparently quite large. :downcast: )
Well, maybe it's not relevant to our every day life... well, provided you don't have radium on your watch dial, or get your juice from a nuclear plant, or tend not to think about the universe around you and whatnot, but again, let's remember how we started down this merry little path of physics-for-the-insane: GGT comparing a mass-less, matter-less political organization with matter, to make the point that organizations can never dissolve or go away, apparently. Talk about "holy effing :bulb:, Batman."Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Front page of the local paper today.
http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/20...lic-ar-255760/Quote:
Navy vet sues over welfare drug testing
TALLAHASSEE --
Luis Lebron sued the state of Florida on Tuesday over its drug-testing policy for all adults applying for welfare assistance.
He is not exactly your stereotypical welfare applicant.
The Orlando resident is trying to finish his accounting studies at the University of Central Florida. A 35-year-old U.S. Navy veteran, he also has sole custody of his four-year-old son and cares for his live-in, mentally disabled mother.
College got more difficult when Lebron's employer downsized him out of a job in 2008. He has been unable to land another job since, he said.
His veteran's benefits exhausted and graduation not expected until December, Lebron finally turned this summer to the state for temporary cash assistance -- but could not stomach the new drug-screening policy.
"It made me feel really bad; I just felt like everything was caving in on me," Lebron said Tuesday. "I felt like, I served my country for four years; doesn't that mean anything anymore? I've worked for pretty good companies. I'm going to school; I'm supposed to graduate. I shouldn't be in this position."
For the record, he said, he does not take illegal drugs. But "it really hit hard when I had to go down there and go through this."
Florida is the only state that mandates drug-testing for welfare applicants regardless of whether there is cause to suspect they are using.
Instead of taking the test, Lebron contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. Tuesday, they filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the state, arguing that the test constitutes an "unreasonable search" by the government, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The lawsuit names Department of Children and Families Secretary David Wilkins as defendant, since his agency administers welfare benefits and oversees the drug-testing. The plaintiffs want an immediate injunction and an order forcing DCF to process all cash assistance applications without regard to drug screening.
DCF spokesman Joe Follick deferred comment, saying that the department had not yet received a copy of the complaint. In the past, Follick has stressed that the policy is intended to make sure the money is used to help families.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Mary Scriven, who made headlines last month when she ruled that a state drug trafficking law was unconstitutional because it punishes defendants even if they did not know they were carrying illegal drugs.
* * * * *
Lebron said he contacted the ACLU about the welfare drug-screening after learning from news reports that, so far, only 2 percent of applicants have failed the test since the policy took effect in July.
The ACLU has threatened for months that it would challenge the testing policy, which the state Legislature passed this spring at the urging of Gov. Rick Scott, who made it a campaign promise.
That's part of the problem, said Howard Simon, director of the ACLU of Florida, who blasted the governor for "exploiting a stereotype" about poor people on welfare.
When Scott signed the legislation, Simon said, "He didn't say, 'we are now addressing a problem, we are now addressing a need in the state of Florida.' He said he's fulfilling a campaign pledge … there are some governors who lead, and there are some that pander to prejudice for political gain."
Scott argued that welfare recipients use drugs at a higher rate than the general population, and that drug-testing would save the state money. But the test-fail rate seen so far is well below the 8 percent rate of drug use among the general population, as measured by federal health officials.
Welfare applicants must pay the cost of their drug test, but the state reimburses those who test drug-free. Preliminary results of the first month's drug testing suggest the policy will net the state modest savings, though that could be wiped out by the cost of a court battle.
* * * * *
Lane Wright, spokesman for Scott, said those estimates don't account for the unknown number of people who don't apply for benefits because of the drug-screening. It also doesn't take into account, he said, what it costs communities and families when the government hands out cash to drug users.
"It's not just about a dollar figure," Wright said. "It's about making sure taxpayers aren't subsidizing a drug habit."
If that's the case, Simon asked, why doesn't the state drug-test recipients of government-funded contracts and scholarships? "This is public policy based on an ugly stereotype."
DCF figures show little change in the number of welfare applicants in July, compared to the three months prior to drug testing.
A federal court in 2003 ruled that Michigan, which had a suspicionless welfare drug-testing law like Florida's, was unconstitutional.
Asked about the Michigan example, Wright said he did not know the details, but "we're not Michigan."
Scott, Wright said, is sure the policy is on solid legal ground.
(warning: TBO comments rank only .0001 degree above Yahoo comments).
Can't be bothered with an actual calculation but the order of magnitude is 10^-2 Kg.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
edit: Oh, for the hell of it, my first approach was completely ass-backwards. So, here's a rough calculation.
1 Megaton of TNT is equivalent to 4.184 Petajoules (4.184E15 J) We divide that by the square of 3E8 m/s (i.e. 4,184E15 / 9E16) and arrive at 0,046 Kilogram.
Which means a nuclear bomb equivalent to 1 Megaton will consume 46 grams of matter.
Out-fucking-standing! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Need something done right, get a military man on the job. Hell, I'd say that his part in this more than makes up for the fact that he joined the ladies' department of the Marines. :D
Sounds like it's an ACLU wet dream too - military vet, family man, upstanding member of the community looking after his sick family, who doesn't use drugs and has standing to challenge... in front of a real judge who understands what her job actually is - to protect the rest of us from the legislative branch of the government. Just a crying shame that the asshats who put this in place can't be held personally responsible for the damage their illegal legislation does before it gets overturned. :(
Awesome! Thanks, Khen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
So that would mean that Fat Man, the higher yield bomb dropped on Japan (21kT, U235) would have consumed a little less than a gram of matter... and for how dense uranium is, that's gotta be the size of a grain of sand, if that big.
A ~4600 kg bomb, destroys ~1 gram of matter, less than a millionth of its mass, and releases 88 Terajoules of energy, decimating a city and killing 40,000 people outright. If that's not magical, nothing is. Pfft... even the most powerful magics imagined can't hold a candle to the nuclear sun of real world science and engineering.
As a military-minded man, surely you're aware of how awfully wasteful nuclear bombs are. The explosive energy is released at, what, at least the inverse distance from the explosion center cubed? A sphere of let's say 20 centimeters around the center of detonation contains enough energy to flatten several cities, but it gets dispersed and blown into the wind, barely taking out the target. A real magic bullet would spread all that wondrous people-killing heat and radiation as a wafer-thin sheet several square kilometers wide, dispensing just enough energy at each square meter to kill all life and turn the ground into a boiling Gehenna. Really, it's the same thing as with people, it's fucking obvious Nature is run by engineers; who puts the pleasure center in the middle of waste disposal facilities?
well, actually you were responding to this :p [emphasis added]Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Uhm, seems you're the one who wasn't using your electrons. :donkey: The Moral Majority (in caps, as used) was exactly the group I meant all along, yes. I assumed you knew of it as an entity during the Reagan Era, because you claim to be smart and well informed about all things in US history and politics. It dawned on me, maybe you didn't know the reference, when you compared moral majority to the majority of voters....Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
You're the one displaying ignorance here, Cain. Doubt you'll 'fess up, though. :donkey:
No, it is my fault. For assuming any degree of coherency or relevance from you, and applying the standards and assumptions of a normal human discussion to something you'd written. Such, as for example, assuming you weren't talking about a completely unrelated and irrelevant group two decades removed from the topic at hand, but rather a general concept for which they were named (or which was named after them, possibly). Oops, my bad.
And cut me some slack. I really am trying my hardest to correct this mistake I keep making in regards to your posts, but it just takes time to get over habits and assumptions built up by a lifetime of experience with normal, coherent discussions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I've been on topic and relevant, discussing who's busy telling people what to do and wanting intrusive legislation, including Lewk supporting drug testing welfare recipients, and even tobacco or alcohol testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
You can't even see where we agreed, or admit where you're wrong. You enjoy being oppositional and accusatory with me, for whatever reason, or any reason at all. Give it up, Cain. :donkey:
Hehehe you know, there are few forum-related activities more entertaining than actually going back and reading posts made early on in an obnoxious and angry discussion. What's ironic is that many of us probably think of this feature of forums--the ability to preserve a discussion in writing for future reference--as one of the most appealing and useful.
Sure, there are always more "entertaining" things to do. Right now I'm just hanging around during a flood, waiting for my kids and car to return home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
So I took the time to *gasp* go back a page or two and defend myself from Cain's wild, repeated, irrational, and angry posts.
:coffee:
Good to know others feel the same way. But just to be clear, I'm obnoxious, and GeeGee's angry, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Federal Judge has halted the program for now. Appears the courts don't like it when you automatically assume college kids and war vets are drug users.
Think the radio said that out of 9 thousand applicants thus far, 30 have turned up postive. Thats less than 1%.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...2/poor-pee-ple
Pretty much sums up the attitudes around here.
Can the judge do the same to the TSA? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
:haha: That was great!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer