Racing to get to a red light and wait...

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:45:24 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On 11 Mar 2006 09:55:06 -0800, wrote:
>
>>1. Speeding can be a very serious thing. It increases liklihood and
>>severity of an accident
>
>That statement is ridiculous on its face.
>
>Which is safer: the driver going 70 (speeiding, but keeping up with
>the flow of traffic) in a 65 zone, or the driver going 35 MPH (i.e.
>NOT speeding) on that same road? Which driver is increasing the
>likelihood and severity of an accident?

According to the laws of physics, it's the driver going 70. Read up
on kinetic energy sometime.

Bob Ward wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:45:24 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On 11 Mar 2006 09:55:06 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>1. Speeding can be a very serious thing. It increases liklihood and
>>>severity of an accident
>>
>>That statement is ridiculous on its face.
>>
>>Which is safer: the driver going 70 (speeiding, but keeping up with
>>the flow of traffic) in a 65 zone, or the driver going 35 MPH (i.e.
>>NOT speeding) on that same road? Which driver is increasing the
>>likelihood and severity of an accident?
>
>
> According to the laws of physics, it's the driver going 70. Read up
> on kinetic energy sometime.
>

Oh, not this crap again.

If a 35 MPH car is hit by a 70 MPH car, or a 70 MPH car is hit by
another 70 MPH car, in which instance is more kinetic energy dissipated?

Unless you're a pretty incompetent driver, the case of hitting an
immovable object can pretty much be completely disregarded.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Bob Ward wrote:
>>
>>Which is safer: the driver going 70 (speeiding, but keeping up with
>>the flow of traffic) in a 65 zone, or the driver going 35 MPH (i.e.
>>NOT speeding) on that same road? Which driver is increasing the
>>likelihood and severity of an accident?
>
> According to the laws of physics, it's the driver going 70. Read up
> on kinetic energy sometime.

Sorry, I have only studied physics at undergraduate level. I'd take
it as a kindness if you could point me towards a reference
explaining where an object with higher kinetic energy is more
likely to have a collision than an object with lower kinetic energy.

Further, kinetic energy is relative. The earth is moving through
space at 11 kilometres per second (or something), I don't see
you taking that kinetic energy into account. If two cars are
both traveling with the same velocity then each one has a
kinetic energy of zero relative to the other. They only have
kinetic energy relative to the road. This latter quantity does
not come into play unless one of the drivers loses control of
his vehicle.

"Old Wolf" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>
>>>Which is safer: the driver going 70 (speeiding, but keeping up with
>>>the flow of traffic) in a 65 zone, or the driver going 35 MPH (i.e.
>>>NOT speeding) on that same road? Which driver is increasing the
>>>likelihood and severity of an accident?
>>
>> According to the laws of physics, it's the driver going 70. Read up
>> on kinetic energy sometime.
>
> Sorry, I have only studied physics at undergraduate level. I'd take
> it as a kindness if you could point me towards a reference
> explaining where an object with higher kinetic energy is more
> likely to have a collision than an object with lower kinetic energy.
>


Bobby's reference is that old Suburban with the 6 cylinder that his old man
use to have. Bobby popped the clutch and busted a motor mount that was
otherwise fine.

In otherwords, good luck on a cite from bobby...




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0612-4, 03/25/2006
Tested on: 3/26/2006 6:55:04 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Old Wolf > wrote
> Bob Ward wrote

>>> Which is safer: the driver going 70 (speeiding, but keeping
>>> up with the flow of traffic) in a 65 zone, or the driver going
>>> 35 MPH (i.e. NOT speeding) on that same road? Which
>>> driver is increasing the likelihood and severity of an accident?

>> According to the laws of physics, it's the driver
>> going 70. Read up on kinetic energy sometime.

> Sorry, I have only studied physics at undergraduate level. I'd
> take it as a kindness if you could point me towards a reference
> explaining where an object with higher kinetic energy is more
> likely to have a collision than an object with lower kinetic energy.

That was obviously a comment on the severity.

> Further, kinetic energy is relative. The earth is moving
> through space at 11 kilometres per second (or something),
> I don't see you taking that kinetic energy into account.

Mindlessly silly.

> If two cars are both traveling with the same velocity then
> each one has a kinetic energy of zero relative to the other.

They arent likely to collide in that situation.

> They only have kinetic energy relative to the road.
> This latter quantity does not come into play unless
> one of the drivers loses control of his vehicle.

You quite sure you aint one of the rocket scientist dogs ?

Rod Speed wrote:
> Old Wolf > wrote
>
>>Bob Ward wrote
>
>
>>>>Which is safer: the driver going 70 (speeiding, but keeping
>>>>up with the flow of traffic) in a 65 zone, or the driver going
>>>>35 MPH (i.e. NOT speeding) on that same road? Which
>>>>driver is increasing the likelihood and severity of an accident?
>
>
>>>According to the laws of physics, it's the driver
>>>going 70. Read up on kinetic energy sometime.
>
>
>>Sorry, I have only studied physics at undergraduate level. I'd
>>take it as a kindness if you could point me towards a reference
>>explaining where an object with higher kinetic energy is more
>>likely to have a collision than an object with lower kinetic energy.
>
>
> That was obviously a comment on the severity.
>
>
>>Further, kinetic energy is relative. The earth is moving
>>through space at 11 kilometres per second (or something),
>>I don't see you taking that kinetic energy into account.
>
>
> Mindlessly silly.

Indeed.

>
>
>>If two cars are both traveling with the same velocity then
>>each one has a kinetic energy of zero relative to the other.
>
>
> They arent likely to collide in that situation.
>

That's the point we've all been trying to get you to see.

>
>>They only have kinetic energy relative to the road.
>>This latter quantity does not come into play unless
>>one of the drivers loses control of his vehicle.
>
>
> You quite sure you aint one of the rocket scientist dogs ?
>

Enough already, OK?

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel > wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Old Wolf > wrote
>>> Bob Ward wrote

>>>>> Which is safer: the driver going 70 (speeiding, but keeping
>>>>> up with the flow of traffic) in a 65 zone, or the driver going
>>>>> 35 MPH (i.e. NOT speeding) on that same road? Which
>>>>> driver is increasing the likelihood and severity of an accident?

>>>> According to the laws of physics, it's the driver
>>>> going 70. Read up on kinetic energy sometime.

>>> Sorry, I have only studied physics at undergraduate level. I'd
>>> take it as a kindness if you could point me towards a reference
>>> explaining where an object with higher kinetic energy is more
>>> likely to have a collision than an object with lower kinetic energy.

>> That was obviously a comment on the severity.

>>> Further, kinetic energy is relative. The earth is moving
>>> through space at 11 kilometres per second (or something),
>>> I don't see you taking that kinetic energy into account.

>> Mindlessly silly.

> Indeed.

>>> If two cars are both traveling with the same velocity then
>>> each one has a kinetic energy of zero relative to the other.

>> They arent likely to collide in that situation.

> That's the point we've all been trying to get you to see.

Lying, as always. That was my first post in this thread.

>>> They only have kinetic energy relative to the road.
>>> This latter quantity does not come into play unless
>>> one of the drivers loses control of his vehicle.

>> You quite sure you aint one of the rocket scientist dogs ?

> Enough already, OK?

Nope, not OK. Kill yourself forthwith.

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:00:11 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> wrote:

>Nate Nagel > wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Old Wolf > wrote
>>>> Bob Ward wrote
>
>>>>>> Which is safer: the driver going 70 (speeiding, but keeping
>>>>>> up with the flow of traffic) in a 65 zone, or the driver going
>>>>>> 35 MPH (i.e. NOT speeding) on that same road? Which
>>>>>> driver is increasing the likelihood and severity of an accident?
>
>>>>> According to the laws of physics, it's the driver
>>>>> going 70. Read up on kinetic energy sometime.
>
>>>> Sorry, I have only studied physics at undergraduate level. I'd
>>>> take it as a kindness if you could point me towards a reference
>>>> explaining where an object with higher kinetic energy is more
>>>> likely to have a collision than an object with lower kinetic energy.
>
>>> That was obviously a comment on the severity.
>
>>>> Further, kinetic energy is relative. The earth is moving
>>>> through space at 11 kilometres per second (or something),
>>>> I don't see you taking that kinetic energy into account.
>
>>> Mindlessly silly.
>
>> Indeed.
>
>>>> If two cars are both traveling with the same velocity then
>>>> each one has a kinetic energy of zero relative to the other.
>
>>> They arent likely to collide in that situation.
>
>> That's the point we've all been trying to get you to see.
>
>Lying, as always. That was my first post in this thread.

You can fool yourself-or even some subscribers as to your simple
"nuisance value".

*I* however know *exactly* what you are!
You will be dealt with accordingly




>
>>>> They only have kinetic energy relative to the road.
>>>> This latter quantity does not come into play unless
>>>> one of the drivers loses control of his vehicle.
>
>>> You quite sure you aint one of the rocket scientist dogs ?
>
>> Enough already, OK?
>
>Nope, not OK. Kill yourself forthwith.

trying to raeson with you *IS* a kind of brain death




>
Who or What is Rod Speed?


Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet.


Why is Rod Speed worth a FAQ?


You need to brush up on your NetSpeak. Rod most certainly isn't
worth a FUQ in anybody's opinion except his own.


Rod certainly posts a lot. Why is that?


It relates back to the point about boosting his own self esteem by
what amounts to effectively having a wank in public. Rod's
personality, as exemplified by his posts, means he is practically
unemployable which means he sits around at home all day festering away
and getting worse and worse. This means he posts more and more try
and boost the old failing self esteem. Being unemployed also means he
as a lot of time on his hands to post in he first place.


But maybe Rod really is a very clever and knowledgable person?


Clever? His posts wouldn't support that theory. As far as being
knowledgable, well, Rod has posted to various aus newsgroups including
invest, comms, and politics. He has posted to all as a self professed
expert" and flames any and all who disagree with him. Logically,
here's no way any single individual could be more than a jack of all
trades across such a wide spread of subject matter.


But maybe Rod really is an expert in some areas?


Possibly. However, his "bedside manner" prevents him from being
taken seriously by most normal people. Also, he has damaged his
credibility in areas where he might know what he's on about by
shooting his self in the foot in areas where he does not. For
example, in the case of subject matter such as politics, even a view
held by Albert Einstein cannot be little more than an opinion and to
vociferously denigrate an opposing opinion is simply small mindedness
and bigotry, the kind of which Einstein himself fought against his
whole life.


What is Rod Speed's main modus operandi?


Simple! He shoots off a half brained opinion in response to any other
post and touts that opinion as fact. When challenged, he responds
with vociferous and rabid denigration. He has an instantly
recognisable set of schoolboy put downs limited pretty much to the
following: "Pathetic, Puerile, Little Boy, try harder, trivial, more
lies, gutless wonder, ******, etc etc". The fact that Rod has been
unable to come up with any new insults says a lot about his outlook
and intelligence.


But why do so many people respond to Rod in turn?


It has to do with effrontery and a lack of logic. Most people who
post have some basis of reason for what they write and when Rod
retorts with his usual denigration and derision they respond
emotionally rather than logically. It's like a teacher in a class
room who has a misbehaving pupil. The teacher challenges the pupil to
explain himself and the student responds with "**** off, Big Nose!"
Even thought the teacher has a fairly normal proboscis, he gets a dent
in his self-esteem and might resort to an emotional repsonse like
"yeah? well your dick wouldn't fill a pop rivet, punk", which merely
invites some oneupmanship from the naughty pupil. Of course, the
teacher should not have justified the initial comment with a
response, especially in front of the class. The correct response was
"please report to the headmaster's office right NOW!"

What is a "RodBot"?

Some respondents in aus.invest built a "vritual Rod" which was
indiscernable from the "real" Rod. Net users could enter an opinion
or even a fact and the RoDBot would tell them they were pathetic lying
schoolboys who should be able to do better or some equally pithy Rod
Speedism.

Are you saying that Rod Speed is a Troll?

You got it!

What is the best way to handle Rod Speed?

Killfile!

Rod Speed wrote:
> Nate Nagel > wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> Old Wolf > wrote
> >>> Bob Ward wrote
>
> >>>>> Which is safer: the driver going 70 (speeiding, but keeping
> >>>>> up with the flow of traffic) in a 65 zone, or the driver going
> >>>>> 35 MPH (i.e. NOT speeding) on that same road? Which
> >>>>> driver is increasing the likelihood and severity of an accident?
>
> >>>> According to the laws of physics, it's the driver
> >>>> going 70. Read up on kinetic energy sometime.
>
> >>> Sorry, I have only studied physics at undergraduate level. I'd
> >>> take it as a kindness if you could point me towards a reference
> >>> explaining where an object with higher kinetic energy is more
> >>> likely to have a collision than an object with lower kinetic energy.
>
> >> That was obviously a comment on the severity.
>
> >>> Further, kinetic energy is relative. The earth is moving
> >>> through space at 11 kilometres per second (or something),
> >>> I don't see you taking that kinetic energy into account.
>
> >> Mindlessly silly.
>
> > Indeed.
>
> >>> If two cars are both traveling with the same velocity then
> >>> each one has a kinetic energy of zero relative to the other.
>
> >> They arent likely to collide in that situation.
>
> > That's the point we've all been trying to get you to see.
>
> Lying, as always. That was my first post in this thread.

"you" in this case is a collective, referring to all the morons and
trolls infesting RAD among whose number you are counted.

>
> >>> They only have kinetic energy relative to the road.
> >>> This latter quantity does not come into play unless
> >>> one of the drivers loses control of his vehicle.
>
> >> You quite sure you aint one of the rocket scientist dogs ?
>
> > Enough already, OK?
>
> Nope, not OK. Kill yourself forthwith.

Why? My life isn't that bad, overall, unlike those of people who seem
to live only to spew idiocy and hatred on Usenet.

nate

N8N > wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Nate Nagel > wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Old Wolf > wrote
>>>>> Bob Ward wrote

>>>>>>> Which is safer: the driver going 70 (speeiding, but keeping
>>>>>>> up with the flow of traffic) in a 65 zone, or the driver going
>>>>>>> 35 MPH (i.e. NOT speeding) on that same road? Which
>>>>>>> driver is increasing the likelihood and severity of an accident?

>>>>>> According to the laws of physics, it's the driver
>>>>>> going 70. Read up on kinetic energy sometime.

>>>>> Sorry, I have only studied physics at undergraduate level. I'd
>>>>> take it as a kindness if you could point me towards a reference
>>>>> explaining where an object with higher kinetic energy is more
>>>>> likely to have a collision than an object with lower kinetic energy.

>>>> That was obviously a comment on the severity.

>>>>> Further, kinetic energy is relative. The earth is moving
>>>>> through space at 11 kilometres per second (or something),
>>>>> I don't see you taking that kinetic energy into account.

>>>> Mindlessly silly.

>>> Indeed.

>>>>> If two cars are both traveling with the same velocity then
>>>>> each one has a kinetic energy of zero relative to the other.

>>>> They arent likely to collide in that situation.

>>> That's the point we've all been trying to get you to see.

>> Lying, as always. That was my first post in this thread.

> "you" in this case is a collective,

Lying, as always. You wouldnt have used that "we've all" in that case.

>>>>> They only have kinetic energy relative to the road.
>>>>> This latter quantity does not come into play unless
>>>>> one of the drivers loses control of his vehicle.

>>>> You quite sure you aint one of the rocket scientist dogs ?

>>> Enough already, OK?

>> Nope, not OK. Kill yourself forthwith.

> Why?

Because it would be a much better place with you dead.