jcd11235 0 #126 August 20, 2008 Quote It seems like you are the one that is not understanding. Either that or you are just trying to confuse the issue. The reason for which I said velocity is the derivative of position and not speed, is because velocity has direction, whereas speed doesn't. Nice misdirect. Never mind that I didn't comment about your Physics example. And yes, I am well aware that velocity has a speed and direction component. Thanks for the review of high school Physics. Now, would you care to respond to my comment on your lack of understanding of the deficit and debt? Quote That being said as usual, this is turning to the silly game of gotcha. The bottomline, is that what mattered to me in this case was the DEBT when Clinton took office and what it was it when they left. That is what he accomplished. The Debt went up all the way through because even during time in which he had "surplus". The surplus was so small that it did not even cover the interest that was already being accured. You might try doing some research to see the size of the surplus and where the money from the surplus went before making such foolish statements. (Hint: Debt interest is a non-discretionary expenditure.) Perhaps a maths class might be in order while you're at it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #127 August 20, 2008 >That's a pretty sweeping generalization. Ron Paul is a republican . . . Ron Paul is a libertarian who might run as a republican. Huge difference there. >As far as McCain and Obama, I think they're both likely to keep >the government living beyond it's means. True. But looking at their tax plans and spending plans, McCain will grow the debt roughly twice as fast as Obama, all else being equal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #128 August 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote No, you don't have an option, or no, your Cali assets don't count, or no, Cali is not desirable? I suspect you don't move to a cheaper place because Cali IS more desirable than Nebraska or Mississippi, which is why Cali prices are higher. So your income allows you to live in a nicer place. 1. No, I don't have that option. I'm admitted to the bar in California and no other state. 2. No, my Cali assets don't count because they're owned by the bank, not me. 3. No, I wouldn't be taking my income with me, because if I moved elsewhere, I'd make less money. Were you forced to choose CA? Even if I didn't choose California (and it was pretty much the default, since I was born here, my family is here, and my dad paid my bar exam fees for California and would not have done so for another state), and I went and paid the ridiculous fees to take another bar exam, I wouldn't be taking my income or assets to another state, because I'd be making less money and the bank owns my home. But if the CoL is less elsewhere, it would cancel out. So your higher income allows you to live in the Golden State and not have to live in Illinois like me. The rich have more options than the poor. Do you "have" to live in Illinois? I bet there are areas in southern Wisconsin or western Indiana that are cheaper than the Chicagoland area Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #129 August 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteSo your higher income allows you to live in the Golden State and not have to live in Illinois like me. The rich have more options than the poor. Actually, the Golden State allows people like Kris and I to have the same opportunities as anywhere. High income is funny, since I only once cleared $20k in earnings until I was 29. And, I chose to move to a place like Fresno because of the decreased cost of living. It's not that I couldn't build a life in SoCal, it would simply take longer, and my income can go further here than there. I'd still be struggling to have ONE house in LA, much less my house and another investment rental. Many places in Cali are like buying stocks - I can get three shares at $333 or I can get 10 shares at $100. We chose to live in Cali and practice here because it is where home is. We grew up here and went to school. Frankly, I don't even want to THINK about taking another Bar exam. Unlike you, whose profession relies on the laws of physics, that don't change from place to place, our profession is limiting. So in fact, we have less options than others. But does that make Kris "rich?" Probably not. Hey Kris - why don't you and I put our net worths against others who claim that we could be rich and see who comes out better? I'm sure it would be enlightening to many of them just how little they are in the negative and how much you and I are. Because our investments will pay off in the long run. hahahaha....yeah...I hear that... I owe a nice Porsche, but I don't have a car! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #130 August 20, 2008 Quote Quote I personally prefer McCain by a hair because wars generally end at some point, The current administration has set this one up to go on forever.... the war that keeps on giving far into the future.. ensuring a steady income for those who have benefited most from all that raiding of our treasury...why... because they have the contracts to prove it. A war against a single nation is likely to end, one way or the other. But a war on a nebulous concept, like Terror (or drugs, or poverty, or god willing, obesity) can be endless, as you move from one element to the next. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #131 August 20, 2008 I consider "rich" to be having so much money you don't know what to do with it. I think 10+ M falls into that category. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #132 August 20, 2008 Quote I consider "rich" to be having so much money you don't know what to do with it. I think 10+ M falls into that category. Personally, I know what I'd do with $10 mil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #133 August 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteSecond question: what are the metrics to determine "rich"? Not how much you make, but where your income comes from. I say you are rich when you get a majority of your income from your assets and then after that, depending where you live, top 20% of income of the community. Depends on age. You need to accumulate 20X your annual income to be able to take home 80% as much after retiring. If you want to retain your middle class lifestyle when you're old and tired, you need to become a multi-millionaire. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
repcool 2 #134 August 20, 2008 Rich to me, financially, means you can buy ANYTHING you want without thinking about it, so that us uber-millions. If you have to think about it for a split second before you buy it, you ain't rich. Now, rich in life, thats a different question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #135 August 20, 2008 > Rich to me, financially, means you can buy ANYTHING you want without thinking about it . . . Well, in that case, no one is rich. Richest guy I know is worth about 2 billion, and he thinks quite a bit about buying expensive things. (Indeed, one could argue that that's how people _get_ to be rich - by thinking about such things carefully.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #136 August 21, 2008 Quote> Rich to me, financially, means you can buy ANYTHING you want without thinking about it . . . Well, in that case, no one is rich. Richest guy I know is worth about 2 billion, and he thinks quite a bit about buying expensive things. (Indeed, one could argue that that's how people _get_ to be rich - by thinking about such things carefully.) Richest guy I know is worth more than that, and last time we had lunch he turned up driving a rusty old Ford Taurus.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #137 August 21, 2008 QuoteAnd yes, I am well aware that velocity has a speed and direction component. Velocity is distance & time. A change of direction is acceleration." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #138 August 21, 2008 QuoteRichest guy I know is worth more than that, and last time we had lunch he turned up driving a rusty old Ford Taurus. Typical of someone with true class. No need to impress anyone, very secure about who they are, understatement and below the radar being their style. People who are simply rich, but have no class, flaunt their wealth. People of class avoid attracting attention. Being rich is about accumulation of wealth; not annual income. For sake of delineating (for those that feel the need), I suppose you could pick some arbitrary level of wealth and say anybody over that level is rich. I prefer taking an arbitrary cut of some percent; say the top 1/100th of 1%. Any way you do it is pretty much arbitrary, and highly subjective." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #139 August 21, 2008 From a skydiving point of view, you are rich of you can do fun jumps at any time without ever questioning "how much is this going to cost me". In this case, I used to be rich, but I guess I spent much of my old wealth on my jumps. But skydivers and the whuffo world are two radically different topics. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #140 August 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteAnd yes, I am well aware that velocity has a speed and direction component. Velocity is distance & time. No. Velocity is speed (magnitude) and direction. Velocity is a vector. QuoteA change of direction is acceleration. Yes, a change in direction is acceleration. A change in speed is also acceleration.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #141 August 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd yes, I am well aware that velocity has a speed and direction component. Velocity is distance & time. No. Velocity is speed (magnitude) and direction. Velocity is a vector. QuoteA change of direction is acceleration. Yes, a change in direction is acceleration. A change in speed is also acceleration. Nice little physics tutorial you guys have going here. Maybe we can work out something related to exit separation and "The 45 Degree Rule".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bjjman 0 #142 August 21, 2008 Quote Quote And yes, I am well aware that velocity has a speed and direction component. Velocity is distance & time. A change of direction is acceleration. No, no, no. Velocity is distance. A change of direction is 3. "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #143 August 21, 2008 Quote Nice little physics tutorial you guys have going here. Maybe we can work out something related to exit separation and "The 45 Degree Rule". We can make it work. We just have to convert to radians. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #144 August 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd yes, I am well aware that velocity has a speed and direction component. Velocity is distance & time. No. Velocity is speed (magnitude) and direction. Velocity is a vector. Seems odd, but I will bow to higher knowledge. So speed is distance divided by time, but doesn't become velocity until a direction is determined? And you can't have velocity without first having some speed? Are these things defined differently for Plane Geometry versus all-out Physics?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #145 August 21, 2008 Quote Quote Quote And yes, I am well aware that velocity has a speed and direction component. Velocity is distance & time. A change of direction is acceleration. No, no, no. Velocity is distance. A change of direction is 3. No, it is a 4 (in UNO)." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #146 August 21, 2008 Quote No, no, no. Velocity is distance. WTF? any self-respecting skydiver knows: Velocity is a canopy. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #147 August 21, 2008 QuoteSo speed is distance divided by time, but doesn't become velocity until a direction is determined? And you can't have velocity without first having some speed? He's right. Distance/time is average speed - dD/dt as dt --> 0 is speed. Velocity does have a directional component so that's a vector - but not a Vector (TM). Can't have velocity (but not a Velocity (TM)) without some speed? guess you can, speed can be zero, but then the direction is a bit pointless - just facing north and vigorously NOT moving north would yield something I suppose. vector math is silly, so are inquisitive simians ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #148 August 21, 2008 Quote Quote No, no, no. Velocity is distance. WTF? any self-respecting skydiver knows: Velocity is a canopy. yes yes, you put a Velocity into a Vector (Swiftly, mind you and locate it in Cyprus (I know, I'm reaching with the spelling)) and you get a nerdwich for academics. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #149 August 21, 2008 QuoteSo speed is distance divided by time, but doesn't become velocity until a direction is determined? And you can't have velocity without first having some speed? Velocity tells us how fast we are going in a particular direction. It has a direction component and a magnitude component. The magnitude of the velocity is the speed. Imagine a horse on a carousel. As the carousel goes round and round, the speed of the horse stays the same. The velocity, OTOH, is continuously changing (i.e. the horse is continuously accelerating), because the direction is continuously changing. Neither speed nor velocity happens "first." Velocity just offers more information. Consider the following statements: 1) A car traveling at 45 mph crashed into a car traveling at 35 mph. and 2) A car traveling north at 45 mph crashed into a car traveling south at 35 mph. From which statement are we able to get the most information? QuoteAre these things defined differently for Plane Geometry versus all-out Physics? Plane Geometry as in Euclidean Geometry? Yes, I believe they are defined the same way as they are in Physics (relativity notwithstanding).Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #150 August 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteSo speed is distance divided by time, but doesn't become velocity until a direction is determined? And you can't have velocity without first having some speed? Velocity tells us how fast we are going in a particular direction. It has a direction component and a magnitude component. The magnitude of the velocity is the speed. Imagine a horse on a carousel. As the carousel goes round and round, the speed of the horse stays the same. The velocity, OTOH, is continuously changing (i.e. the horse is continuously accelerating), because the direction is continuously changing. Neither speed nor velocity happens "first." Velocity just offers more information. Consider the following statements: 1) A car traveling at 45 mph crashed into a car traveling at 35 mph. and 2) A car traveling north at 45 mph crashed into a car traveling south at 35 mph. From which statement are we able to get the most information? QuoteAre these things defined differently for Plane Geometry versus all-out Physics? Plane Geometry as in Euclidean Geometry? Yes, I believe they are defined the same way as they are in Physics (relativity notwithstanding). Well explained. Here's looking at Eu, clid." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
