911 reasons for which jimmies were rustled
-
What are you arguing against, exactly?
I'm not. You are the one nitpicking.
If using 112 everywhere was the best idea possible, then why aren't the police, carriers, etc telling people to switch?
-
Oh, then go run outside you lazy fart
-
-
-
@FrostCat said:
telling people to switch?
Murica
Even the people who are still using Betamax video tapes said TDEMSYR when they read your post.
-
And you couldn't do with some exercise?
-
Thanks!
-
If using 112 everywhere was the best idea possible, then why aren't the police, carriers, etc telling people to switch?
Because it only works from GSM mobiles, not from landlines, and the great unwashed public (as opposed to the highly intelligent self-selected crowd of technical professionals here) is in general incapable of distinguishing GSM from a kick in the balls.
-
I've heard someone say, literal quote, "you can call 112 even if your phone has no battery"
.I'm still amazed how nobody so far figured out the idea of a backup battery for emergency calls only.
-
Because it only works from GSM mobiles, not from landlines, and the great unwashed public (as opposed to the highly intelligent self-selected crowd of technical professionals here) is in general incapable of distinguishing GSM from a kick in the balls.
I don't even know what crazy-ass thing you're suggesting here, but it sounds like 'use 911 for a landline, 112 for a cell phone', except that's contradicted by your low opinion of humanity. Maybe you should rethink whatever your idea is.
-
I'm still amazed how nobody so far figured out the idea of a backup battery for emergency calls only.
I'm sure that people thought of it and said "no, that's a stupid idea."
-
How about "use 911/999/your local emergency number when in your home country, but be aware that 112 is a better bet if you ever travel abroad"?
-
How about "use 911/999/your local emergency number when in your home country, but be aware that 112 is a better bet if you ever travel abroad"?
I bet if you scroll up long enough you'll find I endorse that idea. I wouldn't, in theory, be adverse to various countries, including mine, considering phasing in a complete replacement of "local emergency number" with 112, except I'm partial to 911. All this problem could've been avoided if other countries had sensibly followed the US example and used it back when they implemented emergency numbers.
-
Same logic applies to cutting over to renewable energy.
Or gun control. Everyone else seems to have worked it out, but in America it's all "we're special snowflakes and if you take our recreational shooty things away we'll all go stabby Mcstabfuck, motherfucker".
-
All this problem could've been avoided if other countries had sensibly followed the US example and used it back when they implemented emergency numbers
That's exactly what Canada did.
The only thing I never understood in that number is the 9 : it's supposed to be fast to dial but when they implemented it, almost every one was still on rotary phones
They should have gone with 112
Edit : corrected as per @tufty recommendation
-
They should have went with 112
<pendantry>should is a modal auxiliary, its non-continuous past form uses 'have' and the past participle for the verb. In this case, should have gone.
</pendantry>
-
we'll all go stabby Mcstabfuck, motherfucker".
No, that's Chinese people who are stab-happy. Try to keep up.
-
How am I supposed to keep up with the chinese? Slitty eyed little buggers all look the same. You think you've been keeping up, and it turns out you were
stalkingfollowing the wrong one.
-
How am I supposed to keep up with the chinese?
No, keep up with the news, which is that lack of access to guns doesn't prevent mass murders, as amply demonstrated by the fact that people keep going on mass stabbing sprees in China (which I use as an example, not to indicate that's the only place it happens.)
-
Ah, right. Thanks for clearing that up. That would presumably be in the China which, despite a massive problem with organised crime, somehow manages to still have a homicide rate under a quarter of that in the US, right?
-
They should have gone with 112
1 is the long distance signal digit. Making 112 the national emergency number would probably drastically increase the number of misdials because someone dialed 1-2xy-zyx-wvut and bounced on the 1 by accident.
-
despite a massive problem with organised crime, somehow manages to still have a homicide rate under a quarter of that in the US, right?
Fox Butterfield, is that you?
Also, yes, governments like theirs have always seemed more like organized crime than more classically liberal governments.
-
-
The digit you had to dial on the old copper switching networks that told it to activate the long-distance switching circuits. That eventually just came to mean "get ready, an area code is coming".
It probably has a "correct" name. That probably wasn't it.
Back when every digit you dialed was sent immediately, without waiting for you to enter the whole number.
I remember when you could dial 1 followed by your own area code and a phone number, and it would tell you the number was invalid because the long distance switching circuit refused to route it back for a local call.
-
At any speed you can attain, one metre is the distance light travels in vacuum in 1 / 299,792,458 seconds.
If you move closer to the speed of light, your seconds don't change, but your second compared to the guy back on earth is longer.
So from your perspective, the light traveled farther in the same amount of time.
Are you saying that if you need to fix cabling on your theoretical spaceship you need to know how fast you're moving?
No, but if you wanted to calculate how far you traveled relative to another body going at a different velocity, you'd need to adjust for your speed.
If the speed of light was 1 meter/second.
And you went .5 meters/second away from Earth, for five seconds, you didn't really go 2.5 meters. Space was compressed in the direction you traveled, so you actually traveled much farther.
It doesn't make sense until you consider that, at the speed of light, travel is instantaneous from the perspective of the traveler (of course no physical body can do it, so let's say photon).
From the perspective of the photon, in the direction it's traveling, there is no distance, space is 2 dimensional, and there is no time, everything occurs instantaneously. Therefore if it were to base it's meters on it's perspective of seconds, it's meters would be infinitely long.
-
Fox what who, you say?
Nice way to try and change the subject, though.
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
And yet china, which, despite having relatively strict gun controls, does have a big problem with heavily armed organised crime, somehow manages not to have a massively high homicide rate. That's not "gun homicide" rate, but homicide rate all in. Under a quarter of the homicide rate for the US.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you take away the guns, they'll do it with pen knives. Or pens.
And indeed, people without guns do manage to kill each other with some of the most bizarre improvised weapons. [Un]fortunately, most of those weapons are extremely inefficient, making mass homicides fairly rare, and mass attacks usually significantly less lethal than they might be if, instead of knives, the attackers had firearms.
Yes, I know you lot over the pond have a document almost as archaic as the system of non-standard measures you obstinately stick to, but you ignore it anyway, only reading the bits you want to. Are you personally part of a
well regulated militia
-
And yet china, which, despite having relatively strict gun controls, does have a big problem with heavily armed organised crime, somehow manages not to have a massively high homicide rate. That's not "gun homicide" rate, but homicide rate all in. Under a quarter of the homicide rate for the US.
It's really fucking easy to bribe an official and make a homicide disappear in China. Much less-so than in the US or Europe.
-
And yet china
The same china where they had a cracked glass panel in an aquarium, flooding the entire place, told it's citizens not to say anything, and publicly reported that nothing was wrong.
LOL.
That's much less embarrassing than their homicide rate, and they're so fearful of the slightest embarrassment, they'd rather lock up a guy for life than admit they had to fix a crack in a place of entertainment.
-
So from your perspective, the light traveled farther in the same amount of time.
No it didn't. The apparent distance also decreased, causing the light to travel at... well... the speed of light.
-
-
And you went .5 meters/second away from Earth, for five seconds, you didn't really go 2.5 meters. Space was compressed in the direction you traveled, so you actually traveled much farther.
What, at .5 m/s? I can crawl that fast, my watch still didn't go out of sync.
It doesn't make sense until you consider that, at the speed of light, travel is instantaneous from the perspective of the traveler (of course no physical body can do it, so let's say photon).
From the perspective of the photon, in the direction it's traveling, there is no distance, space is 2 dimensional, and there is no time, everything occurs instantaneously. Therefore if it were to base it's meters on it's perspective of seconds, it's meters would be infinitely long.
Yes, I understand how it works, thank you. Now, will you explain how that invalidates defining a unit of measurement using the speed of light as a constant? Because photons can't use it? Do they feel neglected in their timeless existence?
Also, I think we should give up on Hertz as well, because Doppler effect. Also, based on seconds, which are a subject to change due to relativistic effects as well.
-
Yes the apparent distance decreased, but your perception of the speed of light is the same. Meaning you perceived the light to travel farther.
Your 2 seconds, was my 4 seconds. Meaning your meter is twice as long.
-
Now, will you explain how that invalidates defining a unit of measurement using the speed of light as a constant?
It's not invalid.
It's only that the perception of a meter changes based on your speed.
Either you have to accept that meters are shorter the faster you travel, or your meter is longer than another person's meter in a different frame of reference.
Within your frame of reference, your meters are the same length, but any position moving slower than you will be shorter than it was before you accelerated.
Also, someone moving slower than you, will perceive you as shorter as well.
-
Relativity works out so that light always seem to travel the same speed for any observer. Since your scenario has light travelling faster, you are somehow misapplying relativity. I'm too lazy to figure out where your error is, but I'm going with Einstein over @xaade.
-
Since your scenario has light travelling faster
Sigh.... you're misunderstanding me.
Look at it this way.
Perception of distance in direction of movement. []**************[] at our speed []*****[] at half the speed of light. [][] at the speed of light. Perception of second []************[] at our speed []*******************************[] closer to the speed of light []************.... infinity .....*************[] at the speed of lightIf you divide those two, you get a exponent curve of the inertial frame distance covered by a perceived meter.
Therefore, if a planet is traveling nearer the speed of light, their meter is longer than ours, because their seconds are longer, and their distances are shorter for everything outside of their frame of reference.
And from the first slower planet, the faster planet looks compressed.
Therefore the would measure the planet to be shorter in their direction of travel.
And the fast moving planet, would measure the slow one to be longer in the fast planets direction of travel.
How the slow planet measures the fast planet ( ) -> () How the fast planet measures the slow planet ( ) <- ( )Therefore, the fast moving planet has longer meters in their direction of travel.
-
The same china where they had a cracked glass panel in an aquarium, flooding the entire place, told it's citizens not to say anything, and publicly reported that nothing was wrong.
LOL.
That's the one you're going with? Not the bullet train collision that occurred because they cheaped-out on the signals after the Grand Awesome Train China Master guy (whatever his title is) embezzled a bunch of money intended to be spent making the train lines safe?
They made a hell of an attempt to cover that up, too. It was actually a huge victory for the Internet that we know anything at all about that incident.
-
It's not invalid.
It's only that the perception of a meter changes based on your speed.
And from my perception you have no point other than trying to prove to us that you know about relativistic physics. Well done, have a
I'm too lazy to figure out where your error is, but I'm going with Einstein over @xaade.
Don't bother. The professor is not interested in what we lowly worms think anyway.
-
Not the bullet train collision
I'm going for that one, because it seems to be even less embarrassing. How seriously they take something so trivial.
-
Because light takes time to travel, we don't see the distortions, but the measurement is distorted, and is more obvious when measuring objects outside your frame of reference.
But since it's hard to measure something moving so much faster or slower, in practical life we never have the opportunity to notice this.
So, most everything that is measurable by us would agree with our meter (within a reasonable delta margin).
A truly uniform measurement would calculate against the inertial frame of the cosmic background radiation.
But that wouldn't be practical for anything within our frame of reference.
This is important if you wanted to travel long distances to an object moving at a different frame of reference, or near a strong gravitational field.
-
That would presumably be in the China which, despite a massive problem with organised crime, somehow manages to still have a homicide rate under a quarter of that in the US, right?
I find it charming that you believe those figures.
Did you know that in the US, the vast majority of murders, or at least the subset caused by guns, are actually caused by gang members shooting each other (typically, specifically the victims are people the shooter knows) and that if you subtract out such gang-on-gang violence, the homicide rate falls to something like 2:100,000?
The problem is that nobody wants to address this, because a plurality or majority of this crime happens to be perpetrated by and against blacks, and any time you say that, all the racists/neo-nazis/racists types come out of the woodwork and insist the only possible reason that could be is because black people are inherently degenerate, which is self-evident nonsense. It's the mirror of claims that "criticism of President Obama can only possibly be due to racism of the critic and not for any possible other reason including that such criticism might be correct". Whatever the root(s) of the crime problem by inner-city Blacks, you cannot address it if you are not willing to look at the problem with clear eyes.
-
Fox what who, you say?
Fox Butterfield was a guy who wrote articles with headlines that demonstrated a charmingly befuddled lack of ability to discern cause and effect, like "despite drop in crime, prison incarceration rates go up." He had the cart before the horse.
-
[Un]fortunately, most of those weapons are extremely inefficient,
In 2012 or 2014, four men with knives started slashing up a train station (IIRC) in China. They killed 25 people and injured over 100 others. You almost can't find a casualty toll so high in any US mass shooting. But regularly (such as it is) when you hear reports of mass stabbings in China--and remember I use them just as an example, not as the only place it's happening; I believe Japan has the same problem--the death toll typically is 20, 30, or higher, with huge numbers of injuries. You more or less never hear about 100 people being injured in US mass shootings.
To reiterate my point, claiming the problem is guns is shortsighted as best, because even in places where the populace doesn't have guns people still manage to find other ways of killing lots of people.
-
We've always had relatively higher murder rates than other countries even before they had their gun grabbing crazes. Though it's probably racist to notice this today.
I wasn't changing the subject at all, just making fun of you for making a mistake of logic. Google that phrase. It's a joke about a journalist who couldn't understand why the crime rate was down "despite" more people being in prison.
-
Are you personally part of a
well regulated militia
Anyone who asks that question doesn't understand what it means. The answer, btw, is "yes": https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 states that the US Militia consists of two parts, and the second part, the unorganized militia, which basically consists of every able-bodied male in the range (17,44] who isn't in the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
http://bearingarms.com/well-regulated/
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/227532?redirectedFrom=well-regulated#eidOED: Well-regulated: "Properly governed or directed; (now) esp. strictly controlled by rules or regulations. Also: accurately calibrated or adjusted."
-
That's the one you're going with? Not the bullet train collision that occurred because they cheaped-out on the signals after the Grand Awesome Train China Master guy (whatever his title is) embezzled a bunch of money intended to be spent making the train lines safe?
Just how many examples do you want? You personally obviously are already well-aware of the issue and didn't need any.
-
We've always had relatively higher murder rates than other countries even before they had their gun grabbing crazes. Though it's probably racist to notice this today.
ITYM "realist".
Still, at least you admit the US is largely populated by homicidal maniacs.
1,000 mass shootings in 1,260 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
Data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive reveals a shocking human toll
-
If you move closer to the speed of light, your seconds don't change, but your second compared to the guy back on earth is longer.
So from your perspective, the light traveled farther in the same amount of time.
The speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames.
Special Relativity gives you the transformations you need to apply to distance and timespan measurements made for a given pair of events observed from one inertial reference frame to make them agree with measurements made for the same pair of events observed from another inertial reference frame. If you apply those transformations to distances but not timespans or vice versa, you get incorrect results.
From the perspective of the photon, in the direction it's traveling, there is no distance, space is 2 dimensional, and there is no time, everything occurs instantaneously. Therefore if it were to base it's meters on it's perspective of seconds, it's meters would be infinitely long.
No, because what you're invoking there boils down to an attempt to evaluate 0/0 and that result is undefined, not infinite. Given that your argument stipulates that there is no distance, it should not be surprising that it sheds no light on defining a unit for it.
-
It's really fucking easy to bribe an official and make a homicide disappear in China. Much less-so than in the US or Europe.
Correct. In the US, the easiest way to make your homicide disappear is to be an official.
-
@anotherusername said:
long distance signal digit
wtf is that?!
That's when the celeb you're trying to longlens flips you the bird from a kilometre away.
-
Either you have to accept that meters are shorter the faster you travel, or your meter is longer than another person's meter in a different frame of reference.
If you define the meter on the basis of the second and the speed of light in vacuum, and use Special Relativity to reconcile measurements made in different inertial reference frames, the second alternative works fine.
