I think you should end your life.
Why is this not reported to the authorities and his IP BANDED?! Cyberbullying is so wrong! What if he takes you up on it, huh? As if supporting terrorists with your terrorcoin wasn't enough  oh shush now, that was not bullying , I was trying to help. Because I care for you. I love you lamb. |
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_righting_reflex#Terminal_velocityI suggest many of you should be open to learning new things. I might be proven wrong, but for now my provided link clearly states: - cats do not land on their feet after falling from great height. - real data (~130 cats from NY) is available on falling cats and mortality/injury rate. - height > 7 stories does increase survival rate based on data "In a 1987 study, published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, of 132 cats that were brought into the New York Animal Medical Center after having fallen from buildings, it was found that the injuries per cat increased depending on the height fallen up to seven stories, but decreased above seven stories.[8] The study authors speculated that after falling five stories the cats reached terminal velocity and thereafter relaxed and spread their bodies to increase drag." I'll probably be lurking again after this one. The forums have gone pretty rotten the last couple of years. yeah... this is correct... but it is only correct up to a certain height, there is a sweet spot, and anything over that, and the cat gets it. so go up to the 102 floor of the empire state building and throw the cat off, then it dies.. there is nothing that can stop the mass of the cats head from hitting the ground. "Terminal velocity" is the maximum velocity of a body as it falls through air. Mathematically, the velocity at ground increases with the starting height, but beyond a certain height the increase is negligible. The article says that (1) the terminal velocity for a cat is 100 km/h and (2) that velocity is pretty much attained when falling from 5-6 stories. One of these must be wrong, since a cat falling from 18 meters (6 generous stories) in vacuum would hit the ground at ~70 km/h only. I would go with 8-10 stories. |
|
|
|
Lol good grief, this trolling activity is not very healthy. I'm starting to think this individual needs to be committed to a mental facility.
Shall we host an intervention, and by intervention I mean smack the nutter around the head with a large salmon. Bitcoiners are starting to get violent. Na that was comedy, not violence... violence looks a lot different than a slap around the head with a fish. |
|
|
|
Lol good grief, this trolling activity is not very healthy. I'm starting to think this individual needs to be committed to a mental facility.
Shall we host an intervention, and by intervention I mean smack the nutter around the head with a large salmon. |
|
|
|
I suggest many of you should be open to learning new things. I might be proven wrong, but for now my provided link clearly states: - cats do not land on their feet after falling from great height. - real data (~130 cats from NY) is available on falling cats and mortality/injury rate. - height > 7 stories does increase survival rate based on data "In a 1987 study, published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, of 132 cats that were brought into the New York Animal Medical Center after having fallen from buildings, it was found that the injuries per cat increased depending on the height fallen up to seven stories, but decreased above seven stories.[8] The study authors speculated that after falling five stories the cats reached terminal velocity and thereafter relaxed and spread their bodies to increase drag." I'll probably be lurking again after this one. The forums have gone pretty rotten the last couple of years. yeah... this is correct... but it is only correct up to a certain height, there is a sweet spot, and anything over that, and the cat gets it. so go up to the 102 floor of the empire state building and throw the cat off, then it dies.. there is nothing that can stop the mass of the cats head from hitting the ground. That is all. |
|
|
|
just another dead cat bounce
Is this cat made of rubber? Seriously , cats do not even really bounce. Chuck one off the top of a skyscraper and see what happens. Splat. Actually, The terminal velocity of a falling cat is often non-lethal. Real live data even suggests cats falling off the 7th floor or above will have less injuries compared to 6th floor or below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_righting_reflex#Terminal_velocity Yeah,well actually........ That only works up to a certain height... Because terminal velocity just keeps on increasing with height  It does indeed, but the drag would increase as you reach lower altitudes, the air is "thicker" (thicker down here and thinner up there) but these things would not have much effect unless you flung the furball outta a whackawhack or a plane. But in this case it is just because of the weight of a cats head, the cat may land on its feet, but when it does so, it can only absorb so much of the down force, if there is too much down force the little kitty can not stop the force of the weight of its head, so the head continues to move downwards and it hits the ground. (and it will splat, not bounce) |
|
|
|
just another dead cat bounce
Is this cat made of rubber? Seriously , cats do not even really bounce. Chuck one off the top of a skyscraper and see what happens. Splat. Actually, The terminal velocity of a falling cat is often non-lethal. Real live data even suggests cats falling off the 7th floor or above will have less injuries compared to 6th floor or below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_righting_reflex#Terminal_velocity Yeah,well actually........ That only works up to a certain height... after a certain height, the inertia forces the cats head to hit the ground and the cat dies. Which is why I said skyscraper, seriously if you throw a cat off the top of the Empire state building, that furry little fucker is brown bread. ps I love cats.  |
|
|
|
just another dead cat bounce
Is this cat made of rubber? Seriously , cats do not even really bounce. Chuck one off the top of a skyscraper and see what happens. Splat. |
|
|
|
@Spaceman_Spiff I just watched this and quite enjoyed it.............. what a guy  Why bodybuilding at age 93 is a great idea: Charles Eugster https://youtu.be/rGgoCm1hofM(If I am half as with it as this guy at 93 I will be happy) |
|
|
|
Back on topic:
Is it Monday morning in the far east yet?
That was a very un-Sunday-like little rise there.
Nope it is only 4.00 am in Shanghai Just a little flutter of activity  |
|
|
|
this was fun.
nice show bulls.
wytaw? |
|
|
|
And......What if you did? |
|
|
|
will short margincalled ? soon ?  of course they will after a 3 $ rise. errr... its 5$ rise already ? to daaa moon I say! No.... to zero !! by tonight |
|
|
|
Interesting discussions.
FWIW I have reported your posts to the moderators NLC. You need help.
Haven't seen NLC post in a while, he might have got bored & left.Really? really? really? I have got a bridge for sale PM me. |
|
|
|
I guess that you are missing the point. We cannot be eternally young while being the same human beings that we are now. As one gets old, memories and experiences change our view of things. When thinking about things like bitcoin today, I cannot avoid recalling what I read and thought of nuclear power, space exploration, nulear fusion, artificlal inteligence, etc, over the past 50 years, and what happened to them. Those memories and the conclusions that I got out of them are what make me today. But it is also the past memories and experiences that make old people more cynical, careless, less enthusiastic, less focused, etc. -- even if the intelligene and clarity of memory remain the same.
So, what does it mean to "be eternally young" --- erase one's memories, and be forever enthusiastic and naive and inexperient as a 20 year old? Or keep piling up memories for centuries, and becoming every time more bored and cynical, thinking more and more about the past rather than the future, etc? Or modifying the brain in some way, so that it can continue putting up memories without somehow becoming overburdened by them? Neither option seems to be exactly what we want.
I don't know what you mean, but clearly the average length of our lifetime is the result of millions of years of evolution. While it can be stretched a bit with current technology, our bodies and minds are not built to last more than that. As in an old car, all the parts start to fail after some time. (It is not just the telomers getting shorter...) That average lifetime is clearly what natural evolution found to be best for our species (and all mammal species I know of) until we started making fire and bows. Since then, it is not clear where evolution is taking us...
The whole point is that humans will not be the same as before, we will change as a species. It is evolution still, but now technology IS part of human evolution. You say that the average length of our lives is the results of millions of years of evolution.... which is true, but only to an extent Jorge.. because if you look at figures from 100 years ago, it would seem that millions of years evolution, evolved us to a point where life expectancy was merely 40 ish years old. Now a mere 100 years later (a nanosecond in traditional evolutionary terms) the average lifespan of a human has doubled, so much for millions of years of evolution. http://ourworldindata.org/data/population-growth-vital-statistics/life-expectancy/(once upon a time not so long ago, infant mortality was very high, and that was considered natural.. and was also the combination of millions of years of evolution... another statistic that has been turned on its head, in a short period of time , unnatural even you may say) |
|
|
|
weak shit
Like I said, weak. Had enough of you now. |
|
|
|
|
I wonder if we may get a flutter of activity later today...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
