1170: "Bridge"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

thenonsequitur
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:29 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby thenonsequitur » Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:17 pm UTC

keithl wrote:Lemmings do not "jump off cliffs".

Everyone knows that lemmings don't really do this, but everyone also knows about the old myth that they do. Why do you need feel the need to spoil the joke? It was pretty funny, regardless of the truth about lemmings.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:38 pm UTC

thenonsequitur wrote:
keithl wrote:Lemmings do not "jump off cliffs".

Everyone knows that lemmings don't really do this, but everyone also knows about the old myth that they do. Why do you need feel the need to spoil the joke? It was pretty funny, regardless of the truth about lemmings.


Just like everyone knows how the three seashells work...

User avatar
Ool
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:19 am UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby Ool » Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:26 pm UTC

Randall may have been watching a recent episode of Anger Management, in which Charlie Sheen's character asks his dad, Martin Sheen's character if he would jump of a bridge if his friend jumped of a bridge, to which Martin replies something along the lines of: "Probably. My friend is a structural engineer. If he jumps off a bridge it is likely because he knows it's about to collapse."

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby addams » Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:39 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:So long as it works, meh.

Now.. it depends. How big is this bridge?

My parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents and tons of my ancestors jumped off bridges all the time in their youth (some still do).

Granted, these bridges weren't very high up and there was often cool, refreshing water below for them to land in. And they did this repeately for hours at a time.


All in all this is a very subjective statement.

I've gone on day trips with my extended family solely for the purpose of jumping off a bridge together.

Your family sounds like a dream come true. Lucky you.
Day Trips are The Best!
Food, Family and Fun! The 3F's.

Who takes the photos? Timed? Lucky, Lucky you.

It has been ages sense I jumped into The River. Going down to the water is deeply imbedded in what it is to be Human. Right?

Of course, I would jump. I like The Last Lemming Story.
What a night. It took a week to sleep it off.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:14 pm UTC

Lukeonia1 wrote:"'Sup?"
"Homestar, that is not cool."
"Yes it is. Strong Bad said so."
"Well if Strong Bad told you to jump off a bri--"
"YES."

And then there's this scene from Dan Vs.:
"If Dan jumped off a cliff, would you?"
"..."
"Chris!"
"Well, I, I mean, it depends."
"Don't jump off a cliff!"
"Well, I wasn't planning on it."
"But if Dan jumped, you would?"
"..."
"CHRIS!"

Or... was it The Weekenders? ...where the guy pointed out that his friends did jump off a bridge — "It's called bungee jumping. And you wouldn't let me do that either!"
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1406
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby freezeblade » Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:52 pm UTC

pkcommando wrote:I remember a 4th grade teacher who intentionally got something wrong in class. She berated us for several minutes for not standing up to her and correcting when she was wrong. A few weeks later she (unintentionally) got something wrong and the guy who stood up to her got detention. Not for the initial act of correcting her, but for the fact that when she berated him for correcting her, he pointed out that she had clearly told us that it was our responsibility to correct her when she was wrong.


Yeah, I got into trouble early on for this, making it on many teacher's "shit lists."

I was the bane of every P.E. teacher that the school thought could teach Physics (Yes, just because you have a General Education degree, does not mean you're qualified to be anywhere near math)

that or when a teacher punishes people for showing up late to class unannounced, but then does it herself, with the rational of "but I'm the teacher, so it's ok"
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

CasualSax
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby CasualSax » Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:58 pm UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:"Imagine reading this on CNN: 'Many fled their vehicles and jumped from the bridge. Those who stayed behind...'"

Well, if this is separate from the scenario mentioned in panel two where the bridge is on fire, there's the possibility that the jumpers are just panicked. People jumped off the roof of the Twin Towers too, and while 9/11 didn't have many survivors, I can guarantee that those people weren't among them.


I very much doubt that anyone who jumped would have survived either way. Regardless, those who did jump from the South Tower served as a warning to those who saw them in the North Tower - many who saw decided they needed to leave and ignore the all-clear-stay-at-your-desks message.

philipquarles
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:44 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby philipquarles » Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:05 pm UTC

Clearly, the question is whether jumping or staying is more likely to lead you to understanding a magic lightning machine. There's a chance that the magic lightning machine caused the bridge to catch on fire, so I think I have to go with staying.

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby ctdonath » Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:38 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:[Europe has gun control]...and has lower number of gun crimes by a country mile


As if non-gun crimes of comparable consequences are so much more preferable as to not even enter into the debate. Shot to death? horrible! Beaten to death with bricks? meh, whatever, no concern 'cuz there wasn't a gun involved. Never mind that, being gun-free, would-be victims have no serious means of fighting back and thus face higher odds of actually being victims. Humans were so peaceful until guns showed up...

Arguments built on tautologies are of limited effectiveness.

MadH
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby MadH » Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:04 pm UTC

ctdonath wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:[Europe has gun control]...and has lower number of gun crimes by a country mile


As if non-gun crimes of comparable consequences are so much more preferable as to not even enter into the debate. Shot to death? horrible! Beaten to death with bricks? meh, whatever, no concern 'cuz there wasn't a gun involved. Never mind that, being gun-free, would-be victims have no serious means of fighting back and thus face higher odds of actually being victims. Humans were so peaceful until guns showed up...

Arguments built on tautologies are of limited effectiveness.


I think you yourself may be falling into a variant of the "but there's children starving in africa, how can you complain about X?!" argument. Just because a group of people may wish to ban or control guns to a small or large extent, doesn't mean that they think people getting beaten to death with bricks is all happiness and sunshine. For those that advocate gun control, it is a question of "would you prefer 5 deaths or 2?", not what you're stating. I won't get into the other talking points in your argument re:fighting back and human violence other than to say that your argument is self-defeating (if humans have long been violent, how is giving them a better weapon going to do anything to stop their propensity for violence in the grand scheme?) and I don't agree with it despite the fact that I like my right to own guns for hunting purposes.

Haylo
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:27 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby Haylo » Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:22 pm UTC

The bridge is on fire?

I'm a bridge engineer and frankly they're not the most flammable of structures... *nods*

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby orthogon » Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:27 pm UTC

Haylo wrote:The bridge is on fire?

I'm a bridge engineer and frankly they're not the most flammable of structures... *nods*

They are if you have a truck load of FOOF. (See the Interplanetary Cessna thread for details).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

speising
Posts: 2365
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby speising » Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:27 am UTC

orthogon wrote:
Haylo wrote:The bridge is on fire?

I'm a bridge engineer and frankly they're not the most flammable of structures... *nods*

They are if you have a truck load of FOOF. (See the Interplanetary Cessna thread for details).


Except how do you save the truck from burning?

mwitthoft
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:26 am UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby mwitthoft » Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:28 am UTC

Would velociraptors jump off bridges? If they did, can they swim? Faster than humans?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby addams » Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:51 am UTC

speising wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Haylo wrote:The bridge is on fire?

I'm a bridge engineer and frankly they're not the most flammable of structures... *nods*

They are if you have a truck load of FOOF. (See the Interplanetary Cessna thread for details).


Except how do you save the truck from burning?

Depends. Did the Truck start the fire?
When the tires blow, give up hope of driving out.
Is the Truck on The Bridge.

How did you get a Truck on a Bridge? oh. The usual way? By driving it there?
Did you Stop on a Bridge? What Were You Thinking?!

No body Stops! On a Bridge! oh.
People in California must, from time to time, stop on a bridge.
Walking across a bridge is dangerous. Much safer inside the cage of something heavy, like a car.

Jumping off with your friends and being blown off are two very different things.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby Max™ » Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:04 am UTC

speising wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Haylo wrote:The bridge is on fire?

I'm a bridge engineer and frankly they're not the most flammable of structures... *nods*

They are if you have a truck load of FOOF. (See the Interplanetary Cessna thread for details).


Except how do you save the truck from burning?

I know aluminum would burn if not for the oxidized layer on the surface, some fluorine compounds do the same.

Honestly though if there was a truck with that shit in it, I'd definitely jump because it will burn the bridge, as would chlorine trifluoride.
mu

User avatar
Sindayven
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:17 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby Sindayven » Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:09 am UTC

Reminds me of this Dilbert strip.

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1999-11-21/

ijuin
Posts: 1150
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby ijuin » Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:48 am UTC

TimXCampbell wrote:
taemyr wrote:... my guess would be that the bridge would travel about 8 times its thickness. Assuming a tensity of steel at 8000 kg/m3.

Well, I'm assuming that the structure of the bridge is critical. A suspension bridge would tend to pancake into the water, but a bridge with trusses underneath the roadbed would tend to slice into the water. The deeper the truss the more gentle the deceleration.

Thus, if you're on a bridge and it starts falling, whip out your cell-phone and call the engineer to ask him about the design.

My understanding is that the biggest danger when caught in a bridge or building collapse is not the part below you (i.e. hitting the ground along with it, which in any case is NOT going to be any worse than freefalling by yourself), but rather the part above you (i.e. parts of the structure crushing you underneath). Thus, if you are on top of the structure, then riding it down generally is not worse than jumping off.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby addams » Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:06 am UTC

ijuin wrote:
TimXCampbell wrote:
taemyr wrote:... my guess would be that the bridge would travel about 8 times its thickness. Assuming a tensity of steel at 8000 kg/m3.

Well, I'm assuming that the structure of the bridge is critical. A suspension bridge would tend to pancake into the water, but a bridge with trusses underneath the roadbed would tend to slice into the water. The deeper the truss the more gentle the deceleration.

Thus, if you're on a bridge and it starts falling, whip out your cell-phone and call the engineer to ask him about the design.

My understanding is that the biggest danger when caught in a bridge or building collapse is not the part below you (i.e. hitting the ground along with it, which in any case is NOT going to be any worse than freefalling by yourself), but rather the part above you (i.e. parts of the structure crushing you underneath). Thus, if you are on top of the structure, then riding it down generally is not worse than jumping off.

You are correct. Now; The the task is to stay on top of your friends.
Will you be swimming through friends? Sound like fun to you?
Everyone Scream!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5481
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:46 am UTC

addams wrote:People in California must, from time to time, stop on a bridge.

Is this a weird California thing? Are people not supposed to stop on bridges? I'm from California so that might make me biased, but it just seems obvious to me that while, given a choice, the middle of a bridge is not the first place you should choose to park and have a tailgate party, you must, from time to time, be stuck in traffic on a road that happens to have bridges. Does the rest of the world not have traffic? Do they meter traffic across the bridges, only letting one car at a time pass so to avoid any possibility of traffic backing up?

Let's not start on the difference between some bridges. If I drive across a big suspension bridge like in the Bay or Long Beach, I'll definitely notice it. But there are at least two small rivers, numerous creeks, and god knows how many underpasses within an hour drive southbound on the freeway from here, and unless I'm looking for them I would have no idea I was even on a bridge. Tiny white signs that you can't read at freeway speeds don't help at all, and I was driving for years before I even realized those were supposed to be warning you you were on a bridge.

How does the rest of the world work, if California is weird in this regard? (Also, I once drove from here to Illinois without noticing anything unusual about bridges along the way, so is Addams just off base with that comment?)
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby addams » Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:42 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
addams wrote:People in California must, from time to time, stop on a bridge.

Is this a weird California thing? Are people not supposed to stop on bridges? I'm from California so that might make me biased, but it just seems obvious to me that while, given a choice, the middle of a bridge is not the first place you should choose to park and have a tailgate party, you must, from time to time, be stuck in traffic on a road that happens to have bridges. Does the rest of the world not have traffic? Do they meter traffic across the bridges, only letting one car at a time pass so to avoid any possibility of traffic backing up?

Let's not start on the difference between some bridges. If I drive across a big suspension bridge like in the Bay or Long Beach, I'll definitely notice it. But there are at least two small rivers, numerous creeks, and god knows how many underpasses within an hour drive southbound on the freeway from here, and unless I'm looking for them I would have no idea I was even on a bridge. Tiny white signs that you can't read at freeway speeds don't help at all, and I was driving for years before I even realized those were supposed to be warning you you were on a bridge.

How does the rest of the world work, if California is weird in this regard? (Also, I once drove from here to Illinois without noticing anything unusual about bridges along the way, so is Addams just off base with that comment?)


California has many bridges. California has traffic slowdowns or stops on bridges, nearly everyday.
California also has earthquakes. On the bridge is a bad place to be during an earthquake.
The Golden Gate is an amazing bridge. It takes the shakes well.

Other bridges on the west coast of the US are dangerous, because of high winds.

Other places in the world have amazing bridges. Some of those places have earthquakes and high winds.
I have seen long, high bridges. Stopping on a bridge is discouraged everywhere.
Stopping on a bridge is not a good thing to do, anywhere.

The SF bay seems has a great many bridges.
It has had bridge failure.

I worry when on the bottom tier of the Bay Bridge.
Don't you?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby J Thomas » Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:01 am UTC

addams wrote:The SF bay seems has a great many bridges.
It has had bridge failure.

I worry when on the bottom tier of the Bay Bridge.
Don't you?


No. Apply mental discipline. There is very little you can do if the Bay Bridge fails. Once you have chosen to get on that bridge you are better off not to worry about it, at least not until you get off of it. The time to consider the possibility the bridge will fail is when you next consider getting onto it.

If you're going to worry on the bridge, worry about what your fellow drivers do. You might possibly have an adequate response to that.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
peewee_RotA
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby peewee_RotA » Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:37 am UTC

I don't think the alt text is a fair consideration.

Concern of the well-being of a friend, and the willingness to repeat their own actions are not mutually exclusive thoughts.

Imagine instead a friend who ignores a warning sign for slippery rocks at a sharp, rocky, and choppy beach. The friend falls and is in peril. You immediately think about your concern for your friend. You then think that attempting to walk on the slippery rocks is a stupid idea. You then decide to call for help, because also slipping and risking death does not improve your friend's condition. In fact it worsens it as if the rescuers arrive and help you first, your friend loses time. If enough rescuers arrive to help both, their attention and resources are divided. You're friend looses resources.

So even with it being said that both thoughts can be had without interfering with each other, there's something to be said that refusing to do the same stupid thing as your friend can be the first step to helping that friend.
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

http://timelesstherpg.wordpress.com/about/

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby Klear » Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:59 am UTC

J Thomas wrote:
addams wrote:The SF bay seems has a great many bridges.
It has had bridge failure.

I worry when on the bottom tier of the Bay Bridge.
Don't you?


No. Apply mental discipline. There is very little you can do if the Bay Bridge fails. Once you have chosen to get on that bridge you are better off not to worry about it, at least not until you get off of it. The time to consider the possibility the bridge will fail is when you next consider getting onto it.

If you're going to worry on the bridge, worry about what your fellow drivers do. You might possibly have an adequate response to that.


He's talking about emotions. It's not that it's likely that the bridge will fall, but emotions are not rational, and it's perfectly normal to worry. Or to be afraid of looking down from a high balcony. Or feeling uneasy when a plane takes off. Sure, you can work hard to suppress these things, but I think it can't be too healthy, from the psychological point of view.

Edit: Of course, different people have different fears and different toleration of thereof and if someone is afraid of something which doesn't seem frightening to you at all, it might seem foolish or even stupid, but rationalizing it doesn't help, and if the fear isn't crippling, or seriously interfering with one's well-being (I'm sure that's not the case here), it's not necessary.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:02 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
J Thomas wrote:
addams wrote:The SF bay seems has a great many bridges.
It has had bridge failure.

I worry when on the bottom tier of the Bay Bridge.
Don't you?


No. Apply mental discipline. There is very little you can do if the Bay Bridge fails. Once you have chosen to get on that bridge you are better off not to worry about it, at least not until you get off of it. The time to consider the possibility the bridge will fail is when you next consider getting onto it.

If you're going to worry on the bridge, worry about what your fellow drivers do. You might possibly have an adequate response to that.


He's talking about emotions. It's not that it's likely that the bridge will fall, but emotions are not rational, and it's perfectly normal to worry. Or to be afraid of looking down from a high balcony. Or feeling uneasy when a plane takes off. Sure, you can work hard to suppress these things, but I think it can't be too healthy, from the psychological point of view.


On the other hand, you can also indulge your worries, which is definitely not healthy - if you're obsessing over the possibility of the bridge collapsing, you're less likely to respond appropriately when one of the other drivers does something stupid...

stianhat
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:31 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby stianhat » Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:12 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:
speising wrote:
orthogon wrote:They are if you have a truck load of FOOF. (See the Interplanetary Cessna thread for details).


Except how do you save the truck from burning?

I know aluminum would burn if not for the oxidized layer on the surface, some fluorine compounds do the same.

Honestly though if there was a truck with that shit in it, I'd definitely jump because it will burn the bridge, as would chlorine trifluoride.


HF, FOOF are some compounds on a small list I tend to mentally keep for these situations. I am a chemisist, when I see something bad happen my instinctive reaction is to run towards it =P. I have the list to remind me of situations where I really really should not. Hot lye, sulphur trioxide oleum, white smoking nitric acid, Beryllium, Arsenic, any alkaline metal further down than Potassium, most elements heavier than lead, LiAlH4, any compound with more nitrogen-nitrogen bonds than carbon-carbon. And I usually avoid the chalkogenides below sulphur but that is mostly because of the absurdly nauseating smell of their volatile compounds. To those working with Tellurium, I say; thank you - so I don't have to. Any and all radical compound gases.

Aluminium would burn like a candle if exposed to foof, hf or any source of flourine gas. Which is obvious. What is less obvious is that mercury and aluminium is a very very bad mixture as well, albiet a bit slower in its reaction. I usually dont like thinking what a thimble of mercury could do to an aircraft.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby orthogon » Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:53 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:... the middle of a bridge is not the first place you should choose to park and have a tailgate party...

You can park on London's Waterloo Bridge. That single yellow line next to the cycle lane means parking is allowed outside working hours (after 6.30pm I think). This bridge has, for my money, one of the most splendid 360 degree panoramas in the world so would not be a bad location for a tailgate party (if we Brits went in for that kind of thing).

I can only speculate as to the quantum tunnelling phenomenon which Westminster Council believes would allow a stretch of road to be both a car park and a cycle lane.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby mathmannix » Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:17 pm UTC

mwitthoft wrote:Would velociraptors jump off bridges? If they did, can they swim? Faster than humans?


As far as I know, all reptiles, all birds, and all mammals can swim. (Look up the most unlikely examples you can think of - I looked up rattlesnakes, sparrows, ostriches, squirrels, and elephants - and you will find photos/articles.)

So, I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that all dinosaurs could swim. 'Raptors seem like they would do very well in the water, moving quickly like a snake or an alligator on the surface. (T. rex did this in the novel Jurassic Park.) Also, some scientists believe pterosaurs could swim, too.

EDIT: the internet isn't sure if hummingbirds can swim. I would like a definite answer to this one. (Especially if they turn out to be the only vertebrates that can't swim!!!)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

Plutarch
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:29 am UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby Plutarch » Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:39 pm UTC

Introbulus wrote:Okay, this one kind of bothers me.

Because this saying is meant to be about an individual you shouldn't trust, rather than a group, to denote that they are not always going to make wise choices.


I agree with this. I suppose the parental statement could be formulated in various ways, but I've only ever heard it applied to an individual. Something like -

Child "...but Fred is doing it."
Parent "If Fred jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"

In which case, it's not so unreasonable from the parent, if Fred is notoriously reckless, or prone to foolish behaviour.

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby ctdonath » Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:20 pm UTC

MadH wrote:I think you yourself may be falling into a variant of the "but there's children starving in africa, how can you complain about X?!" argument.


No, I'm objecting to a variant of the "few children in Africa suffer from obesity, so their diet is good" argument.

The gun-control-supporting argument of "there are fewer gun deaths in gun-prohibiting country X" implies that things there are rosy because of no guns, while overlooking the fact that since such prohibition was enacted violent crime (murders included) has increased to no small degree.

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby Wnderer » Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:46 pm UTC

ctdonath wrote:
MadH wrote:I think you yourself may be falling into a variant of the "but there's children starving in africa, how can you complain about X?!" argument.


No, I'm objecting to a variant of the "few children in Africa suffer from obesity, so their diet is good" argument.


You are referring to the correlation implies causality fallacy.

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/probab ... -causality

On the other hand...
deepspacenine.jpeg
deepspacenine.jpeg (4.14 KiB) Viewed 5215 times
Elim Garak: I believe in coincidences, coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:03 pm UTC

Wnderer wrote:
ctdonath wrote:
MadH wrote:I think you yourself may be falling into a variant of the "but there's children starving in africa, how can you complain about X?!" argument.


No, I'm objecting to a variant of the "few children in Africa suffer from obesity, so their diet is good" argument.


You are referring to the correlation implies causality fallacy.

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/probab ... -causality


That doesn't fit his argument - he's perfectly happy with the implied causation - that banning guns leads to less gun crime, just as subjecting children to starvation prevents them becoming obese - his problem is with the implied conclusion - that this is a better state of affairs simply because one metric has improved. The underlying argument being rejected is: "If America were unchanged but for reduced gun crime, it would be a better place. Europe has less gun crime than America (because of its gun laws). Therefore Europe is a better place than America (because of its gun laws). Therefore America would be a better place if it adopted European gun laws."

The hole in the logic being called out is that Europe doesn't just differ from America in having reduced gun crime - there are other differences, including negative consequences of the gun laws, which should be taken into account before deciding whether or not Europe is a better place than America. Similarly, before deliberately inducing repeated famines and extreme poverty in order to tackle childhood obesity, one should consider the costs and consequences of such a policy...

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby Klear » Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:56 pm UTC

I think the problem in USA is not the relatively unregulated firearms but the mentality which makes them want to own a gun, which is of course the result of their history and can be hardly change in short order.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby addams » Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:21 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
J Thomas wrote:
addams wrote:The SF bay seems has a great many bridges.
It has had bridge failure.

I worry when on the bottom tier of the Bay Bridge.
Don't you?


No. Apply mental discipline. There is very little you can do if the Bay Bridge fails. Once you have chosen to get on that bridge you are better off not to worry about it, at least not until you get off of it. The time to consider the possibility the bridge will fail is when you next consider getting onto it.

If you're going to worry on the bridge, worry about what your fellow drivers do. You might possibly have an adequate response to that.


He's talking about emotions. It's not that it's likely that the bridge will fall, but emotions are not rational, and it's perfectly normal to worry. Or to be afraid of looking down from a high balcony. Or feeling uneasy when a plane takes off. Sure, you can work hard to suppress these things, but I think it can't be too healthy, from the psychological point of view.

Edit: Of course, different people have different fears and different toleration of thereof and if someone is afraid of something which doesn't seem frightening to you at all, it might seem foolish or even stupid, but rationalizing it doesn't help, and if the fear isn't crippling, or seriously interfering with one's well-being (I'm sure that's not the case here), it's not necessary.


Yes and Yes.
That is an amazing structure. So many of us all going so fast. It is a darned good thing we are all going the same direction.

I think about it every time I cross that bridge. My mantra, "California is falling into the Ocean. Where California goes, I go."
That is a long bridge. The bottom tier is like a tunnel.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5481
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:54 pm UTC

Klear wrote:I think the problem in USA is not the relatively unregulated firearms but the mentality which makes them want to own a gun, which is of course the result of their history and can be hardly change in short order.

As an American who is not fond of guns, my take on the situation relates to this. I'm not afraid of the existence of guns, but someone who is really into them and really enthusiastic about them makes me kind of nervous. But on the other hand, a group (like the government) who wanted to be the only ones with guns makes me at least as nervous. More broadly: desiring power is suspicious, but desiring to remove others' power is suspicious for the exact same reason: in either case, it looks like you want to have the upper hand in a conflict you're expecting, which makes me wonder if you're planning on starting something. Best to have the power evenly distributed in case anyone decides to start something (so they can't get away with it because anyone else can stop them), and then just make sure nobody starts anything.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby webgiant » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:36 am UTC

Quicksilver wrote:I've always wondered why parents think you're more inclined to listen to them then your friends, we relate to them more than most of us ever will to our parents. Most of my friends were reckless, but they'd never jump off a cliff.

Which underlines the main point: if they jumped off a cliff anyway, clearly there's a very levelheaded reason for doing so.

Plus if you don't jump, soon you'll end up with a pile of books and your only pair of glasses broken.


Pfhorrest wrote:
Klear wrote:I think the problem in USA is not the relatively unregulated firearms but the mentality which makes them want to own a gun, which is of course the result of their history and can be hardly change in short order.

As an American who is not fond of guns, my take on the situation relates to this. I'm not afraid of the existence of guns, but someone who is really into them and really enthusiastic about them makes me kind of nervous. But on the other hand, a group (like the government) who wanted to be the only ones with guns makes me at least as nervous. More broadly: desiring power is suspicious, but desiring to remove others' power is suspicious for the exact same reason: in either case, it looks like you want to have the upper hand in a conflict you're expecting, which makes me wonder if you're planning on starting something. Best to have the power evenly distributed in case anyone decides to start something (so they can't get away with it because anyone else can stop them), and then just make sure nobody starts anything.

The thing that scares me about "even distribution" is that (a) it won't happen, ever, because gun nuts are inexplicably fearful of socialism (beyond the kind that regulates guns into not exploding in your hands); (b) most human beings still think that the best response to someone attacking you is to attack them back (according to my wife's after school program kids, this is what they have learned from society and their "good" largely-Christian parents); and (c) most human beings still see nothing wrong with a disproportionate response.

As for "gun control = you're planning something", if you would have war, prepare for war. Hitler loosened gun regulations imposed by the Weimar Republic, giving most German citizens increased access to guns, because he was preparing for war. President George Washington banned gun ownership for anyone unwilling to swear loyalty to the Federal Government (some 40% of the population of the Thirteen Colonies) because he and the Congress didn't want any more war.
Last edited by webgiant on Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:51 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby J Thomas » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:45 am UTC

Klear wrote:I think the problem in USA is not the relatively unregulated firearms but the mentality which makes them want to own a gun, which is of course the result of their history and can be hardly change in short order.


I think the problem is that this is almost entirely about symbols.

Considering the number of guns and the number of owners, we have a tiny fraction of people getting shot. Through a combination of self-restraint, careful gun safety, and bad marksmanship, the numbers are *tiny*. It may be more than other places but still tiny.

People who do careful studies to find the effect of gun control etc usually find that the effects are small enough they are buried in the noise. There are so few people getting killed already, it's hard to measure changes.

So it isn't about results. It's about how people feel.

Some places, a perceived increase in crime causes gun control. Other places it causes harsher sentencing.

A perceived decrease in crime causes people to applaud whatever they did that they thought would reduce crime.

The causation goes the other way. Crime causes gun control etc. Probably mostly not the reverse.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby webgiant » Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:28 am UTC

J Thomas wrote:
Klear wrote:I think the problem in USA is not the relatively unregulated firearms but the mentality which makes them want to own a gun, which is of course the result of their history and can be hardly change in short order.


I think the problem is that this is almost entirely about symbols.

Considering the number of guns and the number of owners, we have a tiny fraction of people getting shot. Through a combination of self-restraint, careful gun safety, and bad marksmanship, the numbers are *tiny*. It may be more than other places but still tiny.

People who do careful studies to find the effect of gun control etc usually find that the effects are small enough they are buried in the noise. There are so few people getting killed already, it's hard to measure changes.

People who do careful studies about how guns are actually *used* find that a gun at home is rarely used in self-defense, and usually used to commit a crime, domestic violence being the preferred choice. Accidental shootings are also much more common than a gun used in self-defense. Guns in a home are most often used to frighten/wound/kill inmates of that home. Suicides are 60% of all firearm deaths.

So a useful additional gun control measure would be requiring a gun license, like a driver's license, for which one would have to prove self-restraint, gun safety, and marksmanship. Now driving is a privilege and not an explicit Constitutional right, so there would need to be a "learner's permit" gun license, allowing a double-barrel, long-barrel shotgun. Two shots should help limit the number of home shootings, and a longer barrel would make suicide difficult, but a long-barrel shotgun is sufficiently imposing for self-defense, and does not require a great deal of marksmanship should it need to be fired. Should that household continue to do its part to keep the rates of gun-related domestic violence, suicide, and accidental shootings high, then the "learner's permit" would need to be revoked as well.

Obviously, some people choose to violate the law. This has always been the weakest argument in the Anarchist's portfolio.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby Max™ » Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:57 am UTC

webgiant wrote:
Quicksilver wrote:I've always wondered why parents think you're more inclined to listen to them then your friends, we relate to them more than most of us ever will to our parents. Most of my friends were reckless, but they'd never jump off a cliff.

Which underlines the main point: if they jumped off a cliff anyway, clearly there's a very levelheaded reason for doing so.

Plus if you don't jump, soon you'll end up with a pile of books and your only pair of glasses broken.

That's not fair, there was time now!


As for the gun issue, the best way to stop an outlaw with a trebuchet is a good guy with a trebuchet... or was it a siege machine... maybe a castle?

I don't know, leave me alone, your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries!
mu

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1170: "Bridge"

Postby Klear » Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:56 am UTC

webgiant wrote:So a useful additional gun control measure would be requiring a gun license, like a driver's license, for which one would have to prove self-restraint, gun safety, and marksmanship.


Wait, what? You don't have that?! I'm seriously freaked out by the information.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 103 guests