Quake3World

so you're telling me bamboo is denser than oak?

nightsticks are not designed with the idea of the nightstick breaking before a bone would break. If they do, it is just a consequence of the material.

Again, there are way too many variables to take into account to advertise them as being constructed to break upon excessive contact to prevent major damage...

[xeno]Julios wrote:so you're telling me bamboo is denser than oak?

No, but say you have dried out wood and say you have fresh wood. The dried out wood will be somewhat brittle and will more than likely snap before it bends. However the fresh wood will be more willing to bend.

i don't think jules needs that fact explained...

eepberries wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:so you're telling me bamboo is denser than oak?

No, but say you have dried out wood and say you have fresh wood. The dried out wood will be somewhat brittle and will more than likely snap before it bends. However the fresh wood will be more willing to bend.

Right - that's probably a consequence of the fresh wood containing more moisture, which makes it denser, and more flexible.

But I don't know that there is a primary relationship between flexibility and density, or flexibility and "ability to break bones".

I would say that density is certainly a factor. But imagine you had two rod shaped objects of the same size and shape. One is made of pure solid lead, and the other is made of a strong flexible membrane which contains molten lead.

So the density and shape of the two objects are essentially identical.

I would imagine that the solid lead would cause much more damage than would the flexible object (filled with liquid metal).

So based on this intuition, I'd say that the more rigid an object, the more damage it can do.

I'd guess this is because in the rigid object, more energy is transmitted, whereas in a flexible object, much energy is lost in flexing the object.

But it may be the case that there is a sweet spot - if something is too rigid, it may be difficult to wield since there is no shock absorption (you may shatter your arm or shoulder if you struck something with a lot of force with a rigid object).

So when people put up a fight should police beat the shit out of them or shoot them instead, possibly harming innocent bystanders in the process, and definitely harming the subject..?

Don't fight the police, don't get tased. It's not a hard concept.

Call it a police state if you want, but I'm glad police have authority, or else we'd all be fucked... and I think tasers are a great tool, they are a relatively safe method of dealing with violent people.

Yeah they kill people sometimes, but so do cars, and so do fists for that matter.

Dr.Gibbs wrote:So when people put up a fight should police beat the shit out of them or shoot them instead, possibly harming innocent bystanders in the process, and definitely harming the subject..?

Don't fight the police, don't get tased. It's not a hard concept.

Call it a police state if you want, but I'm glad police have authority, or else we'd all be fucked... and I think tasers are a great tool, they are a relatively safe method of dealing with violent people.

Yeah they kill people sometimes, but so do cars, and so do fists for that matter.

:icon14:

w3rd

The problem is that police officers seem to get really trigger-happy with tasers, always saying "I had to use the taser!" when they didn't need tasers at all a couple years ago.
And when they get shit for it they can always say "I left no permanent damage."

raw wrote:When it reads "rep was killed by police tasers" then I'll care.

I won't care, I'll be jumping for joy.