You apparently responded to something that Gunner wrote. You may not know that he is probably brain damaged. He has had, according to him, at least one stroke fairly recently and his behavior suggests other brain insults as well. Treating him as if he has gross mental deficits may be going too far. But then again maybe, maybe not. Cheers, Eric
On 01/23/2012 05:37 PM, Gunner Asch wrote: ...
A bit flawed? Your source is gobbledygook. Unintelligible. Rubbish. You haven't identified any problem with mine.
I'm sure the debris field around your place damps anyone's interest in breaking in.
That's significantly worse than the 0.44% Violent Crime Rate reported by the source I offered.
...
of all sizes."
"According to the most recent Taft, California FBI Crime Statistics data, Taft, California had the largest population in 2009 with 9,184 people." "According to the most recent Taft, California FBI Crime Statistics data, Taft, California had the smallest population in 2009 with 9,184 people."
Lesson learned from Gummer's source: Taft had the largest population in 2009. Taft had the smallest population in 2009. In 2009, Taft was a town of all sizes.
Really. It's 16% worse. Do you need help solving the problem?
...
LOL, you can't do this. Let's make a fraction with the numbers, okay? Start your Windows Calculator. Enter 51, then divide by(/), and enter 44. That's 55/44, a fraction. Still okay? Now, click the equal sign (=). What's the answer? Is it bigger than 1? How much bigger than 1 is it?
Gummer:
Depends on the size of the numbers. And that's why your simpleminded subtraction exercise (which does bring your abilities to their limits anyway) is idiotic. .07% might mean 1 person in one population, and 100 people in another. For s***ty little Taft, it's 6 people.
Gummer:
Grinning, laughing idiot... Taft's population, 9-thousand-whatever, can be rounded off to 10,000 and this will be very accurate, and easy enough for even a Tafty to understand.
.44% is 44 violent crimes by my source. .51% is 51 violent crimes by your source. That .07% difference that you think is laughable is 7 additional violent crimes.
"Which seem to show up" is worthless. You don't even know what your source has for stats, it's garbled nonsense. And I had to point that out to you, you were to stupid to see it.
.is actually 23,000
Nowhere close. Your source and mine show the same 9K population.
My best effort is above. All done trying, time to give up. You can't grasp easy math.
Which would simply mean more crimes! The rate is still the rate, that isn't changing!! My GAWD you are stupid!!!
ROTFL!!
Sorry, buddy, you're caught lying again. There is no 23,000. Your retarded website shows 325 total crimes in a population of 9,184.
Let's look at this sentence;
WTF does that mean? English is a real struggle for you too. Did you think that by hanging "and the fact that those crimes are the total of all 4 areas" onto it I'd then believe that the crime total reported by your retarded website also covers 4 more areas with an additional 14,000 population?
I modified a balisitcs simulation I buit for a 50 Cal ball round.
Assuming one "shoots a ball with the same size and mass of a golf ball at 200 mph and a 45 deg angle the following table lists the range in meter with a range of drag coeffecents. STP conditons
Cd Range (meters)
0 825 (Vacume dynamics) .1 405 .2 260 .3 220 .4 183 .5 158At a Cd of 0.5 range was insensitve to launch angel Clearly the dimples and spin are chaging the drag charteristics a bunch
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required