Warp Spider

Yes, an object will reach terminal velocity after falling for some time, a point at which the air resistance/drag becomes sufficiently great that it is as strong as the gravitational force attempting to speed up the object. This can easily be observed on objects with poor aerodynamics, like a sheet of paper (horizontal) or a beach ball.

It's a position that almost all MMA fights seem to get into. An open invitation to be bitten, I'd say.

That is a myth - there's nothing natural or instinctive about punching or kicking that makes it any different from a "spider guard." Both punching and kicking are behaviours learned from observing violent acts involving the flailing of limbs. Having said that, I think the point Drunken Monkey is trying to make is, even without training, if you grapple enough you will eventually end up in a spider-guard-like position just through chance. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that you invented it.

I wouldn't consider throws or chokes a groundfighting technique, but that's just me. I'd say joint manipulation types of moves are grappling.

Personally, I think that show was a farce. The fact that the flag may have been flapping a bit doesn't indicate no atmosphere. Just because there's no air doesn't mean that gravity, inertia, and elasticity are suspended as well. Since there's basically no resistance from the non-existant atmosphere, the flag doesn't need wind to keep it in motion. It was set in motion when it was moved from the shuttle. If you take a trip down to your local university (assuming they have a giant telescope there, I know mine does) you could likely still see the American flag where it was planted. That's more than enough evidence to me that the moon landing wasn't faked.

Well, hot dogs have intestines on them. And they're grrreat! Why I've half a mind to eat a dozen right now. Except I don't have any.

I guess it depends how far you want to extend the concept of what's "grappling" and what's not. Surely an armbar or ground submission is grappling but what about a choke? Does throwing someone to the ground and then choking them qualify as grappling? Also as far as traditional/"standup", does that just include punches, kicks, elbows, etc, or does it also include throwing, trips, sweeps? And under what category does things like a fishhook fall?

Even "Grasshopper Kung Fu?"

Actually it says they were 13 at the time. And although I don't want to seem like I condone that sort of thing, what if it was consensual? I realize that it would still be against the law, but still, I've met several girls who were "victims" of statutory rape but don't consider it to have been a negative experience.

I suppose I should clarify - the duel conditions are essentially any melee weapon of choice - and theres no requirement that the weapons be of the same type. I'm inquring for a friend, but he has specified a preference for swords, so that's why I'm curious as to which would be better for an "open" duel like that.

I'm interested to hear your opinions on whether a European-style dueliing weapon (like a rapier or sabre) or a katana would be a better weapon for duelling. (and of course, why you think that would be a better choice) This of course is considering modern swords, as opposed to the ancient variety.

Ahem. With all due respect, if "no force was used", then how exactly is it rape?

Use fire. Fire is your friend!

Depending on how experienced this bad guy is, there may be an opening when you hand over your wallet. If they want you to hand it to them, then of course you are in a position with your hands very close to their gun. If it has a "stick" type trigger (I can't remember what the "official name is") you can jam your finger behind the trigger so it can't be pulled. That of course, won't work on a full trigger, because it's not possible to stick your finger behind a full trigger. (well, not without disassembling the gun ) Alternatively, if they want you to toss it to them, you can toss it a bit to their gun hand side, meaning they'll have to use their gun hand to catch it. (meaning they'll have to take it off you for a second) If he wants you to put it on the ground and back up, that's probrably the smartest thing for him or her to do. In that case, depending on how they pick it up you might have an opening. Failing that, you could try surrendering and then shooting him or her in the back as they make their getaway.

As far as I know, butterfly kicks and tornado kicks aren't meant for fighting: It's pretty hard to do a complex move like that when you can't even see the person you're attacking. (due to the spinning and all)

I don't get it. What would that be in response to?

I don't think it's fair to suggest there is a single "right way" to martial arts. Every martial art was "made up" at one point. And I imagine at that time there were probrably people saying the same thing.

Start a fire! Seriously though I'd probrably bite them, and try to restrain their limbs as much as possible with whatever mobility I have left.

I fail to see how being ventilated would not prevent you from committing some criminal act. I think it's good for everyone to have a gun - it level's the playing field. A thug pulling a knife on you only puts him at an advantage if you don't also have a knife. If you also had a knife, then you'd pretty much be on a level playing field, and the thug would likely not be quite so confident. Because the reasonable maximum armament for pedestrians is generally a compact submachinegun, if everyone had one, it would be very difficult for a would-be criminal to gain a tactical advantage simply by arming themselves. I suppose they could use an assault rifle or automatic shotgun and wear body armor, but that would be pretty conspicuous. That's why I think everyone should have guns. It levels the playing field, and makes it much more difficult to gain an advantage over a would-be victim. I don't think that makes it paranoid, I mean, by that logic you could extend it indefinately. The example earlier with seatbelts and airbags is a very good one. Your chance of being in a car accident is almost nil, but you buckle up anyways just in case, yet that's not considered paranoid. I also don't think it's fair to say that people would draw their weapon at any opportunity. I mean, I love whipping out a gun and spraying bullets everywhere, while cackling madly, but even I don't waltz into a public place and start blowing away everyone who looks at me funny.

Well, I haven't performed a conclusive study, however, according to the professor I took introductory psychology under, the media can influence people, but generally not to the extent that that same media suggests. Really, there's two types of violent behaviour, there's the emotional type, which is mostly rooted in a genetic predisposition, but media or music can alter your mood to a point where you might become violent. IE a person not predisposed to violence will not go on a killing spree no matter how much rap they hear, and a person predisposed to violence may go on a killing spree after listening to gospel music. Basically, music can make you violent, but only if you are a violent person to begin with. It can't turn a non-violent person into a violent person. There's also the calm methodical sort of violence but that's generally not influenced by music or the media.

Unless the loved one in question is handicapped, I would hardly see this as an issue. Of course, I wouldn't recommend running at all, who wants to miss out on a legitimate excuse to increase their bodycount?

I think you missed the point. There was a cliff at the very end of the track and if the cars didn't stop right on the finish line they would going over it and making fire - thus the slowing down before the finish line.

That's an interesting question. . . . is there any record of a human being shot with a .454 Casull? I haven't heard of it. Can't be many, in any case. .44 Magnum is a powerful round for a handgun but nothing compared to a long arm and not a reliable stopper, especially with one shot. Ever hear all the stories about the dismal lack of power from the .30 Carbine in WWII and Korea? Lotta soldiers came back convinced that the M1 Carbine was a weak sister that couldn't be trusted to stop a charging enemy. The same soldiers were and are often heard expounding upon the awesome power of the .45 ACP, especially compared to something like 9mm. Truth is, by every objective measure possible, the .30 Carbine round is much more powerful than the .44 Magnum, even if you fire both from the same length barrel. Yet the .44 and even the .45 are considered man-stoppers, while the .30 is considered a wuss. Makes no sense. Most of what people say and write about handgun calibers is mythical. The bottom line is that although there are some differences, the degree of difference between most handgun calibers is actually very, very small in real terms. Put it in a convenient math format like foot-pounds, and it may look like one round is impressive and the other is weak. But look at how many foot-pounds would be needed to get impressive results and it becomes pretty clear that the handguns mostly get left behind. Here you're comparing apples to oranges. .30 caliber didn't work too well against a target wearing flak jackets or possibly kevlar? That's likely because (to my knowledge) it's not a round designed for armor penetration. That certainately doesn't mean that it would be ineffective versus an unarmoured opponent. Obviously rifle rounds are more powerful, but I've yet to find someone who claimed 7.62mm NATO was not effective against unarmoured targets. For sure a handgun round isn't going to dismember a person or send chunks flying like an FN FAL might, but it's still perfectly capable of causing a fatal wound, especially against unarmoured targets.

Well, I like knives that are balanced well. Almost like a throwing knife, only not a throwing knife, because of course they don't have much of a grip on them. I don't like knives that are very blade-heavy.

I don't think it's fair to say that handguns aren't powerful, though it does depend on the round. A small round like a 9mm is a bit impotent, but still pretty effective against an unarmored target. Most instances where people are shot and survive are from the more forgiving calibers like .38, .22, or 9mm. I haven't heard of too many people that caught a .44 magnum or 454 causall anywhere remotely vital and came out unscathed. Other than that I'd have to agree with most of that advice. Bullets are pretty hard to dodge (though not impossible, in theory) and a single bullet may not down an attacker. Of course, a 9mm magazine generally holds about 13 bullets, plus one in the tube, (if you cock your gun in advance and then reload the magazine) so as long as you don't wimp out you should have enough round to "make sure." Oh, and if you ever use a gun to defend yourself, don't shoot "gangsta style." I tried that earlier today during some target practice, and although it looks kind of cool, the bullets ricocheting off everything when you completely miss the target kind of dampens the "look cool factor." On the bright side, I did hit the target 4 times, (out of 14 rounds fired from a P99) so even "gangsta style" isn't that bad.