IGX

True POD, but the ink is for the general community's consumption and not the engineering/physics community.
Those luddites equate x with "times"...something they were taught back in grammar school, that was not erased in calculus brainwashing.
Just think how many douchebags in the bar would be like..."What does that dot mean?...uh huh...uh huh...okay...that's stupid"
I would say, in this case, "x" was indeed the proper albeit technically incorrect choice.

I saved a copy of that drunken Couch video, cause I've got a feeling it's going to vanish

POD, you have some redeeming features. That post displays none of them. Stick to posting your dope ass gym.

CLEANSE: (Yeah, she's near a power rack too)

Stayfq wrote:

Excellent cleanse.

POD, this is your chance, cut and paste the following into a reply post:

I have some (kinetic) friction experiments I would like to try with her.

l-tree wrote:The Wiki site has been locked due to an editing war. It is also being threatened to be removed because the wiki reads as an advertisement. Are any of you versed in trademark law?

They are arguing that the photograph does not fall under the fair-use act of the TM law. My argument, which someone on the wiki supported was that the image comes from a freely distributed document (the PDF for RRG), that the image is being used for educational purposes (as part of the wiki), which should under the fair-use act allow the image to be used.

Also noted is that the folks are arguing that we here at IGX are in a war to discredit the couch and cite this thread as proof.

Comments are welcome, valid case law or knowledge preferred.

I think that is pretty goddamn funny that they don't want a picture of the creator and great white father of their venerated program included in a wiki, because even they know he looks less like a fitness personality and more like someone who washes your windshild on an offramp.

Not exactly great press to see someone holding a meeting while wearing pants made from a burlap sack and held up with a string for a belt. might as well cut to the fucking chase and just show up wearing a barrel held up by suspenders.

POD wrote:The tatoo on his arm says "F x d / t = P."

It's F dot d, not F cross d.


Fucking hell. Of course, I shouldn't expect anyone who's retarded enough to get that tattooed on their arm to have the brains to know the difference between vector products. Maybe he should have had Couch tutor him in math.


Edit: And just for anyone who questions the usefulness of tutoring in math for what is seemingly physics, the rudimentary knowledge of the differences in between the dot and cross products would be enough to let anyone know that the above equation, as written with the cross, is wrong, since the desired result is a scalar quantity and the cross product would give you another vector (divided by the scalar, t, which would still give another vector).

Normally I wouldn't do this on such a forum, but since you insist on throwing some geek weight around, I'll indulge myself. If you want to split hairs about this sort of thing, then P = dW/dt. And dW = F dot dr for force F and displacement dr.

Also, the cross product of two vectors isn't really a vector b/c it doesn't conform to all the transformation properties of a vector. An illustrative example of this is if you imagine three vectors: A, B, A x B. For simplicity, you may as well have A along the x axis, B along the y axis, A x B will then be along the z axis. Now perform a reflection about the y-z plane. A will now be along the -x axis, B will be along the y axis, and A x B will be along the -z axis. But if A x B were a vector, it should still be along the +z axis.

So the cross product is not a true vector. It's a pseudovector or axial vector (or an antisymmetric 2nd-rank tensor). In 3 dimensions, it's possible to represent this 2nd-rank tensor as a 'vector', which is very convenient. In higher dimensions, this isn't possible. For example, in 4 dimensions, the cross-product of 2 vectors (each with 4 independent components) would yield a tensor with 6 independent components. Clearly, you cannot represent these 6 components by a 4-dimensional vector.

But I think Couch already incorporated all this into his mathematical reality.

Thanks for the explanetary elucidatation Oswald!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6868F53rgKw[/youtube]

w00tz wrote:

POD wrote:The tatoo on his arm says "F x d / t = P."

It's F dot d, not F cross d.


Fucking hell. Of course, I shouldn't expect anyone who's retarded enough to get that tattooed on their arm to have the brains to know the difference between vector products. Maybe he should have had Couch tutor him in math.


Edit: And just for anyone who questions the usefulness of tutoring in math for what is seemingly physics, the rudimentary knowledge of the differences in between the dot and cross products would be enough to let anyone know that the above equation, as written with the cross, is wrong, since the desired result is a scalar quantity and the cross product would give you another vector (divided by the scalar, t, which would still give another vector).

Normally I wouldn't do this on such a forum, but since you insist on throwing some geek weight around, I'll indulge myself. If you want to split hairs about this sort of thing, then P = dW/dt. And dW = F dot dr for force F and displacement dr.

Also, the cross product of two vectors isn't really a vector b/c it doesn't conform to all the transformation properties of a vector. An illustrative example of this is if you imagine three vectors: A, B, A x B. For simplicity, you may as well have A along the x axis, B along the y axis, A x B will then be along the z axis. Now perform a reflection about the y-z plane. A will now be along the -x axis, B will be along the y axis, and A x B will be along the -z axis. But if A x B were a vector, it should still be along the +z axis.

So the cross product is not a true vector. It's a pseudovector or axial vector (or an antisymmetric 2nd-rank tensor). In 3 dimensions, it's possible to represent this 2nd-rank tensor as a 'vector', which is very convenient. In higher dimensions, this isn't possible. For example, in 4 dimensions, the cross-product of 2 vectors (each with 4 independent components) would yield a tensor with 6 independent components. Clearly, you cannot represent these 6 components by a 4-dimensional vector.

But I think Couch already incorporated all this into his mathematical reality.

Where's the mandatory cleanse after this...crap??

POD wrote:The tatoo on his arm says "F x d / t = P."

It's F dot d, not F cross d.

Anyone who spent enough time looking at that picture to decipher the tats has some serious issues.

Trip wrote:

POD wrote:The tatoo on his arm says "F x d / t = P."

It's F dot d, not F cross d.

Anyone who spent enough time looking at that picture to decipher the tats has some serious issues.

This is the second time I've seen some @Fit douche with a math tattoo. I swear I want to make my own branding iron and burn into one of those fucks another math problem that fits their knowledge:

For example:

2 + 2 = 5

Shitpile + Vaginal Discharge = Crossfit

The brilliance that is @F trainer:
http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/02/at- ... l#comments

On the other hand, I have terribly inflexible guys who look like a club footed T-Rex doing front squats but I'm happy to let them go all day long because the risk to reward ratio is tilted heavily in my favor and it's pretty tough to overload an inflexible front squat!

Um....NO and NO.

Anon, I'll admit that was funny, but I don't make those sort of jokes.

w00tz, thank you for the clarification on the cross product. Supposedly, I'll be learning about tensors in-depth in a class this semester, though I doubt that'll actually happen, since all of Professor Ji's lectures so far have been totally indecipherable. I'll let you guess why - and it's not because the math is difficult! I had also considered differentiating by t versus dividing by t, but figured that since Glasshole rants on about "broad time domains" that division would be more appropriate for their uses. Anyway, that's enough nerdtalk out of me. In short, that dumbass got the mathematical version of a "your/you're" error permanently engraved onto his arm.


I'm still waiting to see someone get the Zone block guide tattooed on their arm, since we all know that shit's too complicated to commit to memory.

Another douchebag with a math tat...

http://www.crossfit.com/cf-affiliates/2 ... 81114.html

ok, last one...

T200 wrote:

Stayfq wrote:

Excellent cleanse.

MOTHERFUCKING WIN

couchfitblows, you're posting shit that's been on here multiple times before.

Either:

1. Read the entire thread from page 1 before posting again
2. Post topless pics of Barky
3. Fuck off

BTU wrote:couchfitblows, you're posting shit that's been on here multiple times before.

Either:

1. Read the entire thread from page 1 before posting again
2. Post topless pics of Barky
3. Fuck off

BTU,

Thank you very much for your suggestions. For future posts I will forward you the contents of my reply for editing so that I can avoid inconveniencing you again.

BTU wrote:couchfitblows, you're posting shit that's been on here multiple times before.

Either:

1. Read the entire thread from page 1 before posting again
2. Post topless pics of Barky
3. Fuck off

BTU needs to fuck off with his 23 posts. The entire thread is based on redundancy.

I was watching the speed skating and other Olympic events over the weekend and not once did I see any of these specialized insect "athletes" collapse onto their backs, gasping and rolling around in a puddle of their own sweat after their event.

They must not be working as hard as a typical soccer mom @fitter.

Like Jon Gilson says, you're not a legendary athlete unless you puke and lie on your back after a workout.

lasalle wrote:Oh the lulz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CrossFit#Disputed

lee-tree, you are one committed motherfucker. Fight the good fight.

If I understand this correctly, the wiki moderator is an affiliate owner?

Well, I fought the good fight until now. I have been banned indefinately from Wikipedia. I don't know for fact, but I suspect that the moderator in question is affiliated. If you have some proof of this, it sure would help my cause to be reinstated so I can continue to keep those muther fuckers honest.

Fucking priceless.

l-tree wrote:

lasalle wrote:Oh the lulz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CrossFit#Disputed

lee-tree, you are one committed motherfucker. Fight the good fight.

If I understand this correctly, the wiki moderator is an affiliate owner?

Well, I fought the good fight until now. I have been banned indefinately from Wikipedia. I don't know for fact, but I suspect that the moderator in question is affiliated. If you have some proof of this, it sure would help my cause to be reinstated so I can continue to keep those muther fuckers honest.

I doubt you will have your privileges *permanently* revoked. When a shit storm fires up, the page is locked and those who have had most amount of time editing the page are allowed to go in and attempt to systematically bring the page within the standards of wikipedia, before the page is opened to the public again. And unknown entities (you) are locked, in case you are simply a troll.

You will note that the page has nearly every section marked for non-conforming content.

This about as much win as one lonely fucker is going to achieve in trying to keep pages which are informericals and hagiographies nearly no ones care about honest.

Wait for a bit and see what happens.

Till then, .

Can you imagine the little douchebags these two would breed?