Subject:
|
Re: Badly Abridged
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:53:15 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm.org/antispam/
|
Viewed:
|
1146 times
|
| |
|
|
Franklin W. Cain <franklin_cain@yahoo.com> wrote:
> One at a time, from the lightest to the heaviest.
Great for the lightest people, but almost certainly guaranteeing the death
of the heaviest, or someone before, because of the build-up of damage. On
the other hand, if you go from heaviest to lightest, it's possible that
the incremental damage still won't be enough to make it unsafe for the
person at the end.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Badly Abridged
|
| (...) Let's do some number-crunching, to illustrate. Let's say that the rope will take a maximum stress-load of one thousand (1,000) pounds, cumulative, before snapping. Let's futher assume we've got the following people, identified solely by their (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
