HM Solomon I Posted September 4, 2015 Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 Depends on whether you by "dividing in half" mean "dividing into two equally-sized pieces" or "dividing into two symmetric pieces". The former could be done in a way not resulting in two right triangles. I took cut in half to mean with exactly one straight-line "cut". But yes admittedly you could divide any shape into two pieces of equal surface area in any number of ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted September 4, 2015 Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 I'm glad the meaningless technicality patrol is out in force. ;) Have to have attention to detail, when making claims ;) also an equilateral triangle cut in half is two right triangles. Need to do some rebranding then :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HM Solomon I Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Have to have attention to detail, when making claims ;) Calling what I said "a claim" is being very generous. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 *weird comment about cheese or geometry* *raspberry emote* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 I took cut in half to mean with exactly one straight-line "cut". But yes admittedly you could divide any shape into two pieces of equal surface area in any number of ways. You can not make 2 right triangle with one straight-line cut. Picture taking the top off a triangle, leaving below a trapezoid, and above a triangle, each of equal area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HM Solomon I Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) Clearly we're all doomed to talk of triangles forever. With that in mind here's a diagram of a straight line cutting an equilateral triangle in half forming two right triangles: Edited September 5, 2015 by HM Solomon I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Williambonney Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Now look what you've all done. Trig has taken over cn. :frantic: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HM Solomon I Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) We're doomed. Doomed I say! [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkWIn3GE9Ec[/url] Edited September 5, 2015 by HM Solomon I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believland Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 I'm impressed you were able to distinguish them from the regularly traveling family with cheese hats. We will have to resort to plan B. Banana suits! Yeah, because who is not going to notice the members wearing a $300 banana suit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murtibing Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) Section 2 An attack on one signatory is an attack on all signatories. All signatories shall provide military, economic and diplomatic assistance. This clause supersedes all other treaties held by signatories. The last sentence of this section should be called "CubaQuerida clause"... Basically all signatories of this document are stating here that they may attack other alliances despite of non-aggresion provisions. They may even attack their allies. If we were allied to any of this bloc members, we would cancel on them immediately. Fortunately, SPATR doesn't have that problem. Edited September 5, 2015 by murtibing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) The last sentence of this section should be called "CubaQuerida clause"... Basically all signatories of this document are stating here that they may attack other alliances despite of non-aggresion provisions. They may even attack their allies. If we were allied to any of this bloc members, we would cancel on them immediately. Fortunately, SPATR doesn't have that problem. I think you're looking at it wrong, the message from the clause is don't attack us. If an ally was stupid enough to attack Oculus then that's the allies fault for attacking an ally of their ally, why would you cancel a treaty on the chance that you may go full retard if you decide to keep the treaty. However I don't know WTF they have going on but that's just my thoughts, I think you're looking too far into this simple text which I think is a basic clause if you're starting a massive bloc of alliances with the type of intent they have in terms of politics. Edited September 5, 2015 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socrates Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Please stop talking about cheese and triangles, you're making me hungry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Please stop talking about cheese and triangles, you're making me hungry. Something about all supporting the Packers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duderonomy Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 I thought the supremacy clause was so we could all roll Stewie. But who will step up to roll the triangles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 I thought the supremacy clause was so we could all roll Stewie. But who will step up to roll the triangles? You called? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duderonomy Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 You called? You owe me fantasy wrestling matches boi. You have no time for rolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 You owe me fantasy wrestling matches boi. You have no time for rolling. Once Neo Uruk is no longer indebted to the New Pacific Order, then we can start work on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 I think you're looking at it wrong, the message from the clause is don't attack us. I wasn't under the impression that there was concern of an attack at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Looks like a low rent PB to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes the wise Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 I suppose it shall be the CCC's task to resist the oppression of this new world order... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 I wasn't under the impression that there was concern of an attack at the moment. Is there a point to that statement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Is there a point to that statement? Consider the source. Has there ever been a point? Now triangles - they have points. As do cones. Where do we stand on cones, and conic sections? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Consider the source. Has there ever been a point? Now triangles - they have points. As do cones. Where do we stand on cones, and conic sections? If they come with ice cream they are permitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murtibing Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 I think you're looking at it wrong, the message from the clause is don't attack us. If an ally was stupid enough to attack Oculus then that's the allies fault for attacking an ally of their ally, why would you cancel a treaty on the chance that you may go full retard if you decide to keep the treaty. However I don't know WTF they have going on but that's just my thoughts, I think you're looking too far into this simple text which I think is a basic clause if you're starting a massive bloc of alliances with the type of intent they have in terms of politics. Attacking your own ally is always bad - it is dishonourable. Attacking ally of ally may be bad or not - it depends on the situation. And I wouldn't call attacking ally of ally "full retard". It is something which happened many times. The most recent example is NSO (Non Grata ally) attacking CA (which is also Non Grata ally, as CA is their protectorate on paper). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Looks like a low rent PB to me. Nobody could replace FOK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.