On 07 Feb 2005, at 8:40 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
You don't think basketball commentators (and coaches, and players) talk about angle, rebounds, arcs, etc?
That's not physics, except using a rather debased definition of it that includes just about anything involving motion.
David, that's just about the most ridiculous excuse for an argument I've ever heard. "Debased" physics? Because it "includes just about anything involving motion"? David, what do you think Newtonian physics *is*?? And basketball/golf/pool players never think about physics???? Fercrisskaes, pool is nothing *but* applied physics.
Please explain how you would build a pool-playing robot without including some sort of physics module in the AI.
- Darcy ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
