For help on how to follow a comic title,
Reminds me of Jules Feiffer’s “Why can’t I be a nonconformist like everyone else?”
Karl Rove, the actual speaker of those words, was probably talking about the impending invasion of Iraq. This doesn’t work as well in warfare as it (sometimes) does in creating domestic tyranny. Police powers can (sometimes) force your own population to accept the alternate reality. A foreign enemy may refuse, and they have some of the decision making power over the results of the war.
In geometry, assuming A is on the line BC, the two possible locations for A form, with respect to B and C, what is called a “harmonic set.” That concept comes up frequently, not least in projective geometry.
The 2-dimensional solution for all locations of A, was originally solved by the great Apollonius of Perga; it also leads to the fascinating theory of “coaxal circles.”
As pointed out above, in one dimension — all points on the same line — the answer can be either 10 or 3 1/3; while, in more dimensions, it can also be anywhere between. The location of points on a plane where A can be found is a circle; this is called the Apollonius circle theorem.
Good, but if you really know geometry, the “locus” of possible points for A (on a plane) is a circle, with the 3 1/3 and 10 inch points as a diameter. A sphere in 3 dimensions.
Cute. (Because the two-dimensional solution for the possible locations of A is a circle with the points 10/3 and 10 inches from C as diameter.)
On a straight line, the order can be either ABC or CAB. (CBA is the same as ABC.) “ACB” is impossible, as that would put A closer to C than to B, contrary to hypothesis.
They were a different job category from gladiators, but the Roman circus performances also included bestiarii [sing. bestiarius], skilled animal hunters, who killed dangerous animals in the arena. The animals had about as much chance as a bullfighting bull. Even a gladiator, properly armed, might be able to deal with a lion.
I’ve read that this cartoon involved a personal reference. Pressure was being put on Watterson to allow wider commercialization of Calvin and Hobbes, and he argued back that that was against his “principles.”
One of the basic distinctions between Fair Use vs Ripping Off another’s work is the extent to which the derived work can act as a substitute for the original. Will reading this comic reduce anyone’s interest in buying a Peanuts book because this gives him enough of the Peanuts experience? Clearly not, it is doing something totally different.
I think the same can be said for almost any number of “Donald and John” comics as well. Are they likely to cut into Watterson’s income?