+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Answer me this. (/thread-4693.html)
Answer me this. - Occhidiangela - 03-13-2006
Rhydderch Hael,Mar 13 2006, 09:20 AM Wrote:Does not oblivion define existence without observation (or even awareness)?My friend Guinness tends to agree with that premise. :D So too Mr Johnny Walker and Mr Chivas Regal, not to mention my old pal Glenn Morangie.
[right][snapback]104366[/snapback][/right]
Occhi
EDIT: Preview is your friend, Occhi. :blink:
Answer me this. - --Pete - 03-13-2006
Hi,
DeeBye,Mar 12 2006, 09:23 PM Wrote:The difference between "sound" and "noise" is purely subjective.BS. 'Noise' is random (can be sound, can be EM, etc.) crap. Thus 'signal to noise ratio', 'a noisy environment', 'noise suppression'.
[right][snapback]104328[/snapback][/right]
Sound is an acoustic wave. I.e., vibration in some medium. When an ultra-sound machine is in use, sound waves way outside of of the range are used to make images. Just because no one can hear them, is it rational to say they don't exist?
Bats use echo location at frequencies two to three time above the human threshold. Do their waves exist for them but not for us?
--Pete
Answer me this. - Occhidiangela - 03-13-2006
Pete,Mar 13 2006, 09:58 AM Wrote:Hi,Who has seen the wind? ;)
BS. 'Noise' is random (can be sound, can be EM, etc.) crap. Thus 'signal to noise ratio', 'a noisy environment', 'noise suppression'.
Sound is an acoustic wave. I.e., vibration in some medium. When an ultra-sound machine is in use, sound waves way outside of of the range are used to make images. Just because no one can hear them, is it rational to say they don't exist?
Bats use echo location at frequencies two to three time above the human threshold. Do their waves exist for them but not for us?
--Pete
[right][snapback]104373[/snapback][/right]
I didn't see the wind, but I sure felt its effects while I repaired a wooden privacy fence, in 20-30 knot winds, Sunday afternoon. Must fix the fence or the dog runs off. Holding the fence up while I try to repair it, and getting whacked smartly about the head and shoulders by random hunks of wood, made for a fine afternoon of amateur carpentry and profanity. The repair is jury rigged. I have to put a more permanent fix in when the wind is calm; someday next fall I think. :P
So much for my golfing yesterday, which cancellation added to the profanity.
Who has seen the lag monster? :blink:
Occhi
Answer me this. - Guest - 03-13-2006
Occhidiangela,Mar 13 2006, 10:10 AM Wrote:The definition is a bit lacking in technical accuracy. Liquid and fluid are not physically equivalent terms: liquid is, as related to sound, a subset of "fluid." The definition fails to spell out that sound, as most often experienced, is propagated in a fluid. (Air is a fluid. So is water.) Granted "liquid" and "fluid" are similar terms for the great unwashed, but I am being picky with a dictionary since it is a dictionary. Precision in definition aids discussion more than it hinders it, IMO. Your spelling out the propoerties of sound was thus a good idea. :)
Occhi
[right][snapback]104365[/snapback][/right]
That not paticularly relevant here however. With reference to this subject we are only deserning if the word "sound" refered to the reception or transmision. And actually the definition was fine because it was listing all mediums sound could move through.
The nature of fluids is particulary important with respect towaves, but as my simple definition spointed out it can also be tranmitted by solids, so I think my simple definition best address this simple topic.
Answer me this. - Occhidiangela - 03-13-2006
Ghostiger,Mar 13 2006, 10:22 AM Wrote:That not paticularly relevant here however. With reference to this subject we are only deserning if the word "sound" refered to the reception or transmision. And actually the definition was fine because it was listing all mediums sound could move through.Sufficient; yes. Best; no. The devil is in the details. I agree with you that the "good enough standard" is met for this discussion. The dictionary in question is lacking due to imprecision. They are "an authority" (or so dictionaries are supposed to be) and must meet a higher standard that "the great unwashed."
The nature of fluids is particulary important with respect towaves, but as my simple definition spointed out it can also be tranmitted by solids, so I think my simple definition best address this simple topic.
[right][snapback]104379[/snapback][/right]
Occhi
Answer me this. - Guest - 03-13-2006
Ill tell you why.
A sematics issue is just a failure to communicate.
A good conversation is an exchange of ideas.
Its foolish to disagree over sematics, once the incongruity is understood by both sides the converstion should continue. If you simply want to argue over which definition is correct you have totaly changed the topic of a discussion(many netzens are oblivious to this.)
Now on a totaly seperate issue you could reasonably dislike a person because they refused to use conbentional definitions, but the problem there is no the actually definitions but the choice to use them.
Answer me this. - ShadowHM - 03-13-2006
Doc,Mar 13 2006, 09:59 AM Wrote:Shadow, all the vigilance in the world does no good when you do not have the arms required to deal with unjust police and militia putting you in your place.
Doc, none of the places you cited have democratic governments, nor do they have a tradition of democracy.
If a government looks to be going in that direction, we will toss them out of power. :angry: Vigilance, as I already said, will obviate the need for vigilantes. Live free by exercising your franchise, not by collecting arsenals.
Answer me this. - Doc - 03-13-2006
ShadowHM,Mar 13 2006, 04:52 PM Wrote:Doc, none of the places you cited have democratic governments, nor do they have a tradition of democracy.
If a government looks to be going in that direction, we will toss them out of power. :angry: Vigilance, as I already said, will obviate the need for vigilantes. Live free by exercising your franchise, not by collecting arsenals.
[right][snapback]104423[/snapback][/right]
How do you plan to toss them out of power though? I am curious. I mean, if the crap hits the fan it's not like there is going to be a vote. Despots and dictators don't much listen to votes.
**Shrugs**
Perhaps there is a plan to have some foreign calvary ride in and save you?
See, this is a concept that I have a hard time grasping when people present this argument... How does one toss out a power mad nutjob should their own country somehow fall.
Here goes a Godwin.
I seem to recall that Hilter rounded up a lot of guns to get them out of the way before he took office. I mean, it's just how this sort of thing works.
I fail to understand how people plan to take back their governments in socialist or democratic type governments with out guns.
In a well armed society, dipwads like Saddam wouldn't have lasted long. Somebody would have done blew his head clean off.
Answer me this. - Occhidiangela - 03-13-2006
Ghostiger,Mar 13 2006, 12:22 PM Wrote:A sematics issue is just a failure to communicate.Once we agree on definitions, or that we are talking about the same thing, the exchange of ideas flows better than if we are using words in a different, or incorrect, sense. Words are an idea encoded and decoded. It is important for the encoding and decoding to have a high fidelity, or the message degrades. Thus, sometimes getting into semantics, to make sure we both understand the intended meaning, advances a conversation, while other times arguing about semantics detracts from it, as you note.
A good conversation is an exchange of ideas.
Its foolish to disagree over sematics, once the incongruity is understood by both sides the converstion should continue. If you simply want to argue over which definition is correct you have totaly changed the topic of a discussion(many netzens are oblivious to this.)
Now on a totaly seperate issue you could reasonably dislike a person because they refused to use conbentional definitions, but the problem there is no the actually definitions but the choice to use them.
[right][snapback]104390[/snapback][/right]
I think we agree one that. :whistling:
Occhi
Answer me this. - SwissMercenary - 03-13-2006
Hitler also had his private army to bully the population into submission, and I can't see anyone around here raising one. After he eliminated his political opposition, thanks to it, it was the matter of the somewhat lengthy process of indoctorinating the military. Or, rather, the new, impressionate recruits, seeing as how Germany didn't really have a military.
And I have this gut feeling that if anyone catches wiff of PM Joe Shmoe brainwashing the military to be loyal to *him*, he might run into this small problem of non-compliance from it. I find it hard to believe that say, if Stephen Harper orders every black guy rounded up, and jailed tomorrow, that its going to happen. Now, if he spent 5 years working on the indoctorination part, then yeah, sure. However, if nobody notices a damned thing in the span of those 5 years, then I suppose we'll get exactly what we deserve. And in the case that it is noticed, he will have more problems then non-compliance. I'm thinking of either rioters, the police, or both knocking down his door. It won't be a question of a mob against an army, but rather a question of a mob against one guy. You can't turn the Armed Forces into the SS overnight, is what I'm saying. You guys might run things differently in the states, of course.
Edit: It may be difficult for you to imagine, growing up and living among, what were effectively private armies of the Klan, but we don't have such militia forces around here. Skinheads keep relatively quiet, what, with the part where they'd probably get a light tap with a police baton, if they try their hand at cross-burning.
Answer me this. - Assur - 03-14-2006
Doc,Mar 13 2006, 10:03 PM Wrote:I seem to recall that Hilter rounded up a lot of guns to get them out of the way before he took office. I mean, it's just how this sort of thing works.
In a well armed society, dipwads like Saddam wouldn't have lasted long. Somebody would have done blew his head clean off.
[right][snapback]104424[/snapback][/right]
Have to disappoint you there. There was no roundup of guns in Germany in 1933. The gunlaws pretty much remained the same. As regards Iraq, the population has already had access to guns under Saddam, an AK-47 in every household ^_^ , nowadays of course American Soldiers regard possesion of handguns as proof that the owner is a jihadi!
If you base your rulership on force you need an efficient security service to prevent the opposition from organising and an army with heavy weapons. A disciplined force can take on ten times their number of disorganized civilians with handguns. If the army is prepared to use its heavy weapons ruthlessly they can win against even steeper odds!
Reality 1 Hollywood 0
Answer me this. - Doc - 03-14-2006
Assur,Mar 13 2006, 08:58 PM Wrote:Have to disappoint you there. There was no roundup of guns in Germany in 1933. The gunlaws pretty much remained the same. As regards Iraq, the population has already had access to guns under Saddam, an AK-47 in every household ^_^ , nowadays of course American Soldiers regard possesion of handguns as proof that the owner is a jihadi!
If you base your rulership on force you need an efficient security service to prevent the opposition from organising and an army with heavy weapons. A disciplined force can take on ten times their number of disorganized civilians with handguns. If the army is prepared to use its heavy weapons ruthlessly they can win against even steeper odds!
Reality 1 Hollywood 0
[right][snapback]104446[/snapback][/right]
I seem to recall Hilter doing something about guns... But I may have my dictators mixed up.
As for your army point... I offer one word in return. Iraq. Guerilla tactics are highly effective. There are people in this country all to prepared for a seige... They pray to God every day for it.
And, there are good men like Occhi the Rogue who would put his oath to defend the constitution over the commands of a nutjob. At least, I believe he would. So there would be well trained leadership.
Answer me this. - Doc - 03-14-2006
SwissMercenary,Mar 13 2006, 06:21 PM Wrote:Edit: It may be difficult for you to imagine, growing up and living among, what were effectively private armies of the Klan, but we don't have such militia forces around here. Skinheads keep relatively quiet, what, with the part where they'd probably get a light tap with a police baton, if they try their hand at cross-burning.
[right][snapback]104432[/snapback][/right]
I believe it is this very thing that gives me a unique world view, that I am surrounded at all times by hostile forces out to get me.
Growing up, the Klan were the police. No one to go to.
Having a gun was the only way to make sure you had your rights respected. Made you equal. Hard to ignore a man with a gun.
Answer me this. - SwissMercenary - 03-14-2006
Doc,Mar 14 2006, 02:23 AM Wrote:I believe it is this very thing that gives me a unique world view, that I am surrounded at all times by hostile forces out to get me.
Growing up, the Klan were the police. No one to go to.
Having a gun was the only way to make sure you had your rights respected. Made you equal. Hard to ignore a man with a gun.
[right][snapback]104450[/snapback][/right]
The difference is, those hostile forces can't set up shop here overnight. And stopping them between the point in time when they start growing, and the point in time when you *can't* stop them does not require a populace armed with M-16s. What it does require, is a public that's not completely apathetic to the problem. I'd much rather work on that, then securing myself a right to own a battle tank.
Answer me this. - Doc - 03-14-2006
SwissMercenary,Mar 13 2006, 09:51 PM Wrote:The difference is, those hostile forces can't set up shop here overnight. And stopping them between the point in time when they start growing, and the point in time when you *can't* stop them does not require a populace armed with M-16s. What it does require, is a public that's not completely apathetic to the problem. I'd much rather work on that, then securing myself a right to own a battle tank.
[right][snapback]104454[/snapback][/right]
I agree with your statement completely.
The Klan took over the entire state of Indiana. The government, the police, the legal system, etc, all filled by Klansman.
And people looked away. Worst crime of all, they just looked away.
And they almost took over New Jersey too. Worst part is, these aren't even Southern States. They gained power because nobody cared enough to do anything about it. DC too.
I fear complacency. I would rather be tarred and feathered as an over paranoid wacko hermit for what I believe than spend one day being complacent and looking the other way. I'd raise the call of alarm and be wrong than to not raise it at all.
Answer me this. - whyBish - 03-14-2006
Doc,Mar 13 2006, 06:18 PM Wrote:And people with out guns are subjects. A society armed with guns and the ability to have their voices heard at any cost are a democracy. They are citizens.Just try waving your guns around in Washington and see how far you get before you are shot.
[right][snapback]104333[/snapback][/right]
Guns won't get you a democracy, at best, it'll give you a chance to take out a few before they take you out.
Answer me this. - Occhidiangela - 03-14-2006
whyBish,Mar 13 2006, 11:44 PM Wrote:Just try waving your guns around in Washington and see how far you get before you are shot.Go down swinging, like Frodo, like Aragorn before the Black Gate. Heroic stuff, eh? Who wants to grovel with their last breath? Not I.
Guns won't get you a democracy, at best, it'll give you a chance to take out a few before they take you out.
[right][snapback]104459[/snapback][/right]
Occhi
Answer me this. - whyBish - 03-14-2006
Occhidiangela,Mar 14 2006, 03:13 AM Wrote:What is your plan when the trust is betrayed, when the system has stress put on its seams and it cracks? It can happen, simpely because people are human. Having a back up plan is a useful posture to adopt.Considering:
Occhi
[right][snapback]104354[/snapback][/right]
- we spend 'only' 1% of GDP on defence forces source
- the army is now taking in asthmatics and overweight recruits
- politcians get voted out every three years
- we have a more democratic system that requirese onsensus between multiple parties to get laws enacted (as opposed to the U.S. dictatorship system)
- we are easily able to head elsewhere (e.g. if the govt. started increasing tax to fund a military, we could reduce its tax base by emigrating... who wants to rule a country that has no citizens to earn tax for you?)
... I think we have more chance of being invaded (don't tell George about the large finds of offshore oil here recently :P ) than the govt. to go awol.
Answer me this. - whyBish - 03-14-2006
Doc,Mar 14 2006, 11:03 AM Wrote:How do you plan to toss them out of power though? I am curious. I mean, if the crap hits the fan it's not like there is going to be a vote. Despots and dictators don't much listen to votes.
**Shrugs**
[right][snapback]104424[/snapback][/right]
I have a hard time fathoming how you and your few guns would stop a dictator... oh wait, you already have one that doesn't care about the real vote (ref 2000 elections)
Answer me this. - Premezilla - 03-14-2006
Guns don't kill people. 9 millimeter holes in the head kill people.
I think that guns can be effective when used properly. Guerillas and Extremists knocking at your door would have a stronger desire to leave you alone when faced with a barrel of a 12 gauge shotgun than with a polite request to vacate the premises. However, if everyone and his brother adopted this approach, we'd have empty streets and broken venetian blinds.
Should a situation arise in which the United States disintegrates, I'm sure guns would take on a much more important approach, and that more people would purchase them.
However, until that time, most people feel that the need for a gun is less that the risk of accidentally using or misfiring a gun. Both approaches sound feasible in the right context.
On another note, I think that people need to be smart about the whole "right for guns" issue. I mean, look what happened at Columbine. Kid brings gun to school and kills other kids. I'm betting that those kids hadn't gone through gun education. Now, I know gun education would probably mean nothing (I know that Driver's Education does not guarantee an improvement in driving skills) and in some cases, forcing people to sit through lectures they have no desire of hearing can only aggravate the situation. However, forcing public awareness to consider the issue is often enough to raise public interest in said issue. Take, for example, today's struggles between various politicians, the ESRB, and kids buying violent videogames. Although the law (is it actually a law?) that prohibits stores from selling Mature-rated games to kids under the age of 17 is not necessarily enforced in all areas, the fact that the issue has become a national one has raised parents' awareness towards what their kids are playing. Therefore, even though the law may not be enforced, an increase in parent involvement sometimes works just as well.
Of course, there will always be the kids that sneak out and give a friend 50 bucks to buy the game for them, but then again, haven't we all snuck through a loophole at one time or another?
I guess the point I'm trying to get across is that sometimes, raising public awareness can be a more effective weapon than a bullet from a revolver. A couple billion people working towards a cause can accomplish a lot more than a bullet can.
Unless, of course, the person is the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary and the bullet was the assasin's one that sparked WWI. (I may have completely embellished this fact.)
By the way, I meant this post as a completely non-offending one. The mood of the Lounge the last few posts has been somewhat grim, and I was trying to lighten up the situation. My apologies to anyone offended by my question.