Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 225 of 420 FirstFirst ... 125175215223224225226227235275325 ... LastLast
Results 16,801 to 16,875 of 31490
  1. #16801
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    Seeing those Russian bombers flying off the coast where I live (ok, didn't actually see them, but saw the scrambled British fighter jets sent after it) reminded me how much we take for granted our safety in these peaceful times. But we're never that far away from a life like game of thrones where violence and the ability to buy it reigns supreme, and it wouldn't take that much to throw as back into such a time.

    Free market capitalists with their lack of government and private police forces seem to forget this. As far as I can tell, the violent world is the natural state for humans and an effective government is the only thing that stops us from falling back into that violent equilibrium.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  2. #16802
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    But I'd also add that government alone probably can't stop it if the cake is too small to go round.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  3. #16803
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by rong View Post
    Seeing those Russian bombers flying off the coast where I live (ok, didn't actually see them, but saw the scrambled British fighter jets sent after it) reminded me how much we take for granted our safety in these peaceful times. But we're never that far away from a life like game of thrones where violence and the ability to buy it reigns supreme, and it wouldn't take that much to throw as back into such a time.

    Free market capitalists with their lack of government and private police forces seem to forget this. As far as I can tell, the violent world is the natural state for humans and an effective government is the only thing that stops us from falling back into that violent equilibrium.
    There's a lot of status quo bias in this sort of thinking, though. The military that "protects" Americans and Britons is also the source of much of the threat to them. The U.S. armed forces has been a massive financial drain that has really only functioned as a source of blowback for Americans and Europeans. They aren't providing defense. And it turns out defense is actually quite cheap to provide. We see this constantly with the way that small, dug in, guerrilla armies are able to repel wave after wave of attacks from superior troops. There are a lot of compelling arguments for the efficacy of private defense, but statists consider them to be crackpot and do not even entertain a different way to doing things.
  4. #16804
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    1. Status quo bias us one way if putting it, weighing up a non risky option (status quo) vs a risky option (change) is another.

    2. Defence and offence and really one and the same thing. Attacking a potential threat before it becomes a big legitimate threat may not taste nice but is still a legitimate defensive strategy. (though I have no intentions of debating the many conflicts we're involved in).
    3. Go ask the civilians in the towns being defended by pockets of guerrilla armies what they think of their defensive options.

    I put to you that you aren't capable of understanding what it would be like to go back to a time of a life of violence with no formal protection. It's so far beyond our comprehension that we can't really make an informed choice when there is a risk of it.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  5. #16805
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    I mean it's not like I don't see any potential merit in a change of the type you're talking about, but you never seem to acknowledge any risks. And even if you believe the risks are minimal, it's a minimal risk of a catastrophe which at least needs addressing.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  6. #16806
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    The current situation is catastrophic in many ways. You have to compare things with one another. You can't just hold the state up to this non-existent (past, present, or future) ideal and repel all anti-establishment arguments out of hand.

    I don't want to pollute the randomness thread with another rehashing of this debate. If you'd like me to start a thread to go into something specific about libertarianism, I'd be happy to.
  7. #16807
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    I'm pretty much with you on most things. I'm just pointing out that it's easy to take aspects of the status quo for granted. It's not all that bad. And some things are fantastic. The likes of you and I are so safe. That is s huge amount of progress over the last few centuries and a major factor in our level if safety in the government monopoly on violence. It's one hell of a risk to play with that. And I'm not suggesting that the only reason we are so safe from violence and theft is that the government protects us or that there is no other way creating a system that provides that safety. But I'd take a lot of convincing before I was willing to hand that responsibility to a corporation with nothing but it's own profits motivating it.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  8. #16808
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    And feel free to start a thread on this but I think one exists already and I just missed most of the action.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  9. #16809
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Sorry for so long of posts. I wanted to address specific things. I hope there is sense to be made in them.



    Causality is backwards. The demand for private imprisonment is created by the government. There is no profit in imprisonment whatsoever except that government, through its shitty laws, create a large supply of convicts that it is unable to house. This creates the demand for housing of convicts, for which the private sector vies for contracts.



    Sadly, it doesn't work. We'd have to get into rules of supply, demand, and moral hazards to see why "health and safety" policies make things worse for health and safety.



    This is caused by #3. The moral hazards created by things like the FDIC are exactly why "too big to fail" exists. On the surface, mandates like your #3 appear reasonable, benign, and beneficial, but they're truly anything but. What we want to do is avoid more #5s by not creating more #3s.



    While it is not a good thing that companies can lobby governments for special treatment in the broadband field, it is also not a good thing to have net neutrality -- where the government monopolizes policy areas of the internet. It should be noted that the primary culprits for special treatment in the broadband arena are not companies, but are instead unions and municipal residents. Comcast and Time Warner have not been able to get nearly as much special treatment as those two groups. This is why the only competition growth in the field we see is in areas where unions and municipalities have not created too many laws against laying new line.

    The last thing we want is net neutrality. The FCC fucked up radio and fucked up TV, and it will fuck up the internet in some form or another. The better option is deregulation in the vein that allows competitors to grow. Google Fiber is doing everything it can, but it is stymied exclusively by one thing: regulations. Apple would probably enter the field if regulations were lower too. There are several other broadband companies that would likely expand too.

    Exactly like how the food industry is amazing because regulations are extremely low, which promotes competition, broadband would also be if regulations were low.



    Nordic countries are heavily subsidized by capitalism in the West. If taxes were a necessary evil, it would be true that taxes and subsequent regulations on anything (yes anything) is also a necessary evil. But we know that's not the case, as we see that even in the most complex of fields, where the government doesn't do much, prosperity is incredible. Likewise, where we see lots of government involvement, no matter how simple the field is, it's an utter disaster

    It isn't that money is needed to run things therefore taxes must be collected, but that profits are needed in order to run things sustainably. Government doesn't create profits and everything it runs sucks. If we exit the pro-state lefty bubble, we see this. For example, Europe is a terrible, terrible analogy to use for why government works. But for some damn reason, we never ever hear about this. We never hear about the shitass high structural unemployment, we never hear about horrible business environment created by distorted incentives from regulatory and welfare policies. We never hear about them because the media is made up of a bunch of pro-statists who view Europe with rosy glasses.

    Most economists point to political policies for why unemployment is so much higher in Europe than US, yet journalists won't touch it, because, well, economics is hard and journalism is not





    John Oliver is a great guy, but he has a lot of things backwards. When we talk about physics, we ask physicists. But apparently when we talk economics, a comedy actor's voice is as good as anybody's.

    I can't address you point for point que because ftr is not particularly mobile friendly, and that will then become an exercise in frustration for me.

    But point 6: are you saying that fcc commissioner mignon Clyburn has no idea what she's doing?

    Relevant link: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015...-and-title-ii/

    Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, the longest-tenured commissioner,{spam link}who supported Title II five years ago, said the net neutrality order does not address only theoretical harms.

    "This is more than a theoretical{spam link}exercise," she said. "Providers here in the United States have, in fact, blocked{spam link}applications on mobile devices,{spam link}which not only hampers free{spam link}expression, it also restricts{spam link}innovation by allowing{spam link}companies, not the consumer, to{spam link}pick winners and losers."

    Clyburn convinced Chairman Tom Wheeler to remove language that she believed{spam link}was problematic.
    Last edited by Jack Sawyer; 02-26-2015 at 01:28 PM.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  10. #16810
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Exactly like how the food industry is amazing because regulations are extremely low, which promotes competition, broadband would also be if regulations were low.
    Are you serious on this statement?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  11. #16811
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Are you serious on this statement?
    Yes. As crappy as what the FDA does is, it's still a small part of the whole food industry

    For sure the FDA tries to do the right thing (create safer food), but it doesn't have that effect. It's just more moral hazards, more expenses, and overall less safety. The amount of accountability the FDA has is almost nonexistent compared to private actors in the industry. The best thing we could do to increase safety in the industry is rid ourselves of the agency with the least amount of accountability for its policies.

    I have discussed this in the past with regards to building departments since it's something I have some experience with. They do not increase safety one single bit. Their inspections and regulations merely reduce total economic activity (by a lot, actually), and their expertise is virtually always below the expertise of the builders themselves. The snake oil salesman does not exist in the field because it's competitive, not because of the government. Of course it should be mentioned the real snake oil salesman is the government itself
  12. #16812
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Yes. As crappy as what the FDA does is, it's still a small part of the whole food industry

    For sure the FDA tries to do the right thing (create safer food), but it doesn't have that effect. It's just more moral hazards, more expenses, and overall less safety. The amount of accountability the FDA has is almost nonexistent compared to private actors in the industry. The best thing we could do to increase safety in the industry is rid ourselves of the agency with the least amount of accountability for its policies.

    I have discussed this in the past with regards to building departments since it's something I have some experience with. They do not increase safety one single bit. Their inspections and regulations merely reduce total economic activity (by a lot, actually), and their expertise is virtually always below the expertise of the builders themselves. The snake oil salesman does not exist in the field because it's competitive, not because of the government. Of course it should be mentioned the real snake oil salesman is the government itself
    I can +1 this from personal experience as well.
  13. #16813
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    I can't address you point for point que because ftr is not particularly mobile friendly, and that will then become an exercise in frustration for me.

    But point 6: are you saying that fcc commissioner mignon Clyburn has no idea what she's doing?

    Relevant link: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015...-and-title-ii/
    Sure she knows what she's doing as far as being a government agent is concerned.

    Are there food neutrality rules? No. What is special about the internet with respect to food that it needs neutrality rules?

    If you would like to have a dialogue, I think we can get somewhere starting here.
  14. #16814
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    But all food is created equal!!!1
  15. #16815
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I can +1 this from personal experience as well.
    For anybody reading, the short of why that is: the job of private contractors is to produce a product that the consumer chooses to pay for. This means he has to get good at it, and the better he is at it, the more money he makes. The job of the government agent is to make sure rules are adhered to regardless of the veracity or effectiveness of the rules. The agent's revenue source is not choice of consumers, but mandated taxation. Likewise the agent's feedback model is not adherent to consumer demand, but instead to the infinitely complex and disjointed bureaucratic mechanism.

    The incentive for enterprise is to make a product people want to pay for. The incentive for government is nothing of the sort. It's basically just not to get people too pissed off. Of course, government tries to do its best to help people. The issue is the system has functionally wrong incentives, so no matter how many Einsteins and Mother Teresas the government employs, they still have no ability to operate outside of their incentives.
  16. #16816
    Quote Originally Posted by rong View Post
    Free market capitalists with their lack of government and private police forces seem to forget this.
    If that was the case, we most certainly would not support weakening of the state on issues of foreign policy and defense. The overwhelming majority of free market proponents are huge foreign policy and defense hawks, probably because it's a much harder thing to believe the market can handle. I'm the guy on the gas who wants to figure out which position the logic supports.

    The crux of my position depends on not having yet found any evidence or logical reasons for why the market works like dandy for safety in all sorts of fields yet supposedly doesn't for defense, and why it is that the only way people can be defended is if somebody punches them, takes their lunch money, and uses that lunch money to buy a rock to throw at somebody else

    Could it be the biggest lie we were ever told, that we are incapable of acting in our own self-interests and need a big brother to do it for us? It's fitting that humans, who tend to believe myths of their own weakness and powers higher than themselves (subservience to gods) would also believe in the mythos of the state (which is essentially the same thing as subservience to a higher power)
  17. #16817
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    Doesn't the states monopoly of violence underpin everything else.

    Honestly, I can't even begin to create the privatisation of violence without hitting huge problems at every turn.

    Without a monopoly of violence there is no state. Ans that's just anarchy.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  18. #16818
    Since we have talked moral hazards, just like "too big to fail" would not exist except by the moral hazards created by other government policy (like the FDIC), net neutrality wouldn't even be a consideration if the government didn't impose all the laws against laying lines that it currently does

    Competing in the broadband space is one of the hardest things a company can do, exclusively because the law basically says nope. Don't get mad at Comcast and applaud the government on net neutrality; get mad at the government for feeding us all the bullshit that its fixing a problem that it created. Of course, this just creates more moral hazards and unintended consequences. Since most people think the government is the good guy, this just means we're going to not blame it for the problems it creates and we're going to give it even more power in the future to fix the additional problems created by each new policy. The counter isn't for its policies to be "better" either, because the existence of moral hazards depends on policies being mandates. We could eliminate moral hazards if we opted for a system of consumer choice, but not if we opt for mandates
  19. #16819
    Quote Originally Posted by rong View Post
    Doesn't the states monopoly of violence underpin everything else.

    Honestly, I can't even begin to create the privatisation of violence without hitting huge problems at every turn.

    Without a monopoly of violence there is no state. Ans that's just anarchy.
    I'm not sure what you're asking
  20. #16820
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    I mean, if the state doesn't have a monopoly of violence it can't enforce rules, if it can't enforce them then it loses the power to create them. If it isn't creating them, then who is? The guy who is wealthy enough to pay for the best enforcement. All we're doing is switching one master for another.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  21. #16821
    response in other thread holmes

    BACK TO RANDONESS

    more like back to ftr gossip, ranting, and general tomfoolery. that's what this thread really is. the heart of the commune
  22. #16822
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    8,697
    Location
    soaking up ethanol, moving on up
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I've been getting into the idea of systems (as opposed to goals) a lot recently.

    I got this iPhone (my first smartphone) a couple of months ago, and I've been really playing with the idea of using it as the "control panel" of my systems in general.
    a friend of mine (PhD candidate on human nutrition embedded in the med school) published some research on using phone apps for weight loss stuff recently. Sounds similar?
  23. #16823
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by daven View Post
    a friend of mine (PhD candidate on human nutrition embedded in the med school) published some research on using phone apps for weight loss stuff recently. Sounds similar?
    Yeah it sounds like bullshit.
  24. #16824
    Quote Originally Posted by rong View Post
    Seeing those Russian bombers flying off the coast where I live (ok, didn't actually see them, but saw the scrambled British fighter jets sent after it) reminded me how much we take for granted our safety in these peaceful times.
    Please. That "incident" was a huge non-story that was published with the intention of making people like you think thoughts like this. The Russians are perfectly entitled to fly bombers down the Channel, just as we're perfectly entitled to send military personnel to the Black Sea, which of course we do. The Russians have been flying planes near our airspace for years. It's sabre rattling, and our government love it because it gives them the opportunity to send jets out to "escort" them away, giving the impression that the govt are prepared to protect the citizens against an imaginary Russian invasion.

    But of course the Russians aren't going to invade, and even if they did, there's not a great deal we can do about it other than cry to America.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #16825
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    But of course the Russians aren't going to invade, and even if they did, there's not a great deal we can do about it other than cry to America.
    Britain beats the bollocks off Russia mano a mano
  26. #16826
    Hell even France might. Well, your grandfather's France would, at least.
  27. #16827
    Russia is not as tough as people think. It couldn't beat Ukraine mano a mano. It wouldn't lose to Ukraine, but it also couldn't occupy it successfully. Assuming no civic agreements were put in place
  28. #16828
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Please. That "incident" was a huge non-story that was published with the intention of making people like you think thoughts like this. The Russians are perfectly entitled to fly bombers down the Channel, just as we're perfectly entitled to send military personnel to the Black Sea, which of course we do. The Russians have been flying planes near our airspace for years. It's sabre rattling, and our government love it because it gives them the opportunity to send jets out to "escort" them away, giving the impression that the govt are prepared to protect the citizens against an imaginary Russian invasion.

    But of course the Russians aren't going to invade, and even if they did, there's not a great deal we can do about it other than cry to America.
    Ahahahaha oh god, here he goes again.
  29. #16829
    Are you kidding? We're far from the force we used to be. I don't even think we have any aircraft carriers any more. Thing with Britain is, there's nowhere to retreat. It's so small. It would be easy to bring us to our knees, especially if nukes are on the table. Russia, on the other hand, is ridiculously vast. Key military infrastucture can be hidden much more easily in, say, Siberia, rather than perhaps Bodmin Moors. We wouldn't stand a chance if the Russians were stupid enough to take us on. We could do some serious damage to Russia, but we couldn't wipe them out. Not a chance. They could wipe us out if they had the bollocks and reason to.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #16830
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Ahahahaha oh god, here he goes again.
    Aw cmon don't you secretly like these ridiculous arguments I engage in?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  31. #16831
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Are you kidding? We're far from the force we used to be. I don't even think we have any aircraft carriers any more. Thing with Britain is, there's nowhere to retreat. It's so small. It would be easy to bring us to our knees, especially if nukes are on the table. Russia, on the other hand, is ridiculously vast. Key military infrastucture can be hidden much more easily in, say, Siberia, rather than perhaps Bodmin Moors. We wouldn't stand a chance if the Russians were stupid enough to take us on. We could do some serious damage to Russia, but we couldn't wipe them out. Not a chance. They could wipe us out if they had the bollocks and reason to.
    Well without nukes even the US probably couldn't wipe out Moscow

    Of course if nukes are on the table nobody survives.

    As far as UK vs Russia conventionally, Russia couldn't invade UK but UK could invade Russia. UK also likely has better equipment and technology. Russia has always been a shitty quality but overpowering quantity thing, which it can't do against UK due to geography.

    The only thing UK would have to do is crush or just siphon off Atlantic access from Russia's only warm water deep seaport in Crimea. Invasion would not go well for Britain. It certainly couldn't occupy much of Russia, but Britain comes out ahead on the body count relative to population
  32. #16832
    The only reason Britain didn't lead the Cold War was because US did. Of course that works for everybody since US is the right leader to have in that situation, but Britain was in a position to get the job done post-WW2. Britain has been the Robin to the US Batman since then when dealing with Russia, but Robin could certainly have taken over if need be. Granted the path to victory would have been far more treacherous, but Russia wouldn't have gotten much further than Berlin even if the US wasn't involved. Keep in mind the US won the Pacific theater, not the European one. Britain was the real fisticuffs in the European western front as well as the Italian campaign. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's close at least

    I think if there's no US in WW2, Germany still never occupies Britain, Germany still gets run over by Russia, and Britain and France hold the line somewhere inside Germany
  33. #16833
    BooG690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,090
    Location
    I am Queens Blvd.
    I'm not reading much but is 'Murica the good guys or bad guys in the past few posts? I hope they're the good guys.
    That's how winners play; we convince the other guy he's making all the right moves.
  34. #16834
    Aint no good guys other than Murca
  35. #16835
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    8,697
    Location
    soaking up ethanol, moving on up
    ever read the book 'with winning in mind'? it's written by a target shooter who was the best in the world etc - similar ideas to the link you posted, in book form about 30 years ago.
    edit. just checked my shelf. Lanny bassham, 1988, close

    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Yeah it sounds like bullshit.
    like this?
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    the idea of systems (as opposed to goals) a lot recently.

    I got this iPhone (my first smartphone) a couple of months ago, and I've been really playing with the idea of using it as the "control panel" of my systems in general
    sounded pretty similar to me
    Last edited by daven; 02-27-2015 at 12:13 AM.
  36. #16836
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    It's irrelevant whether or not Russia can invade. The point is that the only reason nobody invades is because of our pretty bad ass defence. Everything else is built on the safety provided by this. Long term investment needs that foundation and it's taken for granted. We prob don't need nukes, prob won't ever fire them, but there's a definite theoretical advantage in having some. Same applies all the way down to some grunts with rifles.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  37. #16837
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    AI nails space invaders. But it was never taught how to play. Pretty cool.

    http://www.iflscience.com/technology...ing-told-rules
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  38. #16838
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by daven View Post
    ever read the book 'with winning in mind'? it's written by a target shooter who was the best in the world etc - similar ideas to the link you posted, in book form about 30 years ago.
    edit. just checked my shelf. Lanny bassham, 1988, close



    like this?


    sounded pretty similar to me
    I'd say apples and oranges, but a more accurate comparison would be like apples and dump trucks.
  39. #16839
    What? The only reason we don't get invaded is because of our bad ass defence? Why doesn't anyone invade New Zealand then?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #16840
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    They get the benefit of our bad ass defence as well. And the USAs etc.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  41. #16841
    Quote Originally Posted by rong View Post
    They get the benefit of our bad ass defence as well. And the USAs etc.
    Ok NZ was a crap example. Why doesn't China and/or Russia invade Mongolia? Why doesn't China invade North Korea? Why doesn't South Africa invade Lesotho?

    Contrary to what you might think, the world isn't made up of nations who want to invade the shit out of each other.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #16842
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Well without nukes even the US probably couldn't wipe out Moscow

    Of course if nukes are on the table nobody survives.

    As far as UK vs Russia conventionally, Russia couldn't invade UK but UK could invade Russia. UK also likely has better equipment and technology. Russia has always been a shitty quality but overpowering quantity thing, which it can't do against UK due to geography.

    The only thing UK would have to do is crush or just siphon off Atlantic access from Russia's only warm water deep seaport in Crimea. Invasion would not go well for Britain. It certainly couldn't occupy much of Russia, but Britain comes out ahead on the body count relative to population
    We couldn't invade Russia. Well, we could, but there wouldn't be many of the invading party returning home. We couldn't conquer Russia by any conventional means. The ONLY hope we have of defeating Russia would be by means of economic war... which is exactly what is happening.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  43. #16843
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok NZ was a crap example. Why doesn't China and/or Russia invade Mongolia? Why doesn't China invade North Korea? Why doesn't South Africa invade Lesotho?

    Contrary to what you might think, the world isn't made up of nations who want to invade the shit out of each other.
    Russiw/Ukraine.

    Besides which, they don't all need to want to do it. If we all throw away our armies it only takes one.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  44. #16844
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We couldn't invade Russia. Well, we could, but there wouldn't be many of the invading party returning home. We couldn't conquer Russia by any conventional means. The ONLY hope we have of defeating Russia would be by means of economic war... which is exactly what is happening.
    We'd barely defend ourselves against them without our big bro coming to our aid. They'd destroy our airforce pretty quickly. Then they could bomb the shit out if us. Would be logistically a frigging nightmare to actually full on troops on the ground invade us so will never happen.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  45. #16845
    The Russia/Ukraine thing is totally different. Do you think Russia are out of line when it comes to Ukraine? Let's see it from their point of view, just for a moment. They see the democratically elected, pro-Russian leader of Ukraine, overthrown by a "revolution" of Nazi football hooligans, and replaced by a Western approved puppet who has no democratic mandate. Russia deem it necessary to protect their Black Sea port in Crimea, and invade, with the near total support of the local population.

    Russia are engaged in a proxy war with the West, in case you hadn't noticed. It's interesting that we accuse them of expansionist ideals when Ukraine is on their doorstep, and not ours. What the fuck are we doing there? It's NATO that is attempting to expand, not Russia.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #16846
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    This is the best picture



    I see white and gold.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  47. #16847
    My friend saw white and gold, now sees blue and black. This is actually very interesting.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #16848
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Apparently, because of the bright light behind it, my mind thinks this side of the dress is in the shade and adjusts the colors to seem white and gold. If your brain assumes the whole room is very lit, you go to the black and blue side of things.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  49. #16849
    Galapogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,876
    Location
    The Loser's Lounge
    I saw white and gold this morning and had no clue how you'd get blue and black out of it. Now all I see if blue and black and I can't think it back to white and gold.


    Quote Originally Posted by sauce123
    I don't get why you insist on stacking off with like jack high all the time.
  50. #16850
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Apparently, because of the bright light behind it, my mind thinks this side of the dress is in the shade and adjusts the colors to seem white and gold. If your brain assumes the whole room is very lit, you go to the black and blue side of things.
    I see primarily white/gold. However, I can see the blue in the light, and I can imagine this dress being blue and gold. I just can't not see the gold, I have no idea how that appears black to people. I'm trying to see it blue/black, but blue/gold is as far as I can get.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #16851
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    I see blue and gold. Something is wrong with me.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  52. #16852
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    No, take that back I can switch between black and gold at will. Can't see the white for the blue though.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  53. #16853
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    It looks black and blue to me now after looking white and gold all day.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  54. #16854
    Now I see purple and brown.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #16855
    BooG690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,090
    Location
    I am Queens Blvd.
    I was on team white and gold before rilla posted this picture. I saw the picture and it was blue and black. Then, before my eyes, it tried to go to white and gold...but then it went back to blue and black. Fuck my eyes.
    That's how winners play; we convince the other guy he's making all the right moves.
  56. #16856
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.


    Let's spin this rando thread 360 degrees
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  57. #16857
    team white and gold for life
  58. #16858
    inb4 ong invades a library
  59. #16859
    BooG690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    5,090
    Location
    I am Queens Blvd.
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Let's spin this rando thread 360 degrees
    Rilla (at 50 seconds) up in here:

    Yes, that's the dude from GoT.
    That's how winners play; we convince the other guy he's making all the right moves.
  60. #16860
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    I knew what I was doing

    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  61. #16861
    i just realized that chris farley's comedy styling was pure macho man randy savage impersonation
  62. #16862
  63. #16863
  64. #16864
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    http://www.therakyatpost.com/world/2...them-meet-god/

    400 men cut off their testicles to be closer to God and you won't even go to church... for shame.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  65. #16865
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  66. #16866
    Turns out Spock's last words were "it's gold and fucking white".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  67. #16867
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Color perception is a weird thing.

    The Greeks didn't even have a word for blue... They used the same word to describe the color of the sky as the color of bronze.

    Well.. Homer did, anyway.

    EDIT: slightly better link
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 03-01-2015 at 11:05 AM.
  68. #16868
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    Some languages don't differentiate between blue and green, another, Russian I think, has two words for Blue. They consider light blue and dark blue to be different colours.

    At the end of the day they're just arbitrary points to guide you through a range so I suppose anything would do as long as it covers the entire range and enough people agree to use it.

    Well, maybe not arbitrary, but I guess there's lots of potential ways to carve it up.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  69. #16869
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    Kinda interesting:
    According to Brent Berlin and Paul Kay's 1969 study Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution, distinct terms for brown, purple, pink, orange and grey will not emerge in a language until the language has made a distinction between green and blue.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disti...ious_languages
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  70. #16870
    but yeah i saw white/gold exclusively for the first few hours, went to work, did other shit, looked at my phone, saw the image again... black/blue. freaked out. now I see black/blue more often than white/gold, and i cannot switch back and forth on will like some people can.
  71. #16871
    it's a bit like this GIF. Do you see her rotating clockwise or counterclockwise?

  72. #16872
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    It always starts clockwise u think, then flips after a while.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  73. #16873
    Blue & black, never seen anything else.

    That gif has always gone clockwise for me and never anything else.

  74. #16874
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I'd say it's arbitrary until you consider which sensor is reading the signal.

    Human eyes are sensitive to blue, green and red wavelengths of light, with a lot of overlap between the red/green and with blue being much less sensitive. I mean it takes a higher intensity of blue light to activate your vision than either red or green.

    So it makes sense to have blue, green and red as the primary colors on say, a computer monitor's pixels.

    If we had eyes more like a bee's or humming bird's, though, we'd almost definitely need color words for the near ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

    ***
    All atoms readily absorb and emit photons due to the fact that they are charged particles vibrating with thermal excitations. It's just a matter of what temperature they are as to which range of photons they interact with most strongly. This is called blackbody radiation.

    The near infrared spectrum corresponds to the temperature at which our bodies readily absorb the photons as heat. That's how a heat lamp works. It produces light in the infrared wavelength (as well as plenty of visible light). The infrared light is not seen by human eyes, but is readily absorbed by atoms near 300 Kelvin = 27 degrees C = 80 degrees F. That's pretty close to comfortable room temperature (and it was a very rough approximation on a number with a wide variance).

    So we "see" heat with our bodies.
    That "heat" is in fact readily absorbed and emitted by infrared light.
    Infrared light is just lower in energy than our eyes detect.

    If we could see heat with our eyes, then heat words would be color words, and there'd be no weirdness in that.
  75. #16875
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Blue & black, never seen anything else.

    That gif has always gone clockwise for me and never anything else.

    Since it's a silhouette, the front-back is ambiguous. Is her arm moving to the left in the foreground or the background?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •