Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Hand gun vs Chemical WeaponFollow

#152 Dec 13 2012 at 9:02 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Gbaji wrote:


My statement was quite clear: They (chemical weapons) do not have to be accurate to be effective. This is why they are popular for those who do not have accurate delivery systems. Was any part of that really confusing to you?


The confusing part is that you're purposely giving a response that is meandering the desired answer. The point of the discussion isn't if WMD need to be accurate, but ARE THEY ACCURATE? The evidence is in you intentionally ignoring the question "Isn't that comparison the same with a knife vs a gun? ". You're a sore loser who refuses to admit when you might have made a mistake or be wrong. Instead, you intentionally avoid questions by either not answering them or being elusive.

Your answer of "they don't have to be accurate" is equivalent to saying "BMW's don't have to be expensive" to the question, "Are BMW's expensive?". This isn't a meretricious "Did you stop beating your wife" type of question. The question's candor is blatantly obvious. Feel free to add an explanation, but first answer with a "yes" or "no". Of course you wont, but that's fine. Just quit it already with the pretentious responses in attempt to be all knowing.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#153 Dec 14 2012 at 1:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,906 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
So...if i fire a.45 cal bullet with a poison gas payload into a room and kill everybody in it, was my shot accurate?


No, since with your eyesight you would miss the room entirely.
So what you're saying is I'd have to roll a natural 20 with a +5 to hit, amirite?
No, blind people have to roll a d% and beat a 50 since everyone is considered to have concealment from you. However, if you take Blind-Fight, I think you can roll twice and take the better result.
#154 Dec 14 2012 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,327 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
So...if i fire a.45 cal bullet with a poison gas payload into a room and kill everybody in it, was my shot accurate?


No, since with your eyesight you would miss the room entirely.
So what you're saying is I'd have to roll a natural 20 with a +5 to hit, amirite?
No, blind people have to roll a d% and beat a 50 since everyone is considered to have concealment from you. However, if you take Blind-Fight, I think you can roll twice and take the better result.

You can't shoot a bullet full of gas. The gas will vaporize.

If the bullet hit and killed someone you could call it accurate or you could call it luck.

This is how you should do it:
You have a canister of gas in the room concealed as a can of hair spray. You fire the shot through the window. The resulting open window allows wind to enter the room and muss the hair of the people in the room. When they go to reapply the hair spray you should get a pretty precise exposure of each individual - they're spraying the stuff right on their heads.

Dead with well held hairdos.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#155 Dec 14 2012 at 8:30 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
gbaji wrote:
I can only surmise it's because they find it hard to argue against the things I actually say,
Or it's an easy scapegoat reason for you instead of taking a second look at what you post. After all, how could you possibly be wrong, ever?

That's sarcasm.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#156 Dec 14 2012 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,417 posts
Elinda wrote:
You can't shoot a bullet full of gas. The gas will vaporize.


Military grade paintball round with a liquid nerve agent warhead. On impact the nerve agent will convert to a gas when exposed to the air, and I'm pretty sure a paintball sized amount can take out a normal sized room.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#157 Dec 14 2012 at 8:48 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,327 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Elinda wrote:
You can't shoot a bullet full of gas. The gas will vaporize.


Military grade paintball round with a liquid nerve agent warhead. On impact the nerve agent will convert to a gas when exposed to the air, and I'm pretty sure a paintball sized amount can take out a normal sized room.
Does that work?

In the civilian world paintball markers are notoriously inaccurate as compared to firearms.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#158 Dec 14 2012 at 8:53 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
Depends what definition of accuracy you're using.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#159 Dec 14 2012 at 11:20 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,617 posts
Alma's?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#160 Dec 14 2012 at 11:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Seems kind of pointless to use anyone else's. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#161 Dec 14 2012 at 1:44 PM Rating: Default
13 posts
Am I missing something here or what?

Take the method of delivery out of this. It really doesn't matter in this instance.

An explosive/non-explosive weapon has a much more predictable effective radius than a WMD (be it nuclear, biological, or chemical). A WMD is more vulnerable to change, because it is influenced more by environmental factors than conventional ammunition.

If you are given a target and you use both weapons on said target, and hit the very edge radius of it. Both will affect outside your intended target's radius. Do this multiply times. In the same spot. Which one do you think is going to be easier to predict the effective radius of due to real world variables? Both will vary, but one varies more.

If something is more predictable then doesn't it follow that it more accurate, exact, precise...?

#162 Dec 14 2012 at 2:10 PM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
JKenner wrote:
Am I missing something here or what?


Yup, but don't worry you're not alone.

Think of it this way. If you make your target big enough (anywhere in this city) and your definition of accuracy broad enough (kill someone in the city) even the least predictable weapons can appear accurate.

If you think that's a bit of an oddball definition of accuracy you're with everyone else here. If you think that definition makes perfect sense you're probably Alma. Unless you are Alma, in which case I got part of it wrong and expect to be corrected. Smiley: grin
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#163 Dec 14 2012 at 2:35 PM Rating: Decent
13 posts
No I'm not Alma..

I just seems that the accuracy of something like that, no matter the size of it, still varies. You can hit a target but be less accurate than someone that got a bulls eye.
#164 Dec 14 2012 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Don't worry, didn't think you were. Smiley: wink

Left that at the end assuming he'll be back to read this thread at some point, and complain about the ridiculous strawman I constructed. Smiley: grin
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#165 Dec 14 2012 at 3:02 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
SomeProteinGuy wrote:
Yup, but don't worry you're not alone.

Think of it this way. If you make your target big enough (anywhere in this city) and your definition of accuracy broad enough (kill someone in the city) even the least predictable weapons can appear accurate.

If you think that's a bit of an oddball definition of accuracy you're with everyone else here. If you think that definition makes perfect sense you're probably Alma. Unless you are Alma, in which case I got part of it wrong and expect to be corrected. Smiley: grin


I know you guys love making up arguments against me, but this quote blatantly contradicts that ridiculous claim.

Almalieque defining accuracy by using two different dictionaries wrote:

Let's play another game. I'll define the word and you tell me how using WMD to attack a city does not qualify.


1: freedom from mistake or error : correctness
2a : conformity to truth or to a standard or model : exactness b : degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value — compare precision


the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.



____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#166 Dec 14 2012 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Almalieque wrote:

I know you guys love making up arguments against me, but this quote blatantly contradicts that ridiculous claim.

Almalieque defining accuracy by using two different dictionaries wrote:

Let's play another game. I'll define the word and you tell me how using WMD to attack a city does not qualify.


1: freedom from mistake or error : correctness
2a : conformity to truth or to a standard or model : exactness b : degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value — compare precision


[quote=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accuracy?s=t]the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.


That's ridiculous.

Using WMD to attack a city and kill people certainly qualifies. Your target is everyone and everything and just what you're attacking. No error or mistakes there.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#167 Dec 14 2012 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Even using Alma's wacky definition of accuracy, If your target was some guy in hiroshima and whatever else happened with the blast was irrelevant, your kill rate would be ~26%. If you had that sort of accuracy with a sniper rifle you'd get reassigned.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#168 Dec 14 2012 at 5:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
People restate your argument back to you in the same way that therapists ask couples to restate statements between couples to make sure there is no communication error and you still say they got it wrong.


I say they got it wrong, when they got it wrong. If I say "The sun is hotter than the earth", and someone responds with "So you're saying that the earth is a frozen ball of ice?", I'll correct their mistake. This happens quite frequently, and I suspect it's often done deliberately. If you'd like, I'll make a point of pointing it out to you every time this happens.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#169 Dec 14 2012 at 5:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This thread makes me hate everyone.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#170 Dec 14 2012 at 5:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I can only surmise it's because they find it hard to argue against the things I actually say,
Or it's an easy scapegoat reason for you instead of taking a second look at what you post..


An easy way to determine this is to look at what I posted and see if the person's response actually addresses that post, or something else. It's just somewhat amazing how frequently people choose to argue against something I didn't actually say though. It's a pretty reasonable assumption that if someone had a good counter argument to what I wrote, they'd actually write a good counter argument to what I wrote. If they counter something different, it either means they misunderstood or misinterpreted what I wrote (which certainly happens), or they didn't have a good counter so they decided to write something that countered something else and hope no one notices.

In either case, the correct response is for me to point out that they responded to something I didn't say. What would you have me do? Just say "Well golly! You're correct that that statement is wrong, so I'll just pretend that's what I did say and accede the argument to you". Really?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#171 Dec 14 2012 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:


My statement was quite clear: They (chemical weapons) do not have to be accurate to be effective. This is why they are popular for those who do not have accurate delivery systems. Was any part of that really confusing to you?


The confusing part is that you're purposely giving a response that is meandering the desired answer.


Your desired answer is nothing remotely similar to what I originally was talking about though. I was responding to something Smash said about chemical weapons being preferred because they are "cheap". I said that it's not that they are cheap (they're quite expensive payload to payload when compared to traditional explosives), but that due to their wide spread of damage they can be effective even when put atop inaccurate delivery systems.

Look at how many thousands of rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel recently. How many people were killed? Not very many compared to the number of rockets fired. Why? Because the rockets they use are inaccurate. And when you have a relatively small explosive blast on that rocket, that level of inaccuracy means that most of your rockets will land in empty fields, and roads, and parking structures, and whatnot, and very few will hit near any sort of target you're trying to hit.

Putting a chemical weapon payload on the exact same rocket does not make the rocket any more accurate. It does, however, make the weapon as a whole more effective. Why? Because due to the properties of a chemical weapons payload it does not need to be as accurate to be effective.

Please tell me you get this.

Quote:
The point of the discussion isn't if WMD need to be accurate, but ARE THEY ACCURATE?


Sigh. Except it's not the payload that is accurate, but the delivery system. You're asking the equivalent of whether a bullet is accurate. It's a dumb question. It depends on what weapon fires it.

Quote:
The evidence is in you intentionally ignoring the question "Isn't that comparison the same with a knife vs a gun? ".


Honestly? That's evidence of me not having a freaking clue what point you thought you were making with that question. Comparison how? For what reason? What parameters are we comparing? A knife is sharper than a gun. See! I just compared them. What the **** that has to do with what we're talking about, I don't know. Perhaps if you actually try to make a point, I'll spend some effort trying to counter it. But I'm not going to sit here and guess what you're trying to say.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#172 Dec 14 2012 at 7:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Even using Alma's wacky definition of accuracy, If your target was some guy in hiroshima and whatever else happened with the blast was irrelevant, your kill rate would be ~26%. If you had that sort of accuracy with a sniper rifle you'd get reassigned.


First, that isn't my definition. I quoted two dictionaries. If you have a problem with Webster's dictionary, take it up with them.

Second, you're applying the definition to an egregious scenario.

Almalieque previously wrote:

That would be "everyone and everything" within a certain radius. If your goal was to hit Rhode Island and you drop an A-Bomb, you will more than likely affect outside of that radius.


In other words, affecting things outside of your intent doesn't count as "accurate".

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#173 Dec 14 2012 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Almalieque previously wrote:

That would be "everyone and everything" within a certain radius. If your goal was to hit Rhode Island and you drop an A-Bomb, you will more than likely affect outside of that radius.


In other words, affecting things outside of your intent doesn't count as "accurate".


Sure. But defining the intended target area in such a way so as to account for the inaccuracy of the weapon somewhat defeats the purpose of using a word like "accurate" in the first place.

I could go to a shooting range and decide that the entire piece of target paper is my target and thus declare my shooting to be 100% accurate. But that's a useless declaration isn't it? We usually want to know how close to the center of the target each shot got and use that to determine accuracy. That same method is used to determine accuracy for any sort of projectile weapon. Yes, even those with large radius effects will still have a center of the effect and a center of the targeted area. The closer to the center of the target area, the more "accurate" the weapon delivery was (and the more likely we're going to contain the effect to just the area we wanted to hit). Handwaving away the fact that my rocket hit 200M to the left of the center of the target because the payload has a 300M radius isn't sufficient in this case. Presumably that spot I selected as the center of my target area was chosen because it's... wait for it... at the center of the area I want to target. So there may be an equal spread of folks I want to kill in all directions from that point, or some other reason why I choose that as the center. I want the effect to spread from there, not some point 200M to the left of there. So maybe because of that inaccuracy, I gas a big empty field off to the left, but miss a large set of buildings off to the right.


Accuracy in this context is always about getting the center of the projectile as close to the center of the target as possible. That's it. Don't over complicate things.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#174 Dec 14 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Your desired answer is nothing remotely similar to what I originally was talking about though. I was responding to something Smash said about chemical weapons being preferred because they are "cheap". I said that it's not that they are cheap (they're quite expensive payload to payload when compared to traditional explosives), but that due to their wide spread of damage they can be effective even when put atop inaccurate delivery systems.

Look at how many thousands of rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel recently. How many people were killed? Not very many compared to the number of rockets fired. Why? Because the rockets they use are inaccurate. And when you have a relatively small explosive blast on that rocket, that level of inaccuracy means that most of your rockets will land in empty fields, and roads, and parking structures, and whatnot, and very few will hit near any sort of target you're trying to hit.

Putting a chemical weapon payload on the exact same rocket does not make the rocket any more accurate. It does, however, make the weapon as a whole more effective. Why? Because due to the properties of a chemical weapons payload it does not need to be as accurate to be effective.

Please tell me you get this.


Ok, so are WMD accurate? Can they be accurate?

Gbaji wrote:

Sigh. Except it's not the payload that is accurate, but the delivery system. You're asking the equivalent of whether a bullet is accurate. It's a dumb question. It depends on what weapon fires it.


On the contrary. You're the one making that distinction, not me. That was my argument in the first place. People are only saying that WMD are inaccurate because of the payload, simplicity and their affects on society.

Gbaji wrote:
Honestly? That's evidence of me not having a freaking clue what point you thought you were making with that question. Comparison how? For what reason? What parameters are we comparing? A knife is sharper than a gun. See! I just compared them. What the **** that has to do with what we're talking about, I don't know. Perhaps if you actually try to make a point, I'll spend some effort trying to counter it. But I'm not going to sit here and guess what you're trying to say.


Gbaji wrote:
Um... No. I said that chemical weapons are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems *because* they do not need to be very accurate to be effective. Dude. Seriously?


Almalieque in response that statement wrote:
Isn't that comparison the same with a knife vs a gun?


Please tell me how you had no "freaking clue" on my point. Seems pretty straight forward to me. However, if you don't get the comparison and would like for me to spell it out for you, I will.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#175 Dec 14 2012 at 9:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Quote:
Ok, so are WMD accurate? Can they be accurate?


Accuracy is a gradient.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#176 Dec 14 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,588 posts
She's saying she likes to *** the uneducated hobos. Like Smash.

It's true, we both like to *** uneducated hobos.

Try the veal.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#177 Dec 14 2012 at 10:26 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Sure. But defining the intended target area in such a way so as to account for the inaccuracy of the weapon somewhat defeats the purpose of using a word like "accurate" in the first place.


Except that isn't the case. I'm not denying that there aren't any inaccurate WMD. There exists inaccurate forms of every weapon. An accurate weapon can become less accurate with distance along with other factors, such as weather or over usage. In any case, you can't keep making up false statistics to fictional weapons in your defense of their "inaccuracy".

Gbaji wrote:
I could go to a shooting range and decide that the entire piece of target paper is my target and thus declare my shooting to be 100% accurate. But that's a useless declaration isn't it? We usually want to know how close to the center of the target each shot got and use that to determine accuracy.


And your declaration of accuracy is considered amateurish to a professional. If your goal was to neutralize a moving vehicle, then not neutralizing the car is considered "inaccurate". It doesn't matter if you hit the tire, the fuel tank, the driver or a completely different object resulting as a blockade, a hit would be seen as an accurate shot. You can't declare accuracy without knowing the intent of the person.

Gbaji wrote:
That same method is used to determine accuracy for any sort of projectile weapon. Yes, even those with large radius effects will still have a center of the effect and a center of the targeted area. The closer to the center of the target area, the more "accurate" the weapon delivery was (and the more likely we're going to contain the effect to just the area we wanted to hit).


Read above. Likewise, unless you know what that center of target was, then you can't declare it's accuracy.

Gbaji wrote:
Handwaving away the fact that my rocket hit 200M to the left of the center of the target because the payload has a 300M radius isn't sufficient in this case. Presumably that spot I selected as the center of my target area was chosen because it's... wait for it... at the center of the area I want to target.


That's exactly what I said. Why are you still trying to Jedi your point across as something different?

Gbaji wrote:
Accuracy in this context is always about getting the center of the projectile as close to the center of the target as possible. That's it. Don't over complicate things.


It's been very simple from the beginning. You're just tap dancing around your point because you know it isn't valid.

I set a bomb INSIDE a building (CENTER of the target) or I drop a bomb/missile/projectile directly above a building (CENTER of the target) and nuclear radiation/gas/chemical agents/etc affects the desired range and people. The weapon was accurate.

You can't throw bullets and claim that guns aren't accurate


Edited, Dec 15th 2012 3:26pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#178 Dec 15 2012 at 12:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
She's saying she likes to *** the uneducated hobos. Like Smash.

It's true, we both like to *** uneducated hobos.

You're made for one another!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#179 Dec 17 2012 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
******
44,522 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
She's saying she likes to *** the uneducated hobos. Like Smash.

It's true, we both like to *** uneducated hobos.
You're made for one another!
And for hobos.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#180 Dec 17 2012 at 9:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
She's saying she likes to *** the uneducated hobos. Like Smash.

It's true, we both like to *** uneducated hobos.
You're made for one another!
And for hobos.


No, Hobos are made for them. In the Hobo factory.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#181 Dec 17 2012 at 10:10 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,588 posts

No, Hobos are made for them. In the Hobo factory.


The Christmas when Hannah was 2, we bought her a wooden train set. It came with a lot of accessories, mostly assembled. There was a small green thing that we later realized was a base for one of the signs, a small cylinder with a hole for the sign dowel. Hannah asked what it was, but at the time we didn't know. So Nexa told her it was "beans, for the hobos that ride the rails". A few weeks later there was some elaborate model train thing set up at South Station in Boston and Hannah and I were there for some reason (probably going to the Children's Museum). One of the people minding the trains asked her if she liked them and she said "yes, but where are all of the Hobos?"
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#182 Dec 17 2012 at 10:27 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

No, Hobos are made for them. In the Hobo factory.


The Christmas when Hannah was 2, we bought her a wooden train set. It came with a lot of accessories, mostly assembled. There was a small green thing that we later realized was a base for one of the signs, a small cylinder with a hole for the sign dowel. Hannah asked what it was, but at the time we didn't know. So Nexa told her it was "beans, for the hobos that ride the rails". A few weeks later there was some elaborate model train thing set up at South Station in Boston and Hannah and I were there for some reason (probably going to the Children's Museum). One of the people minding the trains asked her if she liked them and she said "yes, but where are all of the Hobos?"


I take it you'll tell her about the birds and the bum-blebees when she's older.

Edited, Dec 17th 2012 1:08pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#183 Dec 17 2012 at 10:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

No, Hobos are made for them. In the Hobo factory.


The Christmas when Hannah was 2, we bought her a wooden train set. It came with a lot of accessories, mostly assembled. There was a small green thing that we later realized was a base for one of the signs, a small cylinder with a hole for the sign dowel. Hannah asked what it was, but at the time we didn't know. So Nexa told her it was "beans, for the hobos that ride the rails". A few weeks later there was some elaborate model train thing set up at South Station in Boston and Hannah and I were there for some reason (probably going to the Children's Museum). One of the people minding the trains asked her if she liked them and she said "yes, but where are all of the Hobos?"


I take it you'll tell her where all the hobos went when she's older.


Smart move, no one should have to learn about Cleveland at a young age.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#184 Dec 17 2012 at 4:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Putting a chemical weapon payload on the exact same rocket does not make the rocket any more accurate. It does, however, make the weapon as a whole more effective. Why? Because due to the properties of a chemical weapons payload it does not need to be as accurate to be effective.

Please tell me you get this.


Ok, so are WMD accurate? Can they be accurate?


It's like the radio is on, but no one is listening. Sigh...



Almalieque wrote:
And your declaration of accuracy is considered amateurish to a professional. If your goal was to neutralize a moving vehicle, then not neutralizing the car is considered "inaccurate". It doesn't matter if you hit the tire, the fuel tank, the driver or a completely different object resulting as a blockade, a hit would be seen as an accurate shot. You can't declare accuracy without knowing the intent of the person.


I'll respond to this by pointing out for the second (third?) time that you are confusing the words "accurate" and "effective".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#185 Dec 17 2012 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
The Christmas when Hannah was 2, we bought her a wooden train set. It came with a lot of accessories, mostly assembled. There was a small green thing that we later realized was a base for one of the signs, a small cylinder with a hole for the sign dowel. Hannah asked what it was, but at the time we didn't know. So Nexa told her it was "beans, for the hobos that ride the rails". A few weeks later there was some elaborate model train thing set up at South Station in Boston and Hannah and I were there for some reason (probably going to the Children's Museum). One of the people minding the trains asked her if she liked them and she said "yes, but where are all of the Hobos?"


All he would've had to do was point at the line at the McDonald's in South Station.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#186 Dec 17 2012 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Gbaji wrote:

It's like the radio is on, but no one is listening. Sigh...


Ok, so are WMD accurate? Can they be accurate? Maybe if something was playing on the radio, we would listen.

Gbaji wrote:
I'll respond to this by pointing out for the second (third?) time that you are confusing the words "accurate" and "effective".


I'll respond to this for the nth time that you have yet once gave the definition that you're using that contradicts Webster's dictionary (you know, the one that I'm using). You're simply making up weapons with false data to prove a point. Now. you're just simply not answering questions because you're too pertinacious to admit your inaccuracy (See what I did there).

Almalieque The Most Awesome wrote:
I set a bomb INSIDE a building (CENTER of the target) or I drop a bomb/missile/projectile directly above a building (CENTER of the target) and nuclear radiation/gas/chemical agents/etc affects the desired range and people. The weapon was accurate.


Give me a definition that contradicts that usage of accuracy.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#187 Dec 17 2012 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

It's like the radio is on, but no one is listening. Sigh...


Ok, so are WMD accurate? Can they be accurate?


No. As has been explained several times, it is the delivery system which may be accurate (or not). The payload has no vector of accuracy at all. It does not move on its own. Your question is as absurd as asking if blue is loud.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
I'll respond to this by pointing out for the second (third?) time that you are confusing the words "accurate" and "effective".


I'll respond to this for the nth time that you have yet once gave the definition that you're using that contradicts Webster's dictionary (you know, the one that I'm using).


It's not the definition which is in question, but your application of it. Knowing the definition of a word doesn't help if you don't understand it. Which appears to be the case here.

Quote:
Almalieque The Most Awesome wrote:
I set a bomb INSIDE a building (CENTER of the target) or I drop a bomb/missile/projectile directly above a building (CENTER of the target) and nuclear radiation/gas/chemical agents/etc affects the desired range and people. The weapon was accurate.


Give me a definition that contradicts that usage of accuracy.


I can't. You know why? Because your usage assumes that the delivery system is accurate. See how you stated that the bomb/missile/projectile detonates directly above the center of the target. That weapon's delivery system is accurate by definition. But it would be equally accurate regardless of payload.

Your problem, and what I have disagreed with you all along, is that you keep insisting that putting a payload with a larger effective radius makes the weapon more accurate. But that's not correct. What it does do is offset any inaccuracy of the delivery system. It allows an inaccurate weapon (weapon in this context being the combination of delivery system and payload, just in case you're confused) to still be effective because the payload's radius of effect is greater than the delivery systems inaccuracy. Again though, this does not make the weapon "accurate". It makes it effective.

Which brings us right back to my original statement: That WMDs are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems.


Edited, Dec 17th 2012 6:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#188 Dec 17 2012 at 9:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
AHA! So that's your problem

Gbaji wrote:
Which brings us right back to my original statement: That WMDs are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems.


No.. WMD is not a payload. Chemicals maybe a payload, but "WMD" simply means what it says. It's a weapon that can cause mass destruction. You are now the one confusing the payload with the weapon delivery system. Just because the most EFFECTIVE WMDs are chemical, bio, radio and or nuclear, doesn't mean it must be one in order to cause massive destruction

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically.



Gbaji wrote:


No. As has been explained several times, it is the delivery system which may be accurate (or not). The payload has no vector of accuracy at all. It does not move on its own. Your question is as absurd as asking if blue is loud.


As I said several times as well. I'm specifically referring to the entire weapon system, not aspects of them. Even by your ignorant statement, that still doesn't explain how a rocket or a bomb is inaccurate.

So, let me rephrase the question... Can weapons that can cause massive destruction, i.e., rockets, bombs, missiles, etc. be accurate?

Gbaji wrote:
It's not the definition which is in question, but your application of it. Knowing the definition of a word doesn't help if you don't understand it. Which appears to be the case here.


So let's start off with you giving a definition and we can go from there.

Gbaji wrote:
That weapon's delivery system is accurate by definition


So, it's accurate.Finally, thanks.

Gbaji wrote:
But it would be equally accurate regardless of payload.


Wait, so now the payload matters? This is the Internet. No one cares that you are wrong. Why the circles?
You just said that payload isn't "accurate", but the delivery system. So why do you care about the payload in a question of accuracy?

Gbaji wrote:
Your problem, and what I have disagreed with you all along, is that you keep insisting that putting a payload with a larger effective radius makes the weapon more accurate.


Not only have I never said that, I corrected you on that. So now, you're just trolling. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RADIUS, but hitting the desired targets. I stated that nuking Rhode Island to kill one person would not be accurate. Why is it so difficult to admit to being wrong, just once?

Gbaji wrote:
What it does do is offset any inaccuracy of the delivery system.


And I ASK AGAIN? What delivery system are you talking about? You're just making up stats. Give me real stats of weapon inaccuracies. You can't assume that a 3rd world country can't get accurate systems. There exist inaccurate systems for every type of weapon. Not only that, your inaccuracy depends on how you use it along with other factors.

Gbaji wrote:
It allows an inaccurate weapon (weapon in this context being the combination of delivery system and payload, just in case you're confused)


I"m not confused at all. You're conveniently changing definitions when it benefits you as EVERYONE thinks of the whole weapon system when discussing accuracy. HTF do you separate payload from the delivery system when dealing with accuracy, but not tips/tax from a meal purchase?

Gbaji wrote:
to still be effective because the payload's radius of effect is greater than the delivery systems inaccuracy. Again though, this does not make the weapon "accurate". It makes it effective.

And again, I'm not talking about the efficacy of the weapon but the accuracy. Did you hit your desired targets AND NOTHING BUT YOUR DESIRED TARGETS? No, then it isn't accurate. Yes, then it is accurate. It's that simple.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#189 Dec 17 2012 at 11:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Almalieque wrote:
AHA! So that's your problem

Gbaji wrote:
Which brings us right back to my original statement: That WMDs are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems.


No.. WMD is not a payload.


Um... I'd argue that it is, but it's kinda irrelevant. I actually originally said "chemical weapons", specifically referring to the payload, since I was responding to Smash, and that was what he was talking about. Feel free to go back and look if you don't remember.

Quote:
Chemicals maybe a payload, but "WMD" simply means what it says. It's a weapon that can cause mass destruction.


Uh... And generally refers to the payload. Actually, scratch that, it always refers to payload. The fact that a weapon causes mass destruction is always a function of the payload, not the delivery system.

Quote:
You are now the one confusing the payload with the weapon delivery system. Just because the most EFFECTIVE WMDs are chemical, bio, radio and or nuclear, doesn't mean it must be one in order to cause massive destruction


I'm sorry. Could you give me an example of a WMD where the "mass destruction" has nothing to do with the payload? Cause, Um... it's the payload that causes destruction, right? Certainly, you can't have "mass destruction" without some special feature of the payload that makes it so. You're seriously going to try this?

Quote:
So, let me rephrase the question... Can weapons that can cause massive destruction, i.e., rockets, bombs, missiles, etc. be accurate?


Of course. But you're approaching the issue backwards. It's not that they have to be inaccurate, but that weapons that cause mass destruction don't need to be as accurate to be effective. Hence... wait for it... they are the weapons of choice for those who don't have accurate delivery systems. I'm sure I've said this several times already. Do you even bother to read?

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
That weapon's delivery system is accurate by definition


So, it's accurate.Finally, thanks.

Gbaji wrote:
But it would be equally accurate regardless of payload.


Wait, so now the payload matters?


Oh... My... F'ing God! You can't actually be this stupid. It's just not possible. Smiley: eek
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#190 Dec 18 2012 at 12:19 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,053 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's like the radio is on, but no one is listening. Sigh...

Nobody listens to static. Well, John Nash, maybe...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#191 Dec 18 2012 at 6:50 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
AHA! So that's your problem

Gbaji wrote:
Which brings us right back to my original statement: That WMDs are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems.


No.. WMD is not a payload.


Um... I'd argue that it is, but it's kinda irrelevant. I actually originally said "chemical weapons", specifically referring to the payload, since I was responding to Smash, and that was what he was talking about. Feel free to go back and look if you don't remember.

Quote:
Chemicals maybe a payload, but "WMD" simply means what it says. It's a weapon that can cause mass destruction.


Uh... And generally refers to the payload. Actually, scratch that, it always refers to payload. The fact that a weapon causes mass destruction is always a function of the payload, not the delivery system.

Quote:
You are now the one confusing the payload with the weapon delivery system. Just because the most EFFECTIVE WMDs are chemical, bio, radio and or nuclear, doesn't mean it must be one in order to cause massive destruction


I'm sorry. Could you give me an example of a WMD where the "mass destruction" has nothing to do with the payload? Cause, Um... it's the payload that causes destruction, right? Certainly, you can't have "mass destruction" without some special feature of the payload that makes it so. You're seriously going to try this?

Quote:
So, let me rephrase the question... Can weapons that can cause massive destruction, i.e., rockets, bombs, missiles, etc. be accurate?


Of course. But you're approaching the issue backwards. It's not that they have to be inaccurate, but that weapons that cause mass destruction don't need to be as accurate to be effective. Hence... wait for it... they are the weapons of choice for those who don't have accurate delivery systems. I'm sure I've said this several times already. Do you even bother to read?

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
That weapon's delivery system is accurate by definition


So, it's accurate.Finally, thanks.

Gbaji wrote:
But it would be equally accurate regardless of payload.


Wait, so now the payload matters?


Oh... My... F'ing God! You can't actually be this stupid. It's just not possible. Smiley: eek


Ironically, you are doing the very thing that you accused me of. Modern WMD are simply weapons that cause weapons on a large scale. In today's society, the payloads are CBRN.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically.


weapon of mass destruction (WMD), weapon with the capacity to inflict death and destruction on such a massive scale and so indiscriminately that its very presence in the hands of a hostile power can be considered a grievous threat. Modern weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons—frequently referred to collectively as NBC weapons. See nuclear weapon, chemical warfare, biological warfare.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#192 Dec 18 2012 at 9:57 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,617 posts
Almalieque wrote:
indiscriminately
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#193 Dec 18 2012 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
Yeah, but what definition of it?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#194 Dec 18 2012 at 10:58 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
indiscriminately


Me, on page 3 wrote:
This all seems paradoxical to me.

Isn't this perceived "accuracy" of WMD's derived from the indiscriminate goals of their use? As in, it's "accurate" because you don't really care how accurate it is?

That's silly.


How is this thread still going on after I so clearly won it on page 3?

Edited, Dec 18th 2012 11:58am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#195 Dec 18 2012 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
How is this thread still going on after I so clearly won it on page 3?

There are always a few inspiring souls who will press onward and finish the race despite being lapped a few dozen times.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#196 Dec 18 2012 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
How is this thread still going on after I so clearly won it on page 3?
Do you not see who the two main players keeping it up are?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#197 Dec 18 2012 at 3:02 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
indiscriminately


Me, on page 3 wrote:
This all seems paradoxical to me.

Isn't this perceived "accuracy" of WMD's derived from the indiscriminate goals of their use? As in, it's "accurate" because you don't really care how accurate it is?

That's silly.


How is this thread still going on after I so clearly won it on page 3?

Edited, Dec 18th 2012 11:58am by Eske


Primarily because you didn't win it. Weapons don't discriminate. What's your point? If anything, a bio-weapon is the closest weapon that could be designed to discriminate.

Your quoted statement is false because it applies to all weapons. How many children did that killer miss? How many times did he hit a limb or a non-vital organ? Does that mean the weapons are now "not accurate".

It's the same thing. People use hand guns because you do not have to be an expert in order to kill a bunch of people. As long as you know how to load a mag and pull the trigger, just keep shooting and you will eventually kill people. Just because you use the guns inaccurately, doesn't change their accuracy. Likewise with WMD. People use them because you can make a lot of destruction all at once. Just because the users decide to use them with inaccuracy doesn't mean the weapon itself is inaccurate.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#198 Dec 18 2012 at 3:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
You're still confusing "accurate" with "effective". They really do mean two different things.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#199 Dec 18 2012 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
How is this thread still going on after I so clearly won it on page 3?
Do you not see who the two main players keeping it up are?


Yeah, I just used the question as a thinly-veiled way to talk about how I won the tread. I mean, I even threw in that slick McDonald's analogy, just to drive it all home further.




Me, winning, etc.

Edited, Dec 18th 2012 4:40pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#200 Dec 18 2012 at 4:08 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're still confusing "accurate" with "effective". They really do mean two different things.


1: freedom from mistake or error : correctness
2a : conformity to truth or to a standard or model : exactness b : degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value — compare precision


the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.


Nope, you're just too stubborn to admit that you're wrong. Really dude, it's just the Internet.. It's not a big deal. I've been wrong several of times.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#201 Dec 18 2012 at 4:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Sigh. Let me be more clear: The word "effective" perfectly matches what you are talking about. Thus, it's the word you should be using, and if you used it no one would disagree with what you are saying. Instead, you are using the word "accurate", which has a definition which does not really match what you are talking about. But instead of recognizing this and changing the word you use, you have chosen instead to stretch the definition of "accurate" in order to make it fit what you are trying to say.

Also, just quoting the definition doesn't mean you're right. I could quote the definition of the word "gargle" and make just as valid an argument (ie: not a valid one at all).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 38 All times are in CST
Allegory, Kakar, Anonymous Guests (36)