Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GreatJustice]

Well light is actually just shades between red and violet, so it really should be RV.

[Reelya]

Actually since we have only RGB receptors in the eye, there are two ways to see e.g. "yellow".

Either clear yellow wavelength light, which stimulates the R and G receptors (wavelengths in between the receptor "core" values stimulate both types of cell proportionally to the wavelength), or a mix of R and G light, which stimulates each of the same cells.

Well light is actually just shades between red and violet, so it really should be RV.

Wavelengths too far from the core values which stimulate each type of rod/cone don't seem to work for additive color. RGB works because those values stimulate the cells the most. RV would not stimulate the Green receptor, so cannot create the full spectrum.

[Heron TSG]

On paper, we use CMY because we want to only absorb particular colors. With light, you can make green light with only green light. But we usually have a mix of all the colors in ambient light, so that's impractical for artistry. When you use green paint, you're applying a coat that absorbs all the blue and red that together make magenta, the opposite of the light you want to see. But with green paint, you're blocking out two whole colors. Instead, you could use yellow paint (blocks all blue) and cyan paint (blocks all red) together. That way you can use each individually, and when you stack them on top of each other, you absorb everything but green, which is reflected.

For printers, CMY works. (Drawing uses subtractive coloring.) For computer screens and other lights, RGB is the only way to do things. Those new TVs that use yellow lights have great yellows... but in exchange, they make all the other primary colors look worse.

Politics as usual.

[alexandertnt]

It's perfectly relevant, Eagle.

I damn straight complicit in what my country does and tells me to do. The point is that I'd happily drive shooting over a fair number of moral event horizons if that's what I was told to do (now, to be honest, there's obviously limits to what I'd consider a legal order, but for the purposes of this discussion, we can ignore these extreme cases because I'm, without a doubt, going to lean on the side of "shoot it to make sure," and therefore on the wrong end of morality), that's why there's civilians at the top of the chain of command. 


There exists times where naked military force is necessary
It is better for this force to be overwhelming
Overwhelming force requires the best soldiers and doctrine possible
It's impossible to be a truly good soldier without aggression and understanding
--> Effectively, loving war to some extent
Soldier's can *not* have an unbiased view, so we need to take orders from someone


So yeah, I'm complicit, and I'm perfectly okay with that. I swore to follow my lawful orders and to protect my scrap of paper. However, all that I care about is that my orders come from higher up. If I'm dammed, I dammed for it, but that's life.

Being blindly obedient is not a good thing. This is especially ironic in the "land of the free". You have the freedom (which, incidently many people in millitary battles died for) but you are choosing to ignore that freedom. It is important that you question everything and apply logic to any given situation, including accepting the fact that the person that ordered you to do whatever may have not.

The only thing that seems to act as a roof of what you would do is the legality of the orders. Do you have no compassion?

There may exist times where naked military force is necessary, but that does not mean that any order that is given to you implies that it is this time. After stating that your limits are legal, this statement has no meaning, since you would follow orders regardless wheather it was actually necessary or not. It is important to apply critical thinking here to work out wheather it is necessary, rather than just use this as an excuse to justify blind obedience.

It's impossible to be a truly good soldier without aggression and understanding

You have the aggression but lack understanding. Furthermore you have implied before that you don't want understanding, just shoot what is scary while following orderes.

How can you "love war"? I understand it as a necessary evil sometimes, but love? peoples families are destroyed, it causes misery. Any reasonable human being should feel some compassion for the people who suffer in the horrors of war.

In the later posts you stated something about evil. There is no such thing as absolute evil. Bad people are doing what they do for some reason, however twisted it may be. If you view the enemy as 'evil' you will never make progress.

Everything you have stated are the exact things that leads to war. they are the things that leads to bloody conflicts, to misery and destruction. The soldiers on both sides shutting off their rational minds and following blindly is exactly what leads to war, to enemies forming and fighting.

It is a very good thing that you are not giving orders. You would be responsible for causing misery "to be safe rather than sorry".

My mind is boggled trying to understand how anyone could completely ignore any rationale behind what they are doing, do it, and love it. My mind is boggled as to how you can identify this flaw, and just can't be bothered to think anymore about this, just go on ignoring issues you have correctly identified for no good reason.

[Strife26]

Because questioning gets people killed. The phrase "Mine is not to reason why" is a necessary piece of thinking towards effective militaries. I put my trust in the rest of the system that my orders are going to be good ones.


And yes, I have compassion, but in a combat zone, it ends very very firmly at the laws of war, and not a step further.

[Eagle_eye]

And following your orders gets people killed as well. Probably more people.

[Strife26]

Yeah, but they're not my people.


Sorry if that sounds cold, but at the end of the day it is, and I put my trust that serving the interests of my country.

[Descan]

Oh, hey nationalism! Nice to see you again.

Oh hey judging peoples worth based on their birth! Nice to see you again!

[kaijyuu]

Yeah, nationalism ain't a good thing. "Your people" are on both sides of the fight; thinking otherwise makes you pretty damn inhuman.


Anyway, I'll accept violence helps solves things in some situations, but very few. Especially on the scale we're talking about here.

[misko27]

Nationalism can be good too. Started the American revolutionary war, united Germany, Italy, freed various contries from empires. It's people who take it too far who are the problem.

[Nadaka]

Nationalism can be good too. Started the American revolutionary war, united Germany, Italy, freed various contries from empires. It's people who take it too far who are the problem.

Minor difference between nationalism and patriotism.

Nationalism is my country right or wrong.

Patriotism is my country because it is right.

[kaijyuu]

Uniting to fight "that other guy" is pretty much never a good thing, at least when it comes to stuff like this. That sort of unity is fragile and based upon hatred.

[misko27]

Uniting to fight "that other guy" is pretty much never a good thing, at least when it comes to stuff like this. That sort of unity is fragile and based upon hatred.

No, No. Did I mention it was that nationalism that united Italy from fragmented city-states? Because it was. And germany, in that same time period, went from 36 various kingdoms to 1.
 

Nationalism can be good too. Started the American revolutionary war, united Germany, Italy, freed various contries from empires. It's people who take it too far who are the problem.

Minor difference between nationalism and patriotism.

Nationalism is my country right or wrong.

Patriotism is my country because it is right.

No. No. No. Those are the same things. I could easily use either to start a war, or a revolution. the american revolution was nationalistic, despite what they say. In fact, I find it a piece of unbeilevable hypocrasy that the US has no "nationalism", that scary word, only patriotism. Nationalism, ended the empires which oppresed most of europe. It was Nationalistic sentiment that helped end communist Rule is various parts of the Former Soviet union. Nationalism is not all evil.
 
 

[scriver]

Nationalism can be good too. Started the American revolutionary war, united Germany, Italy, freed various contries from empires. It's people who take it too far who are the problem.

And city states uniting is good because? And empires deuniting is good because?

And no, the American revolution was not nationalistic. They still considered themselves British back then.

[Nadaka]

Uniting to fight "that other guy" is pretty much never a good thing, at least when it comes to stuff like this. That sort of unity is fragile and based upon hatred.

No, No. Did I mention it was that nationalism that united Italy from fragmented city-states? Because it was. And germany, in that same time period, went from 36 various kingdoms to 1.
 

Nationalism can be good too. Started the American revolutionary war, united Germany, Italy, freed various contries from empires. It's people who take it too far who are the problem.

Minor difference between nationalism and patriotism.

Nationalism is my country right or wrong.

Patriotism is my country because it is right.

No. No. No. Those are the same things. I could easily use either to start a war, or a revolution. the american revolution was nationalistic, despite what they say. In fact, I find it a piece of unbeilevable hypocrasy that the US has no "nationalism", that scary word, only patriotism. Nationalism, ended the empires which oppresed most of europe. It was Nationalistic sentiment that helped end communist Rule is various parts of the Former Soviet union. Nationalism is not all evil.

No. Really. Different.

If my government takes an action not fitting the principals of my country, as a patriot I condemn that. As a nationalist I would endorse it.

Nationalism is an article of faith that excuses immoral action and injustice. Patriotism demands moral action and justice in order to live up to the principals your nation is supposed to embody.

There are plenty of American nationalists, though most of them call themselves patriots.