The dumb questions thread

[fast]

zog equals wog and wog equals boz, therefore zog equals boz.

Logically true but inherently nonsense.

Although if A equals B and if B equals C, then A equals C is true, the letters denote true propositions.

If “zog,” “wog,” and “boz” are meaningless words, then the sentence fails to express a proposition; the sentence is neither true nor false—thus the sentence is both not true and not false. There is no proposition (at all) and no statement to be either true or false.

 

[steve_bank]

zog equals wog and wog equals boz, therefore zog equals boz.

Logically true but inherently nonsense.

Although if A equals B and if B equals C, then A equals C is true, the letters denote true propositions.

If “zog,” “wog,” and “boz” are meaningless words, then the sentence fails to express a proposition; the sentence is neither true nor false—thus the sentence is both not true and not false. There is no proposition (at all) and no statement to be either true or false.

Indeed.

 

[fast]

“Convention” was the word

 

[bigfield]

Kind of like framework but on a much grander scale

BFF?

 

[fast]

Is affordability a necessary condition of accessibility?

If the nearest drink machine is two hundred miles away and locked up in a government building, I could see saying you don’t have access to a drink machine, but if there’s one twenty feet away and out in the open where you can readily push a button and get a drink only if you had the 35 cents to put in the slot, then there’s this part of me that wants to say that you access; however, that assumes access is independent of being able to afford it.

In my mind, if you are broke yet there’s a Lamborghini dealership close by, you have the same access as one who can afford it, but there’s this (new?) sense of “access” being thrown around that has affordability being lumped in as a condition of having access. That changes things greatly. That means a person claiming not to have access might very well not have access if funds is an issue.

What word (then) should I use when I want say a person has the (older?) other version of “access” I first described that doesn’t have affordability as a necessary condition for access?

 

[James Brown]

One criticism of Bush's Iraq War is that we invaded without an exit plan.

Did the Allies have an exit plan when we entered World War II?

 

[fromderinside]

Two criticism of Bush's Iraq War is we invaded without a reason.

Apparently many Britons agreed with France's plan before Winston bolloxed it up.

I remember what he said while I camped out in mom's womb "All we need do is say Britannia and the Gerries will run away."

My thought for Iraq was to attack Iran in retaliation for Embassy affair 12 years earlier. How dare they throw out our puppet and claim to be on God's side.

 

[fromderinside]

Is affordability a necessary condition of accessibility?

If there’s one twenty feet away and out in the open where you can readily push a button and get a drink only if you had the 35 cents to put in the slot, then there’s this part of me that wants to say that you access; however, that assumes access is independent of being able to afford it.

Get real. You haven't been near a drink machine in at least 25 years. Thirty five cents indeed. First people don't carry money any more especially coins. Second anyone who claims to be without a debit card is lying. Third noone drinks sodas any more. Fourth what has any of this got to do with A, B, or C?

RU just providing an example to support

If “zog,” “wog,” and “boz” are meaningless words, then the sentence fails to express a proposition; the sentence is neither true nor false—thus the sentence is both not true and not false. There is no proposition (at all) and no statement to be either true or false.

?

If so its a fail since what you wrote was true 25 years ago.

 

[skepticalbip]

One criticism of Bush's Iraq War is that we invaded without an exit plan.

Did the Allies have an exit plan when we entered World War II?

Absolutely. But exit plan doesn't necessarily mean pulling our military out. It is defining the goals of the conflict so we will know before we get involved how we determine that we achieved our goals.

The plan for WWII was to beat the shit out of the enemy and destroy their ability to make war until they formally surrendered. Then to occupy their territory until they had formed a government system we approved of.

The U.S. plan in the many current conflicts is rather nebulous and constantly changing... amounting to something like 'make them be nice' but the 'them' keeps changing.

 

[bilby]

One criticism of Bush's Iraq War is that we invaded without an exit plan.

Did the Allies have an exit plan when we entered World War II?

Of the five major allies, three (China, the USSR and the USA) didn't 'enter' WWII until they were attacked by the Axis, so the question doesn't really apply - their entry was forced upon them, rather than being a matter of choice. The exit plan was "stop these fuckers from attacking us again".

France was also pretty much compelled to join the war, as they shared a border with Germany, and the German desire to expand until they occupied all of mainland Europe had become clear even to the most optimistic pacifists by that point.

So of the five, only the UK had the option to stay out of the war, without a direct and immediate expectation of being attacked whether they wanted peace or not. But that's only true if you take the narrow, modern, post-Suez view that the UK is synonymous with the Home Islands. In 1939, the British Empire was a global entity, and both Japan and Germany were directly threatening many parts of their imperial territory.

The British and French strategy in 1939 was the use of war as an extension of diplomacy, and their goal was the reversal of the German/Soviet invasion and carve-up of Poland through the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The exit strategy was more of a 'not entering too far' strategy. By declaring war, they could use the Royal Navy to blockade Germany, in the hope that Hitler would say "Sorry for invading Poland. I'll go home now, and promise not to do it again". Until the Germans invaded France, the war between Britain and Germany was almost exclusively a naval war, in which both nations attempted to blockade the other to force them to capitulate. So the British 'exit strategy' was to force the German borders back into their post-Versailles positions (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), at which point the war could be ended with a gentleman's agreement, and they could return to trying to mold the world via less noisy diplomacy.

Of course, once the Germans started dropping bombs on London, the only possible exit strategy was unconditional surrender of their enemies. It was like 9/11 happening every day, for eight months. Nobody was going to pursue a diplomatic solution that left the Nazis in power after that.

 

[fast]

Is affordability a necessary condition of accessibility?

If there’s one twenty feet away and out in the open where you can readily push a button and get a drink only if you had the 35 cents to put in the slot, then there’s this part of me that wants to say that you access; however, that assumes access is independent of being able to afford it.

Get real. You haven't been near a drink machine in at least 25 years. Thirty five cents indeed. First people don't carry money any more especially coins. Second anyone who claims to be without a debit card is lying. Third noone drinks sodas any more. Fourth what has any of this got to do with A, B, or C?

RU just providing an example to support

If “zog,” “wog,” and “boz” are meaningless words, then the sentence fails to express a proposition; the sentence is neither true nor false—thus the sentence is both not true and not false. There is no proposition (at all) and no statement to be either true or false.

?

If so its a fail since what you wrote was true 25 years ago.

It was the 35 cents wasn’t it? That’s what foiled my nefarious plans isn’t it?

I need to ask again but with 2.00 instead ... or 5.00 if at a park. I herby demand forgetfulness!

 

[steve_bank]

What word (then) should I use when I want say a person has the (older?) other version of “access” I first described that doesn’t have affordability as a necessary condition for access?

Should be on morality or politics.

Wages and prices vary in accordance with supply and demand on general products and services.

In the free market system you get what you can afford.

The ongoing debate over here if access to health care should be based on ability to pay. That is a moral and political question.

All children are required to have access to primary education. Public education is primarily financed by property taxes. Access is not dependent on ability to pay.

Accessibility depends on the product and service within the system.

 

[fromderinside]

I herby demand forgetfulness!

Forget that!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

From reading a few books on WW2 and Hitler's strategy, I was surprised to read that his initial plan was NOT to conquer Europe etc. His initial plan was to take back what Germany had given up after WW1. He only decided to try conquer Europe after he saw just how quickly and easily he managed to take Germany's lands back, with minimal resistance.

 

[skepticalbip]

That seems like an odd conclusion to me. As I understand in the book Hitler wrote, Mein Kampf, he outlined his goals and philosophy. It had three major themes; the superiority of the Aryan race, his plan for Aryan world rule, and the Jews as the cause of the world's problems.

 

[Jokodo]

From reading a few books on WW2 and Hitler's strategy, I was surprised to read that his initial plan was NOT to conquer Europe etc. His initial plan was to take back what Germany had given up after WW1. He only decided to try conquer Europe after he saw just how quickly and easily he managed to take Germany's lands back, with minimal resistance.

In addition to what [MENTION=453]skepticalbip[/MENTION] said, this doesn't tie well with the chronology of the buildup to WW2 at all. The first territorial gains Hitler made were Austria and Sudetenland - neither of which had been part of Germany before WW1, or indeed ever since Germany in its modern sense existed (today's Czech Republic and Austria except the easternmost state Burgenland where part of the Holy Roman Empire, but that had been pretty much a loose association of de facto independent states for centuries and ceased to exist in 1806 altogether, more than a hundred years before WWI. And if anything, it would make Germany part of Austria and not the other way round since it had been headed by the Austrian kings throughout the modern era). Even the de facto annexation of the rest of the Czech Republic as the  Protectorate_of_Bohemia_and_Moravia came half a year before the attack on Poland - the first that can be vaguely construed as trying to take back territories, as Poland had taken over West Prussia and parts of Upper Silesia after WW1.

You seem to have been reading some seriously revisionist literature.

 

[steve_bank]

A high school chemistry class demonstration came to mind.

A sealed glass box contains air and paper. The paper is ignited by wires running through the box.

When combustion stops does the box weigh more, less, or the same?


A sublime contemplation.

 

[steve_bank]

That seems like an odd conclusion to me. As I understand in the book Hitler wrote, Mein Kampf, he outlined his goals and philosophy. It had three major themes; the superiority of the Aryan race, his plan for Aryan world rule, and the Jews as the cause of the world's problems.

Pretty much. He wrote it in jail for being a subversive. He felt he had a destiny to make Germany great again before his political life. Every move he made was calculated for political effect. His clothes, gestures, vice, and speech to incite people.

I belie he wrote Jews killed Christ as an appeal to Christians.

IMO he was the greatest politician of all time, albeit an evil one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A high school chemistry class demonstration came to mind.

A sealed glass box contains air and paper. The paper is ignited by wires running through the box.

When combustion stops does the box weigh more, less, or the same?


A sublime contemplation.

Less, but you won't be able to measure it. The act of putting it on the scale will change it's weight far more than the loss due to burning.

 

[Wiploc]

A high school chemistry class demonstration came to mind.

A sealed glass box contains air and paper. The paper is ignited by wires running through the box.

When combustion stops does the box weigh more, less, or the same?


A sublime contemplation.

Less, but you won't be able to measure it. The act of putting it on the scale will change it's weight far more than the loss due to burning.

Steve,

we'll hang it on the scale first, leave it there the whole time. So hanging it on the scale can't change its weight.

The glass box is hermetically sealed.

There aren't even any wires running thru it, because this time I ignite the contents with sunlight and a magnifying glass.

But the answer remains the same. Even if we can't measure the change in weight, we know that the contents are now lighter than before. Energy (heat and light) came out of the box. Therefore we know that the energy remaining in the box (mass) is now reduced.

-

Loren, or anybody,

what if the "scale" was a torsion balance. Could we detect the change in mass then?

Around 1962, I was told that the torsion balance was the most sensitive instrument in existence. More recently, in the age of the electron microscope I've been told that the torsion balance is still the most sensitive instrument. So I'm curious.