I have to get Res's beau off of the top of the page, so time for some random musin's.
Nate bashed Augustine on his blog. I would guess rightfully so. I got off into the deep woods on that discussion talking about good and evil. I claim no infallibility on this, but I suggested that evil doesn't really exist as a thing on its own. To use a word picture, darkness doesn't exist, it is merely the absence of light. Darkness is not a different kind of energy, it is the lack of light energy. Evil is the absence of good. Scripture says God is light.
If evil exists, then it was created by God. To use another word picture, if good is a green light, and evil is a red light, then whoever is responsible for shining the red light is responsible for evil. Thus we come to free will. Some say that we have no free will, and everything is directed by God. He is shining the red light. If this is the case then Augustine would have been right. Nate is wrong then in this case because nobody can accuse God of being evil, because whatever He does is good. This is because He defines good. I believe we have free will, so God is not responsible for the bad things we do, we are.
Now, if evil is simply the absence of good, then you can't blame God when evil happens (not that you can blame Him anyway). Yet another analogy: A fire that kills a dozen people is evil, in that it is not good. But the firemen are not evil, if they were not called to put it out. A passerby is not evil if he doesn't put it out, as he has no responsibility to do so. In order for God to be guilty of evil in this case, He must be shown to have a responsiblity to stop evil. Does He? I don't think He does, as He is sovereign we have no right to require it from Him. Heaven let your light shine down!
Then there is Difster. Difster doesn't think that a miracle is a violation of physics. He says instead it is an event we can't explain. When Jesus walked on the water, he wasn't violating any laws of physics. Well, why not? Why can't the One who created the forces of nature manipulate them as He pleases?
Take your average dead person. I have never seen one come back to life. It just doesn't happen. Jesus brought a Lazarus back to life after he was dead 4 days. Now, If Jesus didn't manipulate the laws of physics, then Lazarus came back to life spontaneously. You can't give Jesus any credit for this miracle if He took no active role in it.
Take another example. If someone fires a armor piercing bullet at me, and I see it come to a stop in front of me, and then accelerate away from me, this would be a miracle wouldn't it? The bullet cannot violate the laws of physics. An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by an outside force. So that bullet should have hit me. But then we find out that Difster has placed a very powerful Wile Coyote magnet along the bullets path. The magnet applies a force to the steel core of the bullet and stops it, and then pulls it back away. So the bullet was obeying the laws of physics all along. And it wasn't a miracle. That is the important part. If a miracle is only something that can't be explained, as soon as you explain it, it is no longer a miracle.
A miracle by definition is a supernatural event, an event that cannot be explained. If you explain it, it is not a miracle.
So, now just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Friday, May 25, 2007
Saturday, May 19, 2007
A BAAAADD Girl.
Monday, April 30, 2007
A brave young man
Every so often, we have a Sunday at church where the pastor doesn't preach. Instead it is a time for an 'open mike', where members of the church get up and tell about what God is doing in their life. I usually don't like this service as it is very emotionally charged with crying women and sometimes crying men. Emotions suck. This time I felt different. There was one woman who stood up to tell about her brain scans, the doctors told her that stroke damage was visible. After the church had prayed for her for a short time she got a second scan that showed her brain was clear.
One young man and his young girlfriend had quite an effect. He stood up in front of the church and said that he had a confession and a prayer request. That was something I hadn't seen before. He said that some months ago they had made a bad decision and now they were going to have a baby. He asked for forgiveness, and for people to pray for them. I think that was a very brave thing to do. I can't imagine the shame they felt. I don't know what motivated them to stand up in front of several hundred and admit what they had done. Even though everyone was going to find out anyway. I'm afraid I would not have done the same thing if I were in his shoes. I might have just avoided the church altogether. It is a lot easier to stand up and tell about a way that God has blessed you, instead of telling about how you've disappointed him. At any rate, it struck me that I was in no position to look down on him, and that many times I've done things that disappointed God. I suppose I'll still have to give an accounting for those things, but I thank God for his mercy and grace.
I hope that God will take the consequences of this young couples sin and transform it into a blessing for their new family. I don't know her name, but if you want to, say a prayer for Ricky.
One young man and his young girlfriend had quite an effect. He stood up in front of the church and said that he had a confession and a prayer request. That was something I hadn't seen before. He said that some months ago they had made a bad decision and now they were going to have a baby. He asked for forgiveness, and for people to pray for them. I think that was a very brave thing to do. I can't imagine the shame they felt. I don't know what motivated them to stand up in front of several hundred and admit what they had done. Even though everyone was going to find out anyway. I'm afraid I would not have done the same thing if I were in his shoes. I might have just avoided the church altogether. It is a lot easier to stand up and tell about a way that God has blessed you, instead of telling about how you've disappointed him. At any rate, it struck me that I was in no position to look down on him, and that many times I've done things that disappointed God. I suppose I'll still have to give an accounting for those things, but I thank God for his mercy and grace.
I hope that God will take the consequences of this young couples sin and transform it into a blessing for their new family. I don't know her name, but if you want to, say a prayer for Ricky.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Farah
A Joseph Farah on wingnut daily put in his latest article."
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The education of Pale Horse
Equus Pallidus asked my why a compound bow of a given draw weight shoots a faster arrow than a traditional bow of the same weight. The pulleys provide mechanical advantage making it easier to pull, but you should be losing energy due to friction, he says. And there is where you went wrong, EP.
A compound does lose energy due to friction in the wheels. But, the cables and pulleys on a compound bow aren't there to provide mechanical advantage. The pulleys are actually eccentric wheels. Picture a wheelbarrow with an oval shaped wheel. The resistance is hard, easy, hard, easy, hard, easy, when you push it. It is the same with a compound bow. The draw starts easy, hits a peak draw weight and then begins the let-off. Let off is a measure of the percentage of the draw weight at full draw compared to the peak weight. I have a 70 pound bow with 65% letoff. At full draw I only hold back 35% of the peak, or about 25 lbs. Equus Pallidus thinks that this is the great attraction to compound bows. You can hold the bow back for a longer time, due to the let off. It is a nice feature, but the main attraction is greater arrow speed.
The key to the greater speed of the compound is the draw force curve. Area under the curve is the energy stored by the bow. A compound is less efficient than a traditional bow. It just stores more energy, providing more energy to accelerate the arrow to a higher speed. A traditional bow typically uses wood arrows. I was told never to shoot wood arrows in a compound bow because it would blow them apart with the acceleration.
So what do you say EP?
A compound does lose energy due to friction in the wheels. But, the cables and pulleys on a compound bow aren't there to provide mechanical advantage. The pulleys are actually eccentric wheels. Picture a wheelbarrow with an oval shaped wheel. The resistance is hard, easy, hard, easy, hard, easy, when you push it. It is the same with a compound bow. The draw starts easy, hits a peak draw weight and then begins the let-off. Let off is a measure of the percentage of the draw weight at full draw compared to the peak weight. I have a 70 pound bow with 65% letoff. At full draw I only hold back 35% of the peak, or about 25 lbs. Equus Pallidus thinks that this is the great attraction to compound bows. You can hold the bow back for a longer time, due to the let off. It is a nice feature, but the main attraction is greater arrow speed.
The key to the greater speed of the compound is the draw force curve. Area under the curve is the energy stored by the bow. A compound is less efficient than a traditional bow. It just stores more energy, providing more energy to accelerate the arrow to a higher speed. A traditional bow typically uses wood arrows. I was told never to shoot wood arrows in a compound bow because it would blow them apart with the acceleration.
So what do you say EP?
The gun law that we need.
Slate, proposed a gun law that will supposedly "make a difference" I am doubtful. He proposes that background checks should be done for gun sales between individuals.
Would this have prevented the Columbine shootings? No, they obtained those guns illegally.
Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. The Brady law is at best just a nuisance for law abiding citizens. At worst, the records are being illegally kept for a future confiscation effort.
I was happy to see the results of this poll.
The law we need doesn't address a narrow class of guns, and it relies on the principles of a law we already have: the Brady Law. Brady mandates a federal background check before the sale of a gun by any seller who holds a federal firearms license. It applies to Internet gun deals, gun-shop purchases, and sales by FFL sellers at gun shows. It does not apply, however, to the estimated 40 percent of gun transfers that take place between individuals: non-FFL sellers at those same gun shows, and person-to-person sales made through personal contacts or Internet and print classified ads. That's a far larger volume of guns and gun sales than HR 1022 would affect. As our law stands now, anyone may sell a gun to anyone else; the FFL is required only of those who do so as a commercial venture. Sellers without an FFL may not buy and sell new guns for retail, but may trade in used guns—without background checks—to their heart's content. The bill we need would address that large loophole by requiring that every transfer of ownership be preceded by a Brady background check.Would this have prevented the VTU shootings? No, he bought the gun legally, presumably passed the background check.
Would this have prevented the Columbine shootings? No, they obtained those guns illegally.
Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. The Brady law is at best just a nuisance for law abiding citizens. At worst, the records are being illegally kept for a future confiscation effort.
I was happy to see the results of this poll.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
The art and science of bowling
This post is for Astrosmith, a fellow scientist.
He has been struggling with bowling, a not uncommon malady. First of all, I claim no expertise for myself, I am a mediocre bowler at best. I just thought I could help him some.
The method I use was taught to me by my father in law, and also from a videotape he owns. The tape is very old, from the 80's. My father in law says the guy that made it is one of the best bowlers that ever lived. He died of a heart attack.
To start, you go to the fowl line and face away from the alley. Take four normals steps to find your starting point. This should allow you to finish right at the foul line and give a little room so you don't foul.
The grip: the video says to hold the ball with your thumb in the 3 o'clock position and your pointing finger at 6 o'clock. This is counterintuitive, but it works. Myself, I don't turn the ball that far, my thumb is at about 1 o'clock. I think the most important thing is to just be consistent till you figure what works for you. You hold the ball in front of you in your right hand with the left supporting it. Your right arm should in the the plane of your target.
Your feet should be about shoulder width apart, toes pointing down the lane. Your right foot should be back a little, your toes about in the middle of your left foot. This forces you to step with your right foot first. The first step, with your right foot, is a small step, just a few inches or a foot. As you step push the ball forward. It is important to keep that first step small. The next step is with your left, it should be a normal step, and as you take it, you let the ball drop into the backswing. The footwork is: a small step with the right, left, right, left. Four steps. On the first step the ball goes forward, on the second it is dropping, about at the bottom of the swing. On the third step, the ball is all the way back. Your forward motion helps the ball swing higher on the back. On the fourth step, you plant your left foot. It can slide a little if you have that much speed. I say go easy at first, the speed will come. Also on the fourth step, let your right foot trail a little, even behind your left foot. This lefts the bowling ball clear your hip and leg.
The whole time you are moving forward, your eyes focus on your target, not the pins. On the fourth step, the ball is now coming forward. You release the ball, the thumb comes out first. Your fingers are on the bottom. Lift the ball with your fingers, and follow through. Your arm swings up through the plane of your target, and you end up just like you are reaching to shake someone's hand. Keep your wrist stiff through the whole swing, if you let the ball move your wrist, it takes all the hook out of the ball. (I shoot some spares by letting my wrist move so the ball hooks less.) You also need to keep balance during the release, and keep your shoulders square with the lane. If you turn them, the ball turns with them. You don't want to be hunched over so that you fall forward. I sometimes concentrate on standing up slightly, and pushing my hips forward at the release.
This is what I learned watching that video, my average went up from the 150's to the 170's. I generally shoot in the 180' to 190's, but my average stays lower because of all those bad games in the beginning of the year. My biggest weakness is shooting spares. I usually get more strikes than spares.
To aim the ball, you pick an arrow on the lane (or a board between arrows) to shoot at and a dot by your feet (or a board between dots). This is the line you are shooting. If you ball hooks too much to the left, you move your feet left, but aim at the same spot. The boards are one inch I think. According to the video: If you move your feet one board, it results in about four boards down at the pins.
According to the USBC magazine, the optimum angle to hit the pocket is 6 degrees. If your ball has too much hook, you shoot a line in the middle of the lane from the left side of the alley. If your ball hooks gently, shoot a line over the right side of the lane from the middle or right side of the alley.
That is about all I know about bowling. I hope this helps you.
Equus Pallidus wanted a post on compound bows. I will get to that eventually.
He has been struggling with bowling, a not uncommon malady. First of all, I claim no expertise for myself, I am a mediocre bowler at best. I just thought I could help him some.
The method I use was taught to me by my father in law, and also from a videotape he owns. The tape is very old, from the 80's. My father in law says the guy that made it is one of the best bowlers that ever lived. He died of a heart attack.
To start, you go to the fowl line and face away from the alley. Take four normals steps to find your starting point. This should allow you to finish right at the foul line and give a little room so you don't foul.
The grip: the video says to hold the ball with your thumb in the 3 o'clock position and your pointing finger at 6 o'clock. This is counterintuitive, but it works. Myself, I don't turn the ball that far, my thumb is at about 1 o'clock. I think the most important thing is to just be consistent till you figure what works for you. You hold the ball in front of you in your right hand with the left supporting it. Your right arm should in the the plane of your target.
Your feet should be about shoulder width apart, toes pointing down the lane. Your right foot should be back a little, your toes about in the middle of your left foot. This forces you to step with your right foot first. The first step, with your right foot, is a small step, just a few inches or a foot. As you step push the ball forward. It is important to keep that first step small. The next step is with your left, it should be a normal step, and as you take it, you let the ball drop into the backswing. The footwork is: a small step with the right, left, right, left. Four steps. On the first step the ball goes forward, on the second it is dropping, about at the bottom of the swing. On the third step, the ball is all the way back. Your forward motion helps the ball swing higher on the back. On the fourth step, you plant your left foot. It can slide a little if you have that much speed. I say go easy at first, the speed will come. Also on the fourth step, let your right foot trail a little, even behind your left foot. This lefts the bowling ball clear your hip and leg.
The whole time you are moving forward, your eyes focus on your target, not the pins. On the fourth step, the ball is now coming forward. You release the ball, the thumb comes out first. Your fingers are on the bottom. Lift the ball with your fingers, and follow through. Your arm swings up through the plane of your target, and you end up just like you are reaching to shake someone's hand. Keep your wrist stiff through the whole swing, if you let the ball move your wrist, it takes all the hook out of the ball. (I shoot some spares by letting my wrist move so the ball hooks less.) You also need to keep balance during the release, and keep your shoulders square with the lane. If you turn them, the ball turns with them. You don't want to be hunched over so that you fall forward. I sometimes concentrate on standing up slightly, and pushing my hips forward at the release.
This is what I learned watching that video, my average went up from the 150's to the 170's. I generally shoot in the 180' to 190's, but my average stays lower because of all those bad games in the beginning of the year. My biggest weakness is shooting spares. I usually get more strikes than spares.
To aim the ball, you pick an arrow on the lane (or a board between arrows) to shoot at and a dot by your feet (or a board between dots). This is the line you are shooting. If you ball hooks too much to the left, you move your feet left, but aim at the same spot. The boards are one inch I think. According to the video: If you move your feet one board, it results in about four boards down at the pins.
According to the USBC magazine, the optimum angle to hit the pocket is 6 degrees. If your ball has too much hook, you shoot a line in the middle of the lane from the left side of the alley. If your ball hooks gently, shoot a line over the right side of the lane from the middle or right side of the alley.
That is about all I know about bowling. I hope this helps you.
Equus Pallidus wanted a post on compound bows. I will get to that eventually.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Snow day
Yesterday we had a snow day. A blizzard rolled through Thursday and Friday. We still had to go to town, as Mrs. Giraffe's employer did not see fit to close for the day till we were already halfway there. Yes, they are idiots. The kind of employer that wants total loyalty from employees, yet treats them like dirt. They do pay very well for SD. That is why she continues to work there, for now. So we had coffee with her dad, rented a few movies and went back home before the blizzard got too bad.
She got the crazy idea that she wanted to go out and play in the snow. I think it comes from spending too much time indoors. Addles the brain or something. I had spent a couple hours in the last few days trying to keep the driveway open and I had enough of the white crap, so I didn't think the idea sounded too great. But she talked me into it.
We got then got a Really Crazy Idea. We put on our bathing suits and put a beach towel down in the snow and took pictures. It was pretty funny. She enjoyed it till somebody drove by. They didn't appear to see us, focusing on the road. After she took pictures of me, I grabbed her and tried to throw her into a snowbank. I didn't get her into the snow like I wanted too, but she started hollering at me, so I let up.
I don't think I will post the pictures. I am not tremendously photogenic, and while Mrs. Giraffe looks quite fetching in a bikini, she's pretty shy. I doubt very much she would let me near that camera.
She got the crazy idea that she wanted to go out and play in the snow. I think it comes from spending too much time indoors. Addles the brain or something. I had spent a couple hours in the last few days trying to keep the driveway open and I had enough of the white crap, so I didn't think the idea sounded too great. But she talked me into it.
We got then got a Really Crazy Idea. We put on our bathing suits and put a beach towel down in the snow and took pictures. It was pretty funny. She enjoyed it till somebody drove by. They didn't appear to see us, focusing on the road. After she took pictures of me, I grabbed her and tried to throw her into a snowbank. I didn't get her into the snow like I wanted too, but she started hollering at me, so I let up.
I don't think I will post the pictures. I am not tremendously photogenic, and while Mrs. Giraffe looks quite fetching in a bikini, she's pretty shy. I doubt very much she would let me near that camera.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Flogging the deceased equines
I have read so much about this in the last few months. It's atheism vs. theism (namely Christianity) and the argument is morality. The atheists can't seem to get it through their heads that they have no basis for morality.
First we should talk definitions. When I speak of morality I mean: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. It is important to realize that morality is behaving in the way that you ought to behave. Morality is not defined as that which is legal. I am certain Hitler made it legal to kill Jews, he could never make it moral. Morality is objective. Meaning independent of point of view. If it is wrong for me to murder someone it is wrong for everyone. {Atheists like to say that their morals are superior to Christian's morals and later say that there is no objective morality. Of course your morals are superior, but so are mine!}
It seems clear from this that morality cannot be determined by people. People disagree. Liberals say abortion is moral, conservatives say it is not. One is right, or neither is.
Morality then can't be determined by majority rule. (although, wouldn't it be nice to actually vote on abortion?) Think two cannibals and a missionary deciding on whats for lunch. Is it moral to eat the missionary because the two cannibals outvote him? Does it really change this if the whole world gets to vote?
Then the atheist runs into more trouble: You need an objective standard. This standard must be unchanging. Murder can't be immoral today and moral tomorrow. Roe vs. Wade didn't make it moral to kill the unborn. For Christians, God is the objective standard. Atheists have no objective standard.
If a cat kills a mouse, is it murder? Most say no. (The rest are idiots.) If a cat kills another cat, is it murder? Is there a standard of behavior for animals? No, there is not. Other than the law of the jungle. Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. It is survival of the fittest. The atheist says we are just another species of animal. If a chimpanzee can kill an eat another chimpanzee, why can't a human?
{It is at about this point that an atheist will jump in and say "wow, look at how immoral the Christians really are!" We are looking at your worldview, dummy}
The logical implication of the belief that humans evolved, and that God doesn't exist, is that we are also under the law of the jungle. What about the laws of men? Remember, legality does not equal morality. The theory of evolution claims that we are the result of a blind process, that has no goals. The universe doesn't care if humans exists. Our emotions and social structure are the products of eons of evolution. We are simply self replicating meat machines whose only 'purpose' is to replicate the selfish gene. Evolutionary success is determined by survival of the species, generally accomplished by producing the most offspring. (It must kill the atheists to realize that by this measure they are less 'fit'.) Mother earth is not crying over the extinction of the dodo. She won't cry over the extinction of all life.
Once you realize this, what room is there for morality? You are trying to tell my that your close relative is the monkey down at the zoo that throws his poop at you, yet you have a great set of morals for me to follow. Why should I? What is the reason that I ought to behave as you say? There is none.
So it boils down to, I can now do whatever I want to you. Might makes right. Animals steal from each other all the time. And kill each other, etc. The Christian says people are special. We are made in the image of God and we are above the animals. The atheist says we are animals.
You an' me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel
I guess I am just a little more fit than you.
You can argue that your rights are being violated, but rights are made of the same stuff morals are. We can amend the Constitution. (the 28th amendment: all atheists shall be ground up for fertilizer)
Atheists cling parasitically to society's moral values, keeping only the ones they like. But, if you can throw out some, you can throw out all of them. The result is Nihilism.
This is one reason that our society will fail if things continue as the are. As atheism becomes more prevalent, morals will slowly erode. First kill the unborn, then the old and infirm, then the stupid. I am not saying it will become right, just that it will happen. Woe unto those that fall into the arbitrarily chosen class of people to be exterminated! People will slowly come to the realization that once they give up the 'imaginary friend' they can do whatever they want.
Now an atheist does have one valid argument: He can say that since your god doesn't really exist, you don't really have any morals either. You just think you do.
That is really the best they can do.
First we should talk definitions. When I speak of morality I mean: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. It is important to realize that morality is behaving in the way that you ought to behave. Morality is not defined as that which is legal. I am certain Hitler made it legal to kill Jews, he could never make it moral. Morality is objective. Meaning independent of point of view. If it is wrong for me to murder someone it is wrong for everyone. {Atheists like to say that their morals are superior to Christian's morals and later say that there is no objective morality. Of course your morals are superior, but so are mine!}
It seems clear from this that morality cannot be determined by people. People disagree. Liberals say abortion is moral, conservatives say it is not. One is right, or neither is.
Morality then can't be determined by majority rule. (although, wouldn't it be nice to actually vote on abortion?) Think two cannibals and a missionary deciding on whats for lunch. Is it moral to eat the missionary because the two cannibals outvote him? Does it really change this if the whole world gets to vote?
Then the atheist runs into more trouble: You need an objective standard. This standard must be unchanging. Murder can't be immoral today and moral tomorrow. Roe vs. Wade didn't make it moral to kill the unborn. For Christians, God is the objective standard. Atheists have no objective standard.
If a cat kills a mouse, is it murder? Most say no. (The rest are idiots.) If a cat kills another cat, is it murder? Is there a standard of behavior for animals? No, there is not. Other than the law of the jungle. Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. It is survival of the fittest. The atheist says we are just another species of animal. If a chimpanzee can kill an eat another chimpanzee, why can't a human?
{It is at about this point that an atheist will jump in and say "wow, look at how immoral the Christians really are!" We are looking at your worldview, dummy}
The logical implication of the belief that humans evolved, and that God doesn't exist, is that we are also under the law of the jungle. What about the laws of men? Remember, legality does not equal morality. The theory of evolution claims that we are the result of a blind process, that has no goals. The universe doesn't care if humans exists. Our emotions and social structure are the products of eons of evolution. We are simply self replicating meat machines whose only 'purpose' is to replicate the selfish gene. Evolutionary success is determined by survival of the species, generally accomplished by producing the most offspring. (It must kill the atheists to realize that by this measure they are less 'fit'.) Mother earth is not crying over the extinction of the dodo. She won't cry over the extinction of all life.
Once you realize this, what room is there for morality? You are trying to tell my that your close relative is the monkey down at the zoo that throws his poop at you, yet you have a great set of morals for me to follow. Why should I? What is the reason that I ought to behave as you say? There is none.
So it boils down to, I can now do whatever I want to you. Might makes right. Animals steal from each other all the time. And kill each other, etc. The Christian says people are special. We are made in the image of God and we are above the animals. The atheist says we are animals.
You an' me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel
I guess I am just a little more fit than you.
You can argue that your rights are being violated, but rights are made of the same stuff morals are. We can amend the Constitution. (the 28th amendment: all atheists shall be ground up for fertilizer)
Atheists cling parasitically to society's moral values, keeping only the ones they like. But, if you can throw out some, you can throw out all of them. The result is Nihilism.
This is one reason that our society will fail if things continue as the are. As atheism becomes more prevalent, morals will slowly erode. First kill the unborn, then the old and infirm, then the stupid. I am not saying it will become right, just that it will happen. Woe unto those that fall into the arbitrarily chosen class of people to be exterminated! People will slowly come to the realization that once they give up the 'imaginary friend' they can do whatever they want.
Now an atheist does have one valid argument: He can say that since your god doesn't really exist, you don't really have any morals either. You just think you do.
That is really the best they can do.
Monday, February 12, 2007
I'm Back
Score, Coyotes 3, Giraffe 0.
The coyotes were not too plentiful this year. Had fun anyway.
So I am catching up on blogs. Erik posted at Nate's
I missed the discussion, but I will post here anyway.
Define Long Range. Some use a .308 for 1000 yard shooting. A .300 mag would do better for that far. I assume you are a beginner. If that is the case, I don't think I would jump right in and start shooting a big magnum. They kick. A lot. Unless you have a muzzle brake. Then they are extremely loud. Both recoil and blast contribute to flinching, which will ruin your shooting. For a beginner, a .308 is just fine. Or a .30-06. Most shooters won't get good enough to use the extra performance that a magnum brings. Either cartridge will be easier on the shoulder, and both will work at to 1000 yards. The .270 was mentioned. It is a fine hunting cartridge, but it isn't the best choice for long range shooting. There are very few match grade bullets made in that caliber. I suggest finding somone who will let you shoot a rifle before you buy it. If you find the recoil to be harsh, a .260 remington would be an excellent choice. Ammo will cost more for this unless you reload. There are many match bullets for this caliber. The 1000 yard becnhrest crowd is into the .260 (6.5mm) caliber. They generally use the 6.5-284, a wildcat round. That means you can't buy factory ammo for it. Another choice is the .223 remington. As a military round, ammo is cheap and plentiful. It is not a long range round, though, just a good choice to introduce one to rifle shooting. You can get a dedicated long range rifle later if you want. I figure you can't have too many guns.
As for models, don't let Nate fool you. The Remington 700 is a fine choice. As is a savage. The savage will be cheaper. Both have excellent accuracy. I should note, that firearms are individuals, and there is no guarantee that a particular brand or model will always be accurate. Even two guns that come off the same manufacturing equiment can be different. The Remington 700 and the Savage models are known for accuracy. In a particular shooting organization I belong to, the Remington 700 and Savage models win nearly everything in the stock rifle class. No other brand or madels have much of a presence. If you get a remington 700 that doesn't shoot well, a gunsmith can usually correct it easily. Stay away from the Remington 710. They are a Bic throwaway.
Tikka is also a good rifle. It has a very slick bolt, and Tikkas are also known for accuracy. I have nothing against Winchester or Browning, but no experience with them either. I am intrigued by the new Icon made by Thompson Center. This is their first bolt action gun, and they consulted with a lot of gun people on the design.
If money is tight, I recommend the Stevens 200. It is basically a Savage, without the better stock and trigger. If you can afford the savage, get it. The accu-triger is pretty good.
Don't forget to budget for a quality scope. I would plan on spending as much or more for the scope as on the rifle. Good scopes include the Leupold VX II or VX III, Nikon Monarch, and Monarch Gold, Bushnell Elite 3200 or 4200, Sightron S1 or S2, Weaver Grand Slam, or a Burris Signature Series. There are better scopes, but you start talking thousands instead of hundreds. A cheaper alternative might be A Leupold VX1 or a Nikon Buckmaster, or a Burris Fullfield 2. Avoid cheap scopes like Tasco, Barska, Simmons and BSA unless you can't afford a good scope right away.
More scope magnification is better, but you start losing field of view when you get too high. Mirage will also affect you more at higher power.
A heavy barreled rifle is generally more accurate, but it is also heavy. If you plan to carry the rifle much, in a hunting situation, then a heavy barrel may be a detriment. You carry a rifle a lot more than you shoot it when hunting. For shooting at a range, the heavy barrel might be preferred.
The coyotes were not too plentiful this year. Had fun anyway.
So I am catching up on blogs. Erik posted at Nate's
I've been waiting for this post to ask this question.
Looking into long range target shooting. What would be a good rifle? Models, not just rounds. I am assuming y'all are gonna say the .308
I missed the discussion, but I will post here anyway.
Define Long Range. Some use a .308 for 1000 yard shooting. A .300 mag would do better for that far. I assume you are a beginner. If that is the case, I don't think I would jump right in and start shooting a big magnum. They kick. A lot. Unless you have a muzzle brake. Then they are extremely loud. Both recoil and blast contribute to flinching, which will ruin your shooting. For a beginner, a .308 is just fine. Or a .30-06. Most shooters won't get good enough to use the extra performance that a magnum brings. Either cartridge will be easier on the shoulder, and both will work at to 1000 yards. The .270 was mentioned. It is a fine hunting cartridge, but it isn't the best choice for long range shooting. There are very few match grade bullets made in that caliber. I suggest finding somone who will let you shoot a rifle before you buy it. If you find the recoil to be harsh, a .260 remington would be an excellent choice. Ammo will cost more for this unless you reload. There are many match bullets for this caliber. The 1000 yard becnhrest crowd is into the .260 (6.5mm) caliber. They generally use the 6.5-284, a wildcat round. That means you can't buy factory ammo for it. Another choice is the .223 remington. As a military round, ammo is cheap and plentiful. It is not a long range round, though, just a good choice to introduce one to rifle shooting. You can get a dedicated long range rifle later if you want. I figure you can't have too many guns.
As for models, don't let Nate fool you. The Remington 700 is a fine choice. As is a savage. The savage will be cheaper. Both have excellent accuracy. I should note, that firearms are individuals, and there is no guarantee that a particular brand or model will always be accurate. Even two guns that come off the same manufacturing equiment can be different. The Remington 700 and the Savage models are known for accuracy. In a particular shooting organization I belong to, the Remington 700 and Savage models win nearly everything in the stock rifle class. No other brand or madels have much of a presence. If you get a remington 700 that doesn't shoot well, a gunsmith can usually correct it easily. Stay away from the Remington 710. They are a Bic throwaway.
Tikka is also a good rifle. It has a very slick bolt, and Tikkas are also known for accuracy. I have nothing against Winchester or Browning, but no experience with them either. I am intrigued by the new Icon made by Thompson Center. This is their first bolt action gun, and they consulted with a lot of gun people on the design.
If money is tight, I recommend the Stevens 200. It is basically a Savage, without the better stock and trigger. If you can afford the savage, get it. The accu-triger is pretty good.
Don't forget to budget for a quality scope. I would plan on spending as much or more for the scope as on the rifle. Good scopes include the Leupold VX II or VX III, Nikon Monarch, and Monarch Gold, Bushnell Elite 3200 or 4200, Sightron S1 or S2, Weaver Grand Slam, or a Burris Signature Series. There are better scopes, but you start talking thousands instead of hundreds. A cheaper alternative might be A Leupold VX1 or a Nikon Buckmaster, or a Burris Fullfield 2. Avoid cheap scopes like Tasco, Barska, Simmons and BSA unless you can't afford a good scope right away.
More scope magnification is better, but you start losing field of view when you get too high. Mirage will also affect you more at higher power.
A heavy barreled rifle is generally more accurate, but it is also heavy. If you plan to carry the rifle much, in a hunting situation, then a heavy barrel may be a detriment. You carry a rifle a lot more than you shoot it when hunting. For shooting at a range, the heavy barrel might be preferred.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Se ya.
I am going on a little hunting trip. Hunting coyotes. And prairie dogs, if they poke their head up. Maybe a bobcat. Coyotes are quite the challenge. At least around here. Some places have more of them, and they are a lot less wary.
Why hunting coyotes? I guess because that is all there is to hunt this time of year. Sometimes I find that what my family considers a vacation is pretty different from what 'normal' people do. So I won't try to explain too much, as I doubt that I can. I doubt very much that we will see more than a few other people out there. That is part of the appeal.
We will be staying in a camper. So we are not really roughing it. No doubt we will watch a lot of movies and play a lot of pinochle. I plan to take a camera.
See you later.
Why hunting coyotes? I guess because that is all there is to hunt this time of year. Sometimes I find that what my family considers a vacation is pretty different from what 'normal' people do. So I won't try to explain too much, as I doubt that I can. I doubt very much that we will see more than a few other people out there. That is part of the appeal.
We will be staying in a camper. So we are not really roughing it. No doubt we will watch a lot of movies and play a lot of pinochle. I plan to take a camera.
See you later.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Breaking news
Well that miserable rodent says to expect an early spring.
This morning on the television they said he has an accuracy of 39%. Not confidence inspiring, but way ahead of the average weatherman.
This morning on the television they said he has an accuracy of 39%. Not confidence inspiring, but way ahead of the average weatherman.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
That darn Ole
Ole and Lena came into some money. Of course, they couldn't agree on how to spend it. Ole wanted a new pickup, and Lena wanted a new sports car. Finally, Lena put her foot down. "That car tops out at 240," she said. "If you can find something that will do better, get that, otherwise we are getting that car"
Ole went out and bought the pickup. Then he bought Lena a bathroom scale.
Ole went out and bought the pickup. Then he bought Lena a bathroom scale.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
A new appliance that you will want
About ten days ago, we went to the allergist to confirm what I had suspected for some time. I am allergic to cats. I used to like cats, till Mrs. Giraffe brought two of the smelly things into my house. Now I pretty much hate them. So when I turned up allergic, Mrs. Giraffe thought I was going to make her get rid of them. I caved. Just like I did when she wanted to bring them in the house in the first place. What can I say? I have a soft spot for the Mrs. Not to mention that she told me that I go before the cats do. However, the cats and I get along like Sunni and Shia. I wish I had killed them as kittens. (That sounds so harsh when I say it.)
Now that I know that I am allergic, I have set some rules about where the damn things can and cannot be. They can not be in the bedroom. Another suggestion that we got from the allergy literature is to keep them clean. At first I thought that was silly, but now I think that is a really good idea. Especially when I came across this:
Now that I know that I am allergic, I have set some rules about where the damn things can and cannot be. They can not be in the bedroom. Another suggestion that we got from the allergy literature is to keep them clean. At first I thought that was silly, but now I think that is a really good idea. Especially when I came across this:
Cat lovers beware!
Everyone else, this is pretty funny if you're kinda sick like me.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Sunday, January 07, 2007
So long '06
2006 is gone. The .30'06 cartridge turned 100 years old. Amazingly, it is still relevant to today's shooters. It was a huge leap over cartridges 10 to 20 years older. A lot of new cartridges have come, some haven't stayed. There are cartridges that surpass it in performance, but that comes with more blast and recoil. It is still the most popular rifle cartridge in the US.
2006 wasn't a bad year. Mrs. Giraffe and I got sort of disciplined with our money, retired a lot of debt. Should be completed out of debt except the mortgage in a month. We still have a ways to go with the discipline. We start Financial Peace University tonight through church. That should help.
Some things I've thought about in the last year:
1. The US may be the best place in the world to live, but this too shall pass. Democracy lasts till people realize they can vote themselves bread and circuses, then it collapses. Republicans no longer argue over whether a program should exist, just how big it should be. Both parties now try beat each other to the punch on providing the latest form of bloated big government programs. For the children. Cause bringing home the bacon gets you re-elected.
2. Stupid people get to vote. I've always known that, just didn't realize how many stupid people there are. People voting themselves into bondage.
3. Republicans aren't always your friend.
4. We are so complacent. Fatted calves for the slaughter. We are a nation of apathetic imbeciles. Our children are so far behind the children from other countries and we worry about bookbags being too heavy. A people needs a little adversity once in a while and we haven't had any. I mean the kind that requires a little personal sacrifice. Because it builds character. Problem is, our nation decided character doesn't matter. I'd hate to find out how metrosexuals fight if the red chinese come knocking.
5. We are becoming less and less a Christian nation. My own state voted down an abortion ban. Lately, the papers say it is not coming back. As we become less Christian, people will lose the Christian morality. Because there is no such thing as morality apart from religion.
6. Liberals may not propegate as much by sexual reproduction, as they abort a higher percentage of their young. Instead, they infect others minds. And they own the schools.
7. Losing weight isn't as easy as it might seem. It requires a change in lifestyle. That is hard. I'll give it a shot this year anyway. I'll start next week.
Maybe I'm just bummed today. I sound so pessimistic.
2006 wasn't a bad year. Mrs. Giraffe and I got sort of disciplined with our money, retired a lot of debt. Should be completed out of debt except the mortgage in a month. We still have a ways to go with the discipline. We start Financial Peace University tonight through church. That should help.
Some things I've thought about in the last year:
1. The US may be the best place in the world to live, but this too shall pass. Democracy lasts till people realize they can vote themselves bread and circuses, then it collapses. Republicans no longer argue over whether a program should exist, just how big it should be. Both parties now try beat each other to the punch on providing the latest form of bloated big government programs. For the children. Cause bringing home the bacon gets you re-elected.
2. Stupid people get to vote. I've always known that, just didn't realize how many stupid people there are. People voting themselves into bondage.
3. Republicans aren't always your friend.
4. We are so complacent. Fatted calves for the slaughter. We are a nation of apathetic imbeciles. Our children are so far behind the children from other countries and we worry about bookbags being too heavy. A people needs a little adversity once in a while and we haven't had any. I mean the kind that requires a little personal sacrifice. Because it builds character. Problem is, our nation decided character doesn't matter. I'd hate to find out how metrosexuals fight if the red chinese come knocking.
5. We are becoming less and less a Christian nation. My own state voted down an abortion ban. Lately, the papers say it is not coming back. As we become less Christian, people will lose the Christian morality. Because there is no such thing as morality apart from religion.
6. Liberals may not propegate as much by sexual reproduction, as they abort a higher percentage of their young. Instead, they infect others minds. And they own the schools.
7. Losing weight isn't as easy as it might seem. It requires a change in lifestyle. That is hard. I'll give it a shot this year anyway. I'll start next week.
Maybe I'm just bummed today. I sound so pessimistic.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
My new years resolutions
Or, things I would do if I had any will power.
1. Become a more valuable employee. Be more productive.
2. Lose 30 lbs. Get in shape. The wife might help on this one. She has a class reunion. She wants everyone to be jealous.
3. Be more frugal. Make a written budget every month and follow it. Save up 6 months worth of living expenses for an emergency fund. Finish paying off our debts.
4. Tithe. Can I pull this one off? ***
5. Be a better husband. My wife deserves it.
6. Clean the garage. Maybe even so you could actually park a car in there.
7. Pillar bed a one of my rifles. Mount a new barrel on my .30-06.
8. Get my house fixed up. (this summer). I'd like to do this without going back into debt, but I don't see how I can. I'll likely have to hire it done. I'm not a gifted handyman.
9. Stop drinking soft drinks. This will help with #2 and #3.
10. Read my Bible more.
*** A question: Does tithing mean only giving to the church, or would giving to a needy family count?
1. Become a more valuable employee. Be more productive.
2. Lose 30 lbs. Get in shape. The wife might help on this one. She has a class reunion. She wants everyone to be jealous.
3. Be more frugal. Make a written budget every month and follow it. Save up 6 months worth of living expenses for an emergency fund. Finish paying off our debts.
4. Tithe. Can I pull this one off? ***
5. Be a better husband. My wife deserves it.
6. Clean the garage. Maybe even so you could actually park a car in there.
7. Pillar bed a one of my rifles. Mount a new barrel on my .30-06.
8. Get my house fixed up. (this summer). I'd like to do this without going back into debt, but I don't see how I can. I'll likely have to hire it done. I'm not a gifted handyman.
9. Stop drinking soft drinks. This will help with #2 and #3.
10. Read my Bible more.
*** A question: Does tithing mean only giving to the church, or would giving to a needy family count?
Monday, December 18, 2006
I want! I want!
What do I want for Christmas? I don't know. So many things I want, so little money for it. Christmas isn't about that anyway.
I have been looking at rifle scopes. I had the idea that I wanted a better scope for deer hunting. Trouble is, I don't need it. I have a decent one now on both deer rifles. I helped my uncle pick one out for his rifle last month. I am conviced I did pretty well.
This is what I picked for him: http://theopticzone.com/detail.aspx?ID=3974 That is the best price I have seen on it too. Nearly $100 cheaper than everywhere else.
I might get the same one for me. I decided this year that I wanted a better scope for hunting in the timber. My 4.5-14x40 doesn't have a wide enough field of view. I had a nice buck running through the trees, and I had a hard time finding him in the scope. I still got the deer, but I could have made a better shot. I figure I want one gun, my .30-06, set up for hunting in the woods. Most shots would be less than 200 yards. Now, I am not going to use open (iron) sights. I wanted to get one of these: I still might. I dunno. I read on a couple forums that the image is not flat. Maybe doesn't matter. I would like to look through one before I buy it. Nobody round here carries them. Another minus is the 1/2 MOA adjustment clicks. I'd prefer 1/4. I think it is more meant for muzzleloaders and shotguns. Anyway, it has pretty good optics with a wide field of view, and the ballistic plex reticle if I ever need it for a longer shot. I would use the rifle at home too, were shots can be 20 yards out to who knows. It is very light weight also. You end up carrying your rifle a lot more than you shoot it. This rifle currently has a Swift 3-9x40. Which is not as bright or as sharp as the Nikon. It was a good scope for the money, I and really can't complain about it.
The other scope that I want, is for my 'beanfield' rifle. This rifle would be used out in the wide open. Shots could be pretty far. I don't know how far, I'd have to see how well my rifle and I can shoot. As far as I can hit a paper plate every time I guess. For that, this is the scope I want. The optics are as good as scopes costing quite a bit more, the eye relief is constant, and generous, the exit pupil is large, at over 5mm. Field of view is actually wider than the 3-9x40 Light transmission is really good. If I could have only one rifle and scope, this is the one I would want. (Thank God you can have more than one!) It has side focus adjusment, another really cool feature. Only downside is I would need new rings for the 30mm tube. That is minor. And the cost, which is not minor. This rifle currently has a Weaver Grand Slam 4.5-14x40 on it. Which really is a pretty good scope. If I got a new scope, I have other rifles that have el cheapo's that I could replace with the Weaver. This is the rifle mentioned above. As to why I was using it in that situation in the first place, well, it is a long story.
Anyways. I want a bullet drop compensating reticle. All of these scopes have that. I don't know why I need this, the money would probably be better spent on a good laser rangefinder.
I want bright sharp optics that work well in low light. Both of the Nikons have that. I think the Burris is pretty good too. Nikon does make a 2-7 power, but it doesn't have the BDC and it costs more.
It is pretty sad to be dreaming and drooling about stuff like this that I don't really need.
I have been looking at rifle scopes. I had the idea that I wanted a better scope for deer hunting. Trouble is, I don't need it. I have a decent one now on both deer rifles. I helped my uncle pick one out for his rifle last month. I am conviced I did pretty well.
This is what I picked for him: http://theopticzone.com/detail.aspx?ID=3974 That is the best price I have seen on it too. Nearly $100 cheaper than everywhere else.
I might get the same one for me. I decided this year that I wanted a better scope for hunting in the timber. My 4.5-14x40 doesn't have a wide enough field of view. I had a nice buck running through the trees, and I had a hard time finding him in the scope. I still got the deer, but I could have made a better shot. I figure I want one gun, my .30-06, set up for hunting in the woods. Most shots would be less than 200 yards. Now, I am not going to use open (iron) sights. I wanted to get one of these: I still might. I dunno. I read on a couple forums that the image is not flat. Maybe doesn't matter. I would like to look through one before I buy it. Nobody round here carries them. Another minus is the 1/2 MOA adjustment clicks. I'd prefer 1/4. I think it is more meant for muzzleloaders and shotguns. Anyway, it has pretty good optics with a wide field of view, and the ballistic plex reticle if I ever need it for a longer shot. I would use the rifle at home too, were shots can be 20 yards out to who knows. It is very light weight also. You end up carrying your rifle a lot more than you shoot it. This rifle currently has a Swift 3-9x40. Which is not as bright or as sharp as the Nikon. It was a good scope for the money, I and really can't complain about it.
The other scope that I want, is for my 'beanfield' rifle. This rifle would be used out in the wide open. Shots could be pretty far. I don't know how far, I'd have to see how well my rifle and I can shoot. As far as I can hit a paper plate every time I guess. For that, this is the scope I want. The optics are as good as scopes costing quite a bit more, the eye relief is constant, and generous, the exit pupil is large, at over 5mm. Field of view is actually wider than the 3-9x40 Light transmission is really good. If I could have only one rifle and scope, this is the one I would want. (Thank God you can have more than one!) It has side focus adjusment, another really cool feature. Only downside is I would need new rings for the 30mm tube. That is minor. And the cost, which is not minor. This rifle currently has a Weaver Grand Slam 4.5-14x40 on it. Which really is a pretty good scope. If I got a new scope, I have other rifles that have el cheapo's that I could replace with the Weaver. This is the rifle mentioned above. As to why I was using it in that situation in the first place, well, it is a long story.
Anyways. I want a bullet drop compensating reticle. All of these scopes have that. I don't know why I need this, the money would probably be better spent on a good laser rangefinder.
I want bright sharp optics that work well in low light. Both of the Nikons have that. I think the Burris is pretty good too. Nikon does make a 2-7 power, but it doesn't have the BDC and it costs more.
It is pretty sad to be dreaming and drooling about stuff like this that I don't really need.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Fart jokes.
Q: Why didn't the teacher pass gas in public?
A: Because she was a private tutor.
A real life fart joke:
A: Because she was a private tutor.
A real life fart joke:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)