Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • TARGET SHOOTING FALSE CONFIDENCE When shooting (pistol) a moving target, if it’s

    TARGET SHOOTING FALSE CONFIDENCE

    When shooting (pistol) a moving target, if it’s moving perpendicular to you, and at less than 12′ per second, and it’s wider than the depth of the human torso, then it’s nonsense.

    If your target is dashing at 12′ per second, is 12″ wide, and at a 15-30 degree angle, that’s realistic.

    if your target is falling and then crawling at 2′ per second and is torso shaped, then that’s realistic.

    If your target is shooting BACK at you while moving 6′ or less per second, then that’s realistic.

    If your target is behind concealment, at a distance, and firing at you every two or thee seconds, and you are scrambling for cover, while trying to find him, that’s realistic.

    If you think there is any cover indoors you’re wrong. There is only concealment indoors. For all intents and purposes, for modern arms, furniture and walls are little more than crepe paper.

    Be small, get a shot off, aim a shot, and land that shot. Otherwise be small, and shoot through whatever is in your way.

    I mean. I know most of this shooty stuff is entertainment, but lets not get overconfident here. It’s hard to shoot people in close quarters. And it’s easy to be shot in the open.

    The modern US military and teaches combined arms. At present no one on earth is anywhere close to americans in combined arms. (Even if only at present.)

    But in dirty revolutionary wars, we are talking largely about impeding, destroying, robbing, kidnapping, fire, gasoline, small arms, small numbers, sniping, urban and suburban settings, and utter chaos.

    And in that case, night, lots of friends, and lots of ammo, lots of fire, lots of smoke, and lots of planned exit routes.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-04 13:51:00 UTC

  • “Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon It’s a false dichotomy. We

    —“Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon It’s a false dichotomy. We use the term TRUE for “agreement on correspondence”, |TRUTH CLAIM| Undecidable > Possible > Relative > Consensual > Contingent > Probable > Decidable > Necessary > Analytic > Tautological. As far as I know, all statements remain contingent, if only for the imprecision of definitions alone. I’ll deflate it further into TESIMONY, DEMAND, and WARRANTY. TESTIMONY: demand for agreement(x), degree of necessity(y) and degree of warranty(z). DEMAND: I can hold an agreement on correspondence with myself, with someone else, with others, with everyone, with anyone. WARRANTY: I can warranty my testimony corresponds to the possible, probable, contingent, decidable, necessary, analytic, and tautological. And agreement can be possible, personally actionable, collectively actionable, collectively decidable, and collectively irrefutable, and collectively tautological. We use ‘Truth’ for all those purposes: “true enough for the circumstance.” The question is whether one uses the truth that is sufficient for the circumstances.

  • “Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon It’s a false dichotomy. We

    —“Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon

    It’s a false dichotomy. We use the term TRUE for “agreement on correspondence”,

    |TRUTH CLAIM| Undecidable > Possible > Relative > Consensual > Contingent > Probable > Decidable > Necessary > Analytic > Tautological.

    As far as I know, all statements remain contingent, if only for the imprecision of definitions alone.

    I’ll deflate it further into TESIMONY, DEMAND, and WARRANTY.

    TESTIMONY: demand for agreement(x), degree of necessity(y) and degree of warranty(z).

    DEMAND: I can hold an agreement on correspondence with myself, with someone else, with others, with everyone, with anyone.

    WARRANTY: I can warranty my testimony corresponds to the possible, probable, contingent, decidable, necessary, analytic, and tautological.

    And agreement can be possible, personally actionable, collectively actionable, collectively decidable, and collectively irrefutable, and collectively tautological.

    We use ‘Truth’ for all those purposes: “true enough for the circumstance.”

    The question is whether one uses the truth that is sufficient for the circumstances.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 07:17:00 UTC

  • “Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon It’s a false dichotomy. We

    —“Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon It’s a false dichotomy. We use the term TRUE for “agreement on correspondence”, |TRUTH CLAIM| Undecidable > Possible > Relative > Consensual > Contingent > Probable > Decidable > Necessary > Analytic > Tautological. As far as I know, all statements remain contingent, if only for the imprecision of definitions alone. I’ll deflate it further into TESIMONY, DEMAND, and WARRANTY. TESTIMONY: demand for agreement(x), degree of necessity(y) and degree of warranty(z). DEMAND: I can hold an agreement on correspondence with myself, with someone else, with others, with everyone, with anyone. WARRANTY: I can warranty my testimony corresponds to the possible, probable, contingent, decidable, necessary, analytic, and tautological. And agreement can be possible, personally actionable, collectively actionable, collectively decidable, and collectively irrefutable, and collectively tautological. We use ‘Truth’ for all those purposes: “true enough for the circumstance.” The question is whether one uses the truth that is sufficient for the circumstances.

  • Definitions Are Recipes

    by Bill Joslin The only definitions (identity) which rest in the commons are operational descriptions (recipes). Operational descriptions stand on their own as a set of arguments – thus definitions simply assign a name to a set of operational arguments. We then use names, for sake of brevity, to build new, higher order arguments. The relation of lower order and higher order definitions are two-fold – either a lower order argument has a causal relation to a higher order one (a primary or fundamental ) or the higher order argument provides superordinate to the lower order argument. By categorizing according to arguments versus object-properties we may open up new meta-relations which are not available with an object-property mentality.

  • DEFINITIONS ARE RECIPES by Bill Joslin The only definitions (identity) which res

    DEFINITIONS ARE RECIPES

    by Bill Joslin

    The only definitions (identity) which rest in the commons are operational descriptions (recipes).

    Operational descriptions stand on their own as a set of arguments – thus definitions simply assign a name to a set of operational arguments.

    We then use names, for sake of brevity, to build new, higher order arguments.

    The relation of lower order and higher order definitions are two-fold – either a lower order argument has a causal relation to a higher order one (a primary or fundamental ) or the higher order argument provides superordinate to the lower order argument.

    By categorizing according to arguments versus object-properties we may open up new meta-relations which are not available with an object-property mentality.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 16:57:00 UTC

  • Definitions Are Recipes

    by Bill Joslin The only definitions (identity) which rest in the commons are operational descriptions (recipes). Operational descriptions stand on their own as a set of arguments – thus definitions simply assign a name to a set of operational arguments. We then use names, for sake of brevity, to build new, higher order arguments. The relation of lower order and higher order definitions are two-fold – either a lower order argument has a causal relation to a higher order one (a primary or fundamental ) or the higher order argument provides superordinate to the lower order argument. By categorizing according to arguments versus object-properties we may open up new meta-relations which are not available with an object-property mentality.

  • The Rule Of Fives

    You’ve probably heard that the average person can only hold about five items in visual space at any time without resorting to groupings or organizing into grids of one sort or the other. You might have heard that the average person sort of maxes out at remembering a phone number. And that phone numbers are only memorable if broken into a series of numbers each of which consists of less than seven digits. WE can, like mnemonic sentences, poetry, lyrics, or melodies, repeat patterns and recall elements in a series within that pattern, but we cannot very often recall strings of words or numbers without iterating the series. If you look at our language, (english), you will find that most of our verbs describe five to seven states: 1) is doing now 2-3) was just doing, will just do 4-5) was doing, will do 6-7) was always done, wll always do And even so, ‘just doing now’ is a construction. Most of our terms only provide for five states. We need about five ‘registers’ (states) in order to compare two possible courses of action.

  • THE RULE OF FIVES You’ve probably heard that the average person can only hold ab

    THE RULE OF FIVES

    You’ve probably heard that the average person can only hold about five items in visual space at any time without resorting to groupings or organizing into grids of one sort or the other.

    You might have heard that the average person sort of maxes out at remembering a phone number. And that phone numbers are only memorable if broken into a series of numbers each of which consists of less than seven digits.

    WE can, like mnemonic sentences, poetry, lyrics, or melodies, repeat patterns and recall elements in a series within that pattern, but we cannot very often recall strings of words or numbers without iterating the series.

    If you look at our language, (english), you will find that most of our verbs describe five to seven states:

    1) is doing now

    2-3) was just doing, will just do

    4-5) was doing, will do

    6-7) was always done, wll always do

    And even so, ‘just doing now’ is a construction. Most of our terms only provide for five states.

    We need about five ‘registers’ (states) in order to compare two possible courses of action.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 14:14:00 UTC

  • The Rule Of Fives

    You’ve probably heard that the average person can only hold about five items in visual space at any time without resorting to groupings or organizing into grids of one sort or the other. You might have heard that the average person sort of maxes out at remembering a phone number. And that phone numbers are only memorable if broken into a series of numbers each of which consists of less than seven digits. WE can, like mnemonic sentences, poetry, lyrics, or melodies, repeat patterns and recall elements in a series within that pattern, but we cannot very often recall strings of words or numbers without iterating the series. If you look at our language, (english), you will find that most of our verbs describe five to seven states: 1) is doing now 2-3) was just doing, will just do 4-5) was doing, will do 6-7) was always done, wll always do And even so, ‘just doing now’ is a construction. Most of our terms only provide for five states. We need about five ‘registers’ (states) in order to compare two possible courses of action.