Not quite; T'ai Chi is performed slowly to start with because the movements are complicated and require precision to be effective when applied.
It's very difficult to perfect a precision movement at speed, so they are practised slowly. When everything is in alignment and can be performed in a relaxed manner, then the movements can be sped up and applied in a martial context.
Done properly, it can be one of the hardest workouts for strength and stamina you'll experience; power lifters have been known to quit before completing a form.
The other advantage is that, being primarily a set of principles, T'ai Chi can be applied to all activity. If you're not concerned about the martial side of it, the movement principles can make any movement into excellent exercise.
Any programmer who is incapable of reading code because the white space is arranged slightly at odds to his preference has too little competence to be called a programmer.
What's incomplete about it? I understand that it covers techniques over all ranges even if most of them are to render the situation more favourable to groundwork. It's also originally derived from jujutsu, which was (probably) developed by the samurai for use in battle.
Feel free to shred this argument; as I said, it's not something I've given a great deal of thought.
I agree that it's ridiculous to assume that you won't be attacked outside boxing rules, but that's not the point in issue. When involved in a scuffle, it's better to know how to throw a punch than not.
The question of what constitutes a martial art rages all the time; my definition is simply a reasonably complete fighting system designed for non-sport use. It's not really something I spend a lot of time worrying about, to be honest.
It seems I remembered a select portion of the article; it describes a study which used chess as a study to find how expertise in a field in dependent upon training. By repeated exposure to situations and, sometimes, a knowledge of background theory, more information is available from the same data because more detailed extrapolation is possible.
Similarly, by training in a fighting art/sport, more opportunities present themselves when faced with an opponent than those obvious to a beginner. The mental process in each case appears similar to me; a rapid and correct (or at least useful) analysis of the situation results from the ability gained in practise. The main difference in sparring is that a substantial portion of time has to be spent making the body capable of reliably doing what you're asking it to do.
For reference, both my sparring and my chess are mediocre.
The 'all fights end up on the ground' argument surfaces time and time again, and I have yet to see any evidence that it's true. If you're a regular brawler in real life, I bow to your experience (but wouldn't want to go a'drinkin' with you).
For self-defence purposes, I'm not looking to cream multiple attackers and laugh over their broken bodies. I'm looking to take down one of them, very quickly, and use the gap to escape. Boxing would seem to offer the tools to do that (in case you hadn't gathered, I'm not a boxer).
Combat sport training may not be the best way to defend yourself in life, but to argue that it has no value in self defence is absurd.
A recent study (blowed if I an find a link) seems to support your view; highly skilled chess players apparently don't think any further ahead than average players, but do know what constitutes a strong position and will take steps to move towards one in much the same way that a skilled fighter will manoeuvre himself into a position of strength over his opponent.
I'm intrigued as to where you get this idea that throwing a punch is a bad idea in a fight and would strongly contest that boxing has no value in self-defence.
I study a style of Chinese internal martial arts, and punches are used all the time, usually in combination with locks, holds, kicks and whatever else springs to mind.
I do agree with your specification of what constitutes a martial art, but can't see where you're coming from with regard to the efficacy of boxing unless you live somewhere where everyone walks around armed.
This is also a minor peeve for me, but relates more generally to people who call things by the wrong name or spell names incorrectly when it's WRITTEN ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF THEM! Kill, kill.
My mother (yes, I'm descending into a parent rant) has a very irritating habit of referring to every file transfer in any direction as a 'download' and everything that can feasibly be displayed as an icon as a 'program'. In addition, she's obsessed with moving everything on her hard drive to CD storage (note that I don't say 'backing up'; she deletes things from the hard drive once they're safe on writable media) so she can keep the hard drive space free. Why she's keeping the hard drive space free, I have no idea.
Before anyone bitches at me for being disrespectful of my mother, I don't complain about any of this until she starts blaming me for not understanding things when she's trying to explain a problem to me in completely misleading terminology. It's very difficult to give advice with regard to computers when they don't know the difference between a hard drive and their desktop wallpaper.
To derail just a smidge, the aforementioned parent is thinking of taking some proper computing education because she did well on her ECDL (The rather stupidly named 'European Computer Driving Licence' for those who don't know, essentially a course for secretaries in how to use office software) and I can't seem to get across to her the difference between working on computers and working with computers. In light of this, I don't know what to suggest to her as a next step in learning. Any suggestions?
That's the correct way to use Lego, isn't it? Anything else is a waste of material.
A friend of mine at University had an interesting final year project using Lego; it's so consistently and accurately made (obviously, since every piece has to fit with every other piece to function) that it was possible for him to modify a number of bricks to hold optical equipment and use one of those standard green base plates to build an interferometer, which he was then able to use to calculate the speed of light to alarming accuracy (Please don't ask for values; this was nearly ten years ago).
Oh, and the plural of Lego is Lego. It's a brand name. LEGO! Or, possibly, bricks./rant
I don't really understand how any form of intelligence can arise from programming as we know it, which is basically making a machine do what we want it to do with a given set of inputs. All that does is replicate functionality. It's simplistic, and any variation in the outputs is seen as either a bug or an error. There's no room for the kind of emergent behaviour that might lead to an approximation of (what most people would probably consider) intelligence.
I suppose that's just a way of saying that we can't solve the problem until we define it.
I find it generally happens to quell arguments; it's unbelievable how many people complain when their precious favourites are placed in SF or fantasy when it clearly should be in the other section. Of course, when it's moved there someone else will whinge until it's moved back.
By bundling them together, people unfamiliar with the genres aren't made to spend a fair amount of time trying to figure out what goes where. I'm sure you can think of several titles where affiliation is contested.
Then, I didn't care. I was younger and didn't appreciate others as much; I didn't think ahead or necessarily realise that I might lose touch with these people when we all went to different universities.
In some cases, I'd quite like to see them again. I'm older now (obviously) and recognise that people often have more to offer than I first thought.
Though the physical attributes wouldn't pass through to the real world, simply having the knowledge required to train the nervous system would be a huge boon to building them.
Anyone can learn to throw a punch or kick; these skills are fairly simple. The tricky part of a fighting art is learning when to use them, how to create openings, how to place yourself in a strong position relative to your opponent's weakness.
The human body can be built up remarkably quickly through simple repetition of movement with enough focus. There are more efficient ways, but all that should be required to acquire the physical strength to perform kung fu is knowledge of kung fu.
What happens when a matrician wants to do an uber-kick in reality, but realizes they don't have the horse-power for it? They'd pull something.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite; T'ai Chi is performed slowly to start with because the movements are complicated and require precision to be effective when applied.
It's very difficult to perfect a precision movement at speed, so they are practised slowly. When everything is in alignment and can be performed in a relaxed manner, then the movements can be sped up and applied in a martial context.
Done properly, it can be one of the hardest workouts for strength and stamina you'll experience; power lifters have been known to quit before completing a form.
The other advantage is that, being primarily a set of principles, T'ai Chi can be applied to all activity. If you're not concerned about the martial side of it, the movement principles can make any movement into excellent exercise.
So do that.
That's been stopped here in the UK; it's now forbidden to use review quotations out of context in advertising.
On a similar note, try The Book of Dave for an interesting read.
Enough to ensure that the simple act of getting out of bed would be a gruelling ordeal.
Isn't it always?
Hear, hear!
Any programmer who is incapable of reading code because the white space is arranged slightly at odds to his preference has too little competence to be called a programmer.
Don't be so Batronising.
What's incomplete about it? I understand that it covers techniques over all ranges even if most of them are to render the situation more favourable to groundwork. It's also originally derived from jujutsu, which was (probably) developed by the samurai for use in battle.
Feel free to shred this argument; as I said, it's not something I've given a great deal of thought.
I agree that it's ridiculous to assume that you won't be attacked outside boxing rules, but that's not the point in issue. When involved in a scuffle, it's better to know how to throw a punch than not.
The question of what constitutes a martial art rages all the time; my definition is simply a reasonably complete fighting system designed for non-sport use. It's not really something I spend a lot of time worrying about, to be honest.
I think we're thinking of different studies. I found the link to mine (an interesting read, but hardly scientific gospel): http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-expert-mind
It seems I remembered a select portion of the article; it describes a study which used chess as a study to find how expertise in a field in dependent upon training. By repeated exposure to situations and, sometimes, a knowledge of background theory, more information is available from the same data because more detailed extrapolation is possible.
Similarly, by training in a fighting art/sport, more opportunities present themselves when faced with an opponent than those obvious to a beginner. The mental process in each case appears similar to me; a rapid and correct (or at least useful) analysis of the situation results from the ability gained in practise. The main difference in sparring is that a substantial portion of time has to be spent making the body capable of reliably doing what you're asking it to do.
For reference, both my sparring and my chess are mediocre.
The 'all fights end up on the ground' argument surfaces time and time again, and I have yet to see any evidence that it's true. If you're a regular brawler in real life, I bow to your experience (but wouldn't want to go a'drinkin' with you).
For self-defence purposes, I'm not looking to cream multiple attackers and laugh over their broken bodies. I'm looking to take down one of them, very quickly, and use the gap to escape. Boxing would seem to offer the tools to do that (in case you hadn't gathered, I'm not a boxer).
Combat sport training may not be the best way to defend yourself in life, but to argue that it has no value in self defence is absurd.
A recent study (blowed if I an find a link) seems to support your view; highly skilled chess players apparently don't think any further ahead than average players, but do know what constitutes a strong position and will take steps to move towards one in much the same way that a skilled fighter will manoeuvre himself into a position of strength over his opponent.
I'm intrigued as to where you get this idea that throwing a punch is a bad idea in a fight and would strongly contest that boxing has no value in self-defence.
I study a style of Chinese internal martial arts, and punches are used all the time, usually in combination with locks, holds, kicks and whatever else springs to mind.
I do agree with your specification of what constitutes a martial art, but can't see where you're coming from with regard to the efficacy of boxing unless you live somewhere where everyone walks around armed.
This is also a minor peeve for me, but relates more generally to people who call things by the wrong name or spell names incorrectly when it's WRITTEN ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF THEM! Kill, kill.
My mother (yes, I'm descending into a parent rant) has a very irritating habit of referring to every file transfer in any direction as a 'download' and everything that can feasibly be displayed as an icon as a 'program'. In addition, she's obsessed with moving everything on her hard drive to CD storage (note that I don't say 'backing up'; she deletes things from the hard drive once they're safe on writable media) so she can keep the hard drive space free. Why she's keeping the hard drive space free, I have no idea.
Before anyone bitches at me for being disrespectful of my mother, I don't complain about any of this until she starts blaming me for not understanding things when she's trying to explain a problem to me in completely misleading terminology. It's very difficult to give advice with regard to computers when they don't know the difference between a hard drive and their desktop wallpaper.
To derail just a smidge, the aforementioned parent is thinking of taking some proper computing education because she did well on her ECDL (The rather stupidly named 'European Computer Driving Licence' for those who don't know, essentially a course for secretaries in how to use office software) and I can't seem to get across to her the difference between working on computers and working with computers. In light of this, I don't know what to suggest to her as a next step in learning. Any suggestions?
It's not acceptable, however, to use an apostrophe in a possessive 'its' when you're a typesetter, I imagine.
That's the correct way to use Lego, isn't it? Anything else is a waste of material.
/rant
A friend of mine at University had an interesting final year project using Lego; it's so consistently and accurately made (obviously, since every piece has to fit with every other piece to function) that it was possible for him to modify a number of bricks to hold optical equipment and use one of those standard green base plates to build an interferometer, which he was then able to use to calculate the speed of light to alarming accuracy (Please don't ask for values; this was nearly ten years ago).
Oh, and the plural of Lego is Lego. It's a brand name. LEGO! Or, possibly, bricks.
I don't really understand how any form of intelligence can arise from programming as we know it, which is basically making a machine do what we want it to do with a given set of inputs. All that does is replicate functionality. It's simplistic, and any variation in the outputs is seen as either a bug or an error. There's no room for the kind of emergent behaviour that might lead to an approximation of (what most people would probably consider) intelligence.
I suppose that's just a way of saying that we can't solve the problem until we define it.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, and add that the first step to a stable OS is an OS that understands threats.
Now, within that theory, explain how impacts applied to the exterior of the TARDIS translate to turbulence inside it.
Doners are usually made of organs; just walk by any kebab outlet and they should be able to help out.
I find it generally happens to quell arguments; it's unbelievable how many people complain when their precious favourites are placed in SF or fantasy when it clearly should be in the other section. Of course, when it's moved there someone else will whinge until it's moved back.
By bundling them together, people unfamiliar with the genres aren't made to spend a fair amount of time trying to figure out what goes where. I'm sure you can think of several titles where affiliation is contested.
I haven't seen it, can't find a summary and have no means to acquire it. Please expand your answer.
Then, I didn't care. I was younger and didn't appreciate others as much; I didn't think ahead or necessarily realise that I might lose touch with these people when we all went to different universities.
In some cases, I'd quite like to see them again. I'm older now (obviously) and recognise that people often have more to offer than I first thought.
Anyone can learn to throw a punch or kick; these skills are fairly simple. The tricky part of a fighting art is learning when to use them, how to create openings, how to place yourself in a strong position relative to your opponent's weakness.
The human body can be built up remarkably quickly through simple repetition of movement with enough focus. There are more efficient ways, but all that should be required to acquire the physical strength to perform kung fu is knowledge of kung fu.
What happens when a matrician wants to do an uber-kick in reality, but realizes they don't have the horse-power for it? They'd pull something.
The radio?