|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
augustine
Joined: 08 Sep 2012
Location: México
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Other countries have a lock on certain other fields of human endeavor |
Such as curling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wishfullthinkng
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| AGAIN, not to say that all of this is right. Metric is the more rational and accurate system. That doesn't mean its the easiest to comprehend. Metric should be used in the professional sphere. |
'Rational' and 'accurate' seem to be empty buzzwards here. I'll say it again, I was raised with Metric and Imperial, and in general, Imperial seems to me the more reasonable system for everyday use, mostly for the reasons to which you've pointed, but also because of its flexibility in being unbeholden to any particular base: the Imperial system is perfectly willing to change bases when doing so results in a more useable and reasonable absolute measurement. This is its strength and its weakness.
As for accuracy, in my work, accurate measurement of distance is critically important, and I commonly work to the 32nd of an inch, sometimes even to the 64th, which are substantially more accurate than 1 mm. At the same time, when such accuracy isn't necessary, I can work to the 8th or the 16th, which are more convenient than their equivalents in mm.
As I said earlier, I'm not interested in forcing everyone to use Imperial, but I will strongly disagree with knee-jerk dismissal of the Imperial system and with calls for it to be 'put to pasture'. |
my work also sometimes requires accurate measurements, while not to the micron level but to the thousandths of an inch. for that we can just use decimals with metric...
however we do use imperial too for the american-inclined.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would argue that the US never loses wars. How do you lose a war when there was never a planned outcome in the first place? The people who decide to go to war see it as a win because they actually get what they wanted: the use of the armed forces for the economic benefit of the MID. Success. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| augustine wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Other countries have a lock on certain other fields of human endeavor |
Such as curling. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wishfullthinkng wrote: |
| GF wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| AGAIN, not to say that all of this is right. Metric is the more rational and accurate system. That doesn't mean its the easiest to comprehend. Metric should be used in the professional sphere. |
'Rational' and 'accurate' seem to be empty buzzwards here. I'll say it again, I was raised with Metric and Imperial, and in general, Imperial seems to me the more reasonable system for everyday use, mostly for the reasons to which you've pointed, but also because of its flexibility in being unbeholden to any particular base: the Imperial system is perfectly willing to change bases when doing so results in a more useable and reasonable absolute measurement. This is its strength and its weakness.
As for accuracy, in my work, accurate measurement of distance is critically important, and I commonly work to the 32nd of an inch, sometimes even to the 64th, which are substantially more accurate than 1 mm. At the same time, when such accuracy isn't necessary, I can work to the 8th or the 16th, which are more convenient than their equivalents in mm.
As I said earlier, I'm not interested in forcing everyone to use Imperial, but I will strongly disagree with knee-jerk dismissal of the Imperial system and with calls for it to be 'put to pasture'. |
my work also sometimes requires accurate measurements, while not to the micron level but to the thousandths of an inch. for that we can just use decimals with metric...
however we do use imperial too for the american-inclined. |
That's fair, and I imagine you use computers, digital measuring devices, or other things like that. I work with my hands and my eyes, and it isn't possible for a man equipped with rule and measuring tape to work with decimals of a millimeter with much accuracy or precision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
But here's the thing: why are Canadians so touchy about being blanketed by NORAD and protected by a dozen US aircraft carriers? Because you're as nationalist as we are. Its okay to have pride in your country. Its okay for Americans to have pride in their country. I will tell you what: its not more appropriate to have less pride in one's country just because it is facing more problems than it has in a long time.
America's universities are the best because that is what we excel at. Other countries have a lock on certain other fields of human endeavor, but it just so happens that America has so many excellent institutions of higher education. World Traveler is wrong to extrapolate too much from it. |
I didn't realize Canadians were touchy about NORAD. From what I remember, we're all taught it's a great little thing and a wonderful example of cooperation between our two countries. I've never heard anyone complain about it.
And, I really don't know, has it actually ever done anything? Isn't it all just the result of a little paranoia over the Commies attacking through the Arctic? A paranoia which has never come to life?
What Canadians find amusing, is when Americans go on about how their wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, plus all other skirmishes and secret ops carried out WAY OVERSEAS by the US, and their massive military presence WAY OVERSEAS is somehow protecting us. I think at this point, any sane person has come to the realization that all these things have done is made a great part of the world resent and hate America (and so, through guilty by association, Canada and other "Freedom loving countries")
I don't have any problem with Americans loving their country, and heck, I love America too. What I find amusing is how sensitive some Americans get when very just criticism is thrown their way.
If someone tells me the Canadian miltiary sucks, I'll agree with them. If they tell me poutine is a foul heart attack in a box, I agree with them. If immigrants say Canada's disappointing because it's hard to find a job in their field and they're forced driving a cab, I sympathize with them. If they complain about our cold winters, I agree with them. If people tell me Canada's voice on the world stage is rather insignificant, I agree with them.
Don't know why so many Americans have a problem with people from other countries telling them they need to tone down on shooting each other, fix their economy, and stop trying to tell the world what to do and expecting the world to fall in line with everything American. Or why they get in a hissy when it's pointed out to them that America is not the only country where a poor, hard working immigrant can turn his/her life around, become a huge success, and live the dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| crescent wrote: |
| America is on the decline. It has been since the 70s. |
O RLY?
Academic Ranking of World Universities 2013
1 Harvard University United States
2 Stanford University United States
3 University of California, Berkeley United States
4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) United States
5 University of Cambridge United Kingdom
6 California Institute of Technology United States
7 Princeton University United States
8 Columbia University United States
9 University of Chicago United States
10 University of Oxford United Kingdom
11 Yale University United States
12 University of California, Los Angeles United States
13 Cornell University United States
14 University of California, San Diego United States
15 University of Pennsylvania United States
16 University of Washington United States
17 The Johns Hopkins University United States
18 University of California, San Francisco United States
19 University of Wisconsin - Madison United States
20 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich Switzerland
21 The University of Tokyo Japan
21 University College London United Kingdom
23 University of Michigan - Ann Arbor United States
24 The Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine United Kingdom
25 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign United States
(Where's Canada in this list? 없어?) |
I can find lists too! 
How come no American cities on this one?
| Quote: |
The business and political weekly magazine 'The Economist' has released its 2013 list of the world's 'Most Livable Cities.' Compiled by the mag's 'Intelligence Unit' the list is striking in that there are no U.S. cities and most are Canadian and Aussie.
Using criteria based on an examination of each city's culture and environment, education, healthcare, infrastructure and stability, here are in order the top ten most liveable cities, according to the magazine: 1) Melbourne; 2) Vienna; 3) Vancouver; 4) Toronto; 5) Calgary; 6) Adelaide; 7) Sydney;  Helsinki; 9) Perth and 10) Auckland.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/357291#ixzz2dMrQg0Ig
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Newbie wrote: |
Don't know why so many Americans have a problem with people from other countries telling them they need to tone down on shooting each other, fix their economy, and stop trying to tell the world what to do and expecting the world to fall in line with everything American. Or why they get in a hissy when it's pointed out to them that America is not the only country where a poor, hard working immigrant can turn his/her life around, become a huge success, and live the dream. |
Sorry to disappoint, but no hissy fits so far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. BlackCat
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
The point of the Canada-is-safe-behind-US-naval-and-air-power comment was twofold: it rebuts this idea that US shame is losing so many wars, and it also was meant to tweak you, of course. The US should be ashamed of its many wars, but when it fails in its ambitious objectives it still manages to keep the homeland secure. If China loses a war, armies come over its borders, but when America loses a war, it gives up and goes home.
But here's the thing: why are Canadians so touchy about being blanketed by NORAD and protected by a dozen US aircraft carriers? Because you're as nationalist as we are. Its okay to have pride in your country. Its okay for Americans to have pride in their country. I will tell you what: its not more appropriate to have less pride in one's country just because it is facing more problems than it has in a long time.
|
To your first comment, you can't compare Chinese and America's consequences of war failures. It's simple geography. However, yes, in the history of the US it's borders have been breached several times. Including a very bloody civil war. But yeah, I don't think Mexico or Canada will be invading anytime soon. But you can't really compare the geographic realities of North America to pretty much the rest of the world.
To the second point: I'd like you to show where "Canadians (are) so touchy about being blanketed by NORAD and protected by a dozen US aircraft carriers(.)" You make that statement and then say it proves that Canadians are extremely nationalistic, but I don't see any proof of that remark. You can't quote yourself to prove a point you're trying to make.
To be honest, I doubt most Canadians even know what NORAD is or what it does. But here's the thing: it's a JOINT operation. It's not Americans protecting our borders while us Canadians huddle in the corner crying. Canadians have served as commanders, too. We have a navy and boats and all that crazy stuff. The point is, we SHARE the responsibility and information. It's not American ships protecting Canadian borders. One also has to ask from what? The Commie Polar Bears?
Some Canadians protest NORAD, just as some Americans protest it. Anti-military protests are hardly unique to any one country. In the 60s Canadians protested the delivery of nuclear missiles onto Canadian territory....just as some Americans protested nuclear missiles in the US.
[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Newbie wrote: |
If someone tells me the Canadian miltiary sucks, I'll agree with them. |
And you'd be wrong, not just in terms of achievement (you wouldn't be in Korea if it weren't for what the Canadians have accomplished here (and, yes, Canada have had a tremendous role in some decisive battles during the Korean War (PM me if you want to further discuss it)), but also in terms of semantics. It's call the Canadian Forces, not the Canadian military. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| you wouldn't be in Korea if it weren't for what the Canadians have accomplished here (and, yes, Canada have had a tremendous role in some decisive battles during the Korean War |
That's quite the bit of whoulda shoulda coulda.
And decisive victory in a conflict that has yet to conclude itself is a bit of a stretch. That's not to say that they didn't play a major role.
And that's not to say that Canada's military today should be sneered at. Certainly as capable as a Spain/Italy/Germany/Japan/Korea/Australia/Saudi Arabia/Taiwan. Which is in the tier below the UK/France/Israel/China/India |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrewchon
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Location: Back in Oz. Living in ISIS Aust.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| you wouldn't be in Korea if it weren't for what the Canadians have accomplished here (and, yes, Canada have had a tremendous role in some decisive battles during the Korean War |
That's quite the bit of whoulda shoulda coulda.
And decisive victory in a conflict that has yet to conclude itself is a bit of a stretch. That's not to say that they didn't play a major role.
And that's not to say that Canada's military today should be sneered at. Certainly as capable as a Spain/Italy/Germany/Japan/Korea/Australia/Saudi Arabia/Taiwan. Which is in the tier below the UK/France/Israel/China/India |
Uh... you have listed quite a number of 'untested' units here. Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, Taiwan haven't been battle-tested within living memory. With France, only the Foreign legion is battle-tested. Units that pass parade don't usually pass combat and vice-versa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| you wouldn't be in Korea if it weren't for what the Canadians have accomplished here (and, yes, Canada have had a tremendous role in some decisive battles during the Korean War |
That's quite the bit of whoulda shoulda coulda.
And decisive victory in a conflict that has yet to conclude itself is a bit of a stretch. That's not to say that they didn't play a major role.
And that's not to say that Canada's military today should be sneered at. Certainly as capable as a Spain/Italy/Germany/Japan/Korea/Australia/Saudi Arabia/Taiwan. Which is in the tier below the UK/France/Israel/China/India |
Canadians participated in two particularly decisive battles in early 1951, the battle of Gapyeong and the battle of the Imjin River, contributing to blunting the First Chinese Spring Offensive of late April, 1951. Had the Chinese been successful in capturing their main objective, Seoul, the tide of war would have been greatly different. Moreover, plans had been drawn a few days prior to these two battles to create a nuclear belt between China and South Korea if the Chinese succeeded to capture Seoul. It's not woulda, shoulda, coulda. It's an historical fact.
As for the rest, I won't even bother. I've already shown that you don't know what you're talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| you wouldn't be in Korea if it weren't for what the Canadians have accomplished here (and, yes, Canada have had a tremendous role in some decisive battles during the Korean War |
That's quite the bit of whoulda shoulda coulda.
And decisive victory in a conflict that has yet to conclude itself is a bit of a stretch. That's not to say that they didn't play a major role.
And that's not to say that Canada's military today should be sneered at. Certainly as capable as a Spain/Italy/Germany/Japan/Korea/Australia/Saudi Arabia/Taiwan. Which is in the tier below the UK/France/Israel/China/India |
Canadians participated in two particularly decisive battles in early 1951, the battle of Gapyeong and the battle of the Imjin River, contributing to blunting the First Chinese Spring Offensive of late April, 1951. Had the Chinese been successful in capturing their main objective, Seoul, the tide of war would have been greatly different. Moreover, plans had been drawn a few days prior to these two battles to create a nuclear belt between China and South Korea if the Chinese succeeded to capture Seoul. It's not woulda, shoulda, coulda. It's an historical fact.
As for the rest, I won't even bother. I've already shown that you don't know what you're talking about. |
No no no.
I'm talking about the strategic impact of Canadian units vs. tactical. When I was talking about "decisive" I was talking in the strategic sense vs. the tactical.
Although it may have seemed like I was dismissing Canada by lumping it in with Italy or Japan, that's not the case. Those are solid militaries.
To put it simply- I was saying that while the Canadian military might not have been strategically decisive in Korea, it is nonetheless a first rate military force on par with the most advanced of any non-nuclear, non-high conflict nation.
People saying the Canadian military is a pushover might as well be the "500,000 artillery rounds on Seoul in a sea of fire" crowd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| you wouldn't be in Korea if it weren't for what the Canadians have accomplished here (and, yes, Canada have had a tremendous role in some decisive battles during the Korean War |
That's quite the bit of whoulda shoulda coulda.
And decisive victory in a conflict that has yet to conclude itself is a bit of a stretch. That's not to say that they didn't play a major role.
And that's not to say that Canada's military today should be sneered at. Certainly as capable as a Spain/Italy/Germany/Japan/Korea/Australia/Saudi Arabia/Taiwan. Which is in the tier below the UK/France/Israel/China/India |
Canadians participated in two particularly decisive battles in early 1951, the battle of Gapyeong and the battle of the Imjin River, contributing to blunting the First Chinese Spring Offensive of late April, 1951. Had the Chinese been successful in capturing their main objective, Seoul, the tide of war would have been greatly different. Moreover, plans had been drawn a few days prior to these two battles to create a nuclear belt between China and South Korea if the Chinese succeeded to capture Seoul. It's not woulda, shoulda, coulda. It's an historical fact.
As for the rest, I won't even bother. I've already shown that you don't know what you're talking about. |
No no no.
I'm talking about the strategic impact of Canadian units vs. tactical. When I was talking about "decisive" I was talking in the strategic sense vs. the tactical.
Although it may have seemed like I was dismissing Canada by lumping it in with Italy or Japan, that's not the case. Those are solid militaries.
To put it simply- I was saying that while the Canadian military might not have been strategically decisive in Korea, it is nonetheless a first rate military force on par with the most advanced of any non-nuclear, non-high conflict nation.
People saying the Canadian military is a pushover might as well be the "500,000 artillery rounds on Seoul in a sea of fire" crowd. |
Not strategically important in the Korean War? Are you out of your mind?
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
And, really, are you sure that Canada is a non-nuclear country? Only if you forget the history of the atom bomb, the Cold War, NORAD, and NATO.
Just have a read. It's getting too late for me to bother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Conference,_1943
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/readingroom/factsheets/Canadas-contribution-to-nuclear-weapons-development.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Inventory_of_Canada.E2.80.99s_nuclear_armaments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Continued_cooperation_with_the_US_to_present |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
