Cyborgs

Drew · Post by **Drew** » 22 Feb 2008 13:35

Obviously the radiation from <insert> mutated his DNA so that his descendants would have similar or better vision. The first cyborgs? HmmmMMM??

Drew · Post by **Drew** » 22 Feb 2008 13:40

No edit? It should've said,

<insert>: random apocalyptic incident

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 22 Feb 2008 21:49

But seriously, your descendants would very likely also need glasses - and who will provide THEM with glasses (or Lasik) in a post-apocalyptic world?

Man you're right. You Scand's are so smart with your socialized medicine, mandatory military service, and ability to outspell me in my own language. I don't actually know if you guys have mandatory military service, but it seems like a lot of you guys are in the military anyways.

Obviously the radiation from <insert> mutated his DNA so that his descendants would have similar or better vision. The first cyborgs? HmmmMMM??

I was actually just thinking like some kind of world wide economic meltdown when everyone realizes the worlds currency is based on nada. Fuck. I should probably get around to selling the 20 some odd pair sneaker collection that I have while they're still art and not just really dope looking feet coverings.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 22 Feb 2008 21:49

I should probably get around to selling the 20 some odd pair sneaker collection that I have while they're still art and not just really dope looking feet coverings.

And use it to get Lasik!

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 23 Feb 2008 05:50

BainbridgeShred wrote:Man you're right. You Scand's are so smart with your socialized medicine, mandatory military service, and ability to outspell me in my own language. I don't actually know if you guys have mandatory military service, but it seems like a lot of you guys are in the military anyways.

A few things I need to make clear here to you silly, self-centered Americans:
1. Finland isn't Scandinavia, the proper term would be Fennoscandia. Finns belong to the Finno-Ugrian peoples and therefore aren't Scands.
2. The PISA studies clearly show Finnish school kids' intellectual superiority over all the rest, so at least you got that one right.
3. Finland has mandatory military service for all men. For centuries Finns have been known as fearsome fighters. We don't need NATO because we know how to ski, use the legendary motti tactics and the Molotov cocktail (both of which we invented in the Winter War '39-'40). During or after the WWII there were only three European capitals which weren't occupied by hostile forces (among the countries taking part in the action): London, Moscow and Helsinki, the pearl of the Baltic Sea.
4. I use the dictionary.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 23 Feb 2008 12:03

Finland isn't Scandinavia, the proper term would be Fennoscandia. Finns belong to the Finno-Ugrian peoples and therefore aren't Scands.

Ah, so you're Krauts! Do the Swede's look down on you guys? And do you in turn look down on the Norwegians?

2. The PISA studies clearly show Finnish school kids' intellectual superiority over all the rest, so at least you got that one right.

Maybe, but for my buck, if I was, say, ever in a "Knowledge Bowl", I'd still probably pick any Korean girl over you. Chances are she could serenade me on the violin as well.

As far as the Winter War goes, you guys did decent. You were fighting an army whose officer corps has been absolutely decimated by Stalin a year or two prior (50 percent execution rate among Lt. equivilents, more so the higher up you went) but still you guys were outnumbered hella and fought a kickass guerilla war. I don't know what motti tactics are, but I do know that the Molotov cocktail was invented in Spain by the facist's during that civil war.

Basically, you guys did to the USSR what the USSR did to Germany a few years later. You were better prepared for a winter conflict, you were going against a force using tactics from 1918, you were fighting on home turf, you were fighting an enemy whose shots were being called by "political officers" in Moscow, and you were fighting an enemy who had largely grown up in Industrial areas, unlike the Finn's they went up against who nearly all came from the same rural background in which most of the battles were fought. Not to take anything away from your accomplishments though, the fact that you were able to hold off the sheer strength and relitive modernity of the Red Army is absolutely amazing, and probably played a big role in Hitler's decision to go lackadaisy into operation Barbarossa. The Raateneetie incident alone was one of the best, most beautiful examples since Thermopylae of how a small, well trained, fortified force can absolutely wreck shit against an entire infantry division.

You guys also had to serve up the Germans a few years later too, and had even better Kill ratio's than you did against the Soviet's. So yeah, you guys are pretty badass, even if it gets overstated a lot (Not like we don't have the same thing in American military folklore). Just join NATO?

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 23 Feb 2008 12:04

Sorry for the essay. I've been studying WW2 seriously since I was 10 years, and if someone gets me started on it I'll go encyclopedia most of the time.

Anz · Post by **Anz** » 23 Feb 2008 12:40

I think Lauri thought you were being sarcastic... oh how wonderful language barriers are

I need to correct one thing though: I don't know if Molotov coctails were used in the Spanish civil war before the WW2, but it was at least reinvented and named in Finland after the Soviets foreign minister Molotov, who was a complete asshole during the negotiations that led to war.

And statistically Japan did much better than Finland in the pisa research.

And Finland will join the Nato in the future, I saw many signs about it in the military.

BACK TO TOPIC:

Getting a laser surgery doesn't mean you're a cyborg. Neither does using glasses. I don't know if those are on the market yet, but they're at least developing glasses that you can watch TV with. The picture is being projected on the lense. I guess that would make you sort of a cyborg...

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 23 Feb 2008 13:09

BainbridgeShred wrote:Ah, so you're Krauts! Do the Swede's look down on you guys? And do you in turn look down on the Norwegians?

I think both Finns and Norwegians feel inferior to Swedes although we have Nokia and Norwegians have oil.

Maybe, but for my buck, if I was, say, ever in a "Knowledge Bowl", I'd still probably pick any Korean girl over you.

I'd prefer this option as well since I'm heterosexual.

*blah blah Winter War* Just join NATO?

Motti tactics were the tactics used in the battle of Raatteen tie.
Personally I don't take any credit of our military achievements as I wasn't there. The military folklore still lives strong here, and I find it concerning that so many people think the modern warfare would be similar to what it was over 60 years ago. I am for Finland joining NATO for a few reasons:
- our army based on compulsory military service can't really be compared with a highly-trained, professional army
- maintaining a system having mainly only historical value is very expensive (e.g. we bought some old Leopards from NATO country Germany; NATO country Poland bought some too, but got five for the price of one)
- I'd have more but I'm too tired to write them down right now.

Anyways, I've still got my military service ahead and although I may doubt the use of it, I'm going to do my best.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 23 Feb 2008 13:42

I think Lauri thought you were being sarcastic... oh how wonderful language barriers are

As far as the whole apocolypse thing goes, I was being sarcastic... For the most part. I have thought that it would suck if I couldn't get anymore contacts though. I'd just loot the eye doctors honestly.

I need to correct one thing though: I don't know if Molotov coctails were used in the Spanish civil war before the WW2, but it was at least reinvented and named in Finland after the Soviets foreign minister Molotov, who was a complete asshole during the negotiations that led to war.

Well, renaming them Molotov's just because you were pissed at him over the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact doesn't change the fact that they were just Petrol Bomb's which killed as many Russian T-24's in Spain as they did in Finland.

I'd prefer this option as well since I'm heterosexual.

I wont lie, I might even be more attracted to a strapping young Aryan Finn than I would be to a dumpy Korean girl with a violin and killer Hombow recipe. The Hombow recipe probably pushes it a little in her favor. Am I really saying this?

Personally I don't take any credit of our military achievements as I wasn't there. The military folklore still lives strong here, and I find it concerning that so many people think the modern warfare would be similar to what it was over 60 years ago.

Sometimes I replace "you" for "your country" or any other kind of place holder. A country is the manifestation of the individual's within its borders. As you say, the folklore lives strong, and I doubt you can avoid it especially in a situation with mandatory enlistment.

As far as whether or not a world war today would hold the same effects as it did 60 years ago (Which I think is what you were trying to get across in your broken English, absolutely no offense meant), I think you might be overestimating the power of modern technology. Nuclear weapons in the hands of bueracracy are nothing more than bargainaing chips, a deterrent against anyone else using nukes against you. As far as some of the other crazy weapons out there, things really haven't evolved that much in 60 years. Wars are always going to come down to how many boots you have on the ground, and no amount of technology will change that, or atleast it hasn't up until this point. Tanks, guns, bombers, fighters, artillery, carriers, destroyers... Things really haven't changed that much since 1945.

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 24 Feb 2008 00:36

Dan, the problem in the conversations with you is that you say something sarcastic, someone says something sarcastic back, and then you take at least part of it seriously. Man I wish you knew Finnish.

BainbridgeShred wrote:As far as whether or not a world war today would hold the same effects as it did 60 years ago (Which I think is what you were trying to get across in your broken English, absolutely no offense meant), I think you might be overestimating the power of modern technology. Nuclear weapons in the hands of bueracracy are nothing more than bargainaing chips, a deterrent against anyone else using nukes against you. As far as some of the other crazy weapons out there, things really haven't evolved that much in 60 years. Wars are always going to come down to how many boots you have on the ground, and no amount of technology will change that, or atleast it hasn't up until this point. Tanks, guns, bombers, fighters, artillery, carriers, destroyers... Things really haven't changed that much since 1945.

Bullshit. Even not counting the nukes the technology has taken huge leaps. You can call both a Tiger and a Leopard tanks, but they aren't nearly the same.
Finland wouldn't win the Winter War if it was now, not even if it was fought with the same weapons and means. The quality of those standing in the boots isn't the same nowadays.
And I disagree that only the number of the soldiers would win wars today.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 24 Feb 2008 10:54

Dan, the problem in the conversations with you is that you say something sarcastic, someone says something sarcastic back, and then you take at least part of it seriously. Man I wish you knew Finnish.

The WW2 stuff aside, I've been joking the entire time in this thread, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If anything, it is you who might've taken something I said as a serious comment, when it was all in jest. With me, even when I'm freaking out about something, it's usually best to assume that I am doing it for sport.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 24 Feb 2008 11:03

Bullshit. Even not counting the nukes the technology has taken huge leaps. You can call both a Tiger and a Leopard tanks, but they aren't nearly the same.
Finland wouldn't win the Winter War if it was now, not even if it was fought with the same weapons and means. The quality of those standing in the boots isn't the same nowadays.
And I disagree that only the number of the soldiers would win wars today.

So? The T-24 and the Tiger weren't nearly the same as the tanks produced in WW1, but they're still tanks regardless. Sure technology has taken huge leaps, but if we aren't including atomic updates, we aren't especially any more able to cause mass casualties as we were when we were carpet bombing the fuck out of Europe.

I don't even know what the point of talking about whether or not Finland could beat Russia in a war now adays is. And when I say that, I mean I don't even know where you got the idea to bring it up.

I never said that "ONLY" the number of soldiers is going to win a war. This has never been the case for any war in history really. There are always outside factors in battle that either increase or decrease a forces numerical value. The more technology increases, the conventional wisdom goes, the less the individual solider will matter. Now this might be true for the future, but for the moment, in any type of mass conflict, it is still going to come down to the quality and quantity of troops on the battlefield, along with whatever technological support they can get. When I said wars are won by boots on the ground, I was speaking accurately. This doesn't mean that wars are lossed by a lack of boots on the ground, just that without a mass of ground forces you're as good as fucked in any type of real conflict.

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 26 Feb 2008 01:04

BainbridgeShred wrote:The WW2 stuff aside, I've been joking the entire time in this thread, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If anything, it is you who might've taken something I said as a serious comment, when it was all in jest. With me, even when I'm freaking out about something, it's usually best to assume that I am doing it for sport.

Well, aside the WW2 stuff I haven't taken anything else for serious comments. Also, my only serious comments have been about warfare. I don't think there have been any real language barriers here. Only my "broken English" might have caused some.

Sure technology has taken huge leaps, but if we aren't including atomic updates, we aren't especially any more able to cause mass casualties as we were when we were carpet bombing the fuck out of Europe.

You haven't really been following the development of the weapon technology? The progress is going towards more accurate weapons which destroy the object alone and not half the city. Causing mass casualties isn't the primary objective nowadays. And if it was, there still are the old means to that.

I don't even know what the point of talking about whether or not Finland could beat Russia in a war now adays is. And when I say that, I mean I don't even know where you got the idea to bring it up.

Ok, I probably misunderstood what you were saying about the quantity and quality of the troops. Anyways, with the Finland vs Russia statement I meant to criticize the dominating belief in Finland. Here many think that we shouldn't join NATO, but on the other hand we shouldn't put more money in modern military technology, as "there's no country threatening Finland at the moment".

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 26 Feb 2008 11:10

Well, aside the WW2 stuff I haven't taken anything else for serious comments. Also, my only serious comments have been about warfare. I don't think there have been any real language barriers here. Only my "broken English" might have caused some.

Agreed, glad we're on the same frequency. You're English is fine for the most part.

You haven't really been following the development of the weapon technology? The progress is going towards more accurate weapons which destroy the object alone and not half the city. Causing mass casualties isn't the primary objective nowadays. And if it was, there still are the old means to that.

I didn't say mass civilian casualties, but I suppose the carpet bombing example could've been misleading.

Ok, I probably misunderstood what you were saying about the quantity and quality of the troops. Anyways, with the Finland vs Russia statement I meant to criticize the dominating belief in Finland. Here many think that we shouldn't join NATO, but on the other hand we shouldn't put more money in modern military technology, as "there's no country threatening Finland at the moment".

So, what I'm hearing from you is that you think a non-volunteer army is holding your military back?

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 26 Feb 2008 12:04

BainbridgeShred wrote:So, what I'm hearing from you is that you think a non-volunteer army is holding your military back?

Yes. The military technology isn't getting any cheaper, and keeping our military up-to-date will in the future take a bigger and bigger slice of our GNP. Joining NATO wouldn't maybe cost less, but at least we'd get a hell of a lot more for the same amount of money. Then we might still be able to have our "socialized medicine".
Some politicians here, mostly leftist anti-US ones, try to maintain an image that EU would be preparing some kind of defensive alliance. That's just bullshitting people as no other EU countries have such ideas. Some are also afraid about what would Russia do if we joined, like the Cold War was still on and USSR existed.

Lately I've got more personal reasons why I think our army based on conscription isn't a great thing:
I turned 18 on January 14th. I'm not going to explain the whole Finnish school system now, but I went to school a year earlier than I actually should have. (It was ridiculous; just because I was born two weeks "too late" I had to go through a series of psychological tests etc. to find out whether I was "mentally ready" for school or not.)
Years went by, and no trouble at all after passing those tests, until now. My school's out in spring, and I thought I'd do my service right after, just to get it done. Well, as I'm younger than the rest of the guys in my class, I didn't have the draft yet; the others had it last fall. I thought okay, I'd just have to volunteer. I called several times to the staff and asked about these things just to be sure I'd fill my applications properly. Filled them and sent them.
The bomb landed in January: the conscription law had been changed idiotically so that it wasn't possible anymore to volunteer for the service. One exception though: women of my age, to whom it's not mandatory, could still volunteer by March the 1st!
Like, too bad I was born with a penis or two weeks too late.
I'm pissed at the moment because the staff clerks didn't say anything about the change in the law when I called them - they probably didn't know about it themselves.

I'm not planning to go on a military career, but then I thought, what if someone in my situation was? He, a highly motivated soldier-to-be in a good physical form, would, in the worst case, have to spend over a year doing something else before he could start his training. That's just a huge waste of resources. I don't know what our system wants, but at the same time guys supposed to do their compulsory service quit and go home after just two weeks because they can't take it, are Internet addicts or just miss their moms.

Drew · Post by **Drew** » 26 Feb 2008 16:26

I'd be the cyborg from Mortal Kombat, I think its' name was Cyrax?

Yeah, that'd be badass.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 29 Feb 2008 05:28

Nah I am totally waiting for integrated music and video with our brains. Like the internet suggestion but less hacking damage. Basically you think "I'd love to hear this song" and it starts playing only for you. Video the same... skip through anywhere you like. Fukn mad. Give me that chip now baby. Kick ipod's into the ether YEEEAAAH!!!!

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 03 Mar 2008 02:39

james_dean wrote:Nah I am totally waiting for integrated music and video with our brains. Like the internet suggestion but less hacking damage. Basically you think "I'd love to hear this song" and it starts playing only for you. Video the same... skip through anywhere you like. Fukn mad. Give me that chip now baby. Kick ipod's into the ether YEEEAAAH!!!!

I thoroughly agree.

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 03 Mar 2008 03:21

Blue_turnip wrote:
james_dean wrote:Nah I am totally waiting for integrated music and video with our brains. Like the internet suggestion but less hacking damage. Basically you think "I'd love to hear this song" and it starts playing only for you. Video the same... skip through anywhere you like. Fukn mad. Give me that chip now baby. Kick ipod's into the ether YEEEAAAH!!!!
I thoroughly agree.

So does the Communist Party of China.