81–90 of 91 posts
(define (get) (get1 (quote ()) (read)))(define (get1 b r) (if (eof-object? r) (reverse b) (get1 (cons r b) (read))))(define (put) (put1 (quote ()) (read-char)))(define (put1 b r) (if (eof-object? r) (list->string (reverse b)) (if (char=? #\) r) (put1 (cons #\. (cons #\. (cons r b))) (read-char)) (put1 (cons r b) (read-char)))))(define (final lis) (if (null? lis) lis (final1 (car lis) (cdr lis))))(define (final1 f r)…
Seems legit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The mythologizing of the Samurai, their honor-above-reason mentality" Agreed, I was focussing more on the not tactically advantageous, rather than ascribing an honour code per se. It is generally a good idea to agree weapons beforehand, it helps keep the battlefield survivable. The 20th century wasn't known for it's 'honour' but WW2 combatants did refrain from using chemical weapons for example, and nukes were never…
More like fear of reprisal than honor. Chemical and nuclear weapons are very hard to defend your civilian population from. Mutual Assured Destruction has worked so far but I wouldn’t call it an honor code.
I wasn't thinking MAD specifically, although I'm aware of at least one example where Russian early warning picked up an incoming object that appeared to them to be a missile, and they didn't respond, which seems very un MAD. I was thinking of the proxy wars, Vietnam, Korea, etc. I'm not even sure the threat of nuclear attack was used. I suppose you could say that's part of MAD (not attacking allies), if that were the case, wouldn't the same reasoning extend to not fighting them in the first place, in the same way there were never any conventional wars between Russia and the US?
So agreed it is mainly about self preservation, but I would say it goes a little further than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been mulling the cause and effect mentioned in your comment. Poor quality steel -> heavy -> 2 handed. I don't ever recall seeing a 2 handed bronze sword, and if the steel is worse than bronze, why didn't they go back to that? Which kind of suggests that it isn't. I'm assuming low quality steel is overly soft rather than overly brittle. If it were overly soft wouldn't that favour shorter blades? You'd either get…
> I don't ever recall seeing a 2 handed bronze sword, and if the steel is worse than bronze, why didn't they go back to that? Bronze fell out of use not because iron/steel was better but because tin was rare and hard to come by. So, I'm not sure of the exact answer to your question but I suspect it's some version of "because they couldn't".
Gold is rare and expensive, but you see the same thing, with people displaying it all the more.
So unless their supply of tin was literally completely cut off, which I don't know for sure, but would be very surprised if it were.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm bored and we are on a site called hacker news; anyone want to join me on de-obfuscating this code?
Here's the best I could do at formatting and reading/commenting it, so far: ;; Usage: (get) ;; Parse the entirety of stdin as a sequence of s-expressions. Return ;; that list of expressions. ;; ;; The definition of this function is a little contrived, because in ;; lisp it's simpler to prepend to a list than to append to it, which ;; would be the natural thing to do. So instead, we build the list ;; such that it is b…
(+ 6 (*).... 2 3 2 3)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is also why the Jedi (at least in the earlier films) use two hands to hold their lightsabers. It's the Japanese style. Of course, Samurai swords were two-handed because they were heavy, due to the poor quality of steel available. A light saber "blade" would presumably weigh nothing, so it would make more sense to hold it one handed like a, well, saber. A master of the more technologically advanced European saber…
I've been mulling the cause and effect mentioned in your comment. Poor quality steel -> heavy -> 2 handed. I don't ever recall seeing a 2 handed bronze sword, and if the steel is worse than bronze, why didn't they go back to that? Which kind of suggests that it isn't. I'm assuming low quality steel is overly soft rather than overly brittle. If it were overly soft wouldn't that favour shorter blades? You'd either get…
I think there are a lot of ways to not get it right with steel. In a sword hardness and toughness are in conflict. You really want a sword with a hard edge and a tough back. Which implies differing amounts of carbon and temper. Not only that but the grain is very important as well.
A common European way of sword making was to carburize iron rods/wire and then forge weld those into a sword. The outer layer is hard steel which is strong. The inner core is milder tougher. Japanese achieved the same by folding and forge welding. I think there are were a lot of ways to do this but labor intensive, highly skilled work where if you goofed or the starting material was off the result was crummy.
> I got the impression 2 handed swords/no shield was an honour thing,
Not an expert either but I think 2 handed were symbolic/ceremonial/rank artifacts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and the occasional mortal duel. Duels under Tokugawa were forbidden and punishable by death of both opponents. The only fighting that samurai could see was terrorizing of unarmed peasants. Samurai were not warriors in European sense but more of a mob enforcers. Good for terrorizing peasants not really fit for fighting in any military sense. During Meiji when peasants got professional military training and leadershi…
That is during the Shogunate. Before the unification, The samurai were involved with actual on field battles.
Also if you look at any Japanese castle (Himeji had been well preserved by US Bomber Command for navigational purposes) you will quickly realize that any continental army will take at most a week to dry it's moats and dig mines under it's wall. Fortunately Japan never had seen invading army on its soil.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yumi
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_bow
This samurai / bushido hype is so much out of proportion and simply untrue.
While in the same time real history of Asia is full of military class of exceptional value. Indian Rajput, Islamic Gunpowder Empires, Malays, Mongols - to name just a few
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Empires
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malacca_Sultanate
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is during the Shogunate. Before the unification, The samurai were involved with actual on field battles.
Mostly using arrows not swords. But yumi is inferior weapon compared to reflexive bow used by Chinese, Korean, Mongol or Turkic soldiers. Also if you look at any Japanese castle (Himeji had been well preserved by US Bomber Command for navigational purposes) you will quickly realize that any continental army will take at most a week to dry it's moats and dig mines under it's wall. Fortunately Japan never had seen inva…
If Japan was suddenly in the continent, I am sure they would have to compete and modify their war society like the rest did. But the root aesthetics would be the same.
If anyone lives in London and would like to investigate how the ancient sword arts of japan tie into meditation, I highly recommend http://battodo-fudokan.co.uk/
I did tameshigiri for the second time last night. Speaking as someone who regularly practiced zazen for 15 years it is an incredibly Zen meditative experience!
"In taking a step, it is the weight rolling smoothly and the next step arising. In breathing in completely, it is this breath. In breathing out completely, it is this breath. In life, it is this life. Zanshin means complete follow through, leaving no trace. It means each thing, completely, as it is."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm bored and we are on a site called hacker news; anyone want to join me on de-obfuscating this code?
Here's the best I could do at formatting and reading/commenting it, so far: ;; Usage: (get) ;; Parse the entirety of stdin as a sequence of s-expressions. Return ;; that list of expressions. ;; ;; The definition of this function is a little contrived, because in ;; lisp it's simpler to prepend to a list than to append to it, which ;; would be the natural thing to do. So instead, we build the list ;; such that it is b…
(defun)... square (number) (*).. number number
I guess we've a new syntax for any LISP