I think after reading the opening post about one hundred and thirty two times to over analyze every line of it for each ounce of flavor it could possibly have I have decided to

##Lynch Vernon

Several interesting possibilities out there. I feel some are avoiding the topic at hand. So thinking back to what I know about the avoidance theory. Approach-avoidance conflicts occur when there is one goal or event that has both positive and negative effects or characteristics that make the goal appealing and unappealing simultaneously. For example, marriage is a momentous decision that has both positive and negative aspects. The positive aspects, or approach portion, of marriage might be considered togetherness, sharing memories, and companionship while the negative aspects, or avoidance portions, might include financial considerations, arguments, and difficulty with in-laws. The negative effects of the decision help influence the decision maker to avoid the goal or event, while the positive effects influence the decision maker to want to approach or proceed with the goal or event. The influence of the negative and positive aspects create a conflict because the decision maker has to either proceed toward the goal or avoid the goal altogether. For example, the decision maker might approach proposing to a partner with excitement because of the positive aspects of marriage. On the other hand, he or she might avoid proposing due to the negative aspects of marriage.

The decision maker might initiate approach toward the goal, but as awareness of the negative factors increases, the desire to avoid the goal may arise, producing indecision. If there are competing feelings to a goal, the stronger of the two will triumph. For instance, if a woman was thinking of starting a business she would be faced with positive and negative aspects. Before actually starting the business, the woman would be excited about the prospects of success for the new business and she would encounter (approach) the positive aspects first: she would attract investors, create interest in her upcoming ideas and it would be a new challenge. However, as she drew closer to actually launching the business, the negative aspects would become more apparent; the woman would acknowledge that it would require much effort, time, and energy from other aspects of her life. The increase in strength of these negative aspects (avoidance) would cause her to avoid the conflict or goal of starting the new business, which might result in indecision. Research pertaining to approach and avoidance conflicts has been extended into implicit motives, both abstract and social in nature.

I feel Vern is still a nice play for the day. I will check back in later to see if anymore evidence presents itself for an intelligent discussion

itsbrianyay @ 9/9/2016 9:52

c'mon guys, the gun is obviously not real. he didn't shoot Buffy.

That brings up a good point.

Actually, the Second Amendment is faaaar more complex than that and the "fighting a corrupt government" was actually a far smaller rationale (behind having an armed militia for hunting down escaped slaves). The key was, since the country did not have a standing army, the militia *needed* to be armed (thus the actual 2nd amendment discussing a well-regulated militia). The militia is actually defined earlier in the big C (Article I Section 8) and so that's where the concept comes from. The idea of if the government's britches get too big then we can gun them down was a side discussion, mainly among anti-Federalists who didn't want the big C in the first place.

I still support a Federal registration, licensing, and recurrent training system myself, specifically with endorsements allowing you to have additional weapons/capabilities based on additional training/potential medicals/psych evals, etc. Want to have full auto capability? Go for that endorsement. Concealed carry in any state? Federal preemption handles that little issue, as long as you have the CCW endorsement on your license.

The idea around this system is that registration and recurrent training changes the *culture* around guns. I was not allowed to touch a firearm until I had gun safety practically beaten into me- if my old Scoutmaster had seen how some of the Open Carry idiots act he'd be whooping their ass and taking their weapons from them for being unsafe dumbasses. A lot of accidental and intentional shootings would be reduced by the mere fact of changing how people think about and treat guns. Recurrent training would keep things fresh in people's minds and promote the culture. It would also as a side benefit provide a lot of jobs to gun trainers, which would be a great post-military job with decent pay.


in addition- those gang bangers with the guns (the so-called outlaws who have guns when they are outlawed) would have federal firearms violations tacked on to their cases- Al Capone wasn't taken down for the St Valentine's Day Massacre, but for tax violations.

spindoctor02 @ 9/9/2016 10:03

I agree 100%

You seem confident in your decision to agree.

The overconfidence effect is a well-established bias in which a person's subjective confidence in his or her judgments is reliably greater than the objective accuracy of those judgments, especially when confidence is relatively high. Overconfidence is one example of a miscalibration of subjective probabilities. Throughout the research literature, overconfidence has been defined in three distinct ways: overestimation of one's actual performance; overplacement of one's performance relative to others; and overprecision in expressing unwarranted certainty in the accuracy of one's beliefs.

The most common way in which overconfidence has been studied is by asking people how confident they are of specific beliefs they hold or answers they provide. The data show that confidence systematically exceeds accuracy, implying people are more sure that they are correct than they deserve to be. If human confidence had perfect calibration, judgments with 100% confidence would be correct 100% of the time, 90% confidence correct 90% of the time, and so on for the other levels of confidence. By contrast, the key finding is that confidence exceeds accuracy so long as the subject is answering hard questions about an unfamiliar topic. For example, in a spelling task, subjects were correct about 80% of the time, whereas they claimed to be 100% certain. Put another way, the error rate was 20% when subjects expected it to be 0%. In a series where subjects made true-or-false responses to general knowledge statements, they were overconfident at all levels. When they were 100% certain of their answer to a question, they were wrong 20% of the time

Dylan @ 9/9/2016 10:09

I have arrived. What did I miss? Which one of my pals wants to give me the rundown?

Basically to this point it has been pretty chaotic. That reminds me of another subject.

Chaos theory is an area of deterministic dynamics proposing that seemingly random events can result from normal equations because of the complexity of the systems involved. In IT (information technology), chaos theory has applications in many areas including networking, big data analytics, fuzzy logic, business intelligence (BI), marketing, game theory, systems thinking, predictive analytics and social networking.

In a scientific context, the word chaos has a slightly different meaning than it does in its general usage as a state of confusion, lacking any order. Chaos, with reference to chaos theory, refers to an apparent lack of order in a system that nevertheless obeys particular laws or rules; this understanding of chaos is synonymous with dynamical instability, a condition discovered by the physicist Henri Poincare in the early 20th century that refers to an inherent lack of predictability in some physical systems.

The two main components of chaos theory are the idea that systems - no matter how complex they may be - rely upon an underlying order, and that very simple or small systems and events can cause very complex behaviors or events. This latter idea is known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions, a circumstance discovered by Edward Lorenz (who is generally credited as the first experimenter in the area of chaos) in the early 1960s.

Lorenz, a meteorologist, was running computerized equations to theoretically model and predict weather conditions. Having run a particular sequence, he decided to replicate it. Lorenz reentered the number from his printout, taken half-way through the sequence, and left it to run. What he found upon his return was, contrary to his expectations, these results were radically different from his first outcomes. Lorenz had, in fact, entered not precisely the same number, .506127, but the rounded figure of .506. According to all scientific expectations at that time, the resulting sequence should have differed only very slightly from the original trial, because measurement to three decimal places was considered to be reasonably precise. Because the two figures were considered to be almost the same, the results should have likewise been similar.

Since repeated experimentation proved otherwise, Lorenz concluded that the slightest difference in initial conditions - beyond human ability to measure - made prediction of past or future outcomes impossible, an idea that violated the basic conventions of physics. As the famed physicist Richard Feynman pointed out, "Physicists like to think that all you have to do is say, these are the conditions, now what happens next?"

Newtonian laws of physics are completely deterministic: they assume that, at least theoretically, precise measurements are possible, and that more precise measurement of any condition will yield more precise predictions about past or future conditions. The assumption was that - in theory, at least - it was possible to make nearly perfect predictions about the behavior of any physical system if measurements could be made precise enough, and that the more accurate the initial measurements were, the more precise would be the resulting predictions.

Poincare discovered that in some astronomical systems (generally consisting of three or more interacting bodies), even very tiny errors in initial measurements would yield enormous unpredictability, far out of proportion with what would be expected mathematically. Two or more identical sets of initial condition measurements - which according to Newtonian physics would yield identical results - in fact, most often led to vastly different outcomes. Poincare proved mathematically that, even if the initial measurements could be made a million times more precise, that the uncertainty of prediction for outcomes did not shrink along with the inaccuracy of measurement but remained huge. Unless initial measurements could be absolutely defined - an impossibility - predictability for complex - chaotic - systems performed scarcely better than if the predictions had been randomly selected from possible outcomes.

The butterfly effect, first described by Lorenz at the December 1972 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., vividly illustrates the essential idea of chaos theory. In a 1963 paper for the New York Academy of Sciences, Lorenz had quoted an unnamed meteorologist's assertion that, if chaos theory were true, a single flap of a single seagull's wings would be enough to change the course of all future weather systems on the earth.

By the time of the 1972 meeting, he had examined and refined that idea for his talk, "Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?" The example of such a small system as a butterfly being responsible for creating such a large and distant system as a tornado in Texas illustrates the impossibility of making predictions for complex systems; despite the fact that these are determined by underlying conditions, precisely what those conditions are can never be sufficiently articulated to allow long-range predictions.

Although chaos is often thought to refer to randomness and lack of order, it is more accurate to think of it as an apparent randomness that results from complex systems and interactions among systems. According to James Gleick, author of Chaos: Making a New Science, chaos theory is "a revolution not of technology, like the laser revolution or the computer revolution, but a revolution of ideas. This revolution began with a set of ideas having to do with disorder in nature: from turbulence in fluids, to the erratic flows of epidemics, to the arrhythmic writhing of a human heart in the moments before death. It has continued with an even broader set of ideas that might be better classified under the rubric of complexity."

I believe BOC qualifies

Simple Definition of inactive
: not doing things that require physical movement and energy : not exercising
: not involved in the activities of a group or organization
: no longer being used : not currently being used

##unlynch Vern

##Lynch BOC

Christian @ 9/9/2016 13:45

This Boc train is taking off a bit too fast for my liking. :P ## lynch Wikey

Interesting because,

A locomotive or engine is a rail transport vehicle that provides the motive power for a train. The word originates from the Latin loco – "from a place", ablative of locus, "place" + Medieval Latin motivus, "causing motion", and is a shortened form of the term locomotive engine, first used in the early 19th century to distinguish between mobile and stationary steam engines.

A locomotive has no payload capacity of its own, and its sole purpose is to move the train along the tracks. In contrast, some trains have self-propelled payload-carrying vehicles. These are not normally considered locomotives, and may be referred to as multiple units, motor coaches or railcars. The use of these self-propelled vehicles is increasingly common for passenger trains, but rare for freight (see CargoSprinter). Vehicles which provide motive power to haul an unpowered train, but are not generally considered locomotives because they have payload space or are rarely detached from their trains, are known as power cars.

Traditionally, locomotives pulled trains from the front. However, push-pull operation has become common, where the train may have a locomotive (or locomotives) at the front, at the rear, or at each end

##Unlynch Boc

##Lynch Henry_42

For being a complete dumbass.

dumbass
Someone who looks up the word "dumbass" in a dictionary.
If you don't know what a dumbass is you're really a fucking dumbass.