I recently had opportunity to recommend the Neti pot to TamaraK as a low impact method for her to alleviate her sinus problems (you'll have to scroll well down the comments). Despite her subsequent confession of sissytude (a condition shared by a surprising - to me - number of others) regarding the general sanctity of nasal passages, I can't help wondering how effective such a device might be as a delivery mechanism for nano-scale medicines?
Granted, only a certain amount of any individual dose would remain inside the sinus cavity (the rest being flushed out along with everything else), but this should allow for a more gradual introduction of the material into the system via absorption through the sinus tissues. Should a more rapid introduction be desired, then an inhaler or direct transfusion would still be viable - if more invasive - options.
Regarding the still-mythical respirocytes hypothesised by Ray Kurzweil, and unlike Phil Bowermaster apparently, I certainly do want the capabilities he mentions whether or not I have any particular "need" for them. I regard such choices as being analogous to the choice provided to US citizens by our constitution's 2nd amendment. The decision to exercise the right isn't predicated on any degree of need; any effort now or in future to restrict such medical options as Kurzweil's respirocytes ought to be as strongly resisted as are infringements on our right to firearms. We are each free to elect not to exercise the right, but no-one should have the blanket authority to impose when or if we may make such a choice for ourselves.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Good Enough
Kevin Baker laments his lack of speed in firing "controlled doubles" at a recent shooting match he attended. In his post, Kevin links to a classic Chris Byrne post that thoroughly explains and illustrates precisely the what and why of the issue. I should also note that I've met Chris and seen him shoot (at the NoR Fest/Conf last year); not only does he clearly understand the difference between a controlled double and a doubletap, he can demonstrate same with depressing regularity and accuracy.
With a brand new, straight-out-of-the-box, never before fired by him 10 mm no less.
Sigh.
All that said, I'm going to argue the position that, outside the bounds of formal competitions like IDPA/IPSC and the like, the standards of performance Chris and Kevin seek to achieve are not entirely realistic for actual pistol gunfights (says the man who is loudly grateful never to have actually had to engage in one).
Lemme 'splain.
Hold your hand in front of you, palm toward you, fingers extended and touching each other. Then make a fist with the thumb resting outside the closed fingers. I should point out that attempting to punch someone with your fist in this configuration will almost certainly result in more damage to your fist then to another's face; also, the area demarcated by your fist (base of the palm to the closed fingers x the thumb knuckle joint to the blade-edge of the palm) is a reasonably accurate simulacrum of the size of your heart. Place your closed fist over the mid-point of your chest and you will have a clear illustration of the target area involved. Now, center the last joint of your little finger on your upper lip and take note of the portion of your face your fist covers.
As part of your next trip to the range, make this same fist but this time extend your arm towards the target you just shot. If the X-round (6, 7, 8, 17?) string you just shot is covered by your extended fist, I'm going to suggest that you did indeed "got him" and that that's more than good enough.
Which is the point underlying this post; just how much and, at least as critically, how fast is "good enough" when your target is another human trying to shoot you and not just a steel plate or piece of paper?
My belief is that one shot "within the fist" on a consistent basis is of greater importance then almost any number of shots placed adjacent to the critical location. Keep in mind the dimensions of an "A" shot as described in Chris' post. The area of my own extended fist is ~ 2.5 inches wide by 4 inches high, considerably smaller then the 6" x 10" area permitted in competition. In a defensive handgun fight, a potentially lethal wound will almost certainly limit the number of return shots you will have time to deliver - which is still really bad news for your opponent.
Especially if we reverse the scenario and you are the opponent.
I contend that, while the averaging effect achieved in IDPA-type competition is an excellent test of a shooter's overall skills, the value of a single well-placed first shot is of overriding importance. Furthermore, if you are capable of consistently placing a shot within the fist on a human chest, you are equally capable of doing so to a human head. Should that be the case (talk about your critical self-analysis!), then for the purposes of a defensive gun fight, if both target areas are equally clear* the head shot ought to be the primary choice. Remember, this is handguns, not rifles, and at a probable distance between shooters of 7 to 10 yards maximum (anything much beyond that range starts to call into question the whole "defensive" aspect of the thing, don'tcha agree? You're gonna get sued anyway, why make it easy for them?).
I choose to carry a 1911 pattern .45 acp semi-auto as my primary weapon, with a S&W 431 PD in .32 H&R Magnum as a pocket/back-up weapon. If you also choose to fire a bullet of lessor mass than a .45/357/44 mag (9 mm or .38 for example) you too will be more likely to find a second shot necessary. I do agree that delivering a follow-up round to the same fist-size area as the first shot within one second of firing that first shot is a realistic objective. You aren't likely to be given more time then that by the other shooter in any case, so the impetus behind Kevin's desire isn't simply confined to seeking competitive advantage in a formal match setting. Now that he too is (will be soon?) carrying concealed, the ramifications of doing so need to be considered as well.
Shooting competitions, practical or otherwise, are structured to emphasise the competitive relationship between the shooters pretty much as a requirement of their design, whatever the practical/defensive intent might also be. If you're going to carry a gun off the range as well as on, I believe you should regularly train to use your weapon to an off-range requirement on a regular basis, in addition to training for any other shooting setting that attracts your interest. Just keep clearly in mind the differing circumstances of your varied interests, that's all, and be careful not to practice one to the exclusion of some other.
*A "clear" target is one that is unobstructed, both in front and behind, along the likely trajectory of the fired bullet.
With a brand new, straight-out-of-the-box, never before fired by him 10 mm no less.
Sigh.
All that said, I'm going to argue the position that, outside the bounds of formal competitions like IDPA/IPSC and the like, the standards of performance Chris and Kevin seek to achieve are not entirely realistic for actual pistol gunfights (says the man who is loudly grateful never to have actually had to engage in one).
Lemme 'splain.
Hold your hand in front of you, palm toward you, fingers extended and touching each other. Then make a fist with the thumb resting outside the closed fingers. I should point out that attempting to punch someone with your fist in this configuration will almost certainly result in more damage to your fist then to another's face; also, the area demarcated by your fist (base of the palm to the closed fingers x the thumb knuckle joint to the blade-edge of the palm) is a reasonably accurate simulacrum of the size of your heart. Place your closed fist over the mid-point of your chest and you will have a clear illustration of the target area involved. Now, center the last joint of your little finger on your upper lip and take note of the portion of your face your fist covers.
As part of your next trip to the range, make this same fist but this time extend your arm towards the target you just shot. If the X-round (6, 7, 8, 17?) string you just shot is covered by your extended fist, I'm going to suggest that you did indeed "got him" and that that's more than good enough.
Which is the point underlying this post; just how much and, at least as critically, how fast is "good enough" when your target is another human trying to shoot you and not just a steel plate or piece of paper?
My belief is that one shot "within the fist" on a consistent basis is of greater importance then almost any number of shots placed adjacent to the critical location. Keep in mind the dimensions of an "A" shot as described in Chris' post. The area of my own extended fist is ~ 2.5 inches wide by 4 inches high, considerably smaller then the 6" x 10" area permitted in competition. In a defensive handgun fight, a potentially lethal wound will almost certainly limit the number of return shots you will have time to deliver - which is still really bad news for your opponent.
Especially if we reverse the scenario and you are the opponent.
I contend that, while the averaging effect achieved in IDPA-type competition is an excellent test of a shooter's overall skills, the value of a single well-placed first shot is of overriding importance. Furthermore, if you are capable of consistently placing a shot within the fist on a human chest, you are equally capable of doing so to a human head. Should that be the case (talk about your critical self-analysis!), then for the purposes of a defensive gun fight, if both target areas are equally clear* the head shot ought to be the primary choice. Remember, this is handguns, not rifles, and at a probable distance between shooters of 7 to 10 yards maximum (anything much beyond that range starts to call into question the whole "defensive" aspect of the thing, don'tcha agree? You're gonna get sued anyway, why make it easy for them?).
I choose to carry a 1911 pattern .45 acp semi-auto as my primary weapon, with a S&W 431 PD in .32 H&R Magnum as a pocket/back-up weapon. If you also choose to fire a bullet of lessor mass than a .45/357/44 mag (9 mm or .38 for example) you too will be more likely to find a second shot necessary. I do agree that delivering a follow-up round to the same fist-size area as the first shot within one second of firing that first shot is a realistic objective. You aren't likely to be given more time then that by the other shooter in any case, so the impetus behind Kevin's desire isn't simply confined to seeking competitive advantage in a formal match setting. Now that he too is (will be soon?) carrying concealed, the ramifications of doing so need to be considered as well.
Shooting competitions, practical or otherwise, are structured to emphasise the competitive relationship between the shooters pretty much as a requirement of their design, whatever the practical/defensive intent might also be. If you're going to carry a gun off the range as well as on, I believe you should regularly train to use your weapon to an off-range requirement on a regular basis, in addition to training for any other shooting setting that attracts your interest. Just keep clearly in mind the differing circumstances of your varied interests, that's all, and be careful not to practice one to the exclusion of some other.
*A "clear" target is one that is unobstructed, both in front and behind, along the likely trajectory of the fired bullet.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
What an ass
Finally got in to see the ass doctor yesterday - mine, not him.
The good news is that my prostate isn't enlarged nor otherwise apparently out of the ordinary and, other than having "a few" polips removed via laser, all else seems to be in reasonably good rectal order, if inordinately breezy still. Great delight was taken from informing me that "this too shall pass".
So, no ass cancer and my general state of health also seems to be much improved. Hard to complain about any of that. I'm still adjusting to the dietary implications of being diabetic, but there's a surprising amount of food goods available for carbohydrate-restricted diets. Weirdly, after not smoking for 14 months now I'm experiencing the urge to smoke. Not to worry, I'm much too cheap to take up the habit again at current prices.
Let's see if I can find something of a more general degree of interest to write about in future. Certainly, some topic that has less to do with the state of my rectal region or other attendant body parts.
The good news is that my prostate isn't enlarged nor otherwise apparently out of the ordinary and, other than having "a few" polips removed via laser, all else seems to be in reasonably good rectal order, if inordinately breezy still. Great delight was taken from informing me that "this too shall pass".
So, no ass cancer and my general state of health also seems to be much improved. Hard to complain about any of that. I'm still adjusting to the dietary implications of being diabetic, but there's a surprising amount of food goods available for carbohydrate-restricted diets. Weirdly, after not smoking for 14 months now I'm experiencing the urge to smoke. Not to worry, I'm much too cheap to take up the habit again at current prices.
Let's see if I can find something of a more general degree of interest to write about in future. Certainly, some topic that has less to do with the state of my rectal region or other attendant body parts.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
There's a lot of that going around it seems
Kim's post regarding health issues yesterday encourages me to expound briefly upon my own tale of woe.
In 2004 I decided to have the Lasik procedure done to my eyes. Part of that process is to have a mapping procedure performed to guide the surgeons efforts. I was actually surprised when the tech wasn't able to get the job done because of the density of the cataracts in my eyes. So, there was my late spring and summer spent with my head in all sorts of contrivances to keep any sort of pressure from my post-op eye. Serially you understand, it being considered prudent to make sure the first effort hasn't blown up before getting started on the other eye.
Anyway, that was '04. The following year the retina in my right eye became partially detached. This resulted in another 10 weeks or so spent not earning money (or doing much of anything else) while things ocular settled into new alignment. Since the year was already a financial wash, and my navel was in serious danger of vanishing entirely, I went ahead and had an abdominal hernia repaired in the early fall.
Sneaking up on spring of 2006 you will no doubt be unsurprised to learn that my other eye's retina started to detach. Some months later I was most pleased with a full recovery with no loss of acuity.
I almost made it through 2007 without further medical deterioration.
Given all of the fore-going, I decided a physical exam might be a good idea. Silly me ... On the one hand, my having lost 65 pounds since last Thanksgiving was encouraging - although my 345 pound start point leaves me with at least as much more to lose. Still, not too bad. The patented "This won't hurt me a bit" finger of thrills resulted in my being scheduled for a colonoscopy exam to take a thorough look at exactly what did crawl up my ass and die. Just what I need, a potential budding case of ass cancer.
In the mean time, just to keep me focused on the physiological conundrum that is my anatomical temple, my doctor wasted no time in informing me (Really! A 5am voicemail from your doctor will focus your attention quite marvelously.) that I also now have a case of type 2 diabetes to guide my latest lifestyle adjustment. If salt wasn't bad for me now, I'd apply to be the new Morton Salt advertising spokesman.
You know, I have to say that this whole New Millenium/Leap into the 21st Century deal has been entirely too underwhelming in my experience so far. With my luck someone will invent a micro robot to crawl up my backside to turn the darkside towards the outside.
Or something equally singular.
In 2004 I decided to have the Lasik procedure done to my eyes. Part of that process is to have a mapping procedure performed to guide the surgeons efforts. I was actually surprised when the tech wasn't able to get the job done because of the density of the cataracts in my eyes. So, there was my late spring and summer spent with my head in all sorts of contrivances to keep any sort of pressure from my post-op eye. Serially you understand, it being considered prudent to make sure the first effort hasn't blown up before getting started on the other eye.
Anyway, that was '04. The following year the retina in my right eye became partially detached. This resulted in another 10 weeks or so spent not earning money (or doing much of anything else) while things ocular settled into new alignment. Since the year was already a financial wash, and my navel was in serious danger of vanishing entirely, I went ahead and had an abdominal hernia repaired in the early fall.
Sneaking up on spring of 2006 you will no doubt be unsurprised to learn that my other eye's retina started to detach. Some months later I was most pleased with a full recovery with no loss of acuity.
I almost made it through 2007 without further medical deterioration.
Given all of the fore-going, I decided a physical exam might be a good idea. Silly me ... On the one hand, my having lost 65 pounds since last Thanksgiving was encouraging - although my 345 pound start point leaves me with at least as much more to lose. Still, not too bad. The patented "This won't hurt me a bit" finger of thrills resulted in my being scheduled for a colonoscopy exam to take a thorough look at exactly what did crawl up my ass and die. Just what I need, a potential budding case of ass cancer.
In the mean time, just to keep me focused on the physiological conundrum that is my anatomical temple, my doctor wasted no time in informing me (Really! A 5am voicemail from your doctor will focus your attention quite marvelously.) that I also now have a case of type 2 diabetes to guide my latest lifestyle adjustment. If salt wasn't bad for me now, I'd apply to be the new Morton Salt advertising spokesman.
You know, I have to say that this whole New Millenium/Leap into the 21st Century deal has been entirely too underwhelming in my experience so far. With my luck someone will invent a micro robot to crawl up my backside to turn the darkside towards the outside.
Or something equally singular.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
urrr, because it's Saturday, I suppose
I'm getting tired of looking at my last "humorous" post, but I'm having serious "2nd Rule of Fight Club" problems just now. I love reading Kim du Toit and consider him a good friend, but I have no desire to copy his course through the employment minefields via bloggery-pokery.
Something will change soon enough, but 'till then ...
Something will change soon enough, but 'till then ...
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Gratis factoid
If you should ever decide to try carrying concealed in an ankle holster, do be certain to first obtain some sort of washable pad to wear between the holster and your flesh. I don't possess the eloquence to fully describe the sensation of standing in a checkout line in a busy store (ie: lots of people around) while a 3 lb-fully-loaded airweight revolver steadily works to turn one's ankle into a perfect circle. Through the force of friction alone. Even while one stands perfectly still.
Trust me, this is an experience to be missed if at all possible.
Other than that, I think I like this form of carry whenever I'm not inclined to wear anything more sturdy then a pair of sweat pants. Which would be most of the time.
Maybe if these NASA science types are right and we get some global cooling going, I might break down and buy a decent shoulder rig.
Trust me, this is an experience to be missed if at all possible.
Other than that, I think I like this form of carry whenever I'm not inclined to wear anything more sturdy then a pair of sweat pants. Which would be most of the time.
Maybe if these NASA science types are right and we get some global cooling going, I might break down and buy a decent shoulder rig.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Want to be a winner?
First, go here. Once there, read this, followed by this. Save them to your bookmarks (or something similar), as you are going to be reviewing and making reference to the subject matter repeatedly. Or not, just trying to make the process a bit less awkward.
On a purely personal note, I despair of ever developing the talent to write so well as this.
Take the time to make the effort to grasp the strategic principles that are variously at work during the process Bill Whittle describes. Use the OODA looping process to refine your focus on a specific application and then to expand your view to include some other aspect of the process. Once again, refine your focus until you have a thorough understanding and then repeat the process again with some other part, and then again and yet again, until you've developed a sufficiently agile grasp of the technique to make practical use of it's principles.
Then, apply the OODA tactic to your own life, with the intention of discovering a better understanding of the influences which control your decision-making and activities. Pick a general area to examine, then begin the refinement of your focus through repetition of the looping process.
At some point you will discover that you have picked the one aspect of your life that you are best positioned at that moment to develop a more positive control over. Then begin the OODA process for making that transition.
Just like I don't study strategy because I like war, mastering Col. Boyd's tactic(s) doesn't require a military calling in life. In fact, I would suggest that the more non-military your life is, the more effective you will find this process to be for making controlled, positive changes in your personal circumstances.
My personal thanks to Bill Whittle for presenting me with an insight as to how to decide when to begin.
On a purely personal note, I despair of ever developing the talent to write so well as this.
Take the time to make the effort to grasp the strategic principles that are variously at work during the process Bill Whittle describes. Use the OODA looping process to refine your focus on a specific application and then to expand your view to include some other aspect of the process. Once again, refine your focus until you have a thorough understanding and then repeat the process again with some other part, and then again and yet again, until you've developed a sufficiently agile grasp of the technique to make practical use of it's principles.
Then, apply the OODA tactic to your own life, with the intention of discovering a better understanding of the influences which control your decision-making and activities. Pick a general area to examine, then begin the refinement of your focus through repetition of the looping process.
At some point you will discover that you have picked the one aspect of your life that you are best positioned at that moment to develop a more positive control over. Then begin the OODA process for making that transition.
Just like I don't study strategy because I like war, mastering Col. Boyd's tactic(s) doesn't require a military calling in life. In fact, I would suggest that the more non-military your life is, the more effective you will find this process to be for making controlled, positive changes in your personal circumstances.
My personal thanks to Bill Whittle for presenting me with an insight as to how to decide when to begin.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
2008
One down, 365 more to go. If it wasn't for the fresh load of hope that's included, it would hardly seem worth the effort, you know?
Oh well, at least brother Brian gets to celebrate his 12th birthday this year!
Oh well, at least brother Brian gets to celebrate his 12th birthday this year!
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
