• Re: xkcd: Range Safety

    From Paul S Person@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Fri Jan 5 08:17:58 2024
    XPost: rec.arts.comics.strips

    On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 17:33:14 -0600, Lynn McGuire
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    xkcd: Range Safety
    https://xkcd.com/2876/

    I am fairly sure that I have never met a Range Danger Officer.

    Or a Range Mischief Officer?

    Explained at:
    https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2876
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dorothy J Heydt@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Jan 9 15:39:48 2024
    XPost: rec.arts.comics.strips

    In article <un7f7r$3qsri$[email protected]>,
    Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
    xkcd: Range Safety
    https://xkcd.com/2876/

    I am fairly sure that I have never met a Range Danger Officer.

    Explained at:
    https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2876

    [Hal Heydt]
    G. Harry Stine in his book _Rocket Power and Space Flight_ cited
    the time a range saftey officer borrowed a rifle from a guard and
    shot holes in the tanks of Viking rocket. After that incident,
    tanks had targets painted on them to show where to shoot should
    the problem recur.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Lurndal@21:1/5 to Kevrob on Tue Jan 9 16:31:57 2024
    Kevrob <[email protected]> writes:
    On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:51:38=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt w= >rote:
    In article <un7f7r$3qsri$[email protected]>,
    Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:=20
    xkcd: Range Safety=20
    https://xkcd.com/2876/=20
    =20
    I am fairly sure that I have never met a Range Danger Officer.=20
    =20
    Explained at:=20
    https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2876
    [Hal Heydt]=20
    G. Harry Stine in his book _Rocket Power and Space Flight_ cited=20
    the time a range saftey officer borrowed a rifle from a guard and=20
    shot holes in the tanks of Viking rocket. After that incident,=20
    tanks had targets painted on them to show where to shoot should=20
    the problem recur.

    I always liked Frank Thorne's "Danger Rangerette."

    https://www.lastdodo.com/en/items/784737-the-erotic-worlds-of-frank-thorne-= >5

    Then there was Nick Danger....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul S Person@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 9 08:50:22 2024
    On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 18:17:26 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 4:33:20?PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
    xkcd: Range Safety
    https://xkcd.com/2876/

    I am fairly sure that I have never met a Range Danger Officer.

    I'm sure you're correct. I suppose the joke is that the English
    language makes it possible to combine words so that it's
    as easy to express nonsensical concepts, like a "Range
    Danger Officer", as it is to express sensible ones, like a
    "Range Safety Officer".

    Perhaps they think the situation would be improved if we
    started speaking Navajo instead of English?

    That almost sounds like an implicit claim that German could never form
    such a word for some reason.

    But, as I am not a native speaker of German, I do not feel like
    commenting further.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Koenig@21:1/5 to Paul S Person on Tue Jan 9 19:56:47 2024
    Paul S Person <[email protected]d> schrieb:
    On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 18:17:26 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 4:33:20?PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
    xkcd: Range Safety
    https://xkcd.com/2876/

    I am fairly sure that I have never met a Range Danger Officer.

    I'm sure you're correct. I suppose the joke is that the English
    language makes it possible to combine words so that it's
    as easy to express nonsensical concepts, like a "Range
    Danger Officer", as it is to express sensible ones, like a
    "Range Safety Officer".

    Perhaps they think the situation would be improved if we
    started speaking Navajo instead of English?

    That almost sounds like an implicit claim that German could never form
    such a word for some reason.

    "safety officer" could usually be "Sicherheitsbeauftragter"
    (person charged with safety), but because this is term with
    legal meaning, it would usually not be concatenated with another
    word - if specification was required, it would be something like "Sicherheitsoffizier des Raketenschießplatzes" or whatever the
    correct translation of "range" would be.

    The "danger officer" would best be translated as
    "Unsicherheitsbeauftragter", the person charged with absence
    of security.

    But, as I am not a native speaker of German, I do not feel like
    commenting further.

    Done ;-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Christian Weisgerber@21:1/5 to Quadibloc on Wed Jan 10 16:08:59 2024
    On 2024-01-10, Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:

    The reference is to the fact that Navajo is one of quite a number of languages which has an "evidentiary system". That is, if you assert
    a fact, the grammatical forms you must use will indicate if this
    is something you saw, something you heard about from someone
    else, something that is general knowledge, and so on.

    This has led to assertions that Navajo is a language that it is
    impossible to tell lies with.

    That's frightfully naive. Obviously a Navajo speaker can _lie_
    about the evidentiality of an assertion.

    --
    Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [email protected]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris Buckley@21:1/5 to Quadibloc on Wed Jan 10 21:13:03 2024
    On 2024-01-10, Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:30:09 AM UTC-7, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
    On 2024-01-10, Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:

    The reference is to the fact that Navajo is one of quite a number of
    languages which has an "evidentiary system". That is, if you assert
    a fact, the grammatical forms you must use will indicate if this
    is something you saw, something you heard about from someone
    else, something that is general knowledge, and so on.

    This has led to assertions that Navajo is a language that it is
    impossible to tell lies with.

    That's frightfully naive. Obviously a Navajo speaker can _lie_
    about the evidentiality of an assertion.

    Yes, that's true. But perhaps it might be realistic to say that
    languages with evidentiary systems make it a bit easier for
    liars to get tripped up. Although, come to think of it, surely
    in nearly every lie told in English, there is an intended
    evidentiality even if it's not expressed verbally in it, so why
    should an evidentiality system even manage to achieve
    that?

    Absent an evidentiality system in English, it wasn't clear
    that I wasn't really making this claim about Navajo, I
    was just repeating a claim that some people made
    about it.

    I think somewhere along the way there was confusion between the
    definitions or usage of "lie" and "deceive". You can "lie" in any
    language; what makes the evidentiary languages different is the
    difficulty to "deceive". It's much harder to say things that are
    literally true, but intended to create a false impression in the
    listener.

    Chris

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)