Warp Spider

I think it really depends on where the other person is with respect to you. Some positions it's hard to punch from, others it may be hard to kick or stomp from.

Well, I did read the thread, but it seemed most people were suggesting that his physical body would somehow affect his capabilities within the matrix. At the end of the first movie I don't think Neo could be harmed. he seemed to be pretty much omnipotent at that point. Personally I don't think they should have continued the series, on account of the logical problem with the omniscience and all. But that's just my opinion.

I find your lack of faith disturbing... Muahahaha!

20 pages to explain how an atomic bomb works? Geez, that could be explained in under 20 sentances. Anyways, my favourite book would probrably have to be Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. (I think I spelled that more or less right.) Compleat Cat by Cleveland Amory was neat as well.

I'd say meet the person with some backup. Classic pincering movement, with a sniper team if availible. If that's not availible, just stick with the pincer. It's a very good manuever that can be used with either armed or unarmed troops. One pincer can be brought around to cut off retreat, or you can use them to flank your enemy and force them to split up their fire. Trust me, being surrounded generally means you're screwed.

Well, I would feel uncomfortable hitting a girl that I thought was attractive, (only with my fists though, knives or guns would leave no qualms with me) but fortunately, the girls I consider attractive are not likely to be capable of causing me any serious harm, at least unarmed. (I don't mean to be sexist, it's just that the sort of girls I find attractive are generally very petite and usually only about 110 pounds) If it was an ugly, fat or "butch" girl, I'd definately have no qualms about it.

Well, this debate has been going on for quite a while, so I thought I'd add my opinion: I don't think that martial arts are related in any way to religeon, though I recognize that historically the two may have gone hand in hand. That doesn't necessarily mean they are related though. You can have one without the other as far as I am concerned, even if historically that has not tended to be the case.

I saw a documentary on the Shaolin Monks, and although it's probrably not all that accurate a depiction I'm sure, they still didn't look like all they're cracked up to be. They train a lot, but I think that Shaolin Kung Fu has fallen behind the other arts as far as R&D goes.

Darth Vader! He'd do good in MMA, if he were real.

Umm, I don't think some of you understood the premise behind the movie. All people's representation in "the matrix" could do ANYTHING so long as their real brain could grasp that concept. That's what made Neo "the One," because he finally understood the nature of the matrix and that's why he was all super-powerful-like. It's a lot like the lock-step networking architecture. If you've seen the massive amount of cheating that took place online in the original Diablo, you can see the concept illustrated quite clearly. If a malicious user's computer claims their character has a million hit points, it does. The collective game state is the amalgamation of decisions made by the various computers in it. Likewise, the matrix was not a simulation run by the computers. It was more like a collective conciousness formed by all of the people who were connected to it... like one of those "continuing stories" threads. In the matrix, if a user decides that something happened, it did. It's the mental conditioning from being in the matrix their entire life that prevented people from harnessing that to it's full potential. So, the short answer is, yes, if Neo thinks he can kick high (really believes it, you can't just fake believing it) then he can. So, if an appropriate program were downloaded to make him a good martial artist, he would be, but only in the matrix. He would still know how to do the move in "real life," but he would not be good in real life. In the matrix, it's all mental, and your physical manifestation means nothing.

I don't really like goldberg or chris benoit, however, I think they would have a serious chance against the gracies. Not because of any special ability in grappling, but merely the fact that they're really big and strong. It would be difficult to maintain a hold on nearly any WWE "superstar" because they are very strong and athletic and could "brute force" their way out of nearly any hold. Most BJJ holds and grappling moves (to my knowledge) are based mostly around using your weight and using mechanical advantage (leverage) to manipulate the other person's body. But, when you're talking about guys that can lift 300 pounds with one arm, you have to question how effective something like an armbar would really be. It would be about the equivalent of a full-grown man fighting a 12 year old boy. Even though the boy may have a lot more skill, I think that the man would still have a shot. Likewise I think that goldberg would have a serious chance, even without any real grappling experience.

Actually most bullets I think travel faster than sound, but that's not the point. Like Jerrylove said, at that kind of range, a knife or sword is just as effective. You can't really block a knife either, except by taking it in the arm instead of a more vital area, but you can do the same thing to a (relatively low powered) gun. Having said that, I am a big proponent of guns, though I don't think it's fair to say that at that kind of range that other weapons would be no good against it. If it were a submachinegun, shotgun, or other weapon intended for CQB combat then it would probrably be equivalent, but I think a knife is just as good, possibly better, than a handgun if you're at very close range.

I would say the octagon is better, because of the better grip and the increased likelyhood of drawing blood. Really though it's a matter of preference, I think.

I don't think it's fair to say that using a gun requires no skill. I mean, granted, anyone can point the thing at a person and pull the trigger, which does work pretty good, (but is not ideal) but by the same logic anyone can point a sword at someone and stab, which also works pretty good. (but is not ideal) Certainately I'll agree that guns are an easier weapon to become proficient with, but at close ranges I think a person with no weapons experience would be equally effective with a gun, or a sword, or a bo staff, or a sai, or what-have-you.

I realize that the tiger/dog example is an extreme one, but I still think it's good because it's very difficult to quantitively measure tactical ability. Similarly, the difference in physical ability may not be immediately obvious. I chose those because it's clear that a tiger is a much larger and stronger animal, while an attack dog is likely to have some formal training.

It's actually from a statistic, but it's a misleading one. Most people who draw a gun to defend themselves get disarmed and have the gun used against them. Anti-gun activists would have you believe that this is somehow a fault of the gun. In reality, it is because the person who is defending themselves tries to just discourage the attacker with the gun and doesn't have the balls to pull the trigger, even when the attacker grabs at the gun. I think that's where the myth about weapons getting taken away from you comes from.

I agree that it is always possible, more or less for a smaller opponent to take down a larger opponent, but example was to illustrate that twice the tactical capability is not a match for twice the size. A man with a rock could definately defeat a person with a gun, but they would require fantastic tactics to do so. Likewise, the amount of training (skill) that a dog would require to take down a tiger would be phenomenal. The tiger's about 6 times as large, but you would have to train the dog for hundreds of times as long as you trained the tiger for it to have a ghost of a chance. Similarly, a person with a gun and two weeks training would likely have an extreme advantage over a person who had spent even 25 years training with a rock. That's why I say that tactics isn't a linear progression like that.

This is a difficult subject to discuss because laws vary and there are people on this forum from all over the world. It would likely be this part that would get you in trouble though, not your words: Generally under self-defense laws you can't pummel a person in response to an attack. You can only do moves to prevent yourself from being harmed. If the other guy claims that he took the one swing and then decided against further conflict, there's really not much you can do, unless you can somehow prove that he would have continued attacking. (Which you can't really prove in any way.) To a large extent, it's not about who starts the fight, but more about who ends it.

Disco kicks butt.

I like it when it gets all rainy, but we never get hurricanes here, only tornadoes. Whenever there's a big storm I like to run around outside cackling. Rain kicks butt!

I think that it is the opposite. Both must be balanced, but I feel that strength is a more or less linear progression (twice as strong, twice the fighter) while tactics reaches a definite diminishing returns issue. If you are 200 pounds and the other guy is 600, having three times the tactical prowess will not save you. If the sizes are close, tactics makes all the difference. If one person is moderately larger, tactics can play a lesser, but still significant role. The greater the difference in sizes, however, the less effective better tactics become. An assault rifle will never penetrate a tank's armor, no matter how good of shot you are or how well your attack is planned. That's an extreme example, but I hope you see my point. No matter how well trained, an attack dog would be food to a full-grown Bengal Tiger. Likewise, no human, regardless of skill level, could defeat a large bear in unarmed combat. (Some people have been said to wrestle bears, but that doesn't mean they killed the bear with their bare hands, they just frustrated the crap out of it by playing defense until it got so annoyed it stopped fighting and walked away.) Again, I do think that tactics are important, because usually the size difference will not be that much, but I do think that it's innacurate to say that tactics do not suffer from diminishing returns. Also, having said all that, there isn't much you can do about your size (though you can work out, you are unlikely to triple your weight anytime soon.) so tactics is probrably a better area to practice, unless you are already an accomplished tactitian.

I've tried this, it is quite difficult to grab a person's corotid artery/arteries when they are resisting. A RNC is far easier to apply.

Actually, both are designed to be easily "fixable" in case something like that happens to them. The mask you can just blow in after you put it back on and it will flush out all the water. The regulator will not fill with water if it is knocked off, as you have to create a vacuum on the outlet to open the valves within it. So, the short version is, you can take off the mask and regulator, let them fill with water, put them back on, then just blow in the mouthpiece and everything will be back to normal. The best thing to do would be to press the emergency inflation on the persons vest, which will cause the person to become very bouyant very quickly.

If that farmer had finished off the second guy he probrably would have gotten off easier. A lawyer told me once that if you severely injure a person, you might as well finish the job, as "dead men tell no tales."

Well, if the swords are properly restrained it wouldn't be a problem. I keep a compact assaultrifle and 7.62mm High Powered Rifle in my bedrooms, along with a 9mm handgun, but my nephew (who lives with me) knows full well not to go in there.