The silence is so... LOUD! [::)]

Anyone else here ever hear a really loud constant, sometimes almost unbearable noise in their ears when sitting in an extremely quiet room or car?

What's the name for that? I remember reading a Wikipedia article on it some time ago but now I forget what it's called.

Pretty weird though isn't it?


  • Sorry, I can't hear you. Maybe we need some soothing music. Rage against the Machine or something in that genre...
  • I guess if there's no one talking, you don't hear it either. We need a contest with the prize being a trip to Madagascar or Nebraska - somewhere none of us have ever (boldly) gone. I'm sure they have hula dancers there with the lei's, grass skirts, etc. (maybe not in the Winter)

    We've got a nice environment. But, we are here along with MOG and Cyclo. Where's Lester, BeegD, Domat, and some of the other rabble-rousers that I know they know we're here. Can it be that CPUmag had it right?

    Maybe it's time to talk about Republicans and Democrats. I have a feeling that the Republicans will be doing some celebrating for the short time ahead. Of course, those jobs won't just appear because we have more Republicans in office. But, that's getting ahead of the future. I can accept some backlash for Obama not really being that different. We are still in the wars. The economy is still stale. I guess it's easy to make those promises whether you're on this side or that side of the aisle.
  • edited 10/20/2010 @ 9:02:12 PM
  • OOps, sorry "Read all before replying" DOH
  • Is that where the phrase "Having a tin ear" came from?
    I wonder if that's where the Tin Man got his start. His clanking suit wouldn't be a bother if he couldn't hear it.
  • edited 10/21/2010 @ 2:27:25 PM
  • Maybe we could get a bunch of contracts that we'd vote on. That way it would be about the issues instead of about who has the bigger pile of money. Then majority would still be the rule. There would still be the writers who would come up with the moral, economic, suggestions. We might have a list of things we want and things we don't want. The format could be the first thing we vote on. There are propositions on every election. The first thing I'd vote on is to use plainer English in the contract. The lawyers need to get out of this business. Maybe there's a way to get our language to become understandable again.

    We all know that it's not the elected officials that are doing the driving. It's the Military, Oil companies, Banks, Aerospace, Tobacco, Pharma, Insurance, Auto manufacturers, you get my drift. Those lobbyists are well-funded to keep those chairmen on those funding committees happy. When you have a lot of money, you have a lot of political clout. This runs the government. They tell Congress what taxes to charge the citizens to fund the war or welfare.
  • edited 10/22/2010 @ 10:04:03 AM
  • I think if I decided that paying taxes was just not my cup of Wheaties, they would come and get me for tax evasion. There is some "greater good" that, since we live in a society where majority rules, have to accept.

    Say, you don't want to pay for the Fire Department - that just happened recently - they let his house burn cause he didn't pay his fire tax.

    What if you decide your cup of Wheaties doesn't include keeping the roads fixed? I think you get the drift.

    We are a fairly large country with a lot of different people all living together and using the facilities that are in it. It all costs money - from taxes. It would be great to just pay for what we use. Would you pay the toll at each corner to use the road?
  • I'm not against paying some minimal price to keep the system afloat. I do agree with you that there is so much administration that is un-needed by anyone. We do pay for all the corruption that we allow to exist because these guys are smart criminals. They know how to hide it and they know whom to pay if it gets out. This system won't just go away because we want it to. We have to work from within the system.

    I had a belief that Obama was doing that. He still may be. He has run into some major roadblocks and has put up some of his own. Too bad. He still could do some good in reducing the corruption. But, he might have gotten where he is today be learning how to do it in Chicago.

    I don't mind helping those who are homeless or hungry with some of my food or money. I'm not ready to go and send my kids to fight some war for Bush or Obama. It all depends on how much I'm asked to participate. There is a 'greater good' level that I can take. I understand that we can't all be Cops, Fire fighters, Doctors, Lawyers, Road builders, etc. Each needs to have a way of getting paid for what they do. This is bigger than one individual's needs.
  • edited 10/22/2010 @ 1:13:09 PM
  • OK,
    There's always a way out. We do pay tolls in addition to taxes. I guess it wouldn't be very practical to have a tollbooth at every corner. What was I thinking? So, I won't have that in my written contract when I run for President.

    I guess what I'm really saying is that you are able to not pay taxes - if you work under the table, for instance. If you want to make it work for you alone, it's possible. But, you'd also have to make it work for everyone else or they'd come and get you for not cooperating with the tax laws. It's getting everyone to pay for the garbage collector, snow removal, etc that somehow needs to happen.

    What if I don't want my snow removed from in front of my house? The neighbors might not want to have to drive over the snow fort I built last night. There are many such conflicts if one decides how it should all be. There's a word called 'anarchy' that describes the situation that often develops.

    Then there's foreign relations with the rest of the world. Who decides if we have an Army? Who decides where to send it? Is this a group effort or a single leader? Who pays for all the guns and ammo?
  • Pat,

    I'm just not sure what you think will happen in this lawless world of yours. You don't like the current situation with monopolies and government control, that I understand. But what happens when the laws are gone and the folks with the power, muscle and weapons take everything over? Who steps in to break up the monopoly or stop the genocide that will surely occur?

    There are already examples of this in our world today. There are countries where governments have little to no influence and the thugs run the show. I think your line of thinking has one flaw: assuming that all humans are inherently good.

  • edited 10/23/2010 @ 10:52:54 AM
  • edited 10/23/2010 @ 8:17:29 PM
    Well, I'll concede that you are right about our government having done many criminal things to it's citizens with the excuse of it being for the 'greater good."

    There have been many other governments that have established power over the citizens by winning the vote or coup de etat. There is no guarantee that any government will be good or not corrupt or any of that. It's still made up of people who now have power to do good or bad with it.

    So, are you suggesting that we just stop having a government? Are you saying it will all just work out somehow because most people will be honest and smart? Or, are you saying you don't know how to implement anything in place of what we have today? Are you offering a solution or just moaning?
  • edited 10/24/2010 @ 12:53:17 PM
    So, is this the tiff Yam was talking about? I do hear a lot of discussion about why government or why no government. But, I don't feel angry or upset in any way. There is nothing so outlandish being said that would be considered a tiff.

    I would say that you are painting with a pretty broad brush here, Pat.

    Yeah, I'll agree that as long as it involves human beings, something criminal can be expected to occur. Of course, we'd have to define what's considered criminal and what's considered personal self-defence, voluntary, and all the words you use in your 'free market."

    Would there be judges to decide any of the disputes that would occur - how would you choose them? Or, are disputes just non-existant in your 'free market' world?

    How about if I like the way your wife looks and tell her so? Are you allowed to attack me because I've said something that might upset your wife? Or, is it every man for himself defending him(her)self as they decide it's necessary? How heavily can you apply self-defence for a sin of someone stealing an apple from your orchard? Is it OK to shoot him? Can you see how many differences of opinion could exist in a group of humans? No, there wouldn't ever be chaos. We are all civilized, after all...
  • edited 10/25/2010 @ 1:22:03 PM
    It's just another half-empty, half-full argument. I'm not saying that the ONLY reason we're not all in a chaotic living situation is because we have government. I am saying that it would be much easier for chaos to occur if there wasn't the system of cops, the courts, the jails, and the taxes to pay for it all.

    So, if we have a bunch of humans living close together, sooner or later, some controversial incident would occur. Since we have a system in place with which we can deal with the controversy, we do have a logical way to go. If we didn't have this system, we'd create some other system. We'd still have to figure out whom to pay to protect us. There would be competition between rival "Protection Companies." There might even be an opportunity for some corruption to develop.

    The Mafia is very good at protecting all those stores that pay for protection monthly. The whole deal here is that the governing political system we have today has been in place like the Mafia. It has all the corruption already built in.

    So, I'm agreeing that it sucks. My only concern is how the implementation of a new system would be brought into play. You can't do it by just getting more guns than our government has collected. They've got a pretty effective Army, Air Force, etc. I think they've been in the War business for a lot longer than any of us.

    It would be hard to change the system from the outside. We'd prolly have to do it from the inside - with money and politics doing the lobby shuffle. That also hasn't been that effective in the past.

    Maybe the Tea Party does have some good ideas. They just need to get the ineffective candidates out of there. I have only seen fairly unelectable candidates trying to make sense in a debate without having done any thinking ahead of time. That won't start any Revolution. I like that they've made it in the press. It might bring out others from the woodwork.
Sign In or Register to comment.