They also seem to be more susceptible to autoimmune diseases. Evolutionarily, it kind of makes sense that females would have stronger immune systems–if they evolved as the social glue that helped hold the tribe together and the ones that raised the children (while the men were out hunting and killing each other), it makes sense that their greater interpersonal contact (and thus greater exposure to common communicable pathogens, particularly while interacting with children) would demand a stronger immune system.
Well men are a lot more susceptible to everything else, so one little flaw in the female immune system is allowable… it’s partly because of that superior immunity that globally women live longer than men, despite suffering in conditions inferior to men - physically and cultural.
It’s not just that either though… due to chromosomes or hormones, men suffer organ failure a lot more than women do. Either way, women have superior organ stability. Which means Space Marines - if they’re the cream of the crop for genetics - have feminine organs. 
I mean you can go on and on about it… men and women aren’t physical equals, but women do excel over men in dozens of matters and situations. Female Space Marines would work, not because it’s just plain sexy, but also because a lot of things about Space Marines probably was derived from the female anatomy.
Imagine “and they shall know no fear” if they had a special gene seed that created Super PMS. The Imperium would NEVER lose!!! Of course if there was a Yandere gene seed mutation, the Imperium would probably be uber screwed.
Spent two hours arguing with someone, that katana aren’t superior to western longswords. He kept going on and on about how they’re folded a thousand times. I tried to explain that “folding” doesn’t mean it makes the sword stronger… not in the sense he was thinking at least. Japanese iron is inferior to most iron in other regions of the world, because it’s full of sulfur (volcanoes) and sodium (the ocean). So the overkill “folding” was to remove the impurities from the metal - whereas the better iron sources in Europe didn’t need such technique to get the same grade of steel.
He then had the insanity to claim a traditional Japanese master swordsmith could forge a better blade, than modern computer assisted metallurgists. LOL. As if mere carbon steel could ever match the performance of something like tungsten carbide (which is usually polished and sharpened with DIAMONDS or LASERS). :roll:
If you want to throw a katana in there because of Rule of Cool, that’s fine … but this mythological BS about ancient swordsmiths is just that - BS.
Sure, the old time geniuses did some pretty damn amazing stuff, considering what they had to work with. Their swords are probably still pretty good , in that they still would qualify as “average” or “middling” if you were to somehow compare them against the kind of swords that could be made using modern tech, were we so inclined to waste lots of time on now-obsolete weapons.
But if we hadn’t abandoned the art of swordmaking, and then, blacksmithing altogether, but instead had focused on making swords into the modern era, using all the modern materials science at our disposal, we could make some truly kickass swords that just would not be any contest.
At least when Tolkien did it, his ancient blades were magical. It’s like people forgot that aspect of the whole thing, but vaguely remembered “old swords = awesome” and somehow it because part of the standard block of misconceptions many seem to have about the really old days.
Part of it is the simple fact that many people prefer hand-crafted over machine-crafted. Personally, I would rather have a sword crafted by a master swordsmith than a computer. It might not be as “technically” sufficient, but there is a quality that exists in a hand-crafted piece that just doesn’t exist in a machine-crafted piece.
Also, many people simply don’t like letting machines take over our lives in every way. To many, it is more fulfilling and significant to build it by hand than simply punch numbers into a computer.
I’d rather take the superior weapon. My life depends on it. 
Meh. Artistry and romanticism for me. But then I am slowly becoming anti-technology in many respects. The computer has done anything but make our lives truly better.
Strongly disagree.
Cures to what were considered incurable illnesses were only possible through computers. Massive discoveries in science (weather, astronomy, mathematics, etc). Easy access to information (in the 1980’s I had to buy a $2000 encyclopedia, that was outdated the moment it was printed… now I get it free and in real time). The list goes and on.
Science and technology are all we will have to survive the Earth’s frequent mass extinction events, the Sun’s inevitable explosion, and possibly the heat death of the Universe… and that’s only a few of the things we currently that can “naturally” obliterate us from this cosmos.
Computers and robotics are some of the greatest tools we’ve ever developed as a species - it’s up there with fire and the wheel. It lets us do things we couldn’t have possibly done ourselves.
Will it spell our destruction? Who knows… but seeing how our destruction is pretty much ensured if we do nothing and live in caves - giant space rocks seem to be this planet’s favorite way of cleaning slates - I’m willing to take the chance. Rather see humany die by it’s own hand, than some natural cosmic event that killed everything else that was here before us.
Fuck the Universe… because it clearly wants to fuck us back. :twisted:
On the one hand: our destruction. On the other: our salvation. 50/50 odds? Better than the 0 we had before.
Seeing as I believe in the soul and that destruction/death is anything but a mere transformation… meh, the universe doesn’t bother me that much.
As for computers: I detest modern medicine, so any supposed “advancement” there doesn’t mean much to me. Especially considering many diseases and such are the result screwing with nature in some form (ie. additives in food, radiation of man-made artifacts, poison touted as “medicine”, etc).
Also, computers have not brought happiness. It has brought convenience, nothing more. But then this world is completely obsessed with materialism providing happiness. It’s been thousands of years and humanity still hasn’t got a clue :? .
Well that’s a comforting thought if it’s true. Major “if” there. Mere belief in something, doesn’t mean it’s true. Given that uncertainty, having a fall back plan ain’t a bad idea. If you’re right ¬ñ great. Wasted time and effort. If you’re wrong ¬ñ major fuck up. We did it all for nothing.
The natural life span of a human is 30 years at most. That’s why we can spawn children as early as 10 years of age. The very fact that we’ve more than doubled that with our advances, is spitting in the face of nature. So even with all the bad we’ve accidentally stumbled across, it still gives better results that what we would have achieved without it. I feel no regret when women don’t suffer through the agony of a complicated child birth or that a simple virus kills off entire civilizations.
At no time were computers ever meant to bring “happiness” ¬ñ they were engineered to bring knowledge and information. No more. No less. In that they’ve performed beyond our wildest expectations. In countless fields we’ve unlocked and learned more in the last 30 years, than we have in 3000 years, all thanks to computers.
If you’re looking for happiness, science and technology ain’t it. No serious scientist has ever claimed they would be. Only knoweledge and understanding of the Universe around us. Given the alternatives? I’m fine with that. Logic only wants the truth… and there’s nothing wrong with truths.
It’s faith and religion that “promise” something. Science makes no promise what so ever: only show what is true and false. If something can be harnessed from that: fantastic. If not? Oh well… Science moves on without a care.
Reg: All right… all right… but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order… what have the Romans done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace!
[duck]
The Romans gave you lead poisoning…
In all seriousness, though, “nothing truly good” is a classic example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Computers have in fact brought about all sorts of staggering change, to such a degree that the world of 50 years ago would find what we have created since that time to be incomprehensible, beyond their wildest imagining. And in another 50 years, the same will probably be true.
Or are you saying the Internet is lacking in any sort of “true value” whatsoever? (And before you say it - point taken, let’s ignore 4chan and goatse for now.)
Actually, never visited 4chan… guess I’m either lucky or smart on that one .
In terms of the internet, in all seriousness: it’s convenient. I could live without it easily enough. I prefer hard-copy material in terms of research and knowledge… call it an obsession of mine.
About the only tecnological device that I would even think putting in the “significant” list is the iPod. But then that is still the convenient access to music and not actually the creation of it.
What is it with society and this obsession with make-up? I have seen several “make-up v natural” comparisons recently and it boggles my mind. Though I laugh when the make-up pictures are professional glam shots and the natural shots are almost always showing the person in either an odd position or clearly just a bad picture (catching someone scrunching up their face).
I must be one of the few who prefer all natural… I must be wierd since I prefer no make-up, smaller breasts, and detest heels of any fashion. Hmm. I think I was born in the wrong time.
Let me come in on the side of the katana for a bit, since I am a bit of a weapon geek. I’ve been stewing over this since last night, but haven’t had a chance to write an in depth post like this until now. While I believe the katana is superior, it has nothing to do with the folding process. One of the key strengths of the katana and other Japanese swords is how it is constructed in such a way with different types of steel as to act like a composite material. Generally, to my knowledge, European swords are made with a single type of steel. With metal, there are two extremes that you can attain, those being strength and hardness. A strong metal is one that can bend a lot without breaking, but because it is softer, can’t hold an edge that well. A hard metal, on the other hand, is one that can hold a shape (and thus an edge), but because it is hard, it is brittle and will shatter with enough force applied to it. If I recall correctly, European swords solve this problem by going for a temper that lies between the two extremes of strength and hardness. The Japanese solution gets around this by using both a hard steel (actually, two types of hard steel, with the harder of these keeping the sharp edge) and a soft steel (so that the sword doesn’t shatter under force). Another key aspect of Japanese swords is the polishing process they undergo. While you might think that the polish is all about looks, having a high polish can make a big difference when cutting through something. The high polish reduces drag, resulting in a cleaner, smoother cut. Lastly, there is the curve of the blade. While not unique to Japanese swords, a curved blade works with the way a sword is swung (as well as drawn). I would explain this in more detail, but the proper words to do so are failing to come to mind.
As for your sword made from Tungsten Carbide, that would be a very bad idea. Tungsten Carbide, being a very hard metal, would shatter with the first good impact.
Well since we’re being geeky here, let’s get something outta the way first: steel wasn’t invented until the 1850’s. If anyone has a problem with that claim, take it up with the [url=http://www.worldsteel.org]International Iron and Steel institute[/url], who are the undisputed experts and historians of it.
However for the sake of simplicity, well just pretend what pre-industrial societies called steel, was actually steel. 
Incorrect. Europeans used “different types of steel” to forge their swords, and in fact, had MORE variations of steel to work with than the Japanese ever did. Furthermore Europeans had mastered composite forging two centuries BEFORE the Japanese. Lastly, European irons were SUPERIOR to Japanese iron. This was the case during the feudal era, it was the case during the World Wars, and it is the case today. There’s a reason why the Japanese have ALWAYS preferred to import their metal from foreign lands (and one of the main reasons for their Imperial expansion during the industrial age).
European swords solved this problem, through geometrics and cross section. This is why European swords have more curves and slopes on the blade work. The reason why Europeans could do this, and the Japanese could not, is because as stated before: European iron was stronger than Japanese iron. Japanese iron would break and shatter under the same technique, because it was inferior.
Exactly. Because they HAD to in order to achieve an equivalent balance of strength and hardness as the Europeans did.
However if I grab a longsword and a katana from the same era, the effectiveness of both are generally equal for what they are intended for. If someone were rash enough to try a direct comparison between the blades, then each has it’s strengths and weaknesses, however the longsword would be structurally STRONGER because it has greater comparative mass and density. It also allows me to put more weight into my swings, thus doing more residual damage outside of the actual cutting (i.e. crushing force). That would be Physics 101.
While that’s not irrelevant, it’s tremendously misleading: a warhammer has significantly more drag than a longsword. A warhammer does significantly more damage to plate mail than a longsword. Drag is important for cutting, but katana and longswords were not made to dice tomatoes and serve filet mignon. A katana cuts raw flesh better than a longsword (less friction), but the long sword balances that out in practicality due to mass: a longsword shatters bone better than a katana.
Also makes it weaker for stabbing and causes residual structural fracturing from hitting substances as hard or harder than the blade. Clashing a pair of katana against each other, will break them much sooner and faster than clashing a pair of longswords against each other.
Sure…if it were pure tungsten carbide. Which is a lunatic thought, since there’s no such thing as a pure steel katana anyways. This is why engineers use inserts and coatings with tungsten carbide, which naturally any blade forged using the material would also employ. Remember that tungsten carbide is what industrialist use to slice through reinforced steel (building ships and skyscrapers)¬Ö so seriously, it’s going to be no contest in terms of blade properties. Modern technology is called modern technology for a reason.
What I find REALLY amusing, is how pro-katana people fail to mention how easy it is to snap a katana in half, which openly shows one of it’s greatest weaknesses. There were dozens of weapons designed to take advantage of that fact. There’s no such thing for a longsword. Also a katana flexes more than a longsword. Of course that has a few advantages, but the big disadvantage from that is vibration. Someone holding a katana, and clashing with someone holding a longsword, is NOT going to be able to hold that katana after several hits. Longsword won’t have that problem. Longswords have superior “endurance” (for lack of a better word) than katana, due to their engineering properties. Also a katana, being a single edge blade, only has 8 vectors of attack (yea for mathematics!), while a double edge blade like a longsword has 16 vectors of attack. Longsword also happens to have a larger cross guard - protecting hands FTW!
Don’t get me wrong… a katana is a deadly weapon, but it isn’t superior to a longsword by a long shot. Nor would I claim a longsword is outright superior to a katana, as there are things a katana could do. It’s like arguing if a .45 Desert Eagle is better than a Walther P38 - depends on what we’re looking for. But generally speaking, I’d rather have that Desert Eagle if I don’t know what I’m up against… and for the same token, I’d rather have that longsword.
Just two points I’d like to make:
- The Katana, as it stood, never had a chance to go up against a European Longsword and Vice Versa.
- Its cliche, but its true, The skill of the weapon, depends on the skill of the user.
My point is that both these swords come from different regions. The weapons used by an army are a direct measure of what kind of warriors they were and kind of opponent would they face. So there are swords like the Persian tulwar, Roman Gladius. If you divide the army into major portions, that would be infantry, counter infantry, archers, counter archers, cavalry and raiders.
I believe that the longsword evolved from the Romans right? Either way, The Longsword was a weapon designed for brutal hacking and breaking through armors. Additionally the Barbarians, were often “untrained” so they had to rely more on their brute strength and intimidation. The various swords, like Claymore, Bastard sword etc were made keeping in view strength as a parameter and the soldies using it too, would normally wear protective, heavy armor.
The katana, on the other hand, was designed for warriors with honor (That would be the Samurai). Now I’d like to point out that Katana is just one Kind of design, there are other swords too, like Odochi, Tsurgi and wat-a-not. The baisc principle behind the development of Katana, IMHO was that the blade should be swift and elegant, like the Chinese Swords, while avoiding the strength weakness of the Chinese longsword.
So thats it, Katana and Longswords shouldnt be actually compared to see which one is better, rather which one is more suited for a situation at hand
Actually a superior weapon can inherently give a person with less skill, an advantage over a person with high skill but an inferior weapon. Implementations of archery are a prime example… as are pole arms… to say nothing of guns. History has illustrated this quite vividly.
Overrated. European warriors fought with honor: Chivalry. In fact several tenants of Chivalry were MORE honorable than Bushido.
Well using that logic: longsword wins. It fills a larger number of scenarios and situations, where it would be a better weapon. The longsword was the AK-47 of it’s day: there were swords heavier, sharper, lighter, faster… but all in all, the longsword could fit the most situations. You can do more things with a longsword, that you can’t with a katana. There are fewer things you can do with a katana, that you can’t with a longsword. It has nothing to do with skill - it’s just raw engineering and physics. Rule of cool is one thing; practicality and reality are another.
Dude, It was a general assumption/observation. A Roger Federer will beat a incompetent me at tennis any day, no matter what kind of equipment we use. Exceptions not withstanding. Of course, a Machine Gun has no chance against a tank.
Concurred, but the longsword was also used by Vikings and Goths. They designed several blades keeping in mind their own needs.
The Katana, and the related swords were used primarily by the samurai. Ninja and other classes took it up, even then they had to modify it (eg Ninjas used a straight edge blade that was shorter and of a lower quality)
Yeah, Using my logic, the longsword is better. I never took any side, coz I don’t believe in that. There are situations where a longsword loses to a katana.
LOLZ when people talk about Katana and Longswords, they think of Sephiroth’s Masamune and Cloud’s Buster Sword. Its not that way. Although “being cool” is one thing, but you cant keep functionality and utility out. In the end this debate is similar to where Fender Stratocasters are better than Gibson Les Pauls?