🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2057@homxb.UUCP> jmil@homxb.UUCP (J.MILLER) writes:
>  Summary: if speech exists, its mechanism is related to that of hearing.
>  If its mechanism is related to that of hearing, then its resource consumption
>  is related to that of hearing.  If the resource consumption of hearing is
>  low, then the resource consumption of speech is low.
>
>Is this a plausible defense of the possibility that "the production of
>overpowering sonic distraction requires little more resources than
>does hearing" on a continuous basis?

Yes, if you change the word "speech" to "sound production" to make the 
analogy more correct.  And if you believe that the mechanisms for sound
and hearing are related, which they are not.

Though I once knew a guy who could make his ears click by holding his 
nose and exerting his lungs :-).

Perhaps a better analogy would be:

  If radio transmitters exist, their mechanism is related to that of
  walkmen.  If its mechanism is related to that of walkmen, then its
  resource consumption is related to that of walkmen.  Walkmen run on
  AA cells.  Therefore radio transmitters run on AA cells.

Since I'm tired of arguing against my own beliefs, I hereby retire from
this argument.  Thanks for the mental exercise, folks!




 .......(o o).......  ranjit@cory.berkeley.edu
 ---vvv---U---vvv---  ucbvax!cory!ranjit

 "Irrationality is the square root of all evil" - Douglas Hofstadter