1) Icelandic singer M… Read Full Bio ↴There are at least 3 artists under this profile:
1) Icelandic singer Móeiður Júníusdóttir, known as Móa,
2) Dreampunk/ambient artist Moa from California, member of No Agreements.
3) A south-korean singer songwriter known as Moa however redirects to this page.
1) Icelandic singer Móeiður Júníusdóttir (Móa) grew up under the influences of the cabaret style vocal of Billie Holiday, Louise Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald. But after recording a full-length album of acid-jazz tunes, she felt that it was time to move on into the genre of electronica. Having the chance to lay down some vocal tracks on the occasional techno single followed a collaboration with Eythor Arnalds, resulting in the 1994 industrial rock project Bong. Even thought the band reached some success in Iceland and press attention in England, Moa eventually moved on upon Bong's disband to start her own gig of combining her early influences of jazz, blues and classical with her love for dance, techno and synth pop. Tommy Boy Records took notice to Moa's sound and released her first full-length "Universal" in 1999. Garnering moderate attention, Móa was subsequently scouted to model for a cK Calvin Klein campaign that featured up and coming musicians and artist. Notably, Móa bears a striking resemblance to actress Uma Thurman. Móa would join her brothers to front the new wave / rock band Lace releasing the album "Zeitgeist" in 2001.
Overcome
Móa Lyrics
Jump to: Overall Meaning ↴ Line by Line Meaning ↴
Could be the way it was
But too many things have changed
Time has come, to fulfill promises
Touching came easy
But holding takes more
We shall overcome...
I cry, but I've run out of tears
You used to lick them dry
To ease my pain
Do what it takes to make me
Cry again
Tears are the fruits of unconsciousness
We shall overcome...
I smile, but it's lost without you
You used to make me smile within
My heart
Do what it takes to make me smile again
You know the secrets, you made the code
We shall overcome...
In Moa's song "Overcome", the lyrics are reflective of a past relationship that has ended. The singer of the song is struggling to come to terms with the changes that have occurred, wishing that everything could go back to the way it used to be. However, the reality is that too much has changed, and it's time to move forward and fulfill promises that have been made.
The lyrics convey a sense of longing and yearning, with the singer struggling to hold on to the past. The line "Touching came easy, but holding takes more" suggests that it was easy to be together in the past, but sustaining a relationship takes a lot more effort and commitment. The phrase "We shall overcome" is repeated throughout the song, serving as a mantra of hope and determination that things will get better.
The second verse talks about the emotions that the singer is feeling - crying without tears, and smiling without joy. The line "Tears are the fruits of unconsciousness" suggests that crying is a way of releasing unconscious emotions, but the singer has reached a point where they can no longer cry. The reference to the person who used to lick away their tears is a poignant one, as it suggests a level of intimacy and care that is now missing from their life.
Overall, "Overcome" is a powerful song about the struggle to move on from a past relationship and the hope that things will eventually get better.
Line by Line Meaning
I wish that everything
I desire for things to go back to how they used to be.
Could be the way it was
I yearn for the past.
But too many things have changed
But the present is very different, and it's not easy to go back.
Time has come, to fulfill promises
It's time to keep the promises that were made.
Touching came easy
Interacting with each other was easy before.
But holding takes more
But holding onto things is much more challenging.
We shall overcome...
We will be able to move past our current difficulties.
I cry, but I've run out of tears
I'm sad, but there's nothing left to express it with.
You used to lick them dry
You used to comfort me.
To ease my pain
To make me feel better.
Do what it takes to make me
Please do something to help me.
Cry again
To express my emotions more openly.
Tears are the fruits of unconsciousness
Tears are the outward expression of invisible emotional pain or trauma.
I smile, but it's lost without you
I try to pretend that everything is okay, but it's hard without you.
You used to make me smile within
You used to be the source of my joy.
My heart
My innermost being.
Do what it takes to make me smile again
Please find a way to make me feel happy again.
You know the secrets, you made the code
You understand me better than anyone else and you're the only one who can help me.
Lyrics © O/B/O APRA AMCOS
Written by: MOEIDUR JUNIUSDOTTIR
Lyrics Licensed & Provided by LyricFind
CJ
@KimmyR3 No, its just what the angular division system that the International System of Units (SI) elected to use. Just like how Pi (3.14159.....) or anything Trig is not specific to metric or imperal and doesn't care what units the other numbers are, it doesn't care what the units or measurements are. It simply is a division of a circle where 1 radian is the angle formed when the arc length between two radial end-points is equal to the radius of the circle.
Its works identically the same regardless of the units (metric or imperial) and is MUCH easier then angles in degree's, minute's and second's as long as you use the same units for input vs what you want output because its all in 10's, 100's and 1000's. and is simply a matter of moving the decimal.
Since we are dealing with rifle scopes here, I'll give you an example that would be common to it. At 100 yards, a miliradian is equal to 3.6inch of vertical change because a yard is 36 inchs (remember I said its easiest if the units are the same...)
So 100 yards is simply 100 groups of 36 inches or simply 100 x 36 = 3600 and since a miliradian is 1/1000 (or .001) of a radian, we simply divide that 3600 by 1000 (i.e., shift the decimal back 3 places and we have 3.6 thus 3.6 inches
Now if we had a 100 meter range, we wanted to know the vertical change for one miliradian in centimeters, we do basically the same thing, change the meter to centimeters (just like we did with yard to inches above) and since there is 100 centimeters in a meter, its simply 100 groups of 100 or 100 x 100 = 10,000 and thus we divide by 1000 like we did above (again, because the mliradian is 1/1000 of a radian), we have 10,000 / 1000 = 10 (or 10 centimeters.
Radians dont care what the units are because it doenst know if you are saying 100 yard, meters, miles, kilometers, ect... when, its simply multiplies and divisors by 10's, 100's, 1000's etc...
and just to show that the first example in yards worked exactly as it should have, we'll convert to meters and centimeters then back to inches of the final result.
100 yards is 91.44 meters, so we have 91.44 x 100 (convert distance to centimeters) so we have 9144 then we divide that by 1000 and we have 1 miliradian at 91.44 meters is 9.144 centimeters. now to convert that to inches, we divide that by 2.54 (since there is 2.54 centimeters in an inch) (i,e., 9.144 / 2.54) and we have 3.6 inches (the same as we got in the first example.. because radians doesn't care about the units, it's simply math using 10's, 100's, 1000's, etc....)
CJ
off by 27" because of the .047" how the hell was he coming up with that quite specific number?
I've been racking my brain for the several minutes now trying to figure out how he was arriving at that number. I mean, no matter how I try to incorrectly work the numbers, I cant come up with anything even close to the resulting 27"
Also, if you know MOA, switching to MIL is actually pretty easy since 1MOA is basically 0.3MIL (well its really 0.29 but since MIL scopes are in 0.1MIL increments, its easy just to round up to .3 and the rounding error really doesn't become even remotely problematic until you are having to make 5+ MOA adjustments and even then, its not really much of an error). Basically, if you say know that you need to come up 2.5MOA, then just multiply that by 3 and move the decimal one place to the left and you have the MIL amount move (e.g., 2.5 * 3 = 7.5 so it would be 0.75 MIL but since you can only dial in 0.1 increments, you can go either 0.7 or 0.8 and be on pretty much spot on). As you can see, the error is small because if you use the more accurate 0.29 value, the result is 2.5 * 2.9 = 7.25 and them shift the decimal back one place and the value is 0.725MIL so.
To give you another example, lets say that you need to come up 10" at 800yrs, you know that 1.25 MOA, so since its .3 to one, easy math is 1.25 * 3 = 3.75, shift the decimal back and you have 0.375 MIL so dial 0.4 and the difference is about 1.5" high error due do rounding and the fact that you can only dial in 0.1MIL increments. If you only dialed say 0.3 (i.e., round down), then you'll about 1.5" low. Which isn't really bad unless you are handloading and have developed a load that shoots with single digit ES's since a 10 FPS speed difference at 800yrds is easily worth 1.5" even with a relatively high B.C. projectile.
What I always say though to anyone if they ask what kind of scope to get is get which ever you want but my advise is to get something that has a matching scaled reticle and preferably that is FFP... That way you don't have to worry about any of that because your reticle will tell you everything you need to know (assuming that you are not off outside of the FOV of your at the time.. In which case, if you are then you're SOL either way and you did something seriously wrong and possibly shouldn't be shooting a rifle anyways).
HighlanderMikeGolf
Over 24 years in the US Army Infantry and no one has ever explained this better. Well done!
Seth Rich
Hey so a few things to point out that are often missed in explaining the difference in MOA vs MIL. As you correctly stated, both are angular based measurements. MOA being defined as 1/60th of a degree. MILs are defined as an arc length 1/1000th the radius. This is an important definition because it is directly proportional to target size (arc length) and distance (radius) making it a more useful definition than MOA. Additionally MILs are not a metric unit, they just correlate to metric well because of the base 10 nature. With MILs, one MIL is 1m at 1000m, 1y at 1000y, 1in at 1000in, the unit doesn’t matter. The very definition of MILs is based on target size to distance proportion as opposed to being defined by an angle in MOA making MILs a more useful definition. Also for those who make the case for MOA due to familiarity with inches, 1/10th MIL, a typical click value is also essentially equivalent to 1/3 MOA making it just as easy to use when thinking in inches, 3 clicks per inch at 100y.
Cyclops Videos Joe W Rhea
Great Post . Man thanks for the added info
Charles Ludwig
MOA is defined by the USAMU as a unit of measurement which describes the distance in inches a sight adjustment will make at target distance. The concept is so simple to apply yet Soldiers and even trainers are prone to not understand and thus basic marksmanship instruction is conducted using the NSN 6920-01-395-1949 target which uses a printed grid to indicate sight adjustment need without need for MOA formula. Interestingly enough Soldiers seem to easily grasp MOA wind constant formula and apply it for excellent results from irons or ACOG.
Bruce Lowell
Everyone has an opinion
Seth Rich
@Charles Ludwig “MOA” is literally a mathematical proof. It literally means 1/60th of a degree…. Minute (1/60th) of Angle (degree). What you stated is how the Army tries to explain that concept to people who don’t understand math.
Charles Ludwig
@Seth Rich yeah, I am a Military Rifle Instructor assisting the USAMU deliver SDM, TTT, and SAFS. The training guides and visual aids for these programs are proven to teach an understanding of MOA, as well as apply the knowledge to sight adjustment. In other words the instruction gets Soldiers an understanding of equations needed to properly adjust sight, hold or favor at target distance/conditions.BTW the instruction emphasizes mils in context to ranging and MOA in context to sight movement, holds, and favors, since the instruction is all about Marksmanship using an as issued M16-A4, or M4.
A I
I’m a new shooter in general and this video was really helpful. A lot of the other channels out there are breaking out the complicated mathematical equations that frankly is overwhelming for a beginner. This was straight to the point and fun.
Cyclops Videos Joe W Rhea
Thanks for that
Miguel Arce-Goitia
Valuable information and easy to understand. New and seasoned shooters can easily use it as a refresher class. Thank you.