http://www.break.com/index/hilarious-experiment-on-monkeys-2321441
Treating anyone or any thing differently ... is funny?
I'm... not understanding something...
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Introversion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3Uos2fzIJ0
This really sticks with me.
Your well-being is in the hands of the person you are sitting across from.
This is how I came to be the way I am.
In situations like this, in school as a child, I remember thinking things like "the only way any of us can come out with anything is to pick the one that benefits us both". And I remember getting BURNED. And I remember hearing kids talk: if you choose the one that benefits both, you only end up with 25% at best, if you take it all you average 50%.
I remember writing in my journal at 8 years old that I was going to have to grow up to be self-reliant.
I remember sickly gut-feelings whenever I was assigned to have any interaction with kids where my well-being, no matter how big or small, would be placed in their hands.
Of course, I've refused, all this time, to accept that I should simply steal from others (in any way, shape, or form). So my only option - ever - has been to retreat inward.
Driving around town - people who drive in the left lane and try to sneak in front of a line of cars because they're too impatient to wait... they're delaying EVERYONE they cut in front of. They're putting themselves as more important than everyone else.
Interactions with people on a daily basis, no matter how big or small, situations can arise where there is accidental interaction - which - I do not want to burden other people. Unfortunately, other people are more than willing to burden me, because either they don't know how avoid burdening me or they just don't give a fuck.
When I played Baseball in HS, we had tryouts for the Freshman team, when I made the team, I was approached by 4 of the kids who also made the team. I was told, under no uncertain terms, that I should NOT have made the team, that I was shit, that their friend so-and-so should have made the team. I spent the entire season in complete agony. I also bat .386 and hit the only 2 home runs on the team (both against our cross-town rival - one of them on the Varsity baseball field). I started off batting 5th in the line-up, I eventually was moved to 1st, 2nd and 3rd in order.
Kids would hide my baseball gear before games. Harass me in the locker room. Harass me on the field...
Yeah, this treatment is going to make me want to interact with people on a regular basis.
I quit all sports after freshman year. I was set to be the starting Goalie on the varsity soccer team in my sophmore year. I didn't care.
I would go to Advanced Algebra classes and be harassed at EVERY opportunity by the psychopath that sat in front of me. I can't imagine, can't even make up the completely PSYCHOPATHIC bullshit he would spew. In fact, it got so bad that I went to my school counselor... I ended crying in her office for 15 minutes...
Fuck people.
This really sticks with me.
Your well-being is in the hands of the person you are sitting across from.
This is how I came to be the way I am.
In situations like this, in school as a child, I remember thinking things like "the only way any of us can come out with anything is to pick the one that benefits us both". And I remember getting BURNED. And I remember hearing kids talk: if you choose the one that benefits both, you only end up with 25% at best, if you take it all you average 50%.
I remember writing in my journal at 8 years old that I was going to have to grow up to be self-reliant.
I remember sickly gut-feelings whenever I was assigned to have any interaction with kids where my well-being, no matter how big or small, would be placed in their hands.
Of course, I've refused, all this time, to accept that I should simply steal from others (in any way, shape, or form). So my only option - ever - has been to retreat inward.
Driving around town - people who drive in the left lane and try to sneak in front of a line of cars because they're too impatient to wait... they're delaying EVERYONE they cut in front of. They're putting themselves as more important than everyone else.
Interactions with people on a daily basis, no matter how big or small, situations can arise where there is accidental interaction - which - I do not want to burden other people. Unfortunately, other people are more than willing to burden me, because either they don't know how avoid burdening me or they just don't give a fuck.
When I played Baseball in HS, we had tryouts for the Freshman team, when I made the team, I was approached by 4 of the kids who also made the team. I was told, under no uncertain terms, that I should NOT have made the team, that I was shit, that their friend so-and-so should have made the team. I spent the entire season in complete agony. I also bat .386 and hit the only 2 home runs on the team (both against our cross-town rival - one of them on the Varsity baseball field). I started off batting 5th in the line-up, I eventually was moved to 1st, 2nd and 3rd in order.
Kids would hide my baseball gear before games. Harass me in the locker room. Harass me on the field...
Yeah, this treatment is going to make me want to interact with people on a regular basis.
I quit all sports after freshman year. I was set to be the starting Goalie on the varsity soccer team in my sophmore year. I didn't care.
I would go to Advanced Algebra classes and be harassed at EVERY opportunity by the psychopath that sat in front of me. I can't imagine, can't even make up the completely PSYCHOPATHIC bullshit he would spew. In fact, it got so bad that I went to my school counselor... I ended crying in her office for 15 minutes...
Fuck people.
Too Much
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50zewk5WAUM
What do we know? What can we be absolutely certain of in physics? We need a starting point, and then we need to beat as much information as is possible from that starting point.
Einstein started with the special case - Special Relativity which we find the equations:
t=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
v=(v1+v2)/1+(v1v2)/c^2
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation, the use of FOUR dimensional geometry to describe motion. The essence of math - the cause and effect relationship. The result - TIME, MASS, LENGTH is derived from nothing more than VELOCITY and the SPEED OF LIGHT. WE NEED A NARRATIVE OF THIS EQUATION, WHAT IT MEANS, WHAT THE OPERATIONS MEAN.
I spent 18 months looking for this narrative. NOBODY provided me with it, I had to come about it on my own.
Let me give an example. I have a 15 ft. by 15 ft. square room, in this room I have a 12 ft. by 12 ft. rug. I want to calculate the area of the room that is NOT covered by the rug. The equation would simply be no more than:
a=1-12^2/15^2
The equations are SIMILAR, this is NOT mere coincidence.
'1' in both equations is representative of 100%, or the whole. Percentages base on decimals - like batting averages - where 1.0 is 100%. '1' is 100% of the available spacetime that can be occupied.
v^2 - this is the occupied spacetime.
c^2 - this is the maximum occupation of spacetime. Just as a two dimensional room cannot contain a rug larger than its length and width, spacetime cannot accommodate a velocity greater than the speed of light.
Square Root - the equation results in TIME. t= , in geometry, squares are used to add dimensions, square roots are therefore used to REMOVE them. The square root is used to remove the space dimension and the result is time.
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation is finding the UNOCCUPIED amount of spacetime (just as the rug example is finding the unoccupied amount of area), and the result is the relative decrease in the rate of time.
Given that the results also say that MASS increases and LENGTH CONTRACTS, the result is given in % rate of time, therefore IT SHOULD BE CONCLUDED THAT MASS AND LENGTH are derived from TIME.
Not only that....
Because LENGTH is dependent on TIME and TIME is dependent on the occupation of spacetime... We know that as an object (a spaceship) approaches the speed of light relative to an observer, the observer witnesses the length of the object contract. A person inside the spaceship will NOT NOTICE ANY CONTRACTION, because the person inside the spaceship is at rest relative to the spaceship.
ALL OF THE ABOVE ESTABLISHES A BASIC RULE-SET FOR OCCUPYING FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACETIME.
ERGO
It can be ASSUMED a black hole is an object that occupies 100% of the available spacetime. THUS, an outside observer will witness the black hole as having ZERO size. If it were at all possible to magically jump inside the black hole, you would see that the black hole actually does have size, its just that 100% of the spacetime is occupied, so TIME DOES NOT PASS - SO LENGTH (or any other measurement of space) IS ZERO.
The logical conclusion of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation is a sister equation:
t=sqrt(1-d^2/D^2)
where:
d = density
D = maximum density (similar to the speed of light)
YOU NEED DENSITY.
This equation says NOTHING about gravity. What it does say is that the universe is FOUR DIMENSIONAL and that the RULES IMPLIED IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY are applicable AS YOU EXTEND FROM calculations of A MERE TWO DIMENSIONS INTO ALL FOUR DIMENSIONS STAY THE SAME.
----------------------
Mass/four dimensions/spactime... it's all very complex.
Mass is a measure of, strictly, the occupation of time. It's a ONE DIMENSIONAL measurement, this is equivalent to DISTANCE - that is - velocity without TIME.
Think about it like this:
A beam of light can travel for distances that approach infinity. Just as MASS can approach infinity. It is not until we restrict DISTANCE by a measure of time that we get velocity, which we then use in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation. MASS unrestrained by distance is no more meaningful than distance unrestricted by time. Mass constrained by distance results in DENSITY, which gives it meaning to the universe.
This is why, when a person in a spaceship is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light, they will disagree on measurements of SPACE or measurements of TIME, but when they do calculations which account for four dimensional spacetime, they all agree.
...
I have, OH SO MUCH MORE to say. Until EVERYTHING above gains any kind of acceptance, the rest is completely irrelevant. PLEASE, SOMEONE point out where my logic is flawed so I can fix what is wrong.
What do we know? What can we be absolutely certain of in physics? We need a starting point, and then we need to beat as much information as is possible from that starting point.
Einstein started with the special case - Special Relativity which we find the equations:
t=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
v=(v1+v2)/1+(v1v2)/c^2
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation, the use of FOUR dimensional geometry to describe motion. The essence of math - the cause and effect relationship. The result - TIME, MASS, LENGTH is derived from nothing more than VELOCITY and the SPEED OF LIGHT. WE NEED A NARRATIVE OF THIS EQUATION, WHAT IT MEANS, WHAT THE OPERATIONS MEAN.
I spent 18 months looking for this narrative. NOBODY provided me with it, I had to come about it on my own.
Let me give an example. I have a 15 ft. by 15 ft. square room, in this room I have a 12 ft. by 12 ft. rug. I want to calculate the area of the room that is NOT covered by the rug. The equation would simply be no more than:
a=1-12^2/15^2
The equations are SIMILAR, this is NOT mere coincidence.
'1' in both equations is representative of 100%, or the whole. Percentages base on decimals - like batting averages - where 1.0 is 100%. '1' is 100% of the available spacetime that can be occupied.
v^2 - this is the occupied spacetime.
c^2 - this is the maximum occupation of spacetime. Just as a two dimensional room cannot contain a rug larger than its length and width, spacetime cannot accommodate a velocity greater than the speed of light.
Square Root - the equation results in TIME. t= , in geometry, squares are used to add dimensions, square roots are therefore used to REMOVE them. The square root is used to remove the space dimension and the result is time.
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation is finding the UNOCCUPIED amount of spacetime (just as the rug example is finding the unoccupied amount of area), and the result is the relative decrease in the rate of time.
Given that the results also say that MASS increases and LENGTH CONTRACTS, the result is given in % rate of time, therefore IT SHOULD BE CONCLUDED THAT MASS AND LENGTH are derived from TIME.
Not only that....
Because LENGTH is dependent on TIME and TIME is dependent on the occupation of spacetime... We know that as an object (a spaceship) approaches the speed of light relative to an observer, the observer witnesses the length of the object contract. A person inside the spaceship will NOT NOTICE ANY CONTRACTION, because the person inside the spaceship is at rest relative to the spaceship.
ALL OF THE ABOVE ESTABLISHES A BASIC RULE-SET FOR OCCUPYING FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACETIME.
ERGO
It can be ASSUMED a black hole is an object that occupies 100% of the available spacetime. THUS, an outside observer will witness the black hole as having ZERO size. If it were at all possible to magically jump inside the black hole, you would see that the black hole actually does have size, its just that 100% of the spacetime is occupied, so TIME DOES NOT PASS - SO LENGTH (or any other measurement of space) IS ZERO.
The logical conclusion of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation is a sister equation:
t=sqrt(1-d^2/D^2)
where:
d = density
D = maximum density (similar to the speed of light)
YOU NEED DENSITY.
This equation says NOTHING about gravity. What it does say is that the universe is FOUR DIMENSIONAL and that the RULES IMPLIED IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY are applicable AS YOU EXTEND FROM calculations of A MERE TWO DIMENSIONS INTO ALL FOUR DIMENSIONS STAY THE SAME.
----------------------
Mass/four dimensions/spactime... it's all very complex.
Mass is a measure of, strictly, the occupation of time. It's a ONE DIMENSIONAL measurement, this is equivalent to DISTANCE - that is - velocity without TIME.
Think about it like this:
A beam of light can travel for distances that approach infinity. Just as MASS can approach infinity. It is not until we restrict DISTANCE by a measure of time that we get velocity, which we then use in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation. MASS unrestrained by distance is no more meaningful than distance unrestricted by time. Mass constrained by distance results in DENSITY, which gives it meaning to the universe.
This is why, when a person in a spaceship is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light, they will disagree on measurements of SPACE or measurements of TIME, but when they do calculations which account for four dimensional spacetime, they all agree.
...
I have, OH SO MUCH MORE to say. Until EVERYTHING above gains any kind of acceptance, the rest is completely irrelevant. PLEASE, SOMEONE point out where my logic is flawed so I can fix what is wrong.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
The actual % of stupid people.
In regards to this: http://www.searchlores.org/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm
The guy never gives any percent of stupid people.
After watching some of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQEvj_qbTxg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pPi7w7Hbcw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_rIsQxByNg
One really intelligent guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8OO4NpMsD0
You only have to recognize a few basic things:
1) NOBODY really "deserves" the lowest amount.
2) The ratios between the numbers always remain the same.
3) If anyone wants ANY money, someone has to take the lowest amount.
4) Nobody really "deserves" the highest amount.
The problem is, the most intelligent person has to take the lowest amount, because stupid people will ALWAYS over value themselves, their importance, and what they think they deserve. This one, in particular, is an amazing display of extreme stupidity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_rIsQxByNg
The top amount was a mere 5000 more than the starting bottom amount. And the moron who got B was "happy" with 3000 less than what the lowest amount started with in the beginning.
The document has it nailed, right on:
Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals... A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
I'm thinking... the percentage of stupid people on this planet is 90-99%. Otherwise these game shows http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3Uos2fzIJ0 would be ending with everyone (or a vast majority) leaving with money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbS_1s985NA
(In this show, only ONE option allows ANYONE to leave with ANY amount of money, therefore it is more logical for everyone to always pick the split option - of course it's stupid people who fuck the whole system up by stealing and thus causing the whole population to go into stupid convulsions of deception, trickery, etc. Oh, no! Must choose steal so I don't get stolen from! And we claim to be a civilized people?)
I was a better person when I was a child. I remember a horrible feeling in my gut whenever we did any exercise in school where I was reliant on another person doing their job so that I could do mine - because I would always end up getting fucked. All the other kids logically concluded things along the lines of - everyone always takes steal so everyone always ends up the same, BUT if someone is "stupid" and takes share, then the steal takes all the money. This "logic" is the driving logic of today's society, and we wonder why the world is so utterly fucked up.
Part of me is surprised that Bernie Madoff is in jail at all, part of me is surprised the Judge didn't walk down from the bench, pat him on the head and say, "Good boy!".
The guy never gives any percent of stupid people.
After watching some of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQEvj_qbTxg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pPi7w7Hbcw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_rIsQxByNg
One really intelligent guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8OO4NpMsD0
You only have to recognize a few basic things:
1) NOBODY really "deserves" the lowest amount.
2) The ratios between the numbers always remain the same.
3) If anyone wants ANY money, someone has to take the lowest amount.
4) Nobody really "deserves" the highest amount.
The problem is, the most intelligent person has to take the lowest amount, because stupid people will ALWAYS over value themselves, their importance, and what they think they deserve. This one, in particular, is an amazing display of extreme stupidity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_rIsQxByNg
The top amount was a mere 5000 more than the starting bottom amount. And the moron who got B was "happy" with 3000 less than what the lowest amount started with in the beginning.
The document has it nailed, right on:
Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals... A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
I'm thinking... the percentage of stupid people on this planet is 90-99%. Otherwise these game shows http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3Uos2fzIJ0 would be ending with everyone (or a vast majority) leaving with money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbS_1s985NA
(In this show, only ONE option allows ANYONE to leave with ANY amount of money, therefore it is more logical for everyone to always pick the split option - of course it's stupid people who fuck the whole system up by stealing and thus causing the whole population to go into stupid convulsions of deception, trickery, etc. Oh, no! Must choose steal so I don't get stolen from! And we claim to be a civilized people?)
I was a better person when I was a child. I remember a horrible feeling in my gut whenever we did any exercise in school where I was reliant on another person doing their job so that I could do mine - because I would always end up getting fucked. All the other kids logically concluded things along the lines of - everyone always takes steal so everyone always ends up the same, BUT if someone is "stupid" and takes share, then the steal takes all the money. This "logic" is the driving logic of today's society, and we wonder why the world is so utterly fucked up.
Part of me is surprised that Bernie Madoff is in jail at all, part of me is surprised the Judge didn't walk down from the bench, pat him on the head and say, "Good boy!".
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Bogeyman!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/boehner-accuses-obama-bogeyman-reelection-strategy-140436872.html
Next week:
"Obama claims that his dad can beat up Romney's dad!"
Next week:
"Obama claims that his dad can beat up Romney's dad!"
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
wtf?
http://i.imgur.com/6HFOn.jpg
Guy invests in Apple.
Guy decides to get out of Apple.
36 years later, $800 become $56 billion?
That's a horrible story.
Why would you post that with "If anyone is having a bad day..."
Some guy's day is shittier than mine, so I'm supposed to feel better?
What the fuck kind of psychopathic thinking is that?
Should I go look at natural disasters to make myself feel better, to revel in the pain, suffering, and misery of others?
Sunday, April 15, 2012
stupid
http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html
Space is the result of time passing. (Of course, physicists don't realize this because they still think black holes can have the density of air)
Time is not an extension of space.
The main concepts of special relativity - that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and that there is no absolute reference frame - are traditionally formulated within the framework of Minkowski spacetime. In this framework, the three spatial dimensions are intuitively visualized, while the time dimension is mathematically represented by an imaginary coordinate, and cannot be visualized in a concrete way.
Time has various states:
Two objects at rest with one another measure each others time as moving at a rate of 100% - they are equal.
Two object in relative motion will measure the others clock slower than theirs. 99%-1%.
Two object moving the speed of light (theoretically) will measure each others clock as not moving. 0%
MPH:------- Time:
0 ------------- 100%
|
|
|
c -------------- 0%
Time causes velocity to work as a measure of four dimensional density.
Relative rest = Zero density.
Speed of light = 100% density.
This SHOULD equivocate directly into concepts of mass - but current theory does not allow for this (because it is wrong) whereas:
Open Space unaffected by any matter (0% density) = 100% rate of time
Black Hole (100% density) = 0% rate of time
In a black hole, time does not pass (maybe it does at a rate of 1/infinity) which is why outside observers calculate its size as being ZERO (I have more to say on this, but that's another discussion, next sentence is important:). This is exactly the same as watching a spaceship gradually approach the speed of light - you'd see its length approach ZERO. Velocity an (mass) Density are two words for the same thing - four dimensional density.
Please note: (mass) density does NOT contain enough information to provide the sole unit of measurement in an equation for gravity. Mass has its place, however, mass alone, without density, does not provide the universe with enough information about our units of measurement. The only reason the universe understands what our measurements of DISTANCE and TIME are, is the fact that its giving a measurement of SPACE as well as TIME with Miles(km) per Unit of Time. Mass is nothing more than account of the occupation of TIME and gives no account of the dimension(s) of space.
The equivalent error to this would be providing DISTANCE ONLY in place of Velocity. You could not form the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction equation or Einstein's equation for combining velocities without VELOCITY.
Remember the whole bit about any measurement of JUST space or JUST time will end up disagreeing, but when you account for space AND time, all measurements agree? The same needs to apply for the units we use for some equations.
If only someone would listen =(
Space is the result of time passing. (Of course, physicists don't realize this because they still think black holes can have the density of air)
Time is not an extension of space.
The main concepts of special relativity - that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and that there is no absolute reference frame - are traditionally formulated within the framework of Minkowski spacetime. In this framework, the three spatial dimensions are intuitively visualized, while the time dimension is mathematically represented by an imaginary coordinate, and cannot be visualized in a concrete way.
Time has various states:
Two objects at rest with one another measure each others time as moving at a rate of 100% - they are equal.
Two object in relative motion will measure the others clock slower than theirs. 99%-1%.
Two object moving the speed of light (theoretically) will measure each others clock as not moving. 0%
MPH:------- Time:
0 ------------- 100%
|
|
|
c -------------- 0%
Time causes velocity to work as a measure of four dimensional density.
Relative rest = Zero density.
Speed of light = 100% density.
This SHOULD equivocate directly into concepts of mass - but current theory does not allow for this (because it is wrong) whereas:
Open Space unaffected by any matter (0% density) = 100% rate of time
Black Hole (100% density) = 0% rate of time
In a black hole, time does not pass (maybe it does at a rate of 1/infinity) which is why outside observers calculate its size as being ZERO (I have more to say on this, but that's another discussion, next sentence is important:). This is exactly the same as watching a spaceship gradually approach the speed of light - you'd see its length approach ZERO. Velocity an (mass) Density are two words for the same thing - four dimensional density.
Please note: (mass) density does NOT contain enough information to provide the sole unit of measurement in an equation for gravity. Mass has its place, however, mass alone, without density, does not provide the universe with enough information about our units of measurement. The only reason the universe understands what our measurements of DISTANCE and TIME are, is the fact that its giving a measurement of SPACE as well as TIME with Miles(km) per Unit of Time. Mass is nothing more than account of the occupation of TIME and gives no account of the dimension(s) of space.
The equivalent error to this would be providing DISTANCE ONLY in place of Velocity. You could not form the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction equation or Einstein's equation for combining velocities without VELOCITY.
Remember the whole bit about any measurement of JUST space or JUST time will end up disagreeing, but when you account for space AND time, all measurements agree? The same needs to apply for the units we use for some equations.
If only someone would listen =(
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Basic Laws of Human Stupidity
So yeah, THIS:
http://www.searchlores.org/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm
READ IT.
Being helpless, easy
Being a bandit, easy
Being stupid, easy
Being intelligent... um... How do you have regular day-to-day interactions which result in you and another person gaining something?
I suppose... treating one another with respect is a good place to start.
Interactions based on mutual burdening? Err... That's, actually... stupid.
Wait.
Did I just make about 95% of people stupid with those two lines?
I think I did.
Well, that certainly explains a lot.
http://www.searchlores.org/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm
READ IT.
Being helpless, easy
Being a bandit, easy
Being stupid, easy
Being intelligent... um... How do you have regular day-to-day interactions which result in you and another person gaining something?
I suppose... treating one another with respect is a good place to start.
Interactions based on mutual burdening? Err... That's, actually... stupid.
Wait.
Did I just make about 95% of people stupid with those two lines?
I think I did.
Well, that certainly explains a lot.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Mental Paradox
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
and
I want to live.
Holding paradox in your mind for 20 years is taxing. Sometimes my thoughts drift from one side of the coin to the other... back and forth... Of course, living in this world requires a certain amount of participation, I'm starting to wonder how much longer I can keep faking my way through it all before it finally comes crashing down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ-2J0b1uS0
I don't think I need to discuss this very far, at the same time, I think the implosion of my mind is steadily increasing in speed, I can't see this lasting another... 40 years.
Psychological states of mind are relative. We hold them against a floating standard of what is "normal".
I could easily argue that what we view as being socially acceptable is bat-shit crazy, or at least moderately delusional.
Which can make any deviant perspective seem like a reasonable stance.
Which completely destroys the field of Psychology. Suddenly people who once needed to be fixed, no longer need it.
How reasonable is it to ask a person, who suddenly finds themselves in society of people who are stuck at a mental maturity of age 4, to "(When in Rome,) do as the Romans do"? Not very.
It seems the human mind is (usually) wired to naturally accept whatever paradigm it is brought up in - yet - I have memories as young as age 4 that have drastically shaped who I am, a person deviant from the society he has grown up in.
I suppose the fault is mine for listening to philosophies at age 4 that were greater than the philosophies of the current society. I didn't realize that adults didn't even analyze to the degree I did as a child.
My deviant state of mind isn't wrong because I hold a different philosophy than the normal person. To me, anyone who, without question, removes the idea of suicide from the table, has by default condemned themselves to slavery. What society/world WOULDN'T these people live in?
This is also damning for the argument of free will; we've evolved from sludge to value our own life. To NOT have a choice in whether we live or die results in the defacto stance of NO FREE WILL - that's just how human beings are programmed.
Just because I'll keep more options on the table than the average person, does not lead to the logical conclusion that there is something wrong with me. To make this argument is absurd. I am not depressed, I am not sad. I'm a happy person who enjoys innocent, light-hearted laughs. It's this world I hate, and I recognize that I cannot change the world. At the same time, I recognize that I do not have any desire to change myself - thus, the paradox.
"There will never be a reason why I will surrender to your advice
To change myself, I'd rather die
You'll never take me alive"
and
I want to live.
Holding paradox in your mind for 20 years is taxing. Sometimes my thoughts drift from one side of the coin to the other... back and forth... Of course, living in this world requires a certain amount of participation, I'm starting to wonder how much longer I can keep faking my way through it all before it finally comes crashing down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ-2J0b1uS0
I don't think I need to discuss this very far, at the same time, I think the implosion of my mind is steadily increasing in speed, I can't see this lasting another... 40 years.
Psychological states of mind are relative. We hold them against a floating standard of what is "normal".
I could easily argue that what we view as being socially acceptable is bat-shit crazy, or at least moderately delusional.
Which can make any deviant perspective seem like a reasonable stance.
Which completely destroys the field of Psychology. Suddenly people who once needed to be fixed, no longer need it.
How reasonable is it to ask a person, who suddenly finds themselves in society of people who are stuck at a mental maturity of age 4, to "(When in Rome,) do as the Romans do"? Not very.
It seems the human mind is (usually) wired to naturally accept whatever paradigm it is brought up in - yet - I have memories as young as age 4 that have drastically shaped who I am, a person deviant from the society he has grown up in.
I suppose the fault is mine for listening to philosophies at age 4 that were greater than the philosophies of the current society. I didn't realize that adults didn't even analyze to the degree I did as a child.
My deviant state of mind isn't wrong because I hold a different philosophy than the normal person. To me, anyone who, without question, removes the idea of suicide from the table, has by default condemned themselves to slavery. What society/world WOULDN'T these people live in?
This is also damning for the argument of free will; we've evolved from sludge to value our own life. To NOT have a choice in whether we live or die results in the defacto stance of NO FREE WILL - that's just how human beings are programmed.
Just because I'll keep more options on the table than the average person, does not lead to the logical conclusion that there is something wrong with me. To make this argument is absurd. I am not depressed, I am not sad. I'm a happy person who enjoys innocent, light-hearted laughs. It's this world I hate, and I recognize that I cannot change the world. At the same time, I recognize that I do not have any desire to change myself - thus, the paradox.
"There will never be a reason why I will surrender to your advice
To change myself, I'd rather die
You'll never take me alive"
Understanding People
I'm playing Star Wars.
They released an update to the game, I made a post about how I think they did something stupid - basically, they had a passive, sub-leveling system called Legacy. They activated some of the stuff in Legacy - but the prices for the things are about 2-3 times greater than what most people can currently afford. After 4 months of playing only about 1% of the player population can afford EVERYTHING they released... I pointed out that the cost of the perks are so ridiculously high that there's not actually any point in having a Legacy sub-leveling system, that costs are going to determine what people buy... This was one of the responses to my post:
So. This kind of asinine, childish, bull shit has been going on my entire life. I don't really care what people have to say about my ideas, its their INTENT that pisses me off. I can agree or disagree with logic, I can counterpoint arguments, but when someone says something along the lines of:
... like I'm a fucking whiny moron, THAT pisses me off. That's a personal attack, that's someone who's trying to garner support against an idea through trying to make me look stupid, NOT by providing a valid/logical/reasonable argument.
FUCK PEOPLE LIKE THIS. http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=403020
------------
"I don't think you're supposed to buy everything on the first day it releases, they are items you put some effort into getting not handouts."
-Yes, but the game is 4-5 months old and very few people can afford to purchase most of the released perks. Casual players will be spending YEARS trying to buy these things, which is just stupid. As I said earlier, cost determines what you can buy, so what the fuck is the purpose of an entire sub-leveling system?
They could have done something cool - like allow you to accumulate "Legacy points" after you reach 25, for each legacy level you gain after 25. These could be spent to purchase the perks FREE OF CHARGE. Instead, it's just an over-inflated clusterfuck.
------------
People wonder why I don't bother talking much or why I don't want a lot of relationships with other people. This is why. It's the snide, heartless comments that I get bombarded with. These aren't statements of endearment, they're mindless insults meant to make me look stupid & ostracize me, and I'm someone who just doesn't want to put up with it.
The internet is a breeding ground for people who "look tough". Someone griping about the difficulty of a game? Just start insulting them and someone else is likely to join in. Disagree with your politics? Start insulting them. Comradery at it's finest. Debate & argument have no meaning anymore, it's who knows more "Your momma so fat" jokes. In politics its who can make the more stupid sound catch-phrase -- ObamaCare, etc.
They released an update to the game, I made a post about how I think they did something stupid - basically, they had a passive, sub-leveling system called Legacy. They activated some of the stuff in Legacy - but the prices for the things are about 2-3 times greater than what most people can currently afford. After 4 months of playing only about 1% of the player population can afford EVERYTHING they released... I pointed out that the cost of the perks are so ridiculously high that there's not actually any point in having a Legacy sub-leveling system, that costs are going to determine what people buy... This was one of the responses to my post:
I don't think you're supposed to buy everything on the first day it
releases, they are items you put some effort into getting not handouts.
Yes, they are post 50 content, the whole Legacy system is designed to be something your main, likely already a 50, can share with other characters you create.
Sometimes you gotta spell this stuff out for people *rolling eyes*
Yes, they are post 50 content, the whole Legacy system is designed to be something your main, likely already a 50, can share with other characters you create.
Sometimes you gotta spell this stuff out for people *rolling eyes*
So. This kind of asinine, childish, bull shit has been going on my entire life. I don't really care what people have to say about my ideas, its their INTENT that pisses me off. I can agree or disagree with logic, I can counterpoint arguments, but when someone says something along the lines of:
Sometimes you gotta spell this stuff out for people *rolling eyes*
... like I'm a fucking whiny moron, THAT pisses me off. That's a personal attack, that's someone who's trying to garner support against an idea through trying to make me look stupid, NOT by providing a valid/logical/reasonable argument.
FUCK PEOPLE LIKE THIS. http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=403020
------------
"I don't think you're supposed to buy everything on the first day it releases, they are items you put some effort into getting not handouts."
-Yes, but the game is 4-5 months old and very few people can afford to purchase most of the released perks. Casual players will be spending YEARS trying to buy these things, which is just stupid. As I said earlier, cost determines what you can buy, so what the fuck is the purpose of an entire sub-leveling system?
They could have done something cool - like allow you to accumulate "Legacy points" after you reach 25, for each legacy level you gain after 25. These could be spent to purchase the perks FREE OF CHARGE. Instead, it's just an over-inflated clusterfuck.
------------
People wonder why I don't bother talking much or why I don't want a lot of relationships with other people. This is why. It's the snide, heartless comments that I get bombarded with. These aren't statements of endearment, they're mindless insults meant to make me look stupid & ostracize me, and I'm someone who just doesn't want to put up with it.
The internet is a breeding ground for people who "look tough". Someone griping about the difficulty of a game? Just start insulting them and someone else is likely to join in. Disagree with your politics? Start insulting them. Comradery at it's finest. Debate & argument have no meaning anymore, it's who knows more "Your momma so fat" jokes. In politics its who can make the more stupid sound catch-phrase -- ObamaCare, etc.
Friday, April 6, 2012
4 Dimensions
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/search-for-natures-hidden-dimensions-continues.ars
We can start to shove String Theory back under the rock from which it came.
I have been saying for a while now... THERE ARE ONLY 4 DIMENSIONS (or at least a maximum of 4). You do not need any more dimensions. The most simple of math in physics does not support any dimensions beyond 4.
-------------
I dug up some of my notes from last year...
First three lines on the first page:
May 2, 2011
I. Spacetime
* 4 dimensions, 3 of space, 1 of time
t=sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
The result is % time dilation.
OTHER EFFECTS: length contraction and (inverse) mass increase
Conclusion: Time creates space (length) and mass.
One equation, one result, three effects. Other theories which rely on mass being created by other dimensions are now dying.
v = v1 + v2 does NOT provide any account of time dilation. Hell, I don't even care about that. I care what THE EQUATION SAYS ABOUT THE UNIVERSE. Newton's universe has one space dimension where velocities are simply added together.
v1 = .9c
v2 = .7c
v = 1.6c
compared to: v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + (v1v2) / c^2 )
v = ( 1.6 ) / ( 1 + (.63) / c^2 )
v = ( 1.6 ) / ( 1.63 )
v = .981595...c
Both the lorentz-fitzgerald equation and einstein's equation account for a dimension of time that works like a form of density - there is a maximum amount you can occupy before you break the universe - for velocity this is c. It is logical to assume there is also a limit to density - because the FOURTH DIMENSION is the limit.
Ah what the fuck does anyone care... nobody's going to listen.
We can start to shove String Theory back under the rock from which it came.
I have been saying for a while now... THERE ARE ONLY 4 DIMENSIONS (or at least a maximum of 4). You do not need any more dimensions. The most simple of math in physics does not support any dimensions beyond 4.
-------------
I dug up some of my notes from last year...
First three lines on the first page:
May 2, 2011
I. Spacetime
* 4 dimensions, 3 of space, 1 of time
t=sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
The result is % time dilation.
OTHER EFFECTS: length contraction and (inverse) mass increase
Conclusion: Time creates space (length) and mass.
One equation, one result, three effects. Other theories which rely on mass being created by other dimensions are now dying.
v = v1 + v2 does NOT provide any account of time dilation. Hell, I don't even care about that. I care what THE EQUATION SAYS ABOUT THE UNIVERSE. Newton's universe has one space dimension where velocities are simply added together.
v1 = .9c
v2 = .7c
v = 1.6c
compared to: v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + (v1v2) / c^2 )
v = ( 1.6 ) / ( 1 + (.63) / c^2 )
v = ( 1.6 ) / ( 1.63 )
v = .981595...c
Both the lorentz-fitzgerald equation and einstein's equation account for a dimension of time that works like a form of density - there is a maximum amount you can occupy before you break the universe - for velocity this is c. It is logical to assume there is also a limit to density - because the FOURTH DIMENSION is the limit.
Ah what the fuck does anyone care... nobody's going to listen.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
i broke it
if eternal soul and
if born into sin and
if belief = salvation
then you must believe
your eternal soul is dependent on your belief and you will reject ideas (logic and reason) that contradict your belief because your eternal soul depends on it being true
...
i change the picture on each of the pieces and the world fell apart.
if people exist and
if poverty without money and
if education = money
then you must go to school
your well-being is dependent on your education and you will reject anything that contradicts education and the things that are taught (not necessarily information but behavioral, social, etc aspects)
...
basically, school is the common thread that ties us all together. its where concepts of strong individuality are squashed and an "easier to manage" type of personality... where people ascribe to social norms... hierarchies... pedagogy... *sigh* i see it... the pieces on a balloon just going for a ride to where ever. i get it...
know what?
if born into sin and
if belief = salvation
then you must believe
your eternal soul is dependent on your belief and you will reject ideas (logic and reason) that contradict your belief because your eternal soul depends on it being true
...
i change the picture on each of the pieces and the world fell apart.
if people exist and
if poverty without money and
if education = money
then you must go to school
your well-being is dependent on your education and you will reject anything that contradicts education and the things that are taught (not necessarily information but behavioral, social, etc aspects)
...
basically, school is the common thread that ties us all together. its where concepts of strong individuality are squashed and an "easier to manage" type of personality... where people ascribe to social norms... hierarchies... pedagogy... *sigh* i see it... the pieces on a balloon just going for a ride to where ever. i get it...
know what?
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Bogus emails
My mother sent me an email she received, seeking validity of the claims it made.
Instead of just looking it up and telling her valid or invalid, I explained the process I go through to determine truth.
I think... this may be something that people don't like about me.
My intentions are pure and simple, help educate people, give them the tools to make an educated determination of validity.
I think other people look at this, and take it COMPLETELY different. I think they see it as a cutting-off - a separation. By giving them the tools to make their own determination, they see it as me pushing them away. This makes sense if relationships are based on a system of mutual burdens...
... interesting. Willful ignorance for the sole purpose of wanting to connect to other people.
Instead of just looking it up and telling her valid or invalid, I explained the process I go through to determine truth.
I think... this may be something that people don't like about me.
My intentions are pure and simple, help educate people, give them the tools to make an educated determination of validity.
I think other people look at this, and take it COMPLETELY different. I think they see it as a cutting-off - a separation. By giving them the tools to make their own determination, they see it as me pushing them away. This makes sense if relationships are based on a system of mutual burdens...
... interesting. Willful ignorance for the sole purpose of wanting to connect to other people.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Physics...
I've had questions and answers from physicists and read things in books that, blatantly, don't make sense.
I'm a HS grad with NO FORMAL EDUCATION WHAT-SO-EVER in physics. To all you Dr.s, Graduates, and Profs. I have a single, blunt message:
Please pull your heads out of your asses.
I'm sorry to be harsh, but this needs to be said, "G" - Newton's G - is wrong, and so is any equation that uses it.
Let's start off with something simple; if I were to take an exam and a question was:
"Draw a cube"
and all I did was to draw a square, my answer would be marked wrong. If I, then, went up to my teacher and demanded it be marked correct because "A cube contains a square", I'd get laughed at.
To quote John Gribbin in "Get a Grip on Physics";
"Newtonian mechanics isn't "wrong". It is in effect the version of Einsteinian mechanics that applies for velocities much smaller than the speed of light-a "special case" of the special theory of relativity. To put it another way, Newtonian mechanics, in all its glory, is entirely contained within Einstein's description of the world."
"Newtonian mechanics" is COMPLETELY WRONG. Physicists tell me to provide math for my ideas, so I'll pull that shit on you now. PROVIDE THE MATH THAT PROVES NEWTONIAN MECHANICS IS ACCURATE. Newton's mechanics are a good approximation for measurements at low, every-day velocities that we work with here on planet Earth. Approximations are NOT ACCURATE, they are approximations. While you may end up with similar answers for velocity, you will completely fail at accounting for mass increase, length contraction, and time dilation, unless you decide to bull-shit staple it on to your answer because you know it's an effect, even though Newton has no account for it in his equations.
To use the math another way, Einstein's equations account for a FOUR DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE, Newtons account for ONE or TWO DIMENSIONS. We do not live in a one/two dimensional universe. The difference? Draw a tesseract. And Newton draws a line/square.
FOUR DIMENSIONS:
v = (v1 + v2) / ( 1 + (v1*v2) / c^2 )
ONE DIMENSION:
v = v1 + v2
While "v1 + v2" is adopted from Newton, Einstein's equation inherits a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT meaning than Newtons. Newton's equation does not account for increases in Mass, Decrease in Length, or Time Dilation. How this is STILL considered an approximation, is beyond my comprehension. Just because the differences appear to be very, very, very small; imperceptible to us as human, does not mean that they are not wrong.
...
Gravity is a complete and total cluster fuck. Einstein was a BRILLIANT man and well educated. I am not well educated, nor do I have the background in mathematics to adequately attack his equation for gravity... I don't even have my notebook with the equation at the moment.
F = G ((m1 * m2) / r^2)
"G" is nothing more than a cosmological fudge factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
Newton, was also a BRILLIANT man, but he had NO WAY of knowing that the Universe was 4 dimensional, and his equations do not reflect a 4 dimensional universe. The FACT that his equation for gravity falls apart at high masses is expected.
The answer, then, is to throw the equations away, not to adopt them and integrate them into more complex equations.
How a number can have a negative dimension of mass and two negative dimensions of time, is far, far, far beyond my comprehension, and more a symptom of "cosmological fudge factor" than of "complete accuracy". The units involved in Newtons equation are ... lacking. Velocity is a FOUR DIMENSIONAL unit, it contains a representation of both space and time (v = d / t). MASS is only a representation of the occupation of the time dimension. To equate the problem this causes to the velocity equations: imagine having measurements of distance, but not knowing the constraints of time, you wouldn't be able to do the math. r^2 isn't much better off. Distance without the constraint of time... We live in a four dimensional universe, any measurement that is meant to have an effect on time - needs to have both space and time in at least some of the variables.
Example:
t = sqrt ( 1 - ( v^2 / c^2 ) )
...
Until physicists throw out their equations for gravity, we will be stuck spinning our wheels trying to decipher a universe in a way that cannot be deciphered.
I'm a HS grad with NO FORMAL EDUCATION WHAT-SO-EVER in physics. To all you Dr.s, Graduates, and Profs. I have a single, blunt message:
Please pull your heads out of your asses.
I'm sorry to be harsh, but this needs to be said, "G" - Newton's G - is wrong, and so is any equation that uses it.
Let's start off with something simple; if I were to take an exam and a question was:
"Draw a cube"
and all I did was to draw a square, my answer would be marked wrong. If I, then, went up to my teacher and demanded it be marked correct because "A cube contains a square", I'd get laughed at.
To quote John Gribbin in "Get a Grip on Physics";
"Newtonian mechanics isn't "wrong". It is in effect the version of Einsteinian mechanics that applies for velocities much smaller than the speed of light-a "special case" of the special theory of relativity. To put it another way, Newtonian mechanics, in all its glory, is entirely contained within Einstein's description of the world."
"Newtonian mechanics" is COMPLETELY WRONG. Physicists tell me to provide math for my ideas, so I'll pull that shit on you now. PROVIDE THE MATH THAT PROVES NEWTONIAN MECHANICS IS ACCURATE. Newton's mechanics are a good approximation for measurements at low, every-day velocities that we work with here on planet Earth. Approximations are NOT ACCURATE, they are approximations. While you may end up with similar answers for velocity, you will completely fail at accounting for mass increase, length contraction, and time dilation, unless you decide to bull-shit staple it on to your answer because you know it's an effect, even though Newton has no account for it in his equations.
To use the math another way, Einstein's equations account for a FOUR DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE, Newtons account for ONE or TWO DIMENSIONS. We do not live in a one/two dimensional universe. The difference? Draw a tesseract. And Newton draws a line/square.
FOUR DIMENSIONS:
v = (v1 + v2) / ( 1 + (v1*v2) / c^2 )
ONE DIMENSION:
v = v1 + v2
While "v1 + v2" is adopted from Newton, Einstein's equation inherits a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT meaning than Newtons. Newton's equation does not account for increases in Mass, Decrease in Length, or Time Dilation. How this is STILL considered an approximation, is beyond my comprehension. Just because the differences appear to be very, very, very small; imperceptible to us as human, does not mean that they are not wrong.
...
Gravity is a complete and total cluster fuck. Einstein was a BRILLIANT man and well educated. I am not well educated, nor do I have the background in mathematics to adequately attack his equation for gravity... I don't even have my notebook with the equation at the moment.
F = G ((m1 * m2) / r^2)
"G" is nothing more than a cosmological fudge factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
Newton, was also a BRILLIANT man, but he had NO WAY of knowing that the Universe was 4 dimensional, and his equations do not reflect a 4 dimensional universe. The FACT that his equation for gravity falls apart at high masses is expected.
The answer, then, is to throw the equations away, not to adopt them and integrate them into more complex equations.
How a number can have a negative dimension of mass and two negative dimensions of time, is far, far, far beyond my comprehension, and more a symptom of "cosmological fudge factor" than of "complete accuracy". The units involved in Newtons equation are ... lacking. Velocity is a FOUR DIMENSIONAL unit, it contains a representation of both space and time (v = d / t). MASS is only a representation of the occupation of the time dimension. To equate the problem this causes to the velocity equations: imagine having measurements of distance, but not knowing the constraints of time, you wouldn't be able to do the math. r^2 isn't much better off. Distance without the constraint of time... We live in a four dimensional universe, any measurement that is meant to have an effect on time - needs to have both space and time in at least some of the variables.
Example:
t = sqrt ( 1 - ( v^2 / c^2 ) )
...
Until physicists throw out their equations for gravity, we will be stuck spinning our wheels trying to decipher a universe in a way that cannot be deciphered.
Monday, April 2, 2012
What is Fair?
5 = 5
What is Fair?
When my brother and I were children and we had something to divide between us, we devised a system where one of us would cut or separate the objects in question and the other would choose which we wanted. This made the person who was doing the dividing very interested in making the split as even as possible. This was as fair a system as a 5 year old and 6 year old could create - and it worked.
The problem with the concept of "what is fair?" is EVOLUTION.
Millions of years of evolving has consistently rewarded creatures who are selfish or self-interested. The creatures who were willing to divide and share evenly weren't as successful as the creatures who were more willing to take more for themselves. The so called selfish gene.
Knowing that we are prone to view situations, encounters, or any other situation where we have to judge fairness through the lens of the selfish gene, we absolutely MUST account for this and adjust our perception accordingly.
What is Fair?
When my brother and I were children and we had something to divide between us, we devised a system where one of us would cut or separate the objects in question and the other would choose which we wanted. This made the person who was doing the dividing very interested in making the split as even as possible. This was as fair a system as a 5 year old and 6 year old could create - and it worked.
The problem with the concept of "what is fair?" is EVOLUTION.
Millions of years of evolving has consistently rewarded creatures who are selfish or self-interested. The creatures who were willing to divide and share evenly weren't as successful as the creatures who were more willing to take more for themselves. The so called selfish gene.
Knowing that we are prone to view situations, encounters, or any other situation where we have to judge fairness through the lens of the selfish gene, we absolutely MUST account for this and adjust our perception accordingly.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Hmph.
First, go listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vy_G5q0Pwg
-----------------------
Seems some of my ideas are already taken:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0_nuvPKIi8
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvrBzwBIFhM
3) http://engineeringworks.tamu.edu/index.php/2010/old-technology-new-promise/
-----------------------
Seems some of my ideas are already taken:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0_nuvPKIi8
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvrBzwBIFhM
3) http://engineeringworks.tamu.edu/index.php/2010/old-technology-new-promise/
Saturday, March 10, 2012
PEOPLE DON'T THINK.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/a-scientific-view-of-non-scientific-beliefs/3593910
Getting a person to form an opinion BEFORE giving them the facts is more powerful and effective than giving people valid information. The more emotional the issue is, the better.
Once the opinion is formed, the facts and information DO NOT MATTER.
Basically, don't give people information, give them opinions. People don't have critical thinking skills, so they don't know what to do with information anyways; so people are looking for OPINIONS anyways.
I've always wondered why there is such a cultural fascination with people who can memorize vast amounts of facts (Jeopardy & politicians), and completely ignore people who hold good and just philosophies.
I can't do what politicians do when they list of numerous topics or viewpoints they support. I can't list 25 songs I like without giving it 5 minutes of thought.
The best way I can describe how I view this world, is how I play chess. I adopt certain general philosophies and apply those philosophies to certain situations to see what I should do or think (they of course have exceptions, addendums, etc). This creates a coherent, logical world view where both late-term abortion and capital punishment are BOTH WRONG.
The republican view of NO ABORTION and YES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT makes NO LOGICAL SENSE. These people have not put any thought or analysis into their world view. They have simply adopted the opinions of others whom they like and/or agree with.
Getting a person to form an opinion BEFORE giving them the facts is more powerful and effective than giving people valid information. The more emotional the issue is, the better.
Once the opinion is formed, the facts and information DO NOT MATTER.
Basically, don't give people information, give them opinions. People don't have critical thinking skills, so they don't know what to do with information anyways; so people are looking for OPINIONS anyways.
I've always wondered why there is such a cultural fascination with people who can memorize vast amounts of facts (Jeopardy & politicians), and completely ignore people who hold good and just philosophies.
I can't do what politicians do when they list of numerous topics or viewpoints they support. I can't list 25 songs I like without giving it 5 minutes of thought.
The best way I can describe how I view this world, is how I play chess. I adopt certain general philosophies and apply those philosophies to certain situations to see what I should do or think (they of course have exceptions, addendums, etc). This creates a coherent, logical world view where both late-term abortion and capital punishment are BOTH WRONG.
The republican view of NO ABORTION and YES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT makes NO LOGICAL SENSE. These people have not put any thought or analysis into their world view. They have simply adopted the opinions of others whom they like and/or agree with.
Friday, March 2, 2012
35 MPH.
I got stuck behind some FUCKING MORON merging on to the highway.
Traffic was moving a steady 65 mph.
The genius middle-aged woman on her cellphone in front of me managed to accelerate to 35 mph by the time the on-ramp ended.
My life, my vehicle, my well-being; all in danger because this fucking idiot is too busy chit-chatting on her cellphone.
...
I pull into my neighborhood and the person behind me decides 30 mph down a NEIGHBORHOOD ST. is TOO FUCKING SLOW. Nothing like driving like a fucking idiot around your neighbor's children on a warm, sunny day.
Yeah, the woman in my neighborhood wanted to drive faster than the woman merging onto the highway.
I FUCKING HATE THE PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET.
Traffic was moving a steady 65 mph.
The genius middle-aged woman on her cellphone in front of me managed to accelerate to 35 mph by the time the on-ramp ended.
My life, my vehicle, my well-being; all in danger because this fucking idiot is too busy chit-chatting on her cellphone.
...
I pull into my neighborhood and the person behind me decides 30 mph down a NEIGHBORHOOD ST. is TOO FUCKING SLOW. Nothing like driving like a fucking idiot around your neighbor's children on a warm, sunny day.
Yeah, the woman in my neighborhood wanted to drive faster than the woman merging onto the highway.
I FUCKING HATE THE PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Movie Theaters
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/weird-gun-future-attacks-words-not-people-193050045.html
Forget libraries. We need these in movie theaters, installed on the back of EVERY seat.
Forget libraries. We need these in movie theaters, installed on the back of EVERY seat.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Danica Patrick - 2
http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/news?slug=dw-wetzel-danica-patrick-daytona-500-wreck-022712
It's funny, being TOTALLY RIGHT. Although this was on the track, it still highlights the point that driving is NOT a completely SOLO task, you share the road with others.
It's funny, being TOTALLY RIGHT. Although this was on the track, it still highlights the point that driving is NOT a completely SOLO task, you share the road with others.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
I'm a race car driver...
http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/news?slug=dw-wetzel_danica_patrick_lamborghini_mercedes_022012
“I said, ‘I’m a race car driver. I’m not going to hurt anyone out here. I know what I’m doing.’"
Because, apparently, being a race car driver makes all the other people going 50 mph SLOWER than you competent drivers. Because grandma up there in her 1970 Oldsmobile didn't hear you coming up on her, didn't see you in her rear-view mirror... Because deer and other wildlife magically know to avoid you.
Because even though there are laws, you are above them.
Yes, being a race car driver gives you skills, but doing it on public roads is just plain STUPID.
Where could she have gotten this "holier-than-thou" attitude?
"Patrick said she had always gotten out of other tickets, even once when she doubled the speed limit in the Lamborghini."
Oooohh... the cops let her get away with it, so she figured she was immune. Kudos to that one cop for actually enforcing the @$^#ing law.
Dear Danica,
You're driving like a moron on roads with vehicles that have CHILDREN in them.
Will you continue to drive like this when you have a little one(s) strapped in the back of the car?
Will you then curse at someone else who whizzes past you going 2x the speed limit?
Please slow the fuck down. Most people don't keep an eye out for someone who's going 2x the speed limit. You may be able to afford a new car, medical bills and what-not, others can't. You SHARE the road with other PEOPLE (not traffic cones), your complete and utter disregard for other drivers well-being is sickening. While you may be highly competent, others are not; your careless actions will make any accident many times more severe than it would have otherwise been.
-Me
“I said, ‘I’m a race car driver. I’m not going to hurt anyone out here. I know what I’m doing.’"
Because, apparently, being a race car driver makes all the other people going 50 mph SLOWER than you competent drivers. Because grandma up there in her 1970 Oldsmobile didn't hear you coming up on her, didn't see you in her rear-view mirror... Because deer and other wildlife magically know to avoid you.
Because even though there are laws, you are above them.
Yes, being a race car driver gives you skills, but doing it on public roads is just plain STUPID.
Where could she have gotten this "holier-than-thou" attitude?
"Patrick said she had always gotten out of other tickets, even once when she doubled the speed limit in the Lamborghini."
Oooohh... the cops let her get away with it, so she figured she was immune. Kudos to that one cop for actually enforcing the @$^#ing law.
Dear Danica,
You're driving like a moron on roads with vehicles that have CHILDREN in them.
Will you continue to drive like this when you have a little one(s) strapped in the back of the car?
Will you then curse at someone else who whizzes past you going 2x the speed limit?
Please slow the fuck down. Most people don't keep an eye out for someone who's going 2x the speed limit. You may be able to afford a new car, medical bills and what-not, others can't. You SHARE the road with other PEOPLE (not traffic cones), your complete and utter disregard for other drivers well-being is sickening. While you may be highly competent, others are not; your careless actions will make any accident many times more severe than it would have otherwise been.
-Me
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
No Children.
I remember as a child I expressed, under no uncertain terms, that I did not want to have children when I got older.
Adults, and one of my cousins in particular, jested about how I'd "meet the right woman" and wouldn't keep this opinion.
If it isn't completely obvious from all my posts, I do NOT understand this society/culture. The things I experienced as a child, from other children, is NOT something I would want anyone else to experience - particularly someone I love. To me, having a child is a choice. While biologically I'm programed to want to have children to pass on my genes, I've always thought that part of being a human being is over coming these inherent biological desires - to be more than another stupid animal.
Icing on this cake, is the sheer COST of having children. I won't go into details, there's enough all over the internet.
Adults, and one of my cousins in particular, jested about how I'd "meet the right woman" and wouldn't keep this opinion.
If it isn't completely obvious from all my posts, I do NOT understand this society/culture. The things I experienced as a child, from other children, is NOT something I would want anyone else to experience - particularly someone I love. To me, having a child is a choice. While biologically I'm programed to want to have children to pass on my genes, I've always thought that part of being a human being is over coming these inherent biological desires - to be more than another stupid animal.
Icing on this cake, is the sheer COST of having children. I won't go into details, there's enough all over the internet.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
What's Real?
What is reality? What is real?
Consider an event, for every person who witnesses the event there is a unique perspective/interpretation of that event and sometimes these perspectives don't agree. There must be some SINGLE TRUE narrative of the event, differing perspectives cannot both be true.
Fast Forward to 3:20 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoCqftOYHX4
Humans tend to have difficulty at discounting something they know to be false. (The implications of this for politics and things like global warming are mind bending. In this study, the source of the information discredited the information and there was still bias. What happens when the opposing viewpoint discredits the information? Would it reinforce the bias and make it worse?)
So when people are raised with, say, religion; they have difficulty ever getting out of religion, even though someone can COMPLETELY destroy the logic of religion, the people will still believe something they know to be false. This doesn't even account for the other benefits of religion - social interaction and status... much more, that make it extremely difficult to stop believing.
I know I am human.
I know humans make mistakes.
I know humans who are incompetent assess their capability much higher than it actually is.
The only thing that can be concluded is that, no matter what I think I know, no matter what I think my skills are, no matter how good I think I am, I can never be certain of what I think I know to be true, real.
That is why we have the scientific method - a way of discerning the truth from fiction (so long as it remains objective). So we can say with some degree of certainty that things that come from science are probably more accurate than things that don't come from science.
The only thing that I can conclude is that we are foolishly arrogant. We are petty and incompetent. We run this world like we have absolute knowledge (just listen to any politician speak) and we elect leaders who present this absolute knowledge with the best production value (or who holds the most popular absolute knowledge). Human beings would rather be told they're right than to hear the truth, so this world could be run on delusions, lies and deceptions; and there is nothing any ONE person can do about it. 90% of this world believes in religion. The path of converting a theist to a non-theist is an amazingly difficult and personal endeavor. What of all the other delusions they hold about the world we all share?
Consider an event, for every person who witnesses the event there is a unique perspective/interpretation of that event and sometimes these perspectives don't agree. There must be some SINGLE TRUE narrative of the event, differing perspectives cannot both be true.
Fast Forward to 3:20 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoCqftOYHX4
Humans tend to have difficulty at discounting something they know to be false. (The implications of this for politics and things like global warming are mind bending. In this study, the source of the information discredited the information and there was still bias. What happens when the opposing viewpoint discredits the information? Would it reinforce the bias and make it worse?)
So when people are raised with, say, religion; they have difficulty ever getting out of religion, even though someone can COMPLETELY destroy the logic of religion, the people will still believe something they know to be false. This doesn't even account for the other benefits of religion - social interaction and status... much more, that make it extremely difficult to stop believing.
I know I am human.
I know humans make mistakes.
I know humans who are incompetent assess their capability much higher than it actually is.
The only thing that can be concluded is that, no matter what I think I know, no matter what I think my skills are, no matter how good I think I am, I can never be certain of what I think I know to be true, real.
That is why we have the scientific method - a way of discerning the truth from fiction (so long as it remains objective). So we can say with some degree of certainty that things that come from science are probably more accurate than things that don't come from science.
The only thing that I can conclude is that we are foolishly arrogant. We are petty and incompetent. We run this world like we have absolute knowledge (just listen to any politician speak) and we elect leaders who present this absolute knowledge with the best production value (or who holds the most popular absolute knowledge). Human beings would rather be told they're right than to hear the truth, so this world could be run on delusions, lies and deceptions; and there is nothing any ONE person can do about it. 90% of this world believes in religion. The path of converting a theist to a non-theist is an amazingly difficult and personal endeavor. What of all the other delusions they hold about the world we all share?
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Disappointing (2) ...
I remember hearing about Baby Einstein on NPR a while back...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/education/24baby.html
Yeah.
http://www.babyeinstein.com/refund/
Basically, "Baby Einstein" is a guilt-free baby-sitter for parents. Mesmerizing flashing lights, with the implied claim that playing this video for your child will make them like Einstein.
Where are television companies on this? Where are producers? Where are animation artists? Where are writers?
Isn't it ammoral to continue producing products/shows/movies/etc in such a manner when there is evidence that doing so creates attention problems - to put it more bluntly, changes how the brain functions?
ALL HAIL THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR ($@#^ children)!
Disappointing...
http://www.wimp.com/mediachildren/
I'm writing this at work because it (this video) is bothering me so much.
While it's primarily about the effects of media on the brains of children, I think it says an equal amount about our behaviors as humans - this is one of those things that causes numerous dominos to fall over, idea after idea... but I don't have the time to link it all together right now.
Instead, this video reminds me of when I was a child and got to play with some of my friend's brand new toys (he was a spoiled rich kid). I knew the toys from tv commercials - they looked flashy and exciting - but to be in their presence was actually really disappointing. There was no fast music, no flashy quick chaning situations... just this stupid hunk of plastic sitting there. There were times when I was spoiled with a certain toy and it would be disappointing because I didn't have someone to play with. So my perspective of advertising as a child changed to disbelief. I recognized that they made the toys seem as exciting as possible - but in actual practice they were just toys. Having them did not make my life exciting or new or flashy or more important than it was before.
Advertising stopped working on me as a child.
This video, goes FAR beyond just advertising. It answers questions I have been pondering a very long time; are people really all that much more than "dumb animals"? Is our intelligence SO much greater? Are humans more than just underlying programming running through existence (as opposed to being a dynamic intellect capable of re-writing this code)? This video points me in the direction of "No".
More later...
I'm writing this at work because it (this video) is bothering me so much.
While it's primarily about the effects of media on the brains of children, I think it says an equal amount about our behaviors as humans - this is one of those things that causes numerous dominos to fall over, idea after idea... but I don't have the time to link it all together right now.
Instead, this video reminds me of when I was a child and got to play with some of my friend's brand new toys (he was a spoiled rich kid). I knew the toys from tv commercials - they looked flashy and exciting - but to be in their presence was actually really disappointing. There was no fast music, no flashy quick chaning situations... just this stupid hunk of plastic sitting there. There were times when I was spoiled with a certain toy and it would be disappointing because I didn't have someone to play with. So my perspective of advertising as a child changed to disbelief. I recognized that they made the toys seem as exciting as possible - but in actual practice they were just toys. Having them did not make my life exciting or new or flashy or more important than it was before.
Advertising stopped working on me as a child.
This video, goes FAR beyond just advertising. It answers questions I have been pondering a very long time; are people really all that much more than "dumb animals"? Is our intelligence SO much greater? Are humans more than just underlying programming running through existence (as opposed to being a dynamic intellect capable of re-writing this code)? This video points me in the direction of "No".
More later...
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Respect (short)
To start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect This is so very critical to understand.
"Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding."
"The unskilled suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average."
If I were to tell you, "I don't give you respect, you have to earn it", what is my opinion of you, given the two above quotes?
By declaring that someone has to earn your respect, you are declaring that you think they are less than you and need to prove otherwise.
Congratulations, you suffer from illusory superiority, you're probably an idiot...
If you respect other people for no other reason than that they are people... well. You're probably over-estimating them, but the interaction between you and everyone else will be MUCH LESS CONFLICT RIDDEN. Unfortunately, receiving respect is a DISASTER to the human brain, some people view it as submission, others as a threat, and a few sane people will actually appreciate it.
"Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding."
"The unskilled suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average."
If I were to tell you, "I don't give you respect, you have to earn it", what is my opinion of you, given the two above quotes?
By declaring that someone has to earn your respect, you are declaring that you think they are less than you and need to prove otherwise.
Congratulations, you suffer from illusory superiority, you're probably an idiot...
If you respect other people for no other reason than that they are people... well. You're probably over-estimating them, but the interaction between you and everyone else will be MUCH LESS CONFLICT RIDDEN. Unfortunately, receiving respect is a DISASTER to the human brain, some people view it as submission, others as a threat, and a few sane people will actually appreciate it.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Aliens. Um, NO.
I know people who believe in aliens - or rather - believe that we have, at some point in human history, been in contact with aliens. It often comes about when talking about religion, some people want so badly for there to be more to life that they end up retreating to arguments about how the stories in the could be a reference to alien contact in history. "Flaming chariots from the sky" and such nonsense.
What really pisses me off are the actual scientists who make obscure references to the possibility that aliens can/could/may contact us.
There are NUMEROUS things keeping us from aliens and aliens from us, lets take a look at the universe and use what we know to make a determination of the possibility that aliens have been in contact with earthlings.
First off, lets talk about DISTANCE, a one dimensional measurement between two objects.
1 light year = 5,878,625,373,183 miles. Light covers this distance in one year. (On a side note: to show the EXTREME stupidity of people, when I typed in "1 light year equals..." bing gave the suggestion of "1 light year equals how many earth years". A light year is a measure of distance, not a measure of time.)
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity limits ALL possible speeds to the speed of light (approx. 186,300 miles / second - or 5,878,625,373,183 miles in a year).
Our galaxy is approx. 100,000 light years across.
All information in space - light/radio waves/etc - travels at the speed of light. Human beings have been broadcasting into space for approximately 100 years, so the only aliens who could possibly know about us would have to live within 100 light years in order to have received any signals from us.
Looking at Earth from a vast distance (10 million light years away or more) will reveal the state of the planet as it was, 10 million years ago, NOT as it is today. So any alien civilization that exists any more than a few hundred light years away will not know of our existence for a very, very long time, all because of the DISTANCES involved.
The other problem is time.
Consider the approximate age of the universe as we currently understand - approx. 14,000,000,000 years old.
The last 5,000 years or so of human history is hardly even a hiccup on this scale of time. To simply assume that another life form has risen and continued to exist for long enough period of time to advance to the point where they could travel at/near light speed... at a sufficiently small enough distance to be aware of our existence... is absurd.
Finding life in the universe is a lot like trying to hit a moving dartboard that's a mile away, while floating in space, while blindfolded. Hit the board, and you may have found a planet that can support life. Hit the bullseye and you've found a planet with life on it. This does not even necessarily mean that the life on this planet is intelligent, it could be plants only, or something else that we can't even imagine!
Many people will defend their religion, when faced with the admission that it is illogical, some people will argue "aliens" which is something completely undefined (unlike religion). They completely, totally, utterly fail at realizing the size or scope of the universe. When faced with the limitations of physics, they are only left with one argument, "Well, Einstein could be wrong".
Well, yes, he could be wrong. But the option with the greater possibility is that the person making the argument is just plain stupid. I'm sorry to get harsh, but I'm sick of listening to these nonsensical arguments. It's time to start calling stupid, stupid.
What really pisses me off are the actual scientists who make obscure references to the possibility that aliens can/could/may contact us.
There are NUMEROUS things keeping us from aliens and aliens from us, lets take a look at the universe and use what we know to make a determination of the possibility that aliens have been in contact with earthlings.
First off, lets talk about DISTANCE, a one dimensional measurement between two objects.
1 light year = 5,878,625,373,183 miles. Light covers this distance in one year. (On a side note: to show the EXTREME stupidity of people, when I typed in "1 light year equals..." bing gave the suggestion of "1 light year equals how many earth years". A light year is a measure of distance, not a measure of time.)
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity limits ALL possible speeds to the speed of light (approx. 186,300 miles / second - or 5,878,625,373,183 miles in a year).
Our galaxy is approx. 100,000 light years across.
All information in space - light/radio waves/etc - travels at the speed of light. Human beings have been broadcasting into space for approximately 100 years, so the only aliens who could possibly know about us would have to live within 100 light years in order to have received any signals from us.
Looking at Earth from a vast distance (10 million light years away or more) will reveal the state of the planet as it was, 10 million years ago, NOT as it is today. So any alien civilization that exists any more than a few hundred light years away will not know of our existence for a very, very long time, all because of the DISTANCES involved.
The other problem is time.
Consider the approximate age of the universe as we currently understand - approx. 14,000,000,000 years old.
The last 5,000 years or so of human history is hardly even a hiccup on this scale of time. To simply assume that another life form has risen and continued to exist for long enough period of time to advance to the point where they could travel at/near light speed... at a sufficiently small enough distance to be aware of our existence... is absurd.
Finding life in the universe is a lot like trying to hit a moving dartboard that's a mile away, while floating in space, while blindfolded. Hit the board, and you may have found a planet that can support life. Hit the bullseye and you've found a planet with life on it. This does not even necessarily mean that the life on this planet is intelligent, it could be plants only, or something else that we can't even imagine!
Many people will defend their religion, when faced with the admission that it is illogical, some people will argue "aliens" which is something completely undefined (unlike religion). They completely, totally, utterly fail at realizing the size or scope of the universe. When faced with the limitations of physics, they are only left with one argument, "Well, Einstein could be wrong".
Well, yes, he could be wrong. But the option with the greater possibility is that the person making the argument is just plain stupid. I'm sorry to get harsh, but I'm sick of listening to these nonsensical arguments. It's time to start calling stupid, stupid.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)