To debate, means to listen to the other side.

The terminal end of the year is a shining beacon towards which we are moving at a very average pace. It is the time for reminiscing, and the time to think of the future. And, for now, it is time to talk about projectile-based weaponry.


It is often the case that people who are pro-guns, so to say, are more able at argumentative reasoning than the people who wish stricter gun control. Now, while the beginning of the argument goes relatively well, with the host bringing out the obvious problem of bringing guns to where little children run around and the counterpoint being that children are not limited to schools, thereby the danger of a kid acquiring a gun is present everywhere a gun and a kid are somewhat near to each other. However, the next point that is made is about assault rifles. The problem here is that while firearms can be used in self defence, the likeliness of anyone using an assault rifle for it is pretty slim. A small revolver or a semiautomatic pistol can be carried in a small purse or strapped to one's body, limiting access to it by third parties - first they'd have to see it, then make a quick play for it. An assault rifle kind of sticks out, literally. You don't want to look like you're going into a war zone when you are walking into a meeting where you are supposed to look trustworthy. And at 2-3kg, they weigh about a laptop, so one does not really want to lug one around on one's everyday business, especially in addition to a laptop.
In fact, the assault rifle has a higher rate of fire, a larger clip and the bullets fly a wee faster. Where does that come in handy except for a war or a zombie outbreak? Even if you are burgled at your home, a small handgun is probably a better choice due to room limitations. If you need more bullets than are in a small clip, you are doing something terribly wrong. Since we have no experience with zombie outbreaks, the only reasons to own an assault rifle is if you were part of the military (though technically the soldiers rarely 'own' 'their' guns) or a SWAT team member (the same technicality). So civilians really have no reason to own assault rifles. And yes, I do realize guns can be jolly good fun, I doubt that is sufficient reason to endanger the public this much. While smaller weapons do pose a threat, the threat is somewhat smaller due to the incapability to shoot a lot in a short amount of time. Moreover, the self defence value is really important. After all, you can't really get rid of all firearms.
Small handcannons are quite sufficient. Assault rifles are a bit too much


Happy new year and may you have better health than I do right now.

Isn't being realistic a little bit too pessimistic?

We are constantly reminded that perfection does not exist. We must settle for something that we can have, but we are always left wanting more. It is a sad fact of life that we all know, we can never have it all. And yet, here we are, chasing perfection.

What poses a problem is the definition of 'perfect'. If there is something more it could be, then it is not a whole. Yet as engineers can confirm, if you can remove something without losing function, then it is inefficient, wasteful. Defining 'perfection' is a deep dark maze with no way out, the more you try, the more lost you get. But defining something or someone 'perfect' for you, that is another matter altogether.

Then again, being human isn't exactly perfect. Out of all the things and being we could've been, we ended up with the one species that's 'greatest' achievement is the ability to efficiently expire all of us by pressing just a few buttons. Sometimes the bar for perfection has to be lowered. After all, some consider love perfect.

Even if we find someone to call perfect, it is a pretty long shot to hope that they think the same of us. And even that might not be enough.


And by perfection, I do not mean the small town constantly bothered by sandworms.



Also, a fun remark I found while reading a review about the new HP Envy laptop-tablet combo:

"No touchscreen option for Windows 8, no downgrade support for Windows 7"

Don't think it is worth the price tag.

What do you want?

There comes a time every year, when one has to wonder... has what we've done been good enough? Have we been successes or failures?

While our past actions carry their part in an assessment such as this, the more important factor to consider is our values. People differ violently from one another, we don't all hold the same things to be important. Some wish to be painfully honest about everything, others consider it best to hold their tongue. There are countless options between the extremes, especially when it comes to the people you hold dear and/or trust. Was it right to stay quiet about your feelings until there was nobody to tell them to? Was it right to push life into a new chapter by leaving behind the previous? Was it right to make a long commitment just in order to not get irritated by inactivity? While we cannot change what we've done, these thoughts are difficult to ignore. Regret may be useless, but that does not mean it will just turn its back and walk away.

So what if we cannot change history? Maybe we can change ourselves in the present to merit a better future? Doubtful. We are what we were and the only way to change what we are is to change the events that happen and/or the environment the events take place in. Changing a single element amongst many is likely to be in vain. The change can be quickly undone or made insignificant. A closed system likes to preserve the Status Quo, compensate for sudden alterations. But motion, of necessity, requires a change of perspective. One cannot change at a standstill.

Time and tide wait for no man

So, the world did not end. But what if it had?

Last night I came across a question. "If the world were to end tomorrow, would be be happy with what we've achieved?" To be honest,  I did not even think to answer that question, but another popped into mind. If the world were to end tomorrow, would anybody care what we've achieved? After all, it would be as if somebody hit the big red reset switch...

Another question is 'what does the end of the world entail exactly?'. I mean, a zombie apocalypse isn't the 'end of the world', it is the 'end of the world as we know it'. Does the power just go out like in Revolution? Does a disease wipe out almost all of human population like in Jeremiah? Why do people believe the human race would survive the end of the world? It appears folly to think that people would survivea nuclear holocaust and the nuclear winter thereafter. How many people are required to repopulate the species?

In any case, there are some safe facilities built for the purpose of withstanding extreme conditions and sustaining life within. The problem lies in their size and the speed at which these places can be populated and sealed. Whatever happens that ends the world, it isn't going to be pretty.

Because we have to move silently, merely gazing upon our toes.

University is an extremely effective institution. Sure, it allows for some education, but what it really excels at, is killing creativity.

When we think of school, we also think of the problems stated in maths and physics, our desperation trying to solve them. We remember the essays that were written in the blink of a cosmic clock that attempted to solve or analyse grave problems in our society or events that happened before we were born. We recall the 3D structures of chemical compounds and the grand folly disputes of philosophy. What we learned, we had to understand. Not any more.

What we find now is that memorizing is key. And not in just subjects like anatomy, where practice would be difficult to implement, but in physics and chemistry as well. Sure, we can remember some quotes from some smart book about 'information' or electronic paramagnetic resonance, but we do not need to know what we can talk about. If we do happen to comprehend what we are on about, it's an accidental bonus. Nothing of importance. You can't call it a physics exam if you leave 10% of it to actual implementation of your knowledge and use the 90% to ask for memorize stuff. Lest we forget, "Knowing how to think empowers you much greater than those who only know what to think".

Gone is the logical thinking, gone is the creativity. Our thinking gets confined to a small box. Soon enough the only thing keeping you from going ultimately mad is a daily game of sudoku. And we must obey.



When it comes to losing my mind, I might skip a weekend and thus face a possible 3-day break. Perhaps even longer. But I ain't gonna die, keep checking back.

"Do you compute?"

Clarity. Something in great shortage in this place and age. It is difficult to know things for sure, especially things concerning other people.

Imagine a world where you could 'read' other people's true opinions about you. Naturally, this would have to be a long-term deal as opinions change as sure as the turning of the worlds. Opinions change in a matter of hours, sometimes even minutes. But wouldn't you really like to know how somebody felt about you? Someone you met but a few months ago that you have grown fond of or someone who has simply been around for a long time and is barely a friend. Do they merely tolerate you or is there something more to it? Do you sense something or are you delusional?

A really great upshot of such an ability would be the ability to fix the opinion. Misunderstandings happen, wordings are never perfect and people can get the wrong idea. Knowing when somebody misreads you gives you a chance to make it right, explain your true meaning or intent. If used right, it would give a whole new level to honesty. If used wrong, it's a weapon. But as always, the definition of 'right' and 'wrong' depend on morality and the aim of the person currently evaluation the 'rightness' or 'wrongness of the method.

A problem with 'reading' opinions is that opinions often enough consist of emotional data. Feelings that cannot be translated into words well enough to convey the original meaning. Even the effect of a single hormone, oxytocin, is hard to put into words without making it a long list[1] that makes it sound like a wonderdrug of sorts. This will obviously lead to translation problems.

Then again, if you can't understand the person by reading his or her opinion, you probably don't 'get' him or her with or without the help of a magical seventh sense. Sure, it can give you a boost of confidence, but if there is no spark, magic isn't going to cut it. And if you do understand the person, you 'get' what they mean and feel when they talk with or even confide in you, you probably don't need a superpower to see what they feel. After all, if they go so far as to let you peek into their mind, they trust you. And trust is a great place to move forwards from.



The last boost of posts was related to the long pause preceding it. The Christmas-themed videos are related to the coming holidays (obviously).

I said that.

Language. A method to converting and conveying information. There are many, but they are all analogous. But what if one were to not know any language and then attempted to learn?
The main issue at hand is obviously the concept. For someone who does not know anything about verbs, it is rather difficult to explain even simple things such as dying. Teaching nouns is generally pretty easy, as long as one confines oneself to fruits and cheeses. The differences between air, space and outer space would be lost.

The problem is very similar to decoding messages written in a foreign language. Sure, there are a few recognizable patterns, but for there to be meaning, one has to look at the context around the unknown. If you still can't imagine it, think of the first time you looked at a Russian text.

This is precisely the problem computers have nowadays. The definitions are generally hard-coded into their systems, parts of their code. Teaching such a concept from zero would be rather difficult and time-consuming. And obviously impractical. So now they have certain words they listen for and basically guess what the input meant. Usually they guess right as most of the communication with computers is in English and English happens to be a simple language. The fact that the programming languages used are often based on English doesn't exactly hurt, either.

And then you wonder how the Daleks learned English.

The past does not, and cannot, specify the nature and position of every person in the world or event in the future. What it can do is describe the underlying fractal pattern which creates them.

"You are stealing me, you will steal me, you have stolen me. Oh my, tenses are difficult, aren't they?" - Idris

Future is important, as previously[1] mentioned. But so is the past. If we had a chance, just one chance to change a single thing in our past, what would we? Would we do something personal, change something in our past, or go for something more... global? Stop ourselves from making a past mistake or simply kill Hitler? If we chose either, we still have to think of the consequences. Every action worth changing causes a ripple, a line of events that follow. If there was no Hitler, perhaps there would've been some strategic genius instead? If we had not made a mistake in the past, perhaps we would have messed up even greater a bit later?
Once we have decided on a change and carried it out, we can observe the consequences. We, and only we, know the original timeline. So if the current situation turned for the worse, would we mind? It would be natural to mind making a mistake on a global scale, and especially so if the change directly affects us personally. Then again, if nobody else know how bad we messed up, why should we?
Regret is a natural reaction. Certain events trigger certain actions that are unlike us, extremely improvised and not of our nature. Even if nobody else knows, we know. We know that we did something we wouldn't in our right minds. We know we did something risky without a safety net. It's purely based on emotions and not logic, after all, regret is rather useless as one cannot change the regrettable action. Well, unless we enter the current hypothetical situation, in which we are painfully likely to cause even more regret.
Changing the past is a decision that has to be made with a heavy heart, ready to cause great pain. Even if we don't create a paradox, we could create something even worse.

The future is not in the past.

It is important to look forward. To want to be more than what you are. Because if there is no progress, what is the point of action? If the status remains the same despite your best efforts, why even try? Action should cause reaction, a wave, a ripple of some kind, just to have meaning.

"Words offer the means to meaning, and to those who will listen, the enunciation of truth." - Alan Moore

 People want different things from life. Some desire greatness, power over others. Some wish financial success and material wealth. Some value intelligence over anything else and thus wish to make significant contributions to science, some believe that the thing that makes them feel the best is making others feel better. Others merely want a family to call their own and financial security, to live in love and not in poverty. Some are satisfied by a simple life on a farm, away from the busy sprawling cities. We all have our hopes and dreams, and certain things we can be happy with. Certain milestones or objectives that are more than mere waypoints on our road of life. They are the steps we refuse to fall from, bridges we cross just once. They are what we can call 'enough'. Just about 'enough'. The bare minimum of happiness.
But once reached, one cannot bear remaining stagnant. It'll do for a while, but soon enough one will want more. It is human nature, it is the reason why people always complain about the present state of things whatever that state may be. And I do mean whatever. The lack of change is one of the most irritating forces there is. That's why people stuck in confined spaces for a long time can go a little wacky, to say the least. It is upon that nature that we act, make a move for progress. Not to act would mean not to matter.
However, to act mean to have a possibility to act, a chance to make a change. And that is what many of us lack for most of our lives. A white collar worker cannot initiate a promotion-inducing chain of events at any time. The action has to be well-timed, or it will remain arbitrary, inconsequential. In that case, it might be better for the action not to have taken place at all. For an action to matter, it does not only have to be purposeful, bringing along some kind of advance, but the time for it also has to be bode. But we all need actions that matter.
Actions offer the means to matter, and those who will act, an accomplishment of significance.

Look beyond the horizon.

I am what I am because to be less would be too little.

While it is true that we are what we were, we are the result of the influences of previous experiences, it is also probably true that life is not predetermined. If it were, we would never have to take responsibility as our actions are not decided by us and thus we could do anything at all. I we could choose to do anything, that is. But as just mentioned, probably we can change our lives, influence our well-being. Be our own lucksmiths, so to speak.

A large part of our success can be contributed to our mindset, our outlook on life. Feeling confident makes you look confident, act confident, stride through difficult situations without too much hassle. In the words of the Gibb brothers, "Well now,  I get low and I get high, and if I can't get either, I really try. Got the wings of heaven on my shoes, I'm a dancin' man and I just can't lose.". Feeling unstoppable pretty much makes you unstoppable. Until you meet an immovable object.

What we do, what we accomplish by our actions, matters. Our thoughts form the Universe, after all. To do them well, we need the aforementioned mindset, and naturally motivation. A great motivation is aiming for something really far and really, really difficult to get. None of that Isaiah Berlin's "I determine myself not to desire what is unattainable." stuff. You never know what is unattainable until you try time and time again and fail to see anybody accomplish your aim. And that can take a lifetime. Sometimes more.

What remains to be a problem is that people listen to other people, and other people can be real jerks. Everyone's a critic and everybody lies. Your ambitions can be ridiculed, your logic questioned, it can cause your mindset to falter. Some people are innately very persuasive even without using logical argumentation or derivation, some people impact using cold, brutal, honest logic. Either way, it is your beliefs that are at risk. And losing one's faith can be a mighty dangerous thing.[1] Especially if it happens to take place when one is emotionally compromised due to other, perhaps even unrelated events already.

What you see is what you get, unless you start thinking. By thinking, you empower yourself, you get an edge over many others, you take a leap in the direction of your destination. This destination depends on your aspirations, motivations, determination, will and strength of mind. Alas, the destination remains unknown until the moment it is reached. No worries, the trip is generally the best part of it. What we do when we reach the destination... I guess we'll see about that when the time comes.

"There comes a time when you look into the mirror, and you realize that what you see is all you will ever be … and you accept it, you kill yourself, or you stop looking into mirrors."

Medicine isn't exact. Psychology isn't a science.

"Do we really need a reason? We are animals, killing is in our nature."

The quote is from a relatively new movie simply named "Pathology". It is about a pathologist that starts playing a game with other pathologists, a game where each of them kill someone random and the others must then figure out how it was done. Apparently (although this was not mentioned) one of the rules was that the cause of death has to be determinable (so no cremating after the murder). Spoilers.
The game went on for quite some time with the method always being determined (be it forced inhalation of liquid nitrogen or feeding nitric acid with booze, the methods were pretty unimaginative). Finally, the protagonist's fiancée came to town and the protagonist wished out of the game. Naturally, that was out of the question as he had already tasted the fruit and, as such, trapped by the game. So he decided to kill all the players. With so many targets (5) and a very limited time schedule (any death within the 'circle' would implicate the protagonist in the eyes of the remaining players, thus he would endanger himself and his fiancée), he had to take out everyone at once. He had to blow them up.
Sadly, he got sloppy. The one time it really mattered to be thorough, he got sloppy and did not make sure he got all of the targets. The 'dungeon master' survived, killed the protagonist's fiancée, after which the protagonist decided to carry out an autopsy on the DM... while the DM was still alive.

What bugged me was that out of the 5 other players, only 2 had a beef with him. One, who he slept with on multiple occasions, was killed by the DM shortly before the explosion. The other was the DM. The rest were unaware of the coitus or that the DM was going mad. By 'mad' I mean on a senseless killing spree. Stabbing many random people, without causing a genius mystery, without the mental thrill of outsmarting the others. Also, the DM was jealous over the protagonist due to the damsel he killed. So, the only person the protagonist really had to kill was the DM (as the damsel was already deceased) and call it quits. When two players die, it's rather easy to explain the wish to stop hanging out with people who kill each other, who are wildcards, who cannot be trusted to play the game objectively. The one thing the protagonist had to do is make sure the DM died. He didn't. Instead, he did the risky thing and hoped everyone was deceased, even though he was near the explosion. He refused to be methodical, he refused to be logical.

Overall, the movie hinged on the general assumption that pathologists, like fighter test pilots, have to be slightly mad, different from the general public by their thinking and distance from emotions. But what they appeared was rather different. They appeared to be like career soldiers, classic binary thinkers. Relatively unimaginative, always relying on simple steps, straight conclusions pertaining to only the current situation. No joy, no pain, like machines. The only satisfaction being the hope of being better than the rest, of making it further, of being the last man standing, of winning. For pathologists, especially for those who believe that what they find can benefit those who are still alive, such a game is rather illogical. People who have chosen their career to help people, who live in the hope that their work helps people, are not the people who would start cold-blooded murder circles, even if it is just for kicks.