A surprisingly violent topic.

If one country were to want the demise of an another country, say someone wanted to strike down USA, how would this be orchestrated?

Well, a direct assault without proper propaganda could cause a large-scale counter-attack which could prove to be quite impossible to beat. Hence an indirect method has to be concocted. Espionage and sabotage are both great options, Sun Tzu has even given quite good instructions on how to use spies in terms of espionage:

“9. Having local spies means employing the services of the inhabitants of a district.

10. Having inward spies, making use of officials of the enemy.

11. Having converted spies, getting hold of the enemy's spies and using them for our own purposes.

12. Having doomed spies, doing certain things openly for purposes of deception, and allowing our spies to know of them and report them to the enemy.

13. Surviving spies, finally, are those who bring back news from the enemy's camp.” – Art of War

But spies can only do so much, they are most definitely of great use as catalysts. They speed up the process but they are generally unable to bring a country down on its knees on their own, they need help. Since direct confrontation is not an option, what is?

Biological warfare would do the job – eliminates the people while keeping the wealth intact. But even in such a case the land can’t be easily occupied without outside intervention. Perhaps capturing the land is out of the question, then the devastation of the country is the aim. This eliminates competition or serves as a preemptive strike against a potential foe. Surely there are other reasons as well for somebody to want a country to lose its standing in global politics or its long-maintained stability.

The nuclear option.

Now, you may wonder how come a direct military incursion is out of the question but a nuke is not. The trick in this matter is that the nuke isn’t aimed at the country but rather at its infrastructure. The explosion has to take place up high so that the only thing that reaches the underlying civilization is an EMP wave. This way the people are affected indirectly – instead of attacking the people, the electronics goes offline. As most of us rely on our electronic devices, chaos would ensue with no doubt. If you don’t believe that the lack of electronics would create civil unrest and panic then just think what we couldn’t do without electronics. No registers at shops means manual calculation, a skill many have forgotten, no credit or debit cards means all you have to pay for anything with is the cash you have at hand, with little or no cash your options become scarce. No security systems means a huge crime wave as there are no security cameras. No cell towers or phones means you can’t call for help if you are hurt, there’s a fire or you witness a crime. There is no reason beyond morality to stop the crimes and the chaos and morality sells for very little for a person in a panic.

Another thing you might wonder is that other nations will note who detonated that nuke and might retaliate. Even if you could convince them that the detonation was the doing of a small terrorist group your country could still be invaded by foreign troops as Afghanistan and Al Qaeda proved. But this chance is a lot lower as the nuke did not directly harm any human being. It merely destroyed the people’s common environment. The nuke is less likely to be intercepted because it is targeted at outer space, not a country. Sure, it is a risk but a small one. Especially if you have yet another nuke in your possession or an ally who has one.

This strategy naturally does not work in the case of small target countries but it is not supposed to – who would want to devastate a tiny nation without military incursion? Larger countries on the other hand are, well, large enough to be targeted successfully. This makes it a very handy tactic for smaller countries and nations to defend their position against bullies. The main problem with it lies in the economic standpoint – a lot of international corporations rely on large countries as do many states. If a giant, such as the United States, were to suddenly bankrupt, the economic aftershock could drag quite a few states down with it. So step one would be economic independence which is quite difficult to achieve in this day and age.

Therefore the nuclear option serves the aim of devastating an enemy better when it is used from great altitude. The EMP wave caused reaches over entire continents at heights great enough but the explosion does not. At ground level the nuke is surprisingly useless – it might take out only a city or two. An EMP on the other hand can throw the entire country all the way back to dark middle ages. Sure, the inhabitants of the country might be displeased with your actions but with hardly any means of transportation – modern cars also rely on electronics – there’s hardly anything they can do against you. And the government will be quite distracted by internal chaos so unless there already is a direct confrontation they probably won’t resort to war.

Humanitarian aid can help rebuild the victim state but the blast will leave quite a mark on the country’s position on the global scale. And that is the aim of the strike – to cripple the state. Not to wipe it off the map but to maim it.

Unbiased bigotry

Education – the grading and the positive bias.

I’d like to introduce you to two grading systems currently in use in different countries. Both systems are based on a 5-point-principle.

Firstly, a system where grades are given according to a Gaussian principle – most people get average grades, some people get near-average grades and very few get the extremes – superb success and complete failure. This way everyone actually get competent information about their results – if they are average, they will get average grades. If they aren’t, they won’t. This makes sure that everyone knows exactly how smart they are at each subject relative to the general average.

Secondly, a system where the principle is warped so that the average would get a more positive result. For example, on the scale 1-5 with 5 being the best result, the average does not get a 3, the average gets 4. This way the ‘average’ pupil believes that it (forgive me for being genderless) is smart. Therefore it thinks that it can do even better as it is already so successful.

The second system supports the average, giving them a kind of placebo effect. They think they are smarter, hence they try to achieve more. Because in their minds, they can. But is that better?

The problem with everyone thinking they can be better than the average Joe is that everyone wants to be better than the average Joe. That means less lowerclass, more upperclass. The gist of it is that is that society needs a whole lot of lowerclass. Blue collar workers are vital for a healthy society. Society does not need a bunch of people with Bachelor’s degrees who are undereducated to be specialists and overeducated to be anything less. Yet these are the people that the second system creates – unable or unmotivated to become specialists, delusional enough to become useless. This is what the first system avoids – since the average knows they are average they are motivated to remain average in terms of education and employment. This means less overeducation and more workforce. Basically less useless education.

So, which is better, optimism that can lead to more joy and unexpected successes or realism that can lead to more realistic dreams?

Fair warning: not precisely a quick read

So they say sexism is a huge problem in modern video games^[1]. Sure, it is a common problem, but this is the area that has become very loud lately. Allegedly there are too many sexualized woman characters and almost no really strong female characters. This problem manifests itself mainly in the production of large companies like Eidos Interactive (Hitman, Tomb Raider), THQ (Broken Sword 4), Rockstar (all GTA after GTA2) and others of the same ilk (Command and Conquer, Mass Effect, Jagged Alliance, Super Mario). Oddly enough, popular free games tend not to have this problem, except for some massively-multiplayer games (League of Legends, almost all MMORPGs). They either don’t have any women or they are actually comparable in usefulness and body armour (no skimpy clothing) to men. This may be because of the limited budget – it’s good to get the game running, aesthetics is not that important. Wesnoth and UFO:Alien Invasion are excellent examples of this. Sure, there some paid games that don’t have sexism problems, The Sims is rather well done in that respect, as are Portal and Mirror’s Edge. But these are minority examples.

Interestingly enough, feminists have categorized the few female characters in modern media – movies, TV shows, games and books.

The point is also made by the Bechdel test of female presence – in most video games with conversation there is rarely any conversation between female characters about anything else than men. This can be explained by the fact that most protagonists in games are men and in general, the only conversations depicted in any media tends to be between the protagonist and someone else. Hence, if there is a male protagonist, most or all communication between characters involves a male character – the protagonist.

Interestingly enough, when there are strong female characters, people find side-characters that are dubbed feminist by twisting the definition thereof.

I’m surprised (yes, I) how many people do not understand the definition of feminism. It’s not about getting women to power or dragging men down, it’s about making both genders equal. Though they are not. Sure, there are some extremist groups that want women to lead instead of men (as opposed to ‘next to men’), as there are extremist groups that want to ban birth control or kill all Muslims. There are always extremes, but that should not stand in the way of the credibility of actually reasonable activist groups that paint the world black, just not as black as the extremes. After all, even the reasonable groups say that there is a huge problem. And that fear is what they use to get power, similar to what many male pro- and antagonists do.

A question presents itself: is gender inequality still a big problem? In reality, the hysterical, bubbly stereotype is fading quickly as more and more women get educated and better jobs. Merkel is a good example.

Lest we forget, girls outnumber boys in terms of being educated. Well, up to Bachelor’s degree. Once that has been achieved, the number of women being educated sharply falls and looking at doctoral degrees, men outnumber women. This is quite understandable, then why is it so perplexing for feminists that most high-paying positions are occupied by men with PhD-s? Thinking that higher education means better qualifications for higher-paying jobs and that more men get higher education should fix this problem.

And in the topic of ‘science: it’s a girl thing’, I present this nice explanation, courtesy of SMBC:

The low number of women in higher echelons and science appears to be explained by how the society works. It is a balance created by democracy itself. Thus, the question ‘is gender inequality still a problem?’ appears to be answered. So cheer up.

It is not easy to make it in the modern world, it doesn’t matter if you are male or female.

High time to turn to the roots.

We all do things because they seem like good ideas at the time. Alas, acting on impulses I do not fancy. In facts, I prefer not to jump into the water in a strange place. I deal with facts and known variables, not wild guesses. I act when I know the consequences or I can predict them with sufficient accuracy. If some consequences depend on some uncontrollable variable, I prefer not taking the chance. I’m willing to shock myself with a homemade capacitor but only after I have seen the consequences. That way I know the risk. Don’t get me wrong, I like the unknown, it intrigues me. I just prefer to learn about it from a safe distance.

About making the best out of your life and why you should act as I say, not as I do? ‘Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.’ I apparently can’t, but you are not me. You can be better. You can do better.

In the last few weeks I’ve used the word ‘I’ more and more. It’s high time that stopped. Facts and argumentation means more than mere opinions. They matter. So expect a change.

“Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.”

As you may have read in the storyblog (look right), time is relative. Relative to the point where you start counting from, relative to the units you use. Relative even to our own senses.

We sense time is going faster when we enjoy having it, we sense time is slow when we want a period of time to end as soon as possible. For us, in a matter of minutes an hour can pass and vice versa.

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. Times change and we change with the times. We grow old, and die. We get injured, and die. We live, we learn, and die. It’s all a matter of time.

Kris Allen sang that every day we have a chance to live our lives to the fullest or to ‘throw it all away’. RENT claimed that a year of our lives is extremely significant and should be counted in some way. People consider funerals as times of reflection, of looking back. The Centauri had weddings for that. It is said that moments before death our lives flash before our eyes.

It is up to us what we see. We can change our lives for the better or for the worse. But in the end, we still die.

Time is overrated. It isn’t as important as people make it sound. So stop living in units of time and do something for a change.

I’m glad I’m not in China.^[1]

“Well, with everyone now on the same side, perhaps you’re planning to invade yourselves for a change. I find the idea curiously appealing. Once you’ve finished killing each other, we can plow under all the buildings and plant rows of flowers that spell out the words, “Too annoying to live” in letters big enough to be seen from space.”

 

And remember, act as I say, not as I do.

Wit. Meow. Sigh.

Some people appear to have a problem with this pretty little video propagating science and showing how chemistry and product design have a large significance for women, hence also giving the message that science is sexy and attractive and that women can be sexy *and* smart. Those people have a problem because apparently it sends the message that chemistry and biochemistry are all women are able to do and that is the most they can achieve. Or that all women are… chicks. I don’t get that.

What I do have a problem with, is the real message. ‘Science: It’s a girl thing’? Since when is that true? Science is a predominantly male subject. Sure, there are a few women who have also found the charm of astrophysics or, well, chemistry or something like that. But most scientists are still men. Sure, that is what EC is trying to remedy but dubbing science as a *girl* thing is just wrong. On more than the sexist level.

When you talk about scientists, you hardly mean boys and girls. You mean men and women. Product design and innovation takes more education and seriousness a child, boy or girl, would typically have. Thus calling ‘science’ a ‘girl thing’ in a video with, well, not really girls anymore, appears awkward. I don’t care whether you call them ladies or women, but girls is just not right.

In conclusion, whatever the EC meant or did, science is not a ‘girl’ thing. Not just because men can do science as well but also because ‘girl’ is too childish in my always humble opinion. Science is unisex.

“Don’t fear the Reaper”

People hate those people most that they vote for.

It is always easier to oppose new ideas that provoke change in the present situation. It is what American (and many other) politics rely on – the party in power lose popularity so fast they can’t be in power for very long. This is why every once in a while a new party takes space in the government and why three subsequent presidents are rarely of the same party.

Whether the president even should belong to a party is an another matter – in a large country where most people have sided with extremes a popular neutral candidate would be nearly impossible to find anyways. I’m looking at you, Americans.

Everyone’s a critic. Everyone knows how to do things better until they are forced to do it. Nobody actually wants to upset the *natural* order of things. But without knocking over some of the anthills how can they be improved upon?

Chaos propagates growth and innovation. The greatest scientific breakthroughs have been due to military research, the greatest triumphs of democracy have been violent revolutions. Sudden shifts in political power and will could sing a song of prosperity and progress. But most people fear that it would be a chirp for the worse – this causes civil unrest and exaggerated panic. But that every single action the party in power takes is an octave off sounds fishy.

While I understand the importance of hindering the political powers from pushing through their every wish, I do not comprehend to do it at every single step, even when their wish and the people’s wish coincide with each other. After all, how are they supposed to get any work done when nobody wants them to do anything? But the work must be done. Even for the first time.

This is where the critics do themselves harm. Universal healthcare is either good for you or it does not affect you, hence there is no reason to cause ruckus or make a fuss about it. By doing so they create unnecessary panic and opposition to the ruling group of people. And then they start supporting the people whose task it is to criticize everything the people in power do. And next time they vote for the critics.

It reminds me of a saying “Every revolutionary becomes a conservative the day after the revolution.”

Because it works vice versa, it also applies to general politics. The underdog becomes the big cheese, the big cheese becomes the biting dog. Again and again and again and again. It is a vicious circle that makes very little sense. Why vote for the ones you know you will hate if they are apparently no better than the people you hate but will turn to tolerate in time for the next elections?

I don’t always cite the source, but when I do, it’s worth it.

A while ago I got a comment about me using fictional examples to illustrate my point. This is because fictional and theoretical examples are, for better or worse, more widely known. Nowadays it is difficult to find a person who has not read Douglas Adams or watched Doctor Who, but it is nearly impossible to find a person up to date with professor Denis Dutton’s Darwinian theory about beauty. It is logical that a person cannot be up to date with every interesting bit of science, hence in the softer points I prefer examples of a more… theoretical kind. This way either most people are aware of what I speak and understand my point better or everyone is able to recreate the situation in their mind.

This is not a statement to defend my right to use non-factual illustrative examples. I know they are good. I know they convey the point better than any actual fact that I should start explaining.

This merely explains why perhaps it is best to use fictional examples in a public statement.

As many people are aware, popular science tends to warp facts and actual scientific theories. What The Bleep Do We Know is a shining example of that. Words and terms are constantly twisted to fit the needs and wants of ignorant minds. You could just try to filter out plausible and implausible theories but you would end up making mistakes. This is why if examples are brought, it is very important to make sure that these examples are reliable, nobody wants a Planet X situation again. Nobody wants incredible works of fiction interpreted as factual information. This is why it is more reasonable to use fictional examples as opposed to so-so-factual theories. Fiction can be interpreted in different ways, doing that with facts is just twisting reality.

Now arises the problem of credibility – anything could be written in a piece of fiction. Hence, it would be easy to claim that people are reborn all the time and they only understand it when they find the Tree of Life – the symbol for eternal life, bliss, redemption. And they die again to be reborn once again. All this because The Fountain depicts it in a very realistic (awesome nova) and emotional way that simply connects with the person watching it. Or that the first cure for cancer will be universal and will treat all kinds of cancer because several fictional works have the invention of the ‘cure for cancer’. That is why I try to bring several examples whenever any examples are involved. Fiction does not come from cosmos, it draws its inspiration from reality. It takes parts of our lives, of past events, of our world, and it changes them, it translates them to a world of wonder. But if you understand where exactly the inspiration comes from, you understand how the human mind works a lot better. And The Fountain is a pretty cool movie.

To sum it all up, I end up with the same claim I have used over and over before. It is the unknown that drives us. It makes us dream of better (or worse) worlds, but the dreams always link with the real world. Fiction toys with our beliefs and fears, but it is always supported by some innate ability of ours. Whether it is the effect rage has on us that makes us beastly, the constant need for gentleness that makes us fragile, the search for patterns that makes us predictable or our love for love that makes us emotional and irrational. It is never the big plot of fiction, it is not the story of fiction. It is what supports the story, sells the story, makes it believable. It is the link to the real world that I seek and support using as examples. Often fiction is more truthful than the currently accepted facts.

So be safe. Dream.

 

 

This video illustrates the point of the dream I had^[1]. It is what I see the future as, what I hope it to be.

“Because you were born.”

I want to ask you your thoughts. I want to know your positions about certain topics, the reasons for such opinions, and perhaps even your evaluations on certain subjects. I admit I am a little lazy, but I’m not as lazy as most people sound nowadays. I want to know about the ‘grey zone’ as well.

I am sick and tired of constantly hearing how Americans political arguments go off to fields of mud. They get sticky for everyone involved, staining every single one of them. And one of the main culprits – the ‘team’ effect. Instead of everyone being allowed to express their own ideas, they are forced to express the party’s ideas. All republicans appear to hate Obama for the same things democrats hated Bush for, and there is no constructive criticism in sight. One side simply hates the other, nobody apparently in the middle. This is impossible! Since the two sides apparently conflict in every aspect, the tables turning roughly every 8 years, it is impossible that the majority of people agree with this dance and have no personal viewpoints or perspectives at all. And since the sides oppose each other, they can be classified as ‘extremes’. It is not wise to propagate two extremes and leave nobody in the middle – compromises are necessary for an efficient government. Then again, the ‘Fast and Furious’ program (in which Americans (ATF) sold automatic rifles to Mexican druglords to find out where the druglords have been getting their automatic rifles for so long, it turned out to be Americans (governmental program), in the process they lost track of a few thousand rifles, but they recovered one that was used to kill an American citizen) depicts that government as not very efficient. But it has worked so far.

In fact, the very same situation can be compared to Team Edward and Team Jacob. A completely arbitrary competition wherein the result is in the book, yet people rooted for the side that was predetermined to lose. And these sides conflicted, sometimes violently. And I dare to add yet another example of stupid, arbitrary conflict: Team Catholic vs. Team Muslim. USA appears to be inhabited by many loud-mouthed violently religious people who hate all other religions, but mainly those stinky rural Muslims who want to destroy the world. So the *United* States decided to strike down those pesky peace-loving Muslims, thereby unleashing a wave of destruction. I have previously mentioned how the Republicans decided to disallow an American citizen to join their party because the man was a terrorist. There was no proof of that other than the fact that the man admitted to being a Muslim. Hence for no apparent reason there is a conflict between two religions, neither of which has proven to be better than the other. Though, on second thought, perhaps Islam has caused less death.

Another thing that I hate about some Catholics is their constant belief that science is blasphemy or always wrong. Not just do they want to ban evolution being taught in schools, even those that watch TEDtalks comment how they find talks on evolution ‘perplexing’ because ‘God created man perfect’ and any changes would be a ‘step backwards’ (these excerpts are from actual comments). The latest news was about North Carolina banning accurate sea level rise predictions. It is ridiculous. I am not against believing in Jesus or Mohammed or Ra just because I do not believe in them, they are positive Gods that prohibit manslaughter and tell you to act responsibly. I am against the bigots who refuse to accept that their point of view might not be wholly accurate or even faintly correct. And this classification of ‘Team Jesus’, ‘Team Mohammed’, ‘Team Bieber’, is simply propagating senseless conflict with violent outcome. It is as arbitrary as punching a person in the face for wearing orange.

The only good thing that I can think of that this constant misclassification and creating contrasting sides is that if one of those sides is abolished, eliminated, eradicated, got rid of, then the side that remains can aim for Unification – every person thinking as the whole. But with bigoted people I doubt very much that is something worth aiming for.

Inspiration.

And to top off this short post, CLANG!

 

It is the question ‘where we must go?’ that drives us, it is innovation that shows us the road, it is the practical application that pushes us towards the destination. The destination: whatever you can dream.

“Impossible is nothing.”

I had a dream of the future, a vision of what is to come.

A world where corporations rely more on people’s will to work – more open offers for work. If there is something they want to get done, they ask for it – they call for specialists internationally, not just locally. For corporations and employees, borders no longer matter. A world where discrimination is limited to class warfare, not racism or sexism. A world where innovation is a perspective, not part of a hipster movement. A world where start-up companies no longer exist – any new ideas must be pitched to large corporations for support. Governments as such exist only as watchdogs for automated processes – law enforcement, healthcare, education – everything is preset and run by enterprises.

Large cities that reach up to the skies, chaos constantly tearing them down. High daily death tolls combined with high birth rate. Long lifespan is improbable. Not due to diseases, but due to constant civil unrest.

The dream is sound, the future possible. Whether it is a good future, is a question of perspective. Whether it is the future, is another. With this little detail anything is possible.

“The universe puts us into places where we can learn. They are never easy places, but they are right. Wherever we are is the right place and the right time. The pain that sometimes comes is part of the process of constantly being born.”

It is the time of graduations, the time we leave what we know once again. It is time of reminiscing, the time to look back at what we have done and what we have experienced. It is the time to look at how we have grown in the past few years.

Have we become more mature, more self-sufficient, or perhaps more dependant? Have we grown more bold due to great achievements or have we become more scared due to humiliations? Have we made friends with people we used to consider our enemies or have we created enemies from our past friends? Have we experienced something we want to remember? Have we met people we want to keep in contact with or never hear from again?

Even if we didn’t achieve the goals we set for us, we have learned from our mistakes and from the experience as a whole. We have grown from our blunders, we have invented ways to streamline our responsibilities. Many of us have become amazingly good at lying, to oneself or to others, many of us have realized the value of honesty. All of us have been redesigned, made better. As always, it is where we go from here that decides who we will be.

Are we ready to pass this milestone?

 

Yes.

“But we can’t be free, until we learn to laugh at ourselves. Once you look in the mirror and see just how foolish we can be, laughter is inevitable. And from laughter comes wisdom.”

“We all do what we do for the same reason: because it seems like a good idea at the time.”

The past is the future, the future is the past.

If reality is something we perceive, can it be manufactured? If we stuck some people in a house, locked the door and barred the windows, made sure they could not get out, yet they would be fed properly, would their reality be limited to the house? If the house is all they know, the house is all there is for them. Mysteries such as where the food comes from or what are the things that can be seen from the window are similar to the mysteries we have: where did matter come from, why does it exist, what is beyond what we know?

It would appear that reality can be artificially created and manipulated. Yes, the truth is fluid, it is a river, or a wave of particles. It is subjective to our experiences. We do not need to remember the past to build a future, probability will work that out on its own. We need to use the past to build a better future, whatever that may be.

The past is prologue.

It can always be considered as such – it explains how we became what we are, it shines the way for the future. It shows what we are, what we want, and what we can. It paves the way for the story, the tiny story that is the present and our immediate plans, hopes, and dreams. The story that is yet unwritten and ends up as prologue for future stories. The end of the story is clear – death. Nothing afterwards.

How the prologue happens, how the story evolves, is up to us. Even when the present doesn’t look too shiny^[1].

Alas, once again.

I recently happened across a CNN interview that explains faith and religion remarkably well: [1] 

The whole point of having faith is that you don’t really have proof. If you had proof, you would have knowledge. When you know something, you no longer believe you know something. Well, sure, one could argue that all knowledge is merely an illusion, in which case you cannot ‘know’ anything, or that you can know something that is actually not true, in which case you cannot ‘know’ it. But let’s leave Gettier’ problem aside for now and explain things in layman’s terms.

Claiming that there is no such action as ‘knowing’ is as arbitrary as saying that nothing is random^[2] – it is language philosophy that means nothing. It is a play on the definitions of words to muck about, there is no purpose in it. Sure, you can say that you don’t actually ‘know’ anything, but how can you really know that? We’ll still be using the word in its proper context, whilst ignoring the specific definition in its every shiny detail.

Knowing something that isn’t true is still knowing. As far as the observer, you, are concerned, you have no or very little doubt that something is true, hence you ‘know’. I believe all people can behave logically, but I have no real proof. Still I do not doubt and I believe this to be true. I have faith.

“Like a tree!”

We all have potential to do something, to be someone else. We have potential to become suicide terrorists, we have potential to become politicians or scientists. What we can be, is an endless amount of knowns and unknowns. What can be defined, is what we are.

Hence if what we are is not defined by what we can be, it must be defined be what we have been, what we were. After all, we are a result of what has happened to us and the actions we have chosen to do.

When we mishear, we still hear real words. When we see something we cannot precisely make out, we see something that ‘probably’ fits. We improvise what we think we perceive by recalling past experience – what could be said in the specific situation, what could we be seeing in a place we are looking at. We look for familiar patterns in strange places to find ‘probable’ objects to perceive. Objects we have seen, sounds we have heard. In the past.

We learn from past events, from experience, and we change through time. These changes can be subtle, such as picking up a new hobby could cause bias towards a different kind of thinking, or huge, like moving to a new place can change how we see the world. The result of these changes is us, our personality, our essence. Even our own actions change us – when we say something, the words often come back to haunt us, to make us change our minds or reassure us of the correctness of our opinions. We think about our decisions time and time again after they’ve been made and the consequences have been observed. We keep thinking, and that changes us.

Once we have experienced something, we have changed. Perhaps so little we cannot even notice it, perhaps more. And the result of these changes is us. What has happened to us and what we have made happen are the things that define us. We are what we were. Regardless of potential.

I know you’ve read similar talk in parts before on this blog but not as a whole. And it is about time to piece it together.

“We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile and nothing can grow there; too much, the best of us is washed away.”

Artists.

“Artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up.” – Alan Moore

Art and literature can be used to convey a message, it is what revolutionaries can use to weaken a regime or conservatives to explain to the people why the regime is necessary. Politics, on the other hand, require the skilful use of warping and twisting the truth to keep the representatives of the regime popular and in power.

Being an artist is not a shame. A writer, a poet, even a philosopher can be of use, of value. If they use their talent for saying something, if they try to propagate thinking of something logical. But if all they do is tinker with nails or something of the ilk, what’s the point?

Modern art has perverted the cause of art – instead of conveying a message or an emotion, people do their best to stand out, to get attention. Not to make a statement. The only message they have is ‘WTF’. Nudity hardly says anything meaningful, paint splatters even less.

Sure, there are those who do not wish artists to speak, those afraid of the truth, or just wanting to tinker alone and not become star artists. Creating is a pleasant pastime that kills time very efficiently – in the sense that time flies. But that is simple doodling, drawing without purpose. While it does not harm anyone, it hardly benefits anyone as well.

Sure, the person creating can be entertained. But it is one of countless ways to be entertained. It is a squeak in a crowd, a hush in a busy train station. It is redundant.

So what is the point of creating art without a point?

Whether or not journalists nowadays serve their purpose is an another question for an another time. Let’s not forget, their work is to report the news. But doing it superficially doesn’t report anything. Sure, knowing *that* something happens could be of use, but it is more interesting to find out *why* that something happened. And that is something they keep missing. And where does it leave us? Uninformed.

Knowledge is power.

Apologies for any randomness you encounter

What is random?

“I have no idea. I'm trying to figure this out while I'm playing my mp3, which is probably pseudorandom”

Every decision we make, we make for a reason. If we have a choice, we are still biased to choose one of the options. The human mind is incapable of making a random choice. Arbitrary is not a problem, unpredictable perhaps, but certainly not random. Even the result of a coin toss depends on the specific technique of the person tossing it, on which side was on top in the beginning. This you can try for yourself – always put tails on top and see how the result goes biased, it doesn’t remain a 50/50 chance. Sure, this bias can be reduced by alternating between heads and tails, but deciding according to an even number of tosses should result in a standstill.

Computer engineers keep trying to create algorithms for random numbers generators, and they claim they have met success. I refuse to believe that they have found an algorithm, a rule, that defines randomness. These number generators generally rely on using the timestamp of the current moment as a source group of numbers. Since a moment is extremely tiny and never repeats, it is quite a good start. But once the moment is known, the number becomes deductible. And a deductible number is hardly random in my very humble opinion.

 

So, if every single choice is biased, what is random choice?

May God protect us despite our sins?

Oh, America.

The country that propagates its stress for personal freedom and the people’s power. Indeed, the power is so great that they vote on everything. They even make sure judges are placed in power according to their spectacular sense of popularity. Because, you know, those who know what’s popular also know what is morally justified.

America is the poster child of democracy and liberties. They do not discriminate according to religion or skin colour, they discriminate according to the assumptions they can make by a person’s religion or skin colour. They don’t call all Muslims evil, they call them terrorists. And terrorists are evil, always!

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

This holds especially true for the current state of USA. Everybody not happy with Americans invading sovereign countries, everybody who dares resist their military forces, everybody who even dares speak out against the needless invasions and mass murders, are dubbed terrorists by default. The fact that it was the American military that gave terrorists a cause, a reason to ‘terrorize’ (that means ‘fight back’), is completely by the point for them.

“What we should do doesn’t lie in the past.”

It lies in the future, and I know that. But to know what we should do, we must take a look at the past. Learn from our mistakes. If invading a country, say Afghanistan, was a mistake, and we know that, the next step is not to go to an another sovereign country, say Iraq, to do the same. Or a third place, say Iran or Pakistan, as the step after that. It is idiotic to keep doing the same thing again and again and expect different results each time. But it is the ‘American dream’.

“You don’t fix faith, faith fixes you.”

Jump, take a leap of faith

It's a question that drives us
To where we must go, It's
the unknown that drives from us
what we want most but
the firefly sits in the corner and rest

“Firefly” (Eurovision 2009, Cyprus)

 

As Captain O’Neil said in SG-1: “We are a curious race.”. We look for the unknown, yet we fear it. Today I watched an interesting new TV show called ‘Saving Hope’. It was about a surgeon that is involved in a car crash en route to his wedding and ends up in a coma because of it. While he is down, he provides commentary to events that happen in the hospital as a spirit while trying to find a way to communicate with his wife-to-be to stop her from losing hope and getting it on with an another surgeon. He, naturally, is portrayed by Michael Shanks of SG-1, Burn Notice, and much other greatly deserved fame. He does a magnificent job with the limited role of ‘spirit’.

But what got me thinking was one of his monologues about doctors. They are thought as much as possible about the known, they get tons of facts. The learn to do tests to get all the information that they can, and act after they review the information. They fear the unknown, jumping into the water in a strange place, cutting somewhere they have no sufficient information about. It is risk they do not want to take. It is a risk nobody wants to take. But it is human curiosity that makes one stick one’s hand into the body of another without being even remotely certain of achieving something of value.

It is a risk they have to take. It is a risk they are willing to take. It is the risk of being human.

“There are many things of which a wise man might wish to be ignorant.”

Today in The Daily Show an important point in today’s society. Public criticism is very often aimed at morality – what is fair game, what is the right thing to do. These are subjective, especially in a country where most publicly speaking people are in two large groups, parties, which conflict with each other at every possible step – they actually try to oppose the other side even if there is no actual point in conflicting. Subjective commentaries, decisions, and assessments rule the open media with an iron hoof. The closest thing to empiric measurements or fact-searching is open polls – after all, isn’t science a democratic virtue, hence democratic in itself?

Opinions can be turned, they can be misunderstood, they can be manipulated. Facts cannot. They are solid, that is why they are facts. They tell us very little and are almost never useful as they are, it requires interpreting for them to be of any use. And for some reason or another people have stopped interpreting. Perhaps because they keep misinterpreting the facts, perhaps because they don’t *need* to. Perhaps because they cannot differentiate between fact and fiction. In the modern world, I have no choice but to admit that the overabundance of information does make it rather difficult to process the information perceived.

But that is why there are movies like ‘What the Bleep do we know?’ where facts are twisted, where conclusions are drawn illogically, where false interpretations are shown as extremely convincing arguments. It is why there are shows like ‘Continuum’ where the bad guys have a ‘good’ cause and the good guys have an ‘evil’ cause. It is why in ‘Babylon 5’ the most barbaric character ended up a philosopher and the friendly guy became the wolf in sheepskin. It is why this blog exists.

To make you think.

 

Also on The Daily Show: NY plans to allow 25g of marijuana for carrying around but large sugary drinks would still be illegal…

“The truth is fluid.”

So, who wants to live forever? Why should someone want to live forever?

There are a number of options what to do when you have a little time in your life, from world conquest to science, any long-term project is possible. Even waiting around for a time machine can easily be achieved, it’s only a matter of time (oh, pun).

However, what are the conditions of prolonged life? Immunity of sickness is kind of an additional perk that should not be added to immortality, hence anyone living very long would probably be ill beyond measure. Just think of someone really old, say 80 or 90. They are obviously deteriorating. Now imagine being worse than that for about one eternity. Not a pretty picture. Now I ask again: who wants to live forever?

Zip it, canhead!

It is so nice when someone remembers the old classics. Sure, there are Babylon 5 references in many comments about modern sci-fi shows (“Boom tomorrow. There is always a boom tomorrow.” etc.), and old games are references in ‘geek shows’ (Chuck, VGHS, The Big Bang Theory, etc.), not to mention all the cosplay events (though I really hate that I do not remember anyone portraying George Stobbard). Nowadays ‘viral’ videos push the memories and remind you of shows from years ago. Firefly lives on because its actors are stars, but underdogs like Jack of all Trades and IT Crowd hardly get any love. And that is why it is so nice to see someone remember those small shows.

Also, after trying out Fedora and Ubuntu with GNOME, I’ve set on Kubuntu instead, GNOME is seriously limiting. Which reminds me what I really, really hate about Windows 8 – one of the things that really, really bugs me in GNOME. The full-screen Start menu. It is a menu. It is not supposed to take the whole screen, it is supposed to be a tiny distraction. The size-to-practicality relation is an important aspect of UX (User eXperience) for me. I want to be able to continue watching a movie while running through the programs list trying to find additional distraction from the things I am actually supposed to be doing. I want to be able to use the menu using my keyboard so that I can open some other program whilst blogging without having to resort to using the mouse or touchpad, all of my fingers are already on the keyboard! I want to be able to use *windows* without having to resort to *tiles* every time I want to start something. And I most definitely do not want to resort to using the file explorer to run programs. Why Windows 8 is still called ‘Windows’ and not ‘Tiles’ is an another question that the people in Microsoft have trouble answering, my guess is it is because of continuity – to keep the series consistent. However, I still believe they have lost their way, the main revolutionary change that Windows originally implemented was windows.*gasp!* Windows allowed running programs side by side, many programs in one’s sight that one could use. Losing those windows and replacing them with tiles and full-screen apps is a huge step backwards. A gigantic leap, even.

I understand Microsoft is desperately trying to push into the increasing tablet market, but they are killing their desktop and laptop markets by doing so. I understand them, but it still sounds like a very bad idea on their part. Imitating GNOME is just a bad, bad, bad idea. Really bad.

“Big black nothing?”

[1]

There is nothing quite like building a flying machine out of a dead pet.

 

DELL is not quite the peach I would expect it to be. By that I mean that they have a very small focus group – the people who buy the biggest and meanest machines. Those are practically the only ones I’ve seen that keep getting updates, the cheaper buckets get nothing. Well, they get a bit for a couple of months, a few bits and pieces that correct a couple of bugs, but not nearly as much as the bit things.

I shall bring you the example I faced today – the latest GPU drivers DELL offers are version 268. The latest NVidia offers are version 301. Those numbers do not increase quickly. But the fact is, DELL optimizes the drivers for specific models, fixes compatibility issues and stuff like that. It is just they don’t do it nearly as often as they should. At the very least they should offer the newest NVidia drivers… Oh, and the DELL drivers had problems with handling Optimus.

In today’s world it is important to be tech-savvy, because maintaining proper function for your electronic devices requires thinking and knowledge. The tech support is nothing like it used to be.

I think, therefore I have a headache

A very simple way of finding out if an OS is indeed usable, try changing the colour of the taskbar. If you cannot find a way to do it, stop using it immediately. This way you know whether the OS is user-friendly (easy-to-use, flexible, customizable to suit every user’s needs) or restricting, such as Ubuntu.

 

What is reality?

Is it the same as what we perceive as reality?

If so, do we create it in our minds?

In that case, what do we miss out on, what do we not perceive? What does our brain refuse to perceive?

The simple answer: what we do not understand. Hitchhiker’s Guide named it SEP – somebody else’s problem – something that can only be noticed from the corner of one’s eye, because looking straight at it would crash your brains as it is not able to comprehend or accept what it sees. Hence it gets filtered out. Doctor Who gives a similar explanation – people ignore the big blue police box popping up everywhere not because it is a simple blue box, but because it does not belong there, it cannot be there from people’s perspective.

What we think is completely impossible, we cannot see. Completely means completely – there can be no doubt in our minds because we cannot comprehend it. It is deeper than our mere thoughts of ‘completely impossible’.

If you do not believe me, just keep this in mind: whenever we see something we cannot precisely outline (we cannot tell what it is), we automatically give it a probable shape. We look for familiar patterns in places there might not be familiar patterns. We look at white noise and see shapes. Our mind is programmed to define and simplify what we see, what happens when it is unable to do so? I would say it should ignore it.

Our mind sets the rules for the world. In the words of J.M.Straczynski: “Our thoughts form the Universe, they are always important.”. Everything happens at the same time, every reality exists, the question is ‘which one do we choose?’.

And there comes an another question, who are ‘we’? Who actually is the observer that sees, perceives and interprets the world around us? If every single one of us creates a reality, then how can it be the very same reality that is created?

And in the end, how do our thoughts change our reality, how do they change us?

 

The facts in the movie are mostly true, the interpretations are mostly exaggerated or simplified, dumbed down. If you think hard enough and know a bit about the subject you will notice that… electrons do not grow charges when they are bounced around, for example. But touching on the atomic level is still pretty hard to achieve on a basketball field, that is why ‘touching’ is defined as it is, not as it is not. However, it does raise quite many important points about reality, philosophy, religion, quantum physics, et cetera. It want you to think about these things, and quite frankly, so do I. Thinking and discussion are what keep our society evolving.

“(1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.”

The Economist always cheers me up.

Their confidence is simply unshakeable. Though I do like Germany’s results as well, unfortunately they are not as ironic.

 

Grabbing people’s attention is not always difficult. There are many options, from poking and tapping to vocal signals demanding attention. But the one I am really digging right now only works for young tiny people:

“That’s all folks!”

Yes, I know, the voice gets really annoying but the words are worth it.

 

Anyways, this is a quick update before I shall start listening to Broken Sword intro song and messing with Fedora to get my head back in the game. Fedora is cool, if a little hard to manage.

 

“Swedish Chef is a Vorlon agent! Bork bork bork!”

“This is what going mad must feel like.”

Aye, it appears some browncoats have shared a wee bit of Firefly!

If you haven’t seen it, do so. It is quite entertaining.

Though I recommend you start from the beginning, you could watch this one first – one of my favourite episodes – and then watch the rest of the season (it only ran for one season and a movie). It deals with various problems, including faith and destiny. What makes it special is that it does so in a comedic, yet deep way that really gets to you.

Just doing my part spreading the signal.

“And the rock cried out”

In connection with the previous topic, I present

, a story of deception, betrayal, revenge, and a black guy talking about tolerance and friendship despite differences. And some suitable music.

“Pain comes from neither the hand nor the heart. It comes from the mouth.”

Racism.

Not a pleasant thing to come in contact with, even worse if you are the butt of the discrimination. While we have not all been discriminated due to our skin colour, we have all been discriminated in some form or another. Perhaps very little, if we’ve been lucky, but discriminated nonetheless. Perhaps fairly, perhaps without sufficient reason. But it has happened. Don’t forget positive discrimination is still discrimination, the only difference is that instead of the aim of harming someone or limiting someone’s rights, it aims to benefit an another group of people.

So yes, discrimination exists, it is quite necessary to avoid equality, and as far as I can tell, very many people think equality equals socialism and socialism equals terror. Not precisely how it works, but for the sake of my point, this misunderstanding can be ignored.

Racism is one of those types of discrimination where the harm is directed according to arbitrary characteristics of human beings similar to sexism, but more negative due to increased arbitrarity. And here we come to the reason this topic popped into my noggin’ in the first place:

FYI, later on the Drazi stopped wearing the sashes. Also a great method of decreasing the population.

But the point remains, racism targets an arbitrary characteristic – skin colour (untanned skin, no less). Nobody can choose a race to be born as, though appearances can change after a few treatments, just look at Michael Jackson. Sure, his aim was not to look like a ghoulish white woman, he had no choice, it was all part of his cure. But change is possible despite the discomfort. Discriminating purely on the principle of arbitrary difference is the same as bugging people for wearing red, or for having hair. Not exactly rational, practical, or even neutral – it causes more harm than gain.

Discrimination per se is quite okay, as long as it is founded on something significant. So quit bugging people because they happen to have a lighter or darker skin colour than yours and enjoy some really good music. And as suitable Jackson would be here, fat chance for that, I have something better to share.

EDIT

Because I wrote the last post so long, I forgot to mention that beating children because of specific actions can be counterproductive – if a person is disallowed something, the more that person wants it (generally; if it is something to be wanted).

 

As a compensation, you get

Accurate predictions will probably be outlawed in North Carolina.

^[0] <= Because hyperlinks in the heading are not exactly logical.

 

Some people^[1] bug me. They just do.

Sure, having girlish sons or boyish daughters can cause distress for the family. After all, it reduces the probability of continuing the bloodline. For some reason, gay couples tend not to have direct descendants…

But propagating violence towards little children is rather irrational in my oh-so-humble opinion. This is for several reasons.

Firstly, how do you make sure the child understands why he/she has been scolded? Sure, you could explain a single ‘symptom’ of ‘gayness’ or whatever it could be called. But all the other ‘symptoms’ go unexplained so a physical punishment hardly helps. Not to mention that punishment without proper explanation is as good as punching a stranger in the face. Only good for relieving stress, but not really helpful for the stranger.

Secondly, how do you explain the perils of gaydom? You can’t simply say ‘because it is the Devil’s work’. Well, you can, but you cannot explain why it is so. You can’t even prove *that* it is so. Besides, if you’re talking about the Devil, and by that you mean Lucifer, then let’s not forget who he really is – merely a minion of God. And not just a minion, if God was there first and everything was created by God, then Lucifer is a creation of God. If God is absolute good, how could he/she/it create absolute evil? It can’t, or he/she/it would not be absolute good. Hence if Lucifer is not absolute evil (or God is not absolute good), gayness also has to be relative. And to prove that it is on the ‘evil’ side of the scale is quite a challenge. With this point, I reach yet another point.

Thirdly, why punish physically? To ensure the memory remains as a scar for the rest of the child’s life? To increase the probability of the child growing up mentally disturbed? In any case, it hardly seems practical. Logical explanation should be more effective, though teaching logic to children may cause them to doubt faith, and that can’t be allowed, right?

So all in all, some people^[2] just bug me. They just do.

 

So, instead of thinking about beating up little children (or actually doing it), enjoy a little video with an awesome ‘Death Note’ costume.

“That’s bad.”

Why climb the Everest?

Because it is there?

I would say it is a little too expensive to do ‘just because’, really I’d prefer a Porsche^[1]. And it is not just climbing up a nice mountain alone, it is walking in like with a few hundred people, all heading for the top^[2]. With this much trouble and cost, not to mention the danger, why do it? ‘Just because’ sounds awfully insufficient. And with so many people doing it, climbing the Everest is nothing special in the big picture. Sure, it is a slightly different from the average day, and it sounds like a perfect place for a walkabout, but it also sounds unreasonable unless under influence of strong spiritual reasons. Then again, why listen to the spirit, when you could be listening to the brain?

I have no doubt it would be awesome at the top, but then what?

Come down, return to the daily life?

 

It is a similar problem with perfection – once it is reached, there really is nowhere further to go…

Enjoy the groovy music and slightly-wtf trailer. Yes, it was a real movie.

Best pies in London

Meat pies. Meat pies. Meat pies. Human meat pies.

Why not? Meat pies made of real human meat. Perhaps a possible outcome of human cloning (aside from the obvious breakthroughs in cloning technology, medicine, et cetera), perhaps a side effect of overpopulation. Sure, ‘slightly’ immoral, and a little risky, but otherwise healthy.

Biologically speaking, we get energy from almost anything we eat. What we need besides energy is ‘building blocks’ – chemical compounds that our body can use to build, rebuild and/or restore itself. Most of these compounds come from the food we eat. Some foods lack certain ‘building blocks’ that other foods have, but there is a food that pretty much every single substance we need to survive and develop – common man. He has already synthesized all the substances we would be creating anyways, eating him would basically mean using his body’s work for our own benefit. Since he needed the very same substances we do (before his early demise), we get all the substances we need from a single food – human meat pies. There are naturally a few exceptions where the chemical compounds break down before or during our digestive process, in which case those compounds can be rebuilt, as the materials for it, the results of the breaking down, are still in the food. A very efficient way of eating.

Sure, there is some risk of human diseases (such as the one that made waves killing the Kara tribe, though as much as I understand, that was caused by people eating the brains), but pretty much the same risk exists when eating any other food. Common sense dictates we cook the meat, we boil the eggs. We do that for a reason, and not just to make it easier to digest. Cooking and boiling is a very efficient method of killing bacteria and other ‘evil’ life forms in the food. So the risk of catching an illness from human meat pies should not be any higher than catching a similar disease from pork pies.

The morality of it can be questioned, especially because finding the suitable human meat (it has to volunteer, right?) can be rather difficult. If it tastes bad, add ketchup. Also, I am not saying you should start killing people to make meat of them, I am just stating the obvious – it is not as bad as people think. But it ain’t exactly good either.

And yes, this is because of Sweeney Todd.

“We do not believe in any individual god or gods but rather, we believe that the soul is, um - What is a good term? A non-localized phenomenon.”

So, the news about Eurovision are in. Yes, the terrible, horrible, absolutely dismaying news. Iceland and Denmark hardly got any points, despite their awesome songs. Well, at the very least, I am not the only one who was reminded of Kosh when first shown Albania’s performance.

Yes, I just personalized a country, sue me.

 

So, on the (semi)existence of God. First of all, who is God?

Let’s say he is the Catholic God that directs our every move and punishes disobedience. One guy that plays The Sims with our planet. One single almighty being that ensures our continued existence until such a time that he grows weary of us because of our sins. In this case, his existence is hardly probable. To think that such a being is all alone is like saying God and Doctor Who share a past (killing off their own species). Not to forget that God exists because of faith. That is why he cannot prove he exists.

A fun sidefact: if Adam and Eve had obeyed God and not eaten from the tree of wisdom, the Bible wouldn’t have been written and Christianity per se would not exist. It would be more like a Nazi containment camp.

Anyways, getting back to the subject, if God really were perfect, then why would he be alone? If he cannot be proven to exist without not existing, could he really exist? If he commands us, how do we tell? If he cannot be certain we get his/her message, why is it justified to punish us with natural catastrophes? If God is unjust, can he, as a perfect being, really exist? I don’t think so.

But it is when a wider approach is taken, where God’s existence can be quite reasonable. God, for an atheist, is indefinable – you cannot deny something you ‘know’ not to exist. (check Gettier problem)

Chinese have a God or patron saint for almost everything. Hardly what we would call a God in the ‘western’ world. Not to mention other Asian religions; Gods of small tribes in Africa and other places. God can be defined differently from how we are used to. Since every religion already does that and those definitions tend to violently conflict with every other religion’s definition, perhaps it is better to compromise.

Well, if God is but one of many, and instead of controlling our every move, they may influence our lives knowingly or unknowingly. Basically the ‘ant’ situation, where the party we talk of is quite beyond our ability to comprehend. It is quite reasonable to assume through induction that if we exist, and we are further developed than other species we are aware of, then there are species further developed than us. I refuse to believe that this resource-hogging planet-burning life-wasting fact-fearing species we call human is the best the Universe has to offer. According to such a definition of God (a group of greater beings we cannot at all or can very hardly comprehend in any way, who may or may not be aware of us), Gods probably exist. Supported by the Gettier problem, I choose to ‘know’ Gods as such exist and Gods as else don’t. I have actual reason to think so and I believe so, hence I know. For all intents and purposes for me, that is a fact.

Naturally one could define God is such a way it would exist, perhaps even equalling it with man. But that is perverting the ‘idea’ of God a little too much. A God is something greater than man, not just common man (otherwise a genius could be considered a God, which perhaps I would not mind, but it does not sound quite right either). God is something or someone that we can look up to in awe, that can give us hope, that can do and be more than us. Something or someone beyond heaven. And that is in compliance with my previously proposed definition.

So, the next time you ask me whether I believe that God exists, be ready to offer a definition. Because God probably exists, depending on the definition at hand. Then again, there are those who do not wish to learn, but only acquire simplified ‘facts’ that may or may not be true, relevant, useful, or significant.

The search for truth must come from ourselves. There are no right answers in certain pseudosciences, for instance philosophy or psychology. There are probably answers, true, but what is true for one is false for another (unless the claim in view is a blunt, basic one). Every person should find his or her own truth, nobody else can dictate the truth. But everyone can share their opinions and create a discussion, through which more and more probable claims can be perfected and developed.

“We can talk about normal when the cows have come home.”–D. Adams

Way better than the people performing for Russia this year:

Disputes are fun, I can protect the side I am not on for a greater purpose – to reach a comprehensive conclusion. Basically if a death that saves more lives than would be lost in the case of the lack of the death is considered a positive event, human cloning maybe perhaps possibly could in some way be moral. Figures.

 

Anyways, soon I shall write about the existence, or more accurately, semi-existence of God.

Remodelling

As your keen sense of observation may already have noticed, the blog has reverted to the ‘simple’ design format, wherein comments are de facto visible and the side projects thing is not tucked away somewhere. While the previous format was also aesthetically pleasing to the eye, it lacked both snippets and, I’ll be honest here, I like comments.

What still bugs me is the lack of a real dynamic format. Why does the width of the blog and the sidebar have to be defined? Why can’t the width be defined relative to each other (as they together make up the whole width), which would enable the page to be viewed normally (edge-to-edge) on wider screens as well as narrow. I admit, I have a very sweet screen with a width of 1980 pixels, and I would prefer to use the whole screen. And if I am indeed watching something or reading something or doing anything else but reading what I’ve written (yes, I sometimes do that, it is very entertaining to find out what I’ve written), I still want the page to be used maximally. That means when I resize the browser (Opera or IE), I want the page to respond to the change. But it does not.

 

“Everything that can be interpreted as moral can be interpreted as immoral.
Everything that can be interpreted as immoral can be interpreted as moral.
The interpretation depends on the person in question, his culture, his way of thinking.
Morality, as a whole, is therefore based on the lack of absolute values, there are no zeroes and ones (as per binary), there are always fractions.
As a corollary, morality cannot define any value of any action. If cannot do that, what's the point of it?”

And now, some real entertainment: Dima Bilan showing off his “Waterloo”. To be just, he is not adept at English (as most people are not adept as Russian), and he might not know the exact lyrics, so it is understandable. But funny as hell.

Synthesis

I am no more the mask than the face underneath it, or the muscles underneath the face. Under this mask is not my face, it is the face of another. A person I do not know and probably will never know. It is the face of things that were.

We are what we were, what we experienced, what we learned. We are the past that shapes the future. We are the dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. We are abstract. We are magical.

A dialogue of ethics

The following is a short (relatively short) excerpt of a conversation I had recently on the topic of morality and murder. I will reveal myself to be the person marked as “X”, trying to convince the other person of the rationality of murder and the unjustifiability of morality. Perhaps not my true views, but valid arguments nonetheless.
The other person will remain anonymous as per the spirit of the blog. I have attained permission to use this conversation in here.

X says
Morality per se is useless and should be disregarded as such if it has no logical, rational basis.
All morality can be interpreted differently by every single person, hence a test on the subject cannot actually have any 'wrong' answers.
Y says
morality is useless as it's the package of agreements. which should be held on. like not murdering people  
X says
The thing is, is murdering people so bad?
It depends on the person to decide if it is immoral
Y says
...  yes, it is.
X says
But it is for the society to decide if it is illegal
Y says
yup. society also makes boundaries for what is moral and what isn't
X says
Why is it so bad to kill people?
Y says
because it's killing people  
X says
So?
That is not a valid argument
The thing is, I am not saying killing people is moral, I am simply saying it is not immoral
Y says
These are not opposing events? *(translated) 
X says
Hence if you disagree the burden of proof lies on you
Walking outside is neither moral or immoral if it is a result of free, uncompromised thought and decision.
As is murder.
Y says
I think feeling relatively safe around fellow human beings is quite important thing in human life 
and usually one doesn’t murder with a ‘free, clear head’ * (translated)
X says
Because it is illegal
I don't want to go to jail
Seriously
So I don't kill people
Not just that, I lack the reason to kill people
I would gain nothing
It is high risk, no reward.
Y says
People that murder, are almost never rational * (translated)
X says
Yeah, ever heard of something called a 'war'?
People kill to survive
Cause they know the other side will be gunning for them.
Y says
that is a completely different matter *
X says
It is murder
Of another human being, nonetheless
[…]
X says
Think of assassins then
They kill cause they get paid
Y says
I would never do that.
 
and I find it immoral *
X says
But you cannot deny that murder is rational for them, hence not immoral
Every person wants good for oneself
Y says
not without exception * 
X says
And killing a stranger hardly hurts one, getting something for doing it is good.
There is no such thing like absolute altruism
Y says
that stranger is always somebody's own. it is very hard to forget it, y'know 
of course there isn't.
but selfishness has its own limits
X says
So what if the stranger knows or is related with other strangers?
It does not really matter from the murderer's perspective, now does it?
Y says
do you know what empathy is? you try to be rational  
X says
A risk of a revenge is pretty much the only risk.
I've heard the word.
It has something to do with emotions.
Y says
but you fully forget human feelings, which are actually quite important things.
yup
understanding what others feel
X says
And a neurological problem of interpreting presumed emotions of other people as your own.
Y says
if you put it that way
X says
I do
Y says
(I have a neurological problem.)
X says
We all do
Y says
I think only people without empathy can kill in normal circumstances
X says
Empathy can be ignored and existent at the same time
Y says
I don't think killing produces feelings small enough to be ignored.
X says
Yet you can kill mosquitoes on a daily basis
What puts people so much higher?
They are still basically parasites feeding off the Earth, walking towards self-annihilation
Y says
logically, evolution. I have my own reasons though 
[…]
since we are speaking generally, they do not matter so much *
X says
Fair enough
But then you agree that in a general perspective the morality of murder is highly questionable, if at all significant
Y says
I think evolutional and emotional reasons are good. and I stand by that *
X says
So you support neorological defects that limit our ability to strive further as individuals and therefore create a smaller but more advanced society?
Y says
what is wrong with that?  
I mean, having safe and comfortable society doesn't mean that it's inferior.
X says
Those criteria are also matched by the superior society
Simply instead of a moral boo-boo on killing, it becomes unnecessary from any rational perspective.
Y says
so, if every person has an ability to come and murder you, it doesn't make you feel unsafe ?
X says
They don't have a reason to, so yes
[…]
X says
As long as you can ensure killing you is not worth the trouble, you are of value.
Y says
people do many things just because they want to  
X says
You actually are worth something in the society's perspective
Your prolonged existence is in the interest of the society
Y says
  The more average you are, the less reason to whack you. It would have to be a very small and controlled society, which I don’t fancy. *
X says
The more mediocre you are, the smaller are the negative consequences
Y says
So basically Hitler was moral? It does not work like that, people are based on emotions. *
X says
Killing Hitler would not have had very dire consequences
Failing to, did
And Hitler also made the foolish mistake you speak of
He listened to his emotions (specifically the rage against jews), which made him a tyrant more than pretty much anything else.
Y says
you can't cut emotions just off.
X says
You don't have to cut the out of your system
You can simply take notice of their existence, try to justify them, and act accordingly
Y says
One of my friend described (something a bit different) to me once:
I don’t think all occurances are power related. I think it comes form an odd sense of entitlement and self gratification. 
You see something you want or have an urge to do something and you just do it. 
No consideration. No applied logic.
And it is quite... usual. People don't think, they act 
X says
They act according to some logic
Some impulse drives them
It may be as simple as 'what the heck', I admit
Y says
so you think what they've done is justified?  
X says
But that only confirms that they can ignore morality because of that
For them, most certainly!
Which is the whole point I have been making this whole time
Morality is a poor substitute for laws
It almost never applies rationally and you can never define it.
Y says
which doesn't mean having morality isn't justified.
X says
Hence murder is moral as long as somebody is concerned.
Y says
  I will never agree with you.
X says
Okay, let me explain it in layman's terms
Y says
go on
X says
Everything that can be interpreted as moral can be interpreted as immoral.
Everything that can be interpreted as immoral can be interpreted as moral.
The interpretation depends on the person in question, his culture, his way of thinking.
Morality, as a whole, is therefore based on the lack of absolute values, there are no zeroes and ones (as per binary), there are always fractions.
As a corollary, morality cannot define any value of any action. If cannot do that, what's the point of it?
Y says
it sometimes changes what we do
I never said I'm scientifically supported 
it isn't even my intention
X says
When does it ever chance our actions?
Y says
for example, if a person decides whether or not to continue communicating with a family member they don't like, sometimes they consider if it's considered moral. (it was out of the blue though)
example.
X says
No
What is considered is 'Why not?'
It causes no apparent harm and might prove useful at some point in time

At this point, the conversation steered off topic and night fell. But what came out of it was quite astonishing, even you have to admit the arguments were quite plausible and persuasive. However, I am quite certain that even you might can counterarguments (hence in favour of morality as a guideline of decision-making and anti-murder morality), so please reveal them in the comments.

EDIT: Please forgive the terrible formatting, I really did not bother with it, I copied it directly during the conversation.

"Knowing How to Think Empowers You Far Beyond Those Who Know Only What to Think."–Neil deGrasse Tyson

In continuation of the topic at hand, I must mention that we also lost Remington Steele and James Bond some time ago as well. That was a shame, a real shame.

After Steele ended and Bond went blonde, there were no more stylish pro- or antagonists. Sure, you might think of the guy in Mentalist, but even he isn’t quite the pickle. Nowadays the men with ‘charm’ are similar to the cops in Hawaii Five-O, or basically blonde-Bond. But the depth of those characters is gone.

People don’t ‘get’ the characters so well. We don’t need shallow everyday Americans, we need real characters. People that are more than the average Joe or chav. We need something different. We need something exceptional, something really special.

 

Also, why did they kill the Bond charm anyways? I understand they got an actor that does not fit the old role well but was it really easier to kill the real Bond and create a new persona than to switch the actor?

And if you still believe that this Bond is supposed to be the same Bond that Brosnan, Connery, Lazenby, Dalton et alii portrayed, think again. The current M was basically an accountant that got promoted during Bond’s good times. Now it is Bond’s beginning and she is already the boss. Time travel or a new character? A new character. Not to mention the absence of Q, who would be a vital ally for any top-notch classy spy (not that Bond was ever doing much espionage except when pumping for information, he has always been more of a hands-on guy, meaning assassinations and sabotage).

Though I must admit, Casino Royale explains it quite well. Universal Exports needed to keep the legend alive. Everyone knows that James Bond is very adept and foiling evil-doers’ plans. So to avoid a crimewave by evil masterminds after Bond’s retirement or death, they created a new James Bond. Then again, that movie also had all this in it:

Though let’s be honest, Woody Allen was not James Bond, he was Jimmy Bond, James’s relative.

“Every spacefaring race has two things in common. First, they have a food identical to what humans call "Swedish meatballs."”

“You were looking at gibberish for 20 minutes. Look, you wanna do that, swing by my place some time, and I'll show you some 20th century television.”

The decadence of modern television is remarkably curious. Recently, FOX announced they would stop airing and funding any science fiction or fantasy series. SciFi  literally changed its name to distance itself from the genre. There are no more large projects like Stargate, Star Trek or Babylon 5 were. There are no more funny perky shows like ‘I dream of Jeannie’ or ‘Get Smart’. There are no more sharp political satire shows like ‘Yes, (Prime) Minister’. Sure, The Daily Show tries to keep the tip up, but even that suffers from lack of material.

Everything is in small packages now. I mean, what is with the seasons of 6 short episodes? Why not have 24 full-length (45-minute) episodes per season, after all, it takes time to tell a good story. Anyone can create a short story and tell it in a few hours, it takes a creative genius to tell a story that lasts through 16 hours of awesomeness, constant tension and interesting side- and subplots.

I guess perhaps we lack those geniuses nowadays.

Either that or they don’t get the appropriate funding.

And that is probably a fault of overproduction. With so much stuff being produced, a single show cannot hog itself a huge budget. That means tons of low-budget stuff that does not really shine with excellent quality.

I tried watching ‘Game of Thrones’, I really did. It had fantasy, it had violence, it had sexual encounters. Basically everything to make it a success on cable. But I could not find the spark, the great line of inspiration, the vast potential character growth. It was just it, fantasy, violence, and sex. Tons and tons of it. But nothing that would make it stand out from basically any other thing on cable.

“To live is to risk.”

Death comes to us all, it is a natural part of life. It is the end of the cycle, the terminate command at the end of a program, it is the shadow that opposes the light.

It is impossible to predict our actions in times of great pressure, a star could cower in the corner, and coward could be the only one with the guts to do what is necessary. It is the moment before death that might be the most significant moment of our lives. And that is rather logical, if our lives were an upward path, leading up to a single big event. They are not.

But should we be concerned about death before that moment? I would say not actively, perhaps passively, if at all.

Let’s be honest, you are going to die. Get used to it. Eventually. All those science projects that claim you will probably live past 100 years say it is a possibility and exclude all possible illnesses and accidents that shorten one’s lifespan. The fact that it is possible does not mean that it is certain, not to mention probable. As you know, “There is no certainty, only opportunity.”. So yes, you will most probably die within 80 years, there is no denying that. Unless you produce a formula that guarantees eternal life. Tiny chance.

So it is an inevitable event that we fear. Sounds ridiculous, and yet reasonable.

And all the other -isms.

Some people say that laziness is a vice that should be avoided. Sure, due diligence has its perks but laziness is not absolutely evil. After all, motivated laziness can be even better than doing everything the usual way.

Motivated laziness is a catalyst for innovation. Being lazy means wanting to do as little as possible. However, since there are things that must be done and things that one wants to get done, laziness might work against that. Being lazy also means wanting to do things with the least amount of effort, hence doing things the most effectively. And it is precisely that wish that is the driving force behind innovation. To do things more effectively than other people, one must change the method of doing things. Finding algorithms to minimize work while maintaining the quality of the result is quite a fascination for me as it allows me just linger while getting everything truly necessary done and then some. It is laziness that keeps me from working too hard and it is motivation that keeps me working. A perfect harmony.

Perhaps you should try it?

I don’t even know what this is or how it got to Eurovision but really, why the hell not?

It strongly reminds me of Israel’s “Push the button” from a few years back. Though that one was a lot more energetic and less comprehendible.