Potentially my final blogpost!
Should we have a party of some sort before winter break this year? I like Anna's Secret Santa proposal and I wish I could escalate this into a full-on gathering.
I will miss this blog. I love the feeling of getting feedback on my posts and I love it when people make good comments. There have been so many topics discussed this year! I wish I could sort through all of them and compile a Best-Of compilation. I can see it now: Dipcans '13: Their Greatest Hits.
But should we have a party considering 2nd tri's relative resting time??????
PS: I wonder how many people who skip out on the BAAs are going to see The Hobbit the day it comes out, which is the same day. Choose your loyalties, people :P.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Rob the Prez-O-Dent
A blog post named after (and inspired by) a quirky Rock Band 2 track (yes I love this game, don't judge).
With the Arab Spring within recent memory and the Occupy movement still hanging on for dear life, protest has been an important part of world events the last couple of years. Protests, however, range from simply handing out flyers to firebombing an embassy.
First of all, I want to know why violent protesting is more common in foreign countries, especially developing countries. What's stopping Americans from doing this more often? Not that I condone it but why?
Second, at what point does the protest become unethical? One can protest by breaking a law, but the law itself may be unethical. For example, the aforementioned song regards a disgruntled country hick who commits an armed robbery on the White House to protest the decadence of politicians and high taxes. This is of course highly illegal and would result in good things for one person only. But a Robin Hood figure is considered more heroic.
Thirdly, what causes oppression or suppression (can't recall the difference)? Is this because a government is so paranoid that any opposition is deemed a deadly threat? I am reminded of the Sophie Scholl story and how the Nazis were such, er, Nazis.
With the Arab Spring within recent memory and the Occupy movement still hanging on for dear life, protest has been an important part of world events the last couple of years. Protests, however, range from simply handing out flyers to firebombing an embassy.
First of all, I want to know why violent protesting is more common in foreign countries, especially developing countries. What's stopping Americans from doing this more often? Not that I condone it but why?
Second, at what point does the protest become unethical? One can protest by breaking a law, but the law itself may be unethical. For example, the aforementioned song regards a disgruntled country hick who commits an armed robbery on the White House to protest the decadence of politicians and high taxes. This is of course highly illegal and would result in good things for one person only. But a Robin Hood figure is considered more heroic.
Thirdly, what causes oppression or suppression (can't recall the difference)? Is this because a government is so paranoid that any opposition is deemed a deadly threat? I am reminded of the Sophie Scholl story and how the Nazis were such, er, Nazis.
Gonna Steal the TOK Prompt and Not Care
Which proposed way of knowing do you think would be best: intuition, memory, or imagination?
Personally they are all pretty arguable but I like imagination because it is the source of sooooooo much cultural background.
Intuition is odd because there's no explanation for it. It's almost psychic. Memory is also a good thing to remember (lol) when discussing TOK but is it really a WOK or just a storage method?
Personally they are all pretty arguable but I like imagination because it is the source of sooooooo much cultural background.
Intuition is odd because there's no explanation for it. It's almost psychic. Memory is also a good thing to remember (lol) when discussing TOK but is it really a WOK or just a storage method?
Monday, November 26, 2012
Talking Book
On a whim for my presentation, I searched Microsoft Powerpoint's clip-art reserve for "knowledge." Virtually every picture that appeared featured a book of some sort (along with sometimes an owl). This is quite contrary to the many ways of knowing that we are aware of. Specifically, it leaves out THREE ways of knowing. What would be a better image for knowledge, considering IB's 4 Ways of Knowing?
Monday, November 19, 2012
Is it just me or did it get difficult in here?
One more thought for now.
Why did we ever get the impression that having the EE done would make things easier?? Now we have the WT2 and the FOA in English, the TOK final and presentation, the History IA, and for IB musicians a composition piece and another listening packet.
Ain't no rest for the wicked (awesome), I suppose.
Why did we ever get the impression that having the EE done would make things easier?? Now we have the WT2 and the FOA in English, the TOK final and presentation, the History IA, and for IB musicians a composition piece and another listening packet.
Ain't no rest for the wicked (awesome), I suppose.
Awesome Teachers
More talking about teachers at the termination of the trimester!
What makes teachers "awesome"? Does it depend on their audience? Are there teachers with no redeeming factors? The answer to the last question is likely yes, but it's more a political/economic issue and another story.
But seriously, I think teachers are like anything else that can be reviewed, such as a movie, album, or restaurant. Each teacher has a different tone, a different genre - er, subject, a different aim/angle on their subject, and a different intended audience.
I think some teachers are the cream of the crop. They not only teach the high level classes, but they are invigorating, cheerful, and have a distinctive character that generally includes a good sense of humor. Above all, they teach their intended students well.
When I say intended students, I mean that AP Calculus teachers will likely teach differently than Geometry teachers because they deal with different kinds of people. Their sense of humor and character may also be portrayed differently in order to appeal to that crowd.
I think the English dept. at our school has some of the most interesting, funny teachers overall, but there are gems in hidden places. By this I mean teachers that not many people have but are still exciting and likable. For example, not many high-level students know the math teacher Mr. Peterson, unless they are in Math League, because he mostly teaches lower-level math and IB Math SL. The same could be said for Ms. Mork :), because not many people have CIS English and even fewer have TOK II.
What teachers in our school do you think are amazing? And what features of other teachers (no names) turn you off?
What makes teachers "awesome"? Does it depend on their audience? Are there teachers with no redeeming factors? The answer to the last question is likely yes, but it's more a political/economic issue and another story.
But seriously, I think teachers are like anything else that can be reviewed, such as a movie, album, or restaurant. Each teacher has a different tone, a different genre - er, subject, a different aim/angle on their subject, and a different intended audience.
I think some teachers are the cream of the crop. They not only teach the high level classes, but they are invigorating, cheerful, and have a distinctive character that generally includes a good sense of humor. Above all, they teach their intended students well.
When I say intended students, I mean that AP Calculus teachers will likely teach differently than Geometry teachers because they deal with different kinds of people. Their sense of humor and character may also be portrayed differently in order to appeal to that crowd.
I think the English dept. at our school has some of the most interesting, funny teachers overall, but there are gems in hidden places. By this I mean teachers that not many people have but are still exciting and likable. For example, not many high-level students know the math teacher Mr. Peterson, unless they are in Math League, because he mostly teaches lower-level math and IB Math SL. The same could be said for Ms. Mork :), because not many people have CIS English and even fewer have TOK II.
What teachers in our school do you think are amazing? And what features of other teachers (no names) turn you off?
Teachers Outside of School
We are all aware by now that teachers are people, too. As awkward as it might be to run into Ms. Mork at the movies, or (in the case of some poor unsuspecting students last year) Mr. Anderson on vacation, why do we view teachers so differently from the rest of adults? This is especially the case with elementary school teachers, who have to give themselves a G-rated filter for 40 hours per week. I once saw my former kindergarten teacher during the summer at a restaurant, drinking beer, and thought it unusual but not out of the question. I mean, can you picture your teachers at a bar or in a casino, or even in less "scandalous" places like at the mall or in line at the DMV? Teaching is definitely a unique (you heard me, unique) job, because children/teenagers are your job and much of your life. It's also hard to remember that teachers are often parents and that parenting priorities are higher. As Kronzer said once, "I love my students, but I love my children more."
What are your thoughts on teachers? Why should this profession subliminally mark them differently from other adults?
What are your thoughts on teachers? Why should this profession subliminally mark them differently from other adults?
Eye Contact
Why do some people value eye contact so much, while others shy away? Is there really a correlation between lying and avoiding eye contact? I don't like the feeling of people prying into my mind, so I usually avoid direct eye contact, although I know if someone else did this, it would be awkward and annoying. What's your stance on eye contact?
PS Tell me if someone already posted something like this, I feel an eerie sense of deja vecu (what most people really mean when they say deja vu).
PS Tell me if someone already posted something like this, I feel an eerie sense of deja vecu (what most people really mean when they say deja vu).
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Awkward
The other members of my family got into an argument today but I wasn't involved at all. Nonetheless, I have felt awkward all day because everyone else has been arguing with each other at some point to some extent (LOL again), but I am not involved.
Maybe stress involving others affects me, but it shouldn't, should it?
I don't want to be one to withhold all the stress around me but when others are being mean I feel like I should step in. Then again, I feel like I would risk getting in trouble myself and feel like a whiner.
Most of the time I just ignore others at home so I don't have to accidentally get in trouble for saying something wrong, but then my parents are annoyed that I spend so much time alone.
I even feel guilty sharing this! Is that wrong?
Just a bit of watered-down venting. Though advice would be nice.
Maybe stress involving others affects me, but it shouldn't, should it?
I don't want to be one to withhold all the stress around me but when others are being mean I feel like I should step in. Then again, I feel like I would risk getting in trouble myself and feel like a whiner.
Most of the time I just ignore others at home so I don't have to accidentally get in trouble for saying something wrong, but then my parents are annoyed that I spend so much time alone.
I even feel guilty sharing this! Is that wrong?
Just a bit of watered-down venting. Though advice would be nice.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Lyrical Madness! (Be There Or Be Square)
I hear so many generic love songs on both mainstream radio and more underground places, I like it when people write about something that has nothing to do with romance or the lack thereof. Even songs about family are more interesting. Of course, some songs are just inane excuses to sing nonsense, but even that's fun. I already went over some songs that annoyed me: here are some profound ones to think on:
"Forget your lust for the rich man's gold/All that you need is in your soul" - Lynyrd Skynyrd, "Simple Man"
"Who controls the present now controls the past" - Rage Against the Machine, "Testify"
"Can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all" - Neutral Milk Hotel, "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea"
What do you think of these thoughts? Any profound lyrics of yours to share? Anyone?
"Forget your lust for the rich man's gold/All that you need is in your soul" - Lynyrd Skynyrd, "Simple Man"
"Who controls the present now controls the past" - Rage Against the Machine, "Testify"
"Can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all" - Neutral Milk Hotel, "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea"
What do you think of these thoughts? Any profound lyrics of yours to share? Anyone?
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Talk About an Anticlimax...
I just submitted the final extended essay to turnitin.com, and I expected to feel relieved.
Instead, I feel guilty that I did not put as much effort as I should have into the paper and that it is worse than I could have imagined.
Maybe I'm just worn out and pessimistic again, but this was seriously a mental tax that was not worth the pain compared to the poor results I will get.
All I can say is: lesson learned. I hope that anything I do like this in college will be much better planned-out.
What lessons did you learn?
Instead, I feel guilty that I did not put as much effort as I should have into the paper and that it is worse than I could have imagined.
Maybe I'm just worn out and pessimistic again, but this was seriously a mental tax that was not worth the pain compared to the poor results I will get.
All I can say is: lesson learned. I hope that anything I do like this in college will be much better planned-out.
What lessons did you learn?
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Puerto Rico
Another quickie for the quota! Well, not really, I learned something interesting this morning. Puerto Rico held a referendum on Election Day asking how many citizens would want to become the 51st state in the union. The referendum passed and is now being submitted as a bill to congress, which will vote on it. If it passes we will have 51 states.
What effects, positive and negative, might Puerto Rico have on the USA if it becomes a state? I'm thinking that there will be even more Spanish on materials in America and our economy will be bolstered by about 0.5%. If we don't let it be a state, nothing will change except for the majority of Puerto Ricans being sad.
What effects, positive and negative, might Puerto Rico have on the USA if it becomes a state? I'm thinking that there will be even more Spanish on materials in America and our economy will be bolstered by about 0.5%. If we don't let it be a state, nothing will change except for the majority of Puerto Ricans being sad.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
The World's Hardest Job
You know what I'm talking about. The President of the United States of America must have the most difficult job in the world. Not because of important decisions, per se, but the lack thereof. Mostly Congress has the control over what goes on in our nation, and often the two branches don't get along, especially in the past few years.
Worst of all, the president gets flak for stuff he had nothing to do with. When the embassy in Libya was attacked because of extremist reactionaries, he was blamed for not doing anything. When the economy went sour, he was blamed for not doing anything. If he wanted to veto something Congress would overturn it anyway. Congress have the final say, and the president gets way too much criticism.
Do you think that the president should be held responsible for everything in the country? Or what things should he be responsible for? Do we as citizens even know the rights and responsibilities of the president and the executive branch?
Worst of all, the president gets flak for stuff he had nothing to do with. When the embassy in Libya was attacked because of extremist reactionaries, he was blamed for not doing anything. When the economy went sour, he was blamed for not doing anything. If he wanted to veto something Congress would overturn it anyway. Congress have the final say, and the president gets way too much criticism.
Do you think that the president should be held responsible for everything in the country? Or what things should he be responsible for? Do we as citizens even know the rights and responsibilities of the president and the executive branch?
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Whining
Having finished the Extended Essay first draft, I realize that I put a lot of work into a paper only half as long as I had envisioned it. Also, I think I have too much filler.
Maybe other people have thought the same as I have, whether they disdain the essay or not: Why is there such a focus in IB on being analytic? I suppose it's better than taking things as you see them without thinking about them at all, but not everything can be as deep as we want it to be with the resources that we have, both physically and mentally.
Maybe other people have thought the same as I have, whether they disdain the essay or not: Why is there such a focus in IB on being analytic? I suppose it's better than taking things as you see them without thinking about them at all, but not everything can be as deep as we want it to be with the resources that we have, both physically and mentally.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Bad Day (Cynical Kid)
I'll only go on a little here...
Today for reasons unknown, perhaps due to the cumulative stress or a dissatisfaction with factors out of my control, I was angry all day. I have been disrespectful, vitriolic, and mean. I offended some friends of mine. They deserve a personal apology (not here).
I don't mean to externalize these things but I sometimes get upset and think negatively about anything anyone says and I go out of my way to get attention.
But anyway, these bouts of anger have gotten me a reputation as the Cynical Kid. It's a cross I've come to bear, really. I know I dug myself a hole and I want to escape it. But it can be hard not to be negative in a stressful world!
How does one shed a bad reputation? Do actions speak louder than words?
Today for reasons unknown, perhaps due to the cumulative stress or a dissatisfaction with factors out of my control, I was angry all day. I have been disrespectful, vitriolic, and mean. I offended some friends of mine. They deserve a personal apology (not here).
I don't mean to externalize these things but I sometimes get upset and think negatively about anything anyone says and I go out of my way to get attention.
But anyway, these bouts of anger have gotten me a reputation as the Cynical Kid. It's a cross I've come to bear, really. I know I dug myself a hole and I want to escape it. But it can be hard not to be negative in a stressful world!
How does one shed a bad reputation? Do actions speak louder than words?
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Art Talent
Just a quickie this morning, kind of like stuff I said before.
Inspired by a fellow advisee blasting hardcore metal from his headphones, I began to think: some people consider a guitarist/drummer/other musician talented because they can play difficult runs and extremely fast notes in tempo. These people are often called "virtuosi." However, are these people really that virtuosic? The most-often considered greatest guitarists were never major-league shredders but played innovatively.
In visual arts, there can be obscure artists who can paint very detailed paintings of beautiful landscapes and portraits, while artists like Mark Rothko (colored squares) and Jackson Pollack (random splattering) become renowned.
In your opinion, are chops or innovation more important in being a "great" artist?
Inspired by a fellow advisee blasting hardcore metal from his headphones, I began to think: some people consider a guitarist/drummer/other musician talented because they can play difficult runs and extremely fast notes in tempo. These people are often called "virtuosi." However, are these people really that virtuosic? The most-often considered greatest guitarists were never major-league shredders but played innovatively.
In visual arts, there can be obscure artists who can paint very detailed paintings of beautiful landscapes and portraits, while artists like Mark Rothko (colored squares) and Jackson Pollack (random splattering) become renowned.
In your opinion, are chops or innovation more important in being a "great" artist?
Monday, October 22, 2012
IB Promotes Disease! (well not really)
I thought of this post because my 8th grade brother is sick with a bad stomach flu and has been staying home from school. At first I was going to post something about how sickness has caused him to act crankier than usual and have a negative outlook on life, but a lot of people have already posted about perspective and attitude.
Instead, I thought, Dang, I hope I don't catch what he's got. I can't afford that.
Because at this point, we cannot afford to lose a day. Our schedule is so fast and densely-packed that getting thrown off a day is basically the end of it all (well for me it would be).
I thought of my post title by thinking of the tenacious but foolish souls that come to school when ill simply in order to not get behind. I'm sure we've all contemplated it. Senior year for IB students is too late for us to celebrate a sick day as a day off. Some of us will inevitably come to school with some contagious virus and not only have a miserable day trying to fight it off but also we will promote the spread of disease. Have you ever considered that staying home when sick was not just for your own good?
That's why I say that IB promotes disease (tongue in cheek of course). Do you think that advanced curricula are so intense that they cannot be missed by even a day?
Instead, I thought, Dang, I hope I don't catch what he's got. I can't afford that.
Because at this point, we cannot afford to lose a day. Our schedule is so fast and densely-packed that getting thrown off a day is basically the end of it all (well for me it would be).
I thought of my post title by thinking of the tenacious but foolish souls that come to school when ill simply in order to not get behind. I'm sure we've all contemplated it. Senior year for IB students is too late for us to celebrate a sick day as a day off. Some of us will inevitably come to school with some contagious virus and not only have a miserable day trying to fight it off but also we will promote the spread of disease. Have you ever considered that staying home when sick was not just for your own good?
That's why I say that IB promotes disease (tongue in cheek of course). Do you think that advanced curricula are so intense that they cannot be missed by even a day?
Monday, October 15, 2012
Baboon Apocalypse (Just One More Post)
Sorry for the excessive posts, but I just finished watching an interesting documentary about the health hazards of chronic stress on not only the human body, but also the bodies of primates like baboons and macaques. It was shown that any primate that is higher-ranking in the social construct is under less stress and therefore less affected by various health conditions, like cardiovascular disease, obesity, and even aging.
In one particularly scintillating study, a scientist studied a colony of baboons over many years. At one point, however, disaster struck.
The colony began to eat food from a garbage dump that was ridden with tuberculosis.
Unlike what you may first think, the weak were not the ones to perish. The higher-ranking alpha males were virtually wiped out by this epidemic because they were the ones who got to eat the most and therefore were at a higher risk in this case.
In fact, the subordinate groups, in this case females and gentler males, were the survivors, and the colony underwent a change in personality. Aggression was frowned upon and kindness became the key to this society. This was because the "nice guys" were now the leaders, and they would not support anger and hatred.
The first thing I thought was that an epidemic designed to kill jerks would instantly solve the world's problems. :P
The second thing I thought was wondering how we as humans can cope with stress by eliminating superiority structures.
Any thoughts/reactions?
PS: Best blog title ever...
In one particularly scintillating study, a scientist studied a colony of baboons over many years. At one point, however, disaster struck.
The colony began to eat food from a garbage dump that was ridden with tuberculosis.
Unlike what you may first think, the weak were not the ones to perish. The higher-ranking alpha males were virtually wiped out by this epidemic because they were the ones who got to eat the most and therefore were at a higher risk in this case.
In fact, the subordinate groups, in this case females and gentler males, were the survivors, and the colony underwent a change in personality. Aggression was frowned upon and kindness became the key to this society. This was because the "nice guys" were now the leaders, and they would not support anger and hatred.
The first thing I thought was that an epidemic designed to kill jerks would instantly solve the world's problems. :P
The second thing I thought was wondering how we as humans can cope with stress by eliminating superiority structures.
Any thoughts/reactions?
PS: Best blog title ever...
Whites, Pt. 2
Satirical singer/songwriter Randy Newman (yup, the guy who does the Toy Story theme) recently made a song called "I'm Dreamin'" in which he takes on the voice of a voter "dreaming of a white president." The best line:
"He won't be the brightest, perhaps/But he'll be the whitest/And I'll vote for that."
Rolling Stone magazine declared it as "satire that will be misconstrued, denounced, and used by no one as a campaign theme. Brilliant."
Is satire of offensive material offensive in itself? Randy Newman has made similar tunes with an unreliable narrator before: "Political Science" is told by a politician saying "Let's drop the big one/And see what happens," while "Short People" claims that the title group "[has] no reason to live." Newman is anti-racist but hates, well, haters. However, is his seemingly earnest but actually acidic humor the right way to go about it?
Whites, Pt 1.
OK, bear with me on this one.
I recently read about a T-shirt worn by several Mitt Romney supporters at a rally that read:
"PUT THE WHITE BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE"
I'm sure you can see how this is wrong on so many levels.
The problem that arises with people like this is the negative connotation given to a political party because of extremists like this. The Republican party may be predominantly appealing to whites, but it is not inherently racist. Mitt Romney is not inherently racist. He and his campaign have publicly decried the shirts.
Why do we not recognize extremists and trolls for who they are? We should know that Communists were not a good example for a liberal party agenda, and that Tea Partyers are not representative of the Republican party. But instead, we (and the media) like to use these people as a slice of the whole.
Advantages of Obscurity
Is there really any good that can come out of picking an obscure topic to write a paper about?
My Extended Essay topic is on the effects of melatonin supplements on the human body. Chrome doesn't even recognize "melatonin" as a word.
My Internal Assessment is on the long-term political causes of the Falkland Islands War of 1982. Our library doesn't even have any books on the Falklands themselves, let alone about the Anglo-Argentinian conflict that took place there 30 years ago.
I like to research unusual things that we never learn in school, but there's generally a reason for that: there are no resources, or it is cutting-edge resource.
What do you all think?
My Extended Essay topic is on the effects of melatonin supplements on the human body. Chrome doesn't even recognize "melatonin" as a word.
My Internal Assessment is on the long-term political causes of the Falkland Islands War of 1982. Our library doesn't even have any books on the Falklands themselves, let alone about the Anglo-Argentinian conflict that took place there 30 years ago.
I like to research unusual things that we never learn in school, but there's generally a reason for that: there are no resources, or it is cutting-edge resource.
What do you all think?
Saturday, October 13, 2012
What I Dislike About NHS (and this has nothing to do with NHS itself but rather the people in it and you'll see what I mean)
I feel bad by badmouthing NHS online, but I'm not badmouthing the institution itself. I don't mind assisting in the community and being expected to keep my grades high.
No, what I really don't like about it is the people.
This may confuse some of you, as I am perfectly fine with most of the people most of the time. And I really am. I duly enjoy the company of most of the members because they are in general very intelligent and considerate.
It's only IN the society that people start to annoy me.
Strangely this has nothing to do with the society's purpose either. There's no reason to dislike my fellow volunteers.
The real reason is: I hear things about people that I don't want to know. The things, I mean, are what I don't want to know.
The reason for THIS, in turn, is that I am in the dark about how us teenagers really act.
I'll make it clear: I hear about people's relationships and what they do for fun, and always hear about parties and other wild methods of entertainment that border on hedonism (the pursuit of pleasure alone). This not only seems ironic to the point of the HONOR society, but also gives me a bad image of otherwise upstanding students.
To be honest, I don't know what teenagers do. I just hear fragments of things and make assumptions. I don't know if something is a joke or an extreme example or a lie or what.
I need ANSWERS. To what extent to teenager's "relationships" go normally at this age? What do they do for fun? I'm tired of being in the dark and I don't want to probe.
Besides, if you answer this, that'll help me formulate my social behaviors in the long run.
Maybe I seem sheltered, but I prefer to think I'm misinformed or perhaps willfully ignorant for the sake of my own ego. In any case, I'd like to know.
Furthermore, I don't like to think differently of people. I assume they are good people and that they don't do much of anything other that what they're expected to.
On Thursday, author Patrick Jones talked about how annoying it is when most teen literature is painted with unrealistic scenarios and rosy sterilized depictions of life. I prefer not to think the world operates the way he says it does. If it does, let me know. What are your experiences or knowledge?????? (and don't mislead me anymore!)
No, what I really don't like about it is the people.
This may confuse some of you, as I am perfectly fine with most of the people most of the time. And I really am. I duly enjoy the company of most of the members because they are in general very intelligent and considerate.
It's only IN the society that people start to annoy me.
Strangely this has nothing to do with the society's purpose either. There's no reason to dislike my fellow volunteers.
The real reason is: I hear things about people that I don't want to know. The things, I mean, are what I don't want to know.
The reason for THIS, in turn, is that I am in the dark about how us teenagers really act.
I'll make it clear: I hear about people's relationships and what they do for fun, and always hear about parties and other wild methods of entertainment that border on hedonism (the pursuit of pleasure alone). This not only seems ironic to the point of the HONOR society, but also gives me a bad image of otherwise upstanding students.
To be honest, I don't know what teenagers do. I just hear fragments of things and make assumptions. I don't know if something is a joke or an extreme example or a lie or what.
I need ANSWERS. To what extent to teenager's "relationships" go normally at this age? What do they do for fun? I'm tired of being in the dark and I don't want to probe.
Besides, if you answer this, that'll help me formulate my social behaviors in the long run.
Maybe I seem sheltered, but I prefer to think I'm misinformed or perhaps willfully ignorant for the sake of my own ego. In any case, I'd like to know.
Furthermore, I don't like to think differently of people. I assume they are good people and that they don't do much of anything other that what they're expected to.
On Thursday, author Patrick Jones talked about how annoying it is when most teen literature is painted with unrealistic scenarios and rosy sterilized depictions of life. I prefer not to think the world operates the way he says it does. If it does, let me know. What are your experiences or knowledge?????? (and don't mislead me anymore!)
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Keywork and Karma
Lately I've been curiously looking up information about not my EE topic or my history assessment (really should though), but about a unique rock group that depicts an epic sci-fi saga through their songs. Their albums parallel graphic novels penned by the band's singer. Anyway, in their latest album the story involves this mystical force known as the Keywork that holds together the entire known universe. One character boldly attempts to discover what the Keywork really is, and discovers that the universe is held together by the energy created by the souls of the departed. The balance of good and bad energy depends on the lives of the souls in the system. Additionally, those who lived a life of dishonesty or evil are doomed to repeat their misfortunes for eternity.
Mind=blown?
Bombastic theatrics notwithstanding, there is an interesting point shown here that relates not with the concept of afterlife but more like karma. If we behave in a harmful way that hurts anyone, we upset the universe. You'll never know how many people you harmed. We all leave a legacy for better or worse that affects everyone, and we also are forced to live with the things we have done and their aftereffects.
Could the Keywork's concept be based in reality of the lives of people?
PS: The band is Coheed and Cambria, for anyone interested. Their newest album comes out tomorrow but I already previewed it all online today. Not my type of music mostly but it's an indulgence of the nerdy/philosophical/cultural side of me ;P.
Mind=blown?
Bombastic theatrics notwithstanding, there is an interesting point shown here that relates not with the concept of afterlife but more like karma. If we behave in a harmful way that hurts anyone, we upset the universe. You'll never know how many people you harmed. We all leave a legacy for better or worse that affects everyone, and we also are forced to live with the things we have done and their aftereffects.
Could the Keywork's concept be based in reality of the lives of people?
PS: The band is Coheed and Cambria, for anyone interested. Their newest album comes out tomorrow but I already previewed it all online today. Not my type of music mostly but it's an indulgence of the nerdy/philosophical/cultural side of me ;P.
Work Time
Why does setting matter so much in terms of productivity? I sit here in the LMC when I'm supposed to be working on the Written Task 2. I blog instead. I would work better at home, but even then it's not easy to work if I'm not in the right mode. What's your ideal homework scenario?
An Experiment in True Democracy
I ask to all the readers of this blog: What should I blog about?
I want to know what the preferences of the public in our class is. I will continue to post but I hope to hear the opinions of many on this topic. That's all for that.
WRITE
I want to know what the preferences of the public in our class is. I will continue to post but I hope to hear the opinions of many on this topic. That's all for that.
WRITE
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Read My Other Posts Too
Seriously, scroll down the page for once...
All apologies, but anyway, I wanted to comment on "school spirit". This is homecoming week so there are tons of activities that the administration has cooked up to hopefully achieve the elusive unity among all students.
However, is that what school spirit is? I certainly hope that's what they're aiming for, since that is what we need now. The world has become pretty bipartisan for how open-minded it is. I don't think we need to emphasize the superiority of our school, per se, but rather bond us all together, even with our enemies. I know that Blaine are not our "enemies" in reality, and in sports rivalries are essential, but there's still too much hate in the world today.
Also, are parades and pep-fests really that effective in increasing student's unity? Perhaps: they are united in hating being forced to attend events against their will. Is this too cynical, or do we agree that these are kind of annoying?
Thoughts?
PS: Sorry for blogging so much today, I just felt like putting out a variety of new topics and testing the limits of my patience. XD
All apologies, but anyway, I wanted to comment on "school spirit". This is homecoming week so there are tons of activities that the administration has cooked up to hopefully achieve the elusive unity among all students.
However, is that what school spirit is? I certainly hope that's what they're aiming for, since that is what we need now. The world has become pretty bipartisan for how open-minded it is. I don't think we need to emphasize the superiority of our school, per se, but rather bond us all together, even with our enemies. I know that Blaine are not our "enemies" in reality, and in sports rivalries are essential, but there's still too much hate in the world today.
Also, are parades and pep-fests really that effective in increasing student's unity? Perhaps: they are united in hating being forced to attend events against their will. Is this too cynical, or do we agree that these are kind of annoying?
Thoughts?
PS: Sorry for blogging so much today, I just felt like putting out a variety of new topics and testing the limits of my patience. XD
Disillusionment (Rehash)
Perhaps this is a stale retread of what other people have said but:
I just considered the Cargo Cults that Ms. Mork told us about. These people honestly believe that US airplanes dropping cargo off are gifts of the gods. I mean, who could blame them? If you saw a giant thing come out of the sky and present you with food and strangely-dressed pale men, you might be a bit excited.
Who are we to disillusion them? Is it wrong to tell them this is an ordinary part of the society that they live parallel to? They are isolated; how should we expect them to know anything about us? There are likely still a few dozen tribes that have never been in contact with other humans in the "outside" world. Should we ruin their world by coming into contact? It's kind of fun to discover what outsiders would think of, say, airplanes, but it's like another Schrodinger's Cat: we'll never know what they think unless we barge in and perhaps ruin the outcome.
I just considered the Cargo Cults that Ms. Mork told us about. These people honestly believe that US airplanes dropping cargo off are gifts of the gods. I mean, who could blame them? If you saw a giant thing come out of the sky and present you with food and strangely-dressed pale men, you might be a bit excited.
Who are we to disillusion them? Is it wrong to tell them this is an ordinary part of the society that they live parallel to? They are isolated; how should we expect them to know anything about us? There are likely still a few dozen tribes that have never been in contact with other humans in the "outside" world. Should we ruin their world by coming into contact? It's kind of fun to discover what outsiders would think of, say, airplanes, but it's like another Schrodinger's Cat: we'll never know what they think unless we barge in and perhaps ruin the outcome.
The Death of Comedy: When?
I thought after English today about how much of our humor in American culture is based off of microaggressions. We leisurely toss around remarks that SOMEONE could consider demeaning to minorities. Make any joke about a stereotype, or even a stereotypical character, and it's a microaggression.
What will comedy look like after prejudice has died (if it does before humans do)? Even physical comedy is based off the demeaning of a particular individual by making comedy off of misery (schadenfreude). This could be identified as not funny and offensive to somebody.
At what point do we stop considering the feelings of others? And moreover, what is funny without offending A-N-Y-O-N-E?
My friend suggested that absurd humor could always be funny, as a mixture of the real and the bizarre creates juxtaposition that is unfamiliar and therefore humorous to people.
Any other suggestions on humor that could not be interpreted as being offensive AT ALL? Remember, there's no such thing as ridiculous when it comes to offending people. If they can make a lawsuit out of it, they will. There's always somebody ruining it for the rest of us.
What will comedy look like after prejudice has died (if it does before humans do)? Even physical comedy is based off the demeaning of a particular individual by making comedy off of misery (schadenfreude). This could be identified as not funny and offensive to somebody.
At what point do we stop considering the feelings of others? And moreover, what is funny without offending A-N-Y-O-N-E?
My friend suggested that absurd humor could always be funny, as a mixture of the real and the bizarre creates juxtaposition that is unfamiliar and therefore humorous to people.
Any other suggestions on humor that could not be interpreted as being offensive AT ALL? Remember, there's no such thing as ridiculous when it comes to offending people. If they can make a lawsuit out of it, they will. There's always somebody ruining it for the rest of us.
Rage Against the Paul
My obligatory musical post today:
VP candidate Paul Ryan has tried to make himself in the image of a hip, young everyman to appeal the youth vote (I presume). This includes his emphasis on his love of rock music; bands he has cited include stereotypical choices like AC/DC and Led Zeppelin.
However, Ryan received media ridicule for claiming his favorite band is Rage Against the Machine.
For those who may not know, RATM is a rap-rock group with a distinct focus on left-wing political rants that often preach righteous violence against the corrupt right-wing "suppressors" or at least suggesting revolution (key tracks: "Killing in the Name", "Bulls on Parade", "Testify"). Additionally, they dish out crazily twisted guitar riffs built on funk, metal, and hip-hop, courtesy of guitarist Tom Morello.
Now, it's more likely that Ryan likes RATM for the latter reason, but this comment has led to more than a few jeers. Most notably, Tom Morello wrote an opinion column in Rolling Stone (a liberal magazine for music and politics) claiming "Ryan is the epitome of the Machine that our band rages against". Ryan defended himself by claiming he liked the band's sound but didn't really care about the lyrics.
We make fun of Paul Ryan for this ironic statement he made, but this really brings up the point of lyrics vs. sound in music.
I like the sound of some bands but their lyrics may be too violent, explicit, or downright weird (looking at you, Pixies). Likewise, some singers write great words to their songs but their music is kind of meh (Bob Dylan should sometimes have stuck with poetry).
This shows how music appeals to both the emotional and logical ways of knowing: which one we use may vary from person to person. Which one is more profound for you?
BTW, if you haven't read my old blog posts, you should.
VP candidate Paul Ryan has tried to make himself in the image of a hip, young everyman to appeal the youth vote (I presume). This includes his emphasis on his love of rock music; bands he has cited include stereotypical choices like AC/DC and Led Zeppelin.
However, Ryan received media ridicule for claiming his favorite band is Rage Against the Machine.
For those who may not know, RATM is a rap-rock group with a distinct focus on left-wing political rants that often preach righteous violence against the corrupt right-wing "suppressors" or at least suggesting revolution (key tracks: "Killing in the Name", "Bulls on Parade", "Testify"). Additionally, they dish out crazily twisted guitar riffs built on funk, metal, and hip-hop, courtesy of guitarist Tom Morello.
Now, it's more likely that Ryan likes RATM for the latter reason, but this comment has led to more than a few jeers. Most notably, Tom Morello wrote an opinion column in Rolling Stone (a liberal magazine for music and politics) claiming "Ryan is the epitome of the Machine that our band rages against". Ryan defended himself by claiming he liked the band's sound but didn't really care about the lyrics.
We make fun of Paul Ryan for this ironic statement he made, but this really brings up the point of lyrics vs. sound in music.
I like the sound of some bands but their lyrics may be too violent, explicit, or downright weird (looking at you, Pixies). Likewise, some singers write great words to their songs but their music is kind of meh (Bob Dylan should sometimes have stuck with poetry).
This shows how music appeals to both the emotional and logical ways of knowing: which one we use may vary from person to person. Which one is more profound for you?
BTW, if you haven't read my old blog posts, you should.
Liars and Police: Another TOK1 flashback
Who here remembers The Thin Blue Line?
Beyond the lady with the glasses and the *enthralling* soundtrack, there were some interesting sociological/philosophical points brought up in this crime documentary. One such issue was honesty. The perpetrator of the murder, I think his name was Harris, claimed in an interview that "Criminals always lie". First of all, with this definition, how do we determine who is a liar or a criminal? Does a lie count as a crime? And furthermore, this statement comes from a criminal. Should we trust his ethos?
Another interesting point was the reliability of police. The police in Dallas were corrupt in this case, arresting an innocent man (Randall, his name was) for a crime committed by Harris based on obscure evidence. I don't remember the whole details, but the essence of the title came from the quote "The police are the thin blue line separating society from anarchy" or something just like that. Can we put the public's safety in the hands of a group of armed people that may have an agenda of their own that runs against the public good? Such as the need to make money or assert their beliefs?
I think that once someone has been proven to have lied, it is very hard to regain their trust. One's integrity can be lost and never regained, because they have proven they have the capacity to deceive.
Also, I believe the police generally have good intentions but as citizens we should be mindful that cops have the right to use weapons and bend the law to suit "the greater good". Watch out for police brutality!
I will now yield the floor for comments.
Beyond the lady with the glasses and the *enthralling* soundtrack, there were some interesting sociological/philosophical points brought up in this crime documentary. One such issue was honesty. The perpetrator of the murder, I think his name was Harris, claimed in an interview that "Criminals always lie". First of all, with this definition, how do we determine who is a liar or a criminal? Does a lie count as a crime? And furthermore, this statement comes from a criminal. Should we trust his ethos?
Another interesting point was the reliability of police. The police in Dallas were corrupt in this case, arresting an innocent man (Randall, his name was) for a crime committed by Harris based on obscure evidence. I don't remember the whole details, but the essence of the title came from the quote "The police are the thin blue line separating society from anarchy" or something just like that. Can we put the public's safety in the hands of a group of armed people that may have an agenda of their own that runs against the public good? Such as the need to make money or assert their beliefs?
I think that once someone has been proven to have lied, it is very hard to regain their trust. One's integrity can be lost and never regained, because they have proven they have the capacity to deceive.
Also, I believe the police generally have good intentions but as citizens we should be mindful that cops have the right to use weapons and bend the law to suit "the greater good". Watch out for police brutality!
I will now yield the floor for comments.
Candy!
Tonight at the parade, I bought and brought my own candy to throw to the children. Honestly, I didn't think that we would even be allowed to throw candy, but I was wrong. However, as I did clarify that the candy was mine and was free for the taking for anyone who asked, many people partook in the sweets. I noticed that people who otherwise would never approach me were now asking for candy. Kind of odd how having material goods that others can use makes someone popular. Not that I'm not guilty of this. If someone brings an open pan of cupcakes to lunch, you'll bet I'll ask for one. When someone brings cookies, I'll politely beg for one.
Nevertheless, this is a pointed observation on the shallowness of some people, and how they use you for what they want, and so on and so forth. What say you about this?
Nevertheless, this is a pointed observation on the shallowness of some people, and how they use you for what they want, and so on and so forth. What say you about this?
Monday, October 1, 2012
Jesus: A Scientist? + Snake Oil
My uncle once tried to inform me about the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist. It has an odd name but essentially believes that maladies of the human body are simply perception and that people can get well just by believing they can get well. This contradicts much of germ theory, but science also shows that having a good attitude helps your immune system. How much validity is there in the beliefs of the JCS people?
On a similar tangent, homeopathy believes that certain natural substances, like spider venom, minerals, or plant extracts, can be added to water and diluted until the quantity of the original solute is nil, and the resulting fluid will still work to cure certain conditions. This is often dismissed as bunkum, but some reports have (perhaps dubiously) claimed it works. Is this a placebo effect, or could substances really "imprint" their solvent even after leaving? I think that many are passing this off as a scam to make money from selling vials of water to unsuspecting naifs. Snake oil, I say. But I will watch to keep tabs on this controversial belief.
On a similar tangent, homeopathy believes that certain natural substances, like spider venom, minerals, or plant extracts, can be added to water and diluted until the quantity of the original solute is nil, and the resulting fluid will still work to cure certain conditions. This is often dismissed as bunkum, but some reports have (perhaps dubiously) claimed it works. Is this a placebo effect, or could substances really "imprint" their solvent even after leaving? I think that many are passing this off as a scam to make money from selling vials of water to unsuspecting naifs. Snake oil, I say. But I will watch to keep tabs on this controversial belief.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Worst songs ever? (Yeah, I'm bringing this to TOK now)
OK, this may not be overly TOK-ish but here it goes:
What is your least favorite song of all time?
This was inspired by a heated discussion on the Current's website today and I just wanted to hear a sample of what my generation hates (and loves) musically, just to compare with that post. And furthermore, what about any given song makes you hate it?
My bottom picks (debate away):
"Don't Stop Believing" by Journey (sorry, but it's a sugarcoated "inspirational" tune that was ruined before Glee even considered it)
"Video Games" by Lana del Rey (don't even bother with this one, it's just sad)
"She's Country" by Jason Aldean (I don't mind country but this pathetic attempt at "rock" is sleazy and borderline sexist)
"Sugar, We're Going Down" by Fall Out Boy (pretentious and not even emotional for being "emo")
"Modern Love" by David Bowie (a great artist but this number is droning and too poppy)
"We Are the Champions" by Queen (cliched and unoriginal, ditto with "We Will Rock You")
"The House that Heaven Built" by Japandroids (obscure, yet poppy yet abrasive and obnoxious)
"Only the Good Die Young" by Billy Joel (hey, let's all abandon our religion and be lascivious punks!)
"Jack and Diane" by John Mellencamp (have heard it for too many years and holds no nostalgic value)
"Brown-Eyed Girl" by Van Morrison (who has a chorus that lame with a voice that annoying?)
"Sweet Caroline" by Neil Diamond (if anyone sings the "bom-bom-bom" trumpet hook I will scream)
"All Summer Long" by Kid Rock (way to rhyme "things" with "things" and ruin Lynyrd Skynyrd for the rest of us)
And that's probably way too much to still be for educational purposes. But I want you all to ponder: what makes a certain song popular? Is it really that it has enjoyable musical qualities? Or is it because radio stations are paid to overplay it? Is pop-sensibility inherent? Or is it simply, well, populist?
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Star Stricken: A Momentary Lapse of Reason
How many people here have been "star struck"? This is a strange condition in which people will behave oddly, often maniacally, when in the presence of someone famous. This can happen on many levels, often manifesting itself in nervous giggling upon sighting the "celebrity" in person, either expected or not. A historical severe pandemic of starstruckness was the infamous 1962 "Beatlemania" outbreak, in which four highly "infected" British musicians spread this crazed obsession for themselves across the unsuspecting American continent. (LOL see what I did there?)
I want to know: what is it about "fame" that sets people apart so badly from others that it causes others to behave shy or quirky around them? Why is there such a cultural obsession over "famous" people? And why are most famous people entertainers? Well, the latter is kind of obvious.
Honestly, though, famous people often have the ability to drive some people literally crazy. In fact, one of the aforementioned pathogen-carriers (a John Lennon) infected one man to the point of psychopathic delirium which led to his death. (are you getting the reference?)
Has anybody here been star-struck to any degree? and Why does fame set celebrities apart from the rest of us in the media's eye?
PS: I once acted somewhat starstruck at the State Fair this year, when I saw 89.3 the Current DJ Bill Deville broadcasting live. He was rather shy and didn't talk much to the audience, and I didn't actually get him to sign anything, but I hung around the windowed broadcasting booth for around 20 minutes, hoping to get his attention. I normally would not act this desperate to talk to someone, but even this minor celebrity caused starstruckness!
I want to know: what is it about "fame" that sets people apart so badly from others that it causes others to behave shy or quirky around them? Why is there such a cultural obsession over "famous" people? And why are most famous people entertainers? Well, the latter is kind of obvious.
Honestly, though, famous people often have the ability to drive some people literally crazy. In fact, one of the aforementioned pathogen-carriers (a John Lennon) infected one man to the point of psychopathic delirium which led to his death. (are you getting the reference?)
Has anybody here been star-struck to any degree? and Why does fame set celebrities apart from the rest of us in the media's eye?
PS: I once acted somewhat starstruck at the State Fair this year, when I saw 89.3 the Current DJ Bill Deville broadcasting live. He was rather shy and didn't talk much to the audience, and I didn't actually get him to sign anything, but I hung around the windowed broadcasting booth for around 20 minutes, hoping to get his attention. I normally would not act this desperate to talk to someone, but even this minor celebrity caused starstruckness!
Monday, September 24, 2012
Do I need my MP3 player? (not as shallow of a post as you'd think)
In case you don't know me well, I thoroughly love music. Specifically, popular music of the past 50 or so years is my forte. I think I have perfect pitch (almost) but my main point is my ability to remember songs that I like well. If I enjoy a song, I might hear it only twice before having it memorized. First of all, how do I know that I actually "know" the song? My memories of pitch, tempo, and some more abstract sections (ie, guitar solos) may be imperfect, but I remember the exact structure of the tune. Is memory an adequate way of knowing for this?
Secondly, I find that if I hear a song that's halfway decent more than once a day, I suddenly like it, or at least memorize it. For example, I bought a song yesterday that I had heard on Rock Band that I liked, and I have listened to it three times today alone. Each time I listen I like it more. That was more of a comment.
Finally, if I remember melodies so well, why do I need my MP3 player in the first place? My memory serves as a solid way of knowing, doesn't it? Why do I need to reuse perception? My answer to this is: pleasure. For some reason, actually hearing the song outside of my head is more pleasurable than just remembering it. Does this occur to you? Thoughts.
Secondly, I find that if I hear a song that's halfway decent more than once a day, I suddenly like it, or at least memorize it. For example, I bought a song yesterday that I had heard on Rock Band that I liked, and I have listened to it three times today alone. Each time I listen I like it more. That was more of a comment.
Finally, if I remember melodies so well, why do I need my MP3 player in the first place? My memory serves as a solid way of knowing, doesn't it? Why do I need to reuse perception? My answer to this is: pleasure. For some reason, actually hearing the song outside of my head is more pleasurable than just remembering it. Does this occur to you? Thoughts.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Back to TOK 1
Remember Absurdism?
That's right: the sub-branch of the existentialist philosophy that dictates that everything in the life is meaningless outside of the scope of human definition, and that the conflict between trying to find meaning and the actual non-meaning of everything is known as the Absurd (with a capital A).
We read that hilarious (if bizarre) play The Bald Soprano, which begins as a clever commentary on insipid middle-class life and devolves into the shouting of random phrases. This has no meaning, and an Absurdist would argue that neither does anything else.
Also within the scope of Absurdism is the fact that one can never be certain of anything because there is too much in the universe to ever know, and that bad things will happen to good people randomly.
I'm not necessarily a proponent of Absurdism, but I don't think that everything necessarily happens for a reason either. It's more fun this way.
What do you think about Absurdism?
That's right: the sub-branch of the existentialist philosophy that dictates that everything in the life is meaningless outside of the scope of human definition, and that the conflict between trying to find meaning and the actual non-meaning of everything is known as the Absurd (with a capital A).
We read that hilarious (if bizarre) play The Bald Soprano, which begins as a clever commentary on insipid middle-class life and devolves into the shouting of random phrases. This has no meaning, and an Absurdist would argue that neither does anything else.
Also within the scope of Absurdism is the fact that one can never be certain of anything because there is too much in the universe to ever know, and that bad things will happen to good people randomly.
I'm not necessarily a proponent of Absurdism, but I don't think that everything necessarily happens for a reason either. It's more fun this way.
What do you think about Absurdism?
Oh, the reality! or How I Stole Karli's Idea for a Blog Post
During the fire alarm today, I was telling Karli about a video game that a friend showed me called Final Fantasy XIII. For the Playstation 3, this game has some of the best graphics quality ever. The design of the human characters is incredible, the backgrounds are breathtaking, and the fantasy elements appear amazingly depicted. It was like the Avatar of video games.
She proceeded to ponder how we can tell the difference between reality and a meticulously constructed animation thereof. FF13 and Avatar are both so realistic they appear like real life, but some part of you can tell it is computer-generated.
Other than prior knowledge, she and I wondered, how can we detect reality as opposed to animation?
I then proceeded to call "dibs" on this topic and that I would post it when I got home because she was working. Not to make fun of her; in fact this blog topic is brought to you in part by her.
But really: with everything from Photoshop to motion-capture animation, how can we detect what is real?
She proceeded to ponder how we can tell the difference between reality and a meticulously constructed animation thereof. FF13 and Avatar are both so realistic they appear like real life, but some part of you can tell it is computer-generated.
Other than prior knowledge, she and I wondered, how can we detect reality as opposed to animation?
I then proceeded to call "dibs" on this topic and that I would post it when I got home because she was working. Not to make fun of her; in fact this blog topic is brought to you in part by her.
But really: with everything from Photoshop to motion-capture animation, how can we detect what is real?
Thursday, September 20, 2012
For the last time, do I look like a robot? (Please don't answer that)
One really minor thing to comment on: the "reCaptcha" security program.
Why must we type out an absurd letter jumble depicted a la Rorschach, along with a blurry photograph of random number stickers?
Obviously this is to prevent online spam through the use of mass distribution programs known as "bots", to which effect Google cheekily commands "Please prove you're not a robot".
As an established and prolific blogger, I find this to be a nuisance. At some point, there should be a loop counter that eventually auto-verifies any given user, but even then one could circumvent that...
My point is that bots are AWFUL. Any MMORPG players know this well. Online advertising (especially the "You've won the prize!" kind but also the "Get a FREE credit report now!" kind) is also an abomination. Heck, anything pertaining to people on the internet trolling around (including Trolls) and causing discomfort for everyone else is on the top of my million-things-that-bug-me list (don't ask for the whole list).
Furthermore, what's the deal with hackers? They seem to be the most dirty, no-good, rotten lowlifes of the 21st century. They learn the perfectly respectable profession of computer coding and use it to take down weak company websites, in their own words, "4 teh lulz".
The worst part is that there is no way to stop them. They are anonymous, which makes it fitting that the most notorious "hacktivist" group is called Anonymous.
Any opinions? Thoughts? Protests? Lolcats? (please none of the latter)
Why must we type out an absurd letter jumble depicted a la Rorschach, along with a blurry photograph of random number stickers?
Obviously this is to prevent online spam through the use of mass distribution programs known as "bots", to which effect Google cheekily commands "Please prove you're not a robot".
As an established and prolific blogger, I find this to be a nuisance. At some point, there should be a loop counter that eventually auto-verifies any given user, but even then one could circumvent that...
My point is that bots are AWFUL. Any MMORPG players know this well. Online advertising (especially the "You've won the prize!" kind but also the "Get a FREE credit report now!" kind) is also an abomination. Heck, anything pertaining to people on the internet trolling around (including Trolls) and causing discomfort for everyone else is on the top of my million-things-that-bug-me list (don't ask for the whole list).
Furthermore, what's the deal with hackers? They seem to be the most dirty, no-good, rotten lowlifes of the 21st century. They learn the perfectly respectable profession of computer coding and use it to take down weak company websites, in their own words, "4 teh lulz".
The worst part is that there is no way to stop them. They are anonymous, which makes it fitting that the most notorious "hacktivist" group is called Anonymous.
Any opinions? Thoughts? Protests? Lolcats? (please none of the latter)
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
"In the first place, it's probably just paranoia...
...If there's a ghost in my room and he says I'd better run"
That was a song quote (my fave band and the subject of my MLI).
But anyways I feel like another conspiracy is afoot, tying into Karli's recent posts about how people would handle without technology.
Lately, it seems that a lot of people have been having their computers or technological devices go haywire or conk out. Christian reported that his computer finally died. My friend Alex just had his TI Nspire crash spontaneously. My computer has had a variation on the blue screen of death twice (it did not turn out deadly), and the list could go on.
My point is, why is technology seeming to all fail gradually but simultaneously?
I fear there might be a technology crash of some degree on the horizon, one that may or may not be foreseeable.
Or it could all be a coincidence.
This makes me wonder: at what point does a series of similar events become a coincidence? To what extent can we predict the future based on patterns?
That was a song quote (my fave band and the subject of my MLI).
But anyways I feel like another conspiracy is afoot, tying into Karli's recent posts about how people would handle without technology.
Lately, it seems that a lot of people have been having their computers or technological devices go haywire or conk out. Christian reported that his computer finally died. My friend Alex just had his TI Nspire crash spontaneously. My computer has had a variation on the blue screen of death twice (it did not turn out deadly), and the list could go on.
My point is, why is technology seeming to all fail gradually but simultaneously?
I fear there might be a technology crash of some degree on the horizon, one that may or may not be foreseeable.
Or it could all be a coincidence.
This makes me wonder: at what point does a series of similar events become a coincidence? To what extent can we predict the future based on patterns?
Monday, September 17, 2012
Strike
I also wanted to mention the Chicago teacher's strike that has been going on all throughout the school year. I don't know exactly what they want, as apparently Chicago teachers make more money than the average teacher. Also, I want to know how they are dealing with the thousands of students who still need education. Are there substitutes not affiliated with the union? Are there picket-line-crossers who ignore the demands of the few and focus on the needs of the many (students)? What would WE do if this happened at our school?
Just throwing that out there.
Just throwing that out there.
A Conspiracy??? or: Wingnuts on the Loose
If anybody has read into the recent news of the violent global protests at American embassies, you'll know there is a fairly serious conflict situation here. The story is: some inflammatory American posted a video on YouTube that mocked and condemned the religion of Islam, particularly by its vulgar depictions of Muhammad (something forbidden by Muslims).
As a result, some angry fundamentalists in Egypt and Libya attacked the US embassies, killing some ambassadors and burning down buildings. Globally, a reaction took place among Muslim communities protesting the video; meanwhile the US government is taking two sides. At large, they agree that whoever posted the video was wrong in insulting a religion, but they also condemned the violence that resulted from it. These mixed sentiments from President Obama were interpreted by Mitt Romney as a statement of sympathy for the rebels.
My conspiracy theory is that a politician from either side of the American party system posted the video to incite a conflict, to either support or bring down Obama by testing his reaction. I do truly believe, however, that the violence was calculated by the Muslim fundamentalists and not totally random. The violence did start on September 11, after all. Coincidence? Maybe.
Any thoughts?
As a result, some angry fundamentalists in Egypt and Libya attacked the US embassies, killing some ambassadors and burning down buildings. Globally, a reaction took place among Muslim communities protesting the video; meanwhile the US government is taking two sides. At large, they agree that whoever posted the video was wrong in insulting a religion, but they also condemned the violence that resulted from it. These mixed sentiments from President Obama were interpreted by Mitt Romney as a statement of sympathy for the rebels.
My conspiracy theory is that a politician from either side of the American party system posted the video to incite a conflict, to either support or bring down Obama by testing his reaction. I do truly believe, however, that the violence was calculated by the Muslim fundamentalists and not totally random. The violence did start on September 11, after all. Coincidence? Maybe.
Any thoughts?
Friday, September 14, 2012
Time and Truth
A very basic post:
I noticed as soon as I started blogging that all the times of posting were exactly 2 hours behind. I am posting this at about 6:20 AM but it will show up as 4:20 AM on the post.
Someone may never have noticed this all along. Could this change in perspective be threatening to their reality? Not saying that it would be traumatic if someone always thought someone was posting at 9 PM when they were really doing it at 11 PM, but realizing certain things can really change your perspective.
What if we never learned the truth about some things? Would it be better that way? If we went our whole life assuming Africa was a country, and nobody ever told us otherwise as it never came up, would we be satisfied? Would we be different?
I noticed as soon as I started blogging that all the times of posting were exactly 2 hours behind. I am posting this at about 6:20 AM but it will show up as 4:20 AM on the post.
Someone may never have noticed this all along. Could this change in perspective be threatening to their reality? Not saying that it would be traumatic if someone always thought someone was posting at 9 PM when they were really doing it at 11 PM, but realizing certain things can really change your perspective.
What if we never learned the truth about some things? Would it be better that way? If we went our whole life assuming Africa was a country, and nobody ever told us otherwise as it never came up, would we be satisfied? Would we be different?
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Anger and Hunger
Relating on the common topic of perspective and emotion:
I often have brief depressive/angry spells. I honestly border on violent rage and self-destruction and have a very short temper. I wonder why I even exist and know that everything is terrible. I want to lose my friends and pity myself.
Then I realize: I'm hungry.
It's pretty embarrassing when I rant on to my parents about how hopeless and miserable life is and then get something to eat and begin laughing.
One never realizes a chronic pain until it is relieved, yes?
So I sometimes forget to eat and then get irascible.
I'm like a freakin' animal that way. A bear or shark or something.
I mean, this isn't every time I'm hungry, I'm angry; it's that mostly when I'm angry, I'm hungry.
Why is it that primitive urges affect some of us so badly?
I should be able to notice when I'm hungry, but it's often too late. I'll walk into the lunchroom and complain to my friends, then eat and be perfectly fine.
My question: is our whole outlook on life really dependent on the amount of nutrients in our body/amount of sleep we have had/even the amount of water we drink?
I often have brief depressive/angry spells. I honestly border on violent rage and self-destruction and have a very short temper. I wonder why I even exist and know that everything is terrible. I want to lose my friends and pity myself.
Then I realize: I'm hungry.
It's pretty embarrassing when I rant on to my parents about how hopeless and miserable life is and then get something to eat and begin laughing.
One never realizes a chronic pain until it is relieved, yes?
So I sometimes forget to eat and then get irascible.
I'm like a freakin' animal that way. A bear or shark or something.
I mean, this isn't every time I'm hungry, I'm angry; it's that mostly when I'm angry, I'm hungry.
Why is it that primitive urges affect some of us so badly?
I should be able to notice when I'm hungry, but it's often too late. I'll walk into the lunchroom and complain to my friends, then eat and be perfectly fine.
My question: is our whole outlook on life really dependent on the amount of nutrients in our body/amount of sleep we have had/even the amount of water we drink?
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Ways of Knowing: Art
It is likely we will discuss this question more later in this course, but anyways:
Defining what constitutes "art" by a Senate subcommittee seems absurd in itself. I think it is a combination of sensory perception and emotion that defines art. However, everyone has different emotional reactions to something. As the cliche goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Other artists that challenge the definitions of "art":
What ways of knowing are used to define what is "art"?Or even more broad:
What is "art"?I ask this because I have encountered many examples of "controversial" art throughout my years of reading. For example, take the works of Robert Mapplethorpe. He became infamous in the 1980's for a series of, well, "sensual" photographs. (I won't describe them in detail here, you'll have to take my word for it) Supposedly he made these works with a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), a government program. Due to this, the NEA came under fire by (mostly) conservative politicians, claiming Mapplethorpe's works to be in bad taste.
Defining what constitutes "art" by a Senate subcommittee seems absurd in itself. I think it is a combination of sensory perception and emotion that defines art. However, everyone has different emotional reactions to something. As the cliche goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Other artists that challenge the definitions of "art":
- Marcel Duchamp: French Dadaist who presented everyday objects, unmodified, as art (eg: shovels, toilets)
- Andres Serrano: Photographer in the same era as Mapplethorpe; was also criticized for his works that defaced religious symbols
- Lou Reed: Musician; most works are normal, fairly accessible songs (if rather off the mainstream), but 1975 album "Metal Machine Music" was simply hours of grating, screeching feedback
- Andy Warhol: Famous "pop" artist, also delved into experimental films, including a 24-hour long film called **** (yes that is the title, not a censorship)
- E.L. James: Author of recent "Fifty Shades" trilogy. Need I say more?
- Trent Reznor: Musician, similar to Reed in that he utilized harsh, grating noise in his soundscapes, but also transposes lyrics of self-torture and violence into his music.
This list is just a sample and is by no means definitive. Some of these people have been critically lauded yet simultaneously generate controversy. I know of many other musicians specifically that have generated controversy, as music trivia is my forte, but if anyone else can find or knows of any controversial artists feel free to tell me.
The main question, though: what, to you, defines "art"? And is there a way of knowing what art is?
PS: I thought of this topic while remembering another musician that may challenge the definition of "art":
- My Bloody Valentine: Musical group, often cited as the leaders of the "shoegazer" movement in the late 1980's-early 1990's. Utilized layered, effects-woven guitar noises combined with indistinguishable, ethereal vocals-as-instruments to create a wall-of-noise feel; their 1991 magnum opus "Loveless" cost over £250,000 to record, nearly bankrupting their record label. Exemplary track: "Only Shallow", the most intense/strange song you may ever hear.
Never laugh at a hipster; they could teach you something new. (not saying I am one but still)
Basic Knowledge Issue: Post 1
At my work, my managers tell me to ask questions and never assume. I interpret this as a knowledge issue: the conflict between reason and language. Your own reasoning might deduce that you should do a certain task at a certain time, but your superiors may tell you to do otherwise. Is it better to do as you are told or to do as you think makes sense? Of course, if your supervisors do not tell you why, then they are not using language to the fullest extent that they could and should. Should you trust that they know better? Could your reasoning be incorrect?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)