Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in taggedmuch's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009
3:59 am	Schizophrenia Symptoms 'Aight, so on a whim, I figured I'd write down the symptoms of schizophrenia, along with whether I can see myself with the symptom (YES), with some of the symptom (SOME), or without the symptom (NO). This is just done for fun, and should not be considered an accurate assessment. The symptoms are directly taken (cut and paste) from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/schizophrenia/DS00196/DSECTION=symptoms: "Schizophrenia ranges from mild to severe. Some people may be able to function well in daily life, while others need specialized, intensive care." Negative signs and symptoms: SOME Loss of interest in everyday activities SOME Appearing to lack emotion NO Reduced ability to plan or carry out activities SOME Neglecting hygiene SOME Social withdrawal SOME Loss of motivation Positive signs and symptoms: NO Hallucinations, or sensing things that aren't real. In schizophrenia, hearing voices is a common hallucination. These voices may seem to give you instructions on how to act, and they sometimes may include harming others. [although, I could have said SOME a few years ago, when I kept seeing this weird white haze...its not so common anymore] SOME Delusions, or beliefs that have no basis in reality. For example, you may believe that the television is directing your behavior or that outside forces are controlling your thoughts. YES Thought disorders, or difficulty speaking and organizing thoughts, such as stopping in midsentence or jumbling together meaningless words, sometimes known as "word salad." YES Movement disorders, such as repeating movements, clumsiness or involuntary movements. .... [Er, okay, I didn't think I'd say "some" or "yes" to THAT many symptoms. Also, I'm aware of this...condition, see, which is kinda prodromal to having schizophrenia (coming before the onset of schizophrenia). The condition has relatively mild versions of the same symptoms, and there's a high correlation to having this prodromal condition and being unable to habituate to typical, mild stimuli (for example, a person with this would be constantly distracted and/or aware of the ticking of a clock). I wish i knew the name of that condition - i'm curious about it.] (Comment on this)
Monday, November 16th, 2009
10:25 pm	Happy Birthday! Happy Birthday Fef and Michelle and Ra-Shannah and 5,000 other people whom I know have birthdays like +/- five days from mine. And of course, Happy Birthday me. :) One day early...but today I finally received the two left feet of the Tarahumara (sp?) sandals I ordered (to compliment the two right feet I received earlier); I got a call from the guy I still like and pine for in Boston; and I got an e-mail inviting me to my second interview for a job that sounds really promising. I'm excited! ...only, I can't find the right-feet of the sandals. *sigh* (Comment on this)
Friday, November 6th, 2009
11:51 pm	Psychological Insight I think I'd prefer to have remained oblivious... I have known for a while that I'm into "weird". Weird is who i wanna date. i find them cuddly/adoreable/awesome/attractive. Such as Amire in JakeAndAmir.com. Or Ahbed from Community. Or...lessee...the nerdy guy from Zombieland. Bunch of other examples. Including this guy i still like in Boston. Its not always bad-weird either but... I think I generally see the weird as similar to something in myself. When I'm attracted to these guys, I'm attracted to myself. WTF? I'm Autosexual. The only reason I'm into guys is because I see myself as more masculine then feminine? Possibly. I may just be that f***ed up. I just cuddled my pillow while watching Ahbed's character, like, right before I made this entry. And now I'm going back to the rest of the show. (3 Comments |Comment on this)
5:57 pm	Lucky Me It turns out that the less friends I have around that I can visit (or whatever), the less money I spend. Lucky me. *sigh* (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, October 22nd, 2009
3:13 am	The kind of questions I'd ask... CollegeHumor isn't especially clever, nor is it all THAT funny... But I still like it tons. Part of the reason is Patrick Cassel. And part of the reason is because they address questions that I'd think of. Such as this what-if question: http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1777552 If you had to choose an animal to have sex with, which would you choose? Pat chooses one of the creatures from Thundercats... Lessee...MY choice would be...um...a snake. Yeah. A big 'ole python. May not be any literal intercourse (I don't think - I've never seen a snake penis), but what ever we WOULD do would be interesting. Plus, it could be in public, with no one the wiser...just wear myself some big baggy coat or something...imagine the coils. And then there's the obvious reason - me being able to say that I've been with a python. :) (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, October 13th, 2009
3:52 am	One of my favorite characters ever is this dead kid. He's like 10, and a skater, and he goes around taking the souls of animals right before they die. T.V. Show: Dead Like Me. Can't figure out why he's so cool. Prolly cuz he says like 5 words. And he's a dead kid. (Comment on this)
Monday, October 5th, 2009
3:47 am	Libertariansayswhat? Whoa...Ron Paul just blew my mind on the Jon Stewart's Daily Show. With an extremely simple concept, sadly. One I should have thought of as non-mind-blowing. Lobbyists - which i hate - derive their power from the government. I mean, they derive it for other reasons too, such as money and favors, but these are in reaction to the government. So yes, we could maybe stymie their monetary influence through some sort of legislation, but if government wasn't (unnecessarily?) involved with businesses in the first place, then what would lobbyists gain from lobbying? Unless, say, they were for something social rather than business-related. YAY! I like this idea. Libertarian is just so attractive to me. Sometimes I'm not sure if I can call myself an "independent" anymore. p.s. WHOA! google chrome has an automatic spellcheck for livejournal? I am so switching! It just corrected me on "stemie" and "monetery." :) also on google, spellcheck, and livejournal. And "yay." (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009
10:01 pm	refining my argument I have this friend who whole-heartedly endorses empiricism. Almost exclusively. To her, "Science" and "Objectivisms" take an almost religious sense of importance. You know, if she didn't dislike religion so much. Whereas I am open to certain spiritual possibilities. See, here's my main argument (a common one): sure, we evolved, survival of the fittest, results of biochemical reactions, big bang, etc. But that doesn't mean there isn't also a spiritual story to it all, the reason for our existence, our sentience, our passion and drive. And then there are the little things, the unexplained things, the small miracles and the vast unexplained nature of most of our universe. We can guess all we want, but we just Don't Know. Her counterargument is that if there were a god, then there'd be some sort of evidence. The absence of evidence says there's no god, no religion, nothing beyond the emperical truths before us. Now of course, her counterargument seems to be using a logical fallacy - if there's evidence of something, than that something is likely to exist, but that doesn't mean that the absence of evidence means the absence of existence (what's the name of that fallacy, anyhow?). Taking the fallacy into account though, she still has a point. Our world can be explained relatively well without considering anything beyond the physical and our own rational experiences, and our "lack of evidence" isn't simply from one experiment but from a large majority of "experiments". Not any specific experiments, mind you - just the 'common sense' of the average rational scientist/skeptic - but still, I have to give her argument some respect. There are few if any credible accounts of evidence for spiritual or religious phenomena. See, but here's MY counterargument: her assumption is that the spiritual world, or whatever, would operate in a way that would provide evidence apart from physical evidence. See, but consider depression. When one is depressed, their mood is, obviously, low. Their appetite is down, or sometimes up; their sleeping habits are disrupted; their cognitive scripts are affected, they sometimes present with flat or muted affect, etc., etc...my point, is a lot of these symptoms are physical, and can explain the depression in a causal way, if one so desired. The doesn't mean that depression is always caused by nutrition and sleep habits, but it does illustrate an interplay between our emotional states and our physical states. To continue that line of thought: if we are sad, we have certain neurotransmitters excreted or absorbed in our brains (I can't remember details...serotonin? not enough in the extracellular fluid?). Does our "depression" cause the neurotransmitter shift or is it the result? My guess is both and neither. Our physical state can be a measure of our depression, as there's definitely an interaction between the two, but they both must be involved (And then again, this ignores the individual's psychological history, the prior cognitive and emotional events that the individual would introspectively indicate as the culprit for their being sad.) And why not the same with the spiritual? A person prays to god for certain little miracles, and something physical occurs as well, EVERY time. Say I worked with dark magick and I performed a spell to give one of my, erm, friends, some bad health. Then later they actually develop some sickness or injury. It'd be in response to something physical of course - germs, car accident, clogged arteries, its all explainable in the physical world - but that doesn't mean its not ALSO explainable in the spiritual world. Trouble is, with as nebulous as the "spiritual" world seems to be, analogous physical properties would be incredibly difficult to find. With emotion at least we are looking within our own body - but with the spiritual? The spiritual is a look outwards to the world (or to its creator, etc.). I don't think the spiritual ever just concerns ourselves. The number of interfering variables would be astronomical (haha, perhaps literally? astrology. *sigh*). I'm thinking of all those failed experiments done on psychic phenomenon. Well, there are a ton of failed experiments in a lot of things, but its the proportion of failed-to-passed experiments that matter, and psychic phenomenon fails way too often to be considered seriously. ... I'm thinking myself in circles. But darn it all if her confidence in JUST the physical world doesn't bother me. Am I intolerant to devout athiests? (Comment on this)
Wednesday, September 30th, 2009
3:11 am	At least once a week... At least once a week I have this feeling that someday I could be in an institution. I'm not sure for what yet. Catatonic depression? Bipolar Disorder? Something on the schizophrenic spectruum? Or perhaps something more mundane... I think its pure 'will' that keeps me from letting it happen. Maybe Histrionic Personality Disorder? That's one that includes, among other things, a tendency to be melodramatic. :D Still, I'm keeping myself up awfully late, after trying to fix my sleep schedule. It'd be nice if I were more...balanced. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, September 17th, 2009
3:06 am	Invent This! I saw on TV some guy working on his jetpack, or whatever. Rocket shoes? I can't remember. And I already KNOW that hang-gliders exist. I know its silly, but I kinda want peoples to put the two together. Jet-pack/rocketshoe and hang-glider. Except some sorta switch on the hang-glider to make it go from traditional to parachute-ish. And heck, why not some boots that are made to absorb shock of a fall. I suppose this doesn't fix all the problems (how do you break in mid-air, to prevent yourself from crashing?), but a personal aircraft device would be freakin' awesome. Batman was like half way there. Come on! Do it! (Comment on this)
Tuesday, September 15th, 2009
8:32 pm	I can cook. :) I made myself some soup. The uh, condensed can variety. But it tastes really good, I promise: cream of mushroom, 3/4ths a can of milk (vs. the whole can that they always tell me to do), a whole slew of frozen peas, black pepper, all-purpose spice, and yellow mustard. YES, mustard! Eye-balling it of course. Then, I heated up a black-bean burger and added it in. Yum! I just wish I had someone to cook for, now. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Friday, September 11th, 2009
3:59 pm	I Am who I Am, vs., I Am Defined by my Actions There is a concept that has been floating around in my head for ages, an epiphany I came to realize. And then realize again. And again. See, epiphanies can hit you all at once, and that's usually how we tend to think of them. However, I find that (especially because of my challenged memory) I tend to have some of my better epiphanies over and over again, in varying contexts and varying degrees. Its as if the neural pathway in my brain is activated again and again, but each time gets more strength, more breadth, and more permanence (speaking of, if breadth, width, and depth/height are the words used for the first three dimensions, what word is used for the fourth, 'time'?). And its basically this: what we say, do, and perceive, all help to shape how we think and what we later say, do, and perceive. The trouble with this idea is that I prefer to consider what is really important is not what we do but who we are. What we do is incidental, I figure, and is only a symptom or byproduct of who we are. But perhaps I'm still thinking too much either-or, enacting a false dichotomy of sorts. Perhaps the two aren't so seperatable. And, if you believe in the other "side," perhaps I'm idealizing the "self" or the soul too much, which is really an illusory cause of what really matters, our behavior. Or perhaps, as seems most relavent, 'who we are' results in our behavior, through thoughts, emotions, instinct, etc., but as its important to remember, our interaction with the environment then feeds back into us. That we interact with our environment was not my epiphany - not in and of itself. Pavlov's famous experiments (with his salivating dogs) were all about this phenomenon, after all. And I believe John Locke emphasized the importance of our empirical nature...and I'm sure there were many philosophers before him as well. BUT, I'd read a book (which unfortunately I can't locate anymore, nor can I recall the name) which talked about the importance of the media with which we communicate and are communicated to. And to make this point, it suggested that we think in words because we talk in words - and that this was a sort of social evolution. Before the printing press, "reading" and "writing" were much more laborious not only because only a few monks and such were taught the exercise, but because they only practiced reading and writing for their trade, and otherwise never encountered it. I think of the whole "media" concept parallel to this: when I used to try to speak in japanese, I have a few stock phrases that say what I mean, and then everything else I basically have to consciously translate word-by-word in my head. I don't think in Japanese. However, if I talked in japanese, read japanese, listened japanese, etc., then I would think in Japanese. THIS is obvious. But the author of the book meant also that, we used to think in "print," as that's the media that was presented to us all the time. And he was responding to a sudden media-shift - where while there is still print all over, it had been dwarfed by visual media, television, billboards, etc (he didn't consider one or two word phrases to be true "print" - I'm probably being slightly inaccurate in my word-choice, but hopefully the idea comes across). Anyway, that was when I had one of my epiphanies, about how far wide-spread this idea can be applied. Note: it seems to me he's due for another book, on where he thinks the internet will take us, cognitively. He suggested that TV had us thinking in shorter chunks, and more passively. TV, unlike books, newspaper, etc., is much more about sensation and emotion than rationality. Internet still has that, but its not nearly so passive. We can't say one form of media is better than the other for a society, as we haven't established the values with which one would be "better" for. But it is important to recognize their affect on us. I came across the concept again in one of my psychology classes, though I cannot recall how. I realized though that to an extent, choosing to be a psychologist would limit me. This is based around the idea that, for everything I learn in psychology, everything I access, there are things that I don't learn and access in everything else. Except its more interactive than that - by learning psychology, thinking psychology, acting psychology, I in turn reinforce future "psychology" behaviors and thought. Which upsets me because such thoughts conflict with my desire to be a sort of spontaneous free spirit, an artist, a writer. Can't make a living as a free spirit though, and I don't have a desire to make a living as a writer (not the sort of writer I want to be, anyway - it seems dishonest). I'm reading a book called "The Game," by Neil Strauss (not to be confused with The Game, which I just lost, or the rapper The Game, etc.), which is about being a pick-up artist, male-to-female seduction. And the techniques are psychologically sound, in that they should work (or most of them, anyway), but I disprove of it as a whole because its so...manipulative. And I have a huge distaste for manipulative. But I also realized that I dislike the techniques because it changes how you think - about women, about men, about what you do in life generally. And the author mentions this on several different occassions, once saying that he has trouble thinking about a woman anymore as anything but a "7 blonde" or a "10 brunette." I once played the video game Sims in one of my video-game-binges, where I stayed up several different nights until like 5 or 7am in the morning, screwing around with my characters...and after a bit of that I started thinking in Sims terms: raising my social meter, my energy meter, etc. This is a phenomenon that is applicable in all aspects of our lives! Of course, one of the values of learning such psychological tendencies is theoretically it improves our tendency to break out of it. Theoretically. I hope thats true, because more and more I see how this applies to everything I do or don't do. My life was really crappy in New York (well, not all of my life, just the last bit of it I think), where I was over-working myself while simultaneously avoiding a certain project that really upset me. Consecutive all-nighters. Several weeks where almost all I could think about were my obligations, with no time for free-time and very little time for sleep (again, all-nighters, where sometimes I'd let myself sleep for 2 hours, but that was it - assisted with some left-over adderall). I overcompensated all summer, and then through the fall - which meant that I did almost nothing. I got better, but by no means good - and I recognized my new lazy lifestyle as a "habit" that I had to break (and I've always been lazy), but this is WHY its a habit. This is why ALL habits are habits. We are directly affected by what we do, just as what we do is directly affected by what we are. And so if you are trying to change who you are, change what you do AS WELL as what you think...and recognize the oppossing force of inertia that will make it easy for you to go back to your old habits. As a last note, consider porn. Consider how feminists say that its degrading to women and treats them as objects. I think thats true to an extent, but I think the danger is bigger than that. If you aren't careful, you will think too much in terms of the "porn" plot. Which is physical, superficial (you don't know either of the characters), voyeurestic, and only a fragment of what a full relationship is. We're all aware of these things, and I think in small doses its easily balanced by the other aspects of our lives - but I think it can still have an effect on how we think, and how we later behave [probably a particular problem if the porn-script has taboo content] (Comment on this)
1:55 am	The Problem with Women You know what the problem with women is? I like to think that guy-girl dating has evolved to the point where its mostly egalitarian, so that while the guy can pay for the girl, they can just as easily pay for each other (taking turns depending on who asked whom out). But when it comes to sex, all the girl has to do is lay there. And possibly fake an orgasm. Unless stated otherwise, its assumed the guy is on top; the guy does all the actions; he usually has to initiate it too, while keeping in mind that he can't force her and should go at her speed; and if she says "stop," he has to stop. These conventions haven't changed too much - though if a girl wants to be on top, its easy enough for her to request it (I've been told there's better pleasure for the woman if she's on top). And meanwhile, the guy has to worry about finishing too soon, or "loosing interest," or performing terribly...while the girl just sits there. And goes "wee." Don't get me wrong - I know there's a lot more the woman can do than that, and in gay couples I think its more understood that there's more the bottom can do than that - but I don't think that its understood in the "straight" world. And that seems unfair. On the other hand, that's one of the few parts where women tend to have control/power, is sex (ideally - I understand of course that there are definite examples of the contrary, including the extreme one, rape, but I'm hoping those are relatively rare exceptions to the rule). Besides which, they often don't orgasm - maybe that's the karma for not taking enough actions for your own pleasure in bed. *shrug* I have no idea what I'm talking about anyhow, seeing how I've never been with a woman and rarely consider it. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, September 8th, 2009
12:59 pm	Black Voodoo No no, not "black" as in evil... er, though some of that, too. This was freakin' weird. Scary! Its got me freaking out, even... I just had a dream, where the dream-sequence started with me looking at my facebook page, and all of my black friends had these PICTURES on their profiles. Their jaws were stretched unnaturally, open wide - so wide that just looking at them made my own jaw hurt! It freaked me out! I don't remember the details too well, but an old friend who I feel bitter about, was in this dream. See, there was a bunch of us trying to figure out what was wrong, and praying to protect people and fix things. And then a few of us that were on the 'other side,' pretending there was nothing wrong and praying for the cowboys. 'Cept, when I say 'praying,' I mean wicca-praying, using magick (or pseudo-magic) techniques to garner protection and ask for the support of the gods and goddesses. And those of us worried, we were trying to contact some of these friends, some of my friends that are black. I remember when I contacted one, he was actually a part of a circle of people, praying in a low-grade chant or something. And he wasn't listening to me, so I ended up saying stuff like: "yeah, i know, but listen - no, I'm really worried - no, I think its - its a sign, like - LISTEN, I think its like black - I know, but its black voo- just LISTEN, its BLACK VOODOO! ...Yeah, I know what voodoo really is, but I mean its - I don't mean 'black' as in evil, I mean- " And I tried to explain that I was respectful of Voodoo, that I came from a similar background, and so I wanted to explain the omen. And when he finally responded in anything more than protest, it was to say something about "Wicctan," which I took to be some mix of wicca and pagan. At the end of the dream, I remember sneaking to bed (in a strange house, yet it was mine), and I was supposed to do some quick magick before bed. But I also remember having a lot of that group near by (the one with the guy that I was trying to convince about the omen), when someone from the other group or something actively attacked me - using a small snake. The snake leaped out, and i tried to grab it mid-jump/fling, but I missed. And since I was pretty sure it was poisonous, I was freaking out to have the thing removed from my neck. The order of these things seems all scrambled in my head. And I've no idea what role my old friend (whom I feel bitter towards) played in it, as for one, he is definitely white, and he wasn't part of the group that was trying to protect us or my black friends. And though I was waking up with the feeling that I should make sure my black friends are doing okay, at the moment I have very few on my facebook and none that I'm close enough to talk to anymore. So...I get the feeling there's some sorta omen thing (or perhaps some subconscious recognitition of a partial spiritual reawakening?) but I have no idea what to do about it. Stupid snake. Stupid stretched-out jaws. REALLY freaky. Like snapping them back so far that they dislocate, and then taking a picture with the person's eyes in surprise and anguish. And, you know, so you get the picture right, each person's head was facing upwards too, so that it was more like the head had been pulled back, rather than just the jaw swung unnaturally down. (Comment on this)
12:23 am	Cyrcadian Rhythm I wrote the below while buzzed, sitting on the Phoenix light-rail at 2am on the way home. Just before it, I had written a bunch on an essay I was supposed to write for an application, and the work I had done seemed much more on-track and useful than the work I'd attempted mid-day...but for all I know, that was an effect of the alcohol, not time. Still, I had then written: ------------------------------- There is a critical period within a day in which I work...better. More efficiently. More focused. Could ADHD operate on a cycle? Could attention? Would it be appropriate to designate certain necessary activities to that part of the day (night)? And how can I prove that this is simply not an effect of procrastination? Its as if though my mood is otherwise more accepting of work mid-day (less complaining, less whining), I don't feel willing to settle, mentally. Even just with words, with topic, with conscious focus, I find each stop to be forced cognitively, to lack the insight and ease of true academic work. In short, I feel morning best for browsing, recouping, reading e-mails and non-serious activities; midday to physical labors and (possibly) meditation; evening/night for mental activities such as essays; and after-midnight for silliness and spirituality. And these times are all relative, supportive. But can I trust this introspection? Unfortunately this does not touch on motivation...hm... ------------------------------- I still think it might be true - that maybe my best work is done after 10pm? With a cup of coffee (I was buzzed off of two drinks of Mexican coffee, which is just coffee, taquila, and whipcream)? When I got home, I had used my notes to re-write my essay for the application. I didn't use much of the wording I had in the train/my notes, but it still seemed to help a lot. Despite having to push myself to finishing it. New work-period of the day: Night? I can't decide. (Comment on this)
Friday, September 4th, 2009
3:24 am	Blog Hm. I think I need to graduate from random inane livejournal entries to BLOG entries. The difference? My blog would be semi-organized and more professional. And...I'd have to care about reader opinions. Or so I gather. See, I think like ALL the time. And a lot of it is garbage or redundant, but there's still a lot of wheat after all that, which I can prepare and bake into good bread. That's right - metaphore. Not the best, but good enough for me. And so when I have ideas such as on male-to-male seduction techniques and my criticisms on, say, LayGuide.com, the one or two interested parties (including myself) would then have the opportunity to read about it. And why would I want to deny them that opportunity? ...at the moment, I'm trying to decide the pros and cons to the idea that women instinctually want a dominant man, because they recognize that as their role - to be subserviant to the man. Its repulsive to me on several levels, but it may have a grain of evolutionary-evidence-supported truth ("instinctual" being the key word). Many thoughts on this, and I'm sure that I could analyze the whole thing more thoroughly - male-to-female seduction and a journalist's autobiography on the subject is examined in the book The Game, by Neil Strauss. Its been recommended to me, though I have yet to read it. (Comment on this)
1:46 am	Health Care Reform, readdressed. At the end is my question/poll? I think I've changed my mind. Again. Basically, I'm considering a no-government solution to the problem. Only, since corporations haven't done anything and consumers haven't done anything, than who's left to do something about it? Me? No. My friend suggests (and I like the idea) that part of the current Insurance-Company/Health-Care problems are actually caused by our current government interventions. The government programs, basically, drive up costs (and allow for cost-inefficient procedures to be suggested for by providers and paid for by the government, sorta thing). I'm kind of for less government anyway, so I like her point, as I mentioned. But I'm still unsure. At the moment though, I'm thinking the best solution would be to somehow empower and educate the consumer more on what they are consuming - on their medical decisions AND their insurance decisions. I figure there must be some interference in there somewhere, either because of the interaction between doctors and insurance companies and/or because employers usually decide the insurance companies for employees. I figure more choice and education would simply promote a better market enviroment: "Better Product" for "Cheaper Cost" always wins in a good market. My friend says that it'd be unnecessary - that without government involvement, more employers would be able to offer some sort of personalized options for insurance. I'm not as sure. For one, capitalist economies always have more trouble around goods that are considered more necessary (if I remember my economics correctly - I remember that staple foods always had a sort of problem for this reason, but I can't remember what the problem WAS per se). And cortisol for my nephew is quite necessary, for example. That isn't to say that the government should PROVIDE cortisol for my nephew. Though I'm relatively happy that they are. I could be convinced that its kinda necessary for them to do so at the moment, because government is whats making it too expensive for my sister to get her son cortisol by herself. So the question (I have no idea if anyone cares to answer my questions, but I like asking them regardless): Is "health care" a "right" for all our citizens? And if so, does that mean our government should provide it? [our bill of rights generally only covers "negative rights" from what I understand - protecting us from having others or the government from having our rights; if we addressed health care like this, the "right" to health care would mean that each person had the right to seek out doctors, treatments, etc - but maybe that'd include a stipulation on price? Would it then be okay to let insurance companies deny covering certain people? Or Upping premiums? If so, would it also be okay for Medical Providers to up the cost of life-saving treatments?] (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Thursday, September 3rd, 2009
5:47 pm	Chemistry and my Shoe Lets assume you know what an atom is. A molecule is made up by atoms that are bonded together. A water molecule is made up of two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom. Of course, due to the special nature of hydrogen, the molecule has a weak charge that allows for loose bonds to be made between molecules, but these loose bonds aren't significant or permanent enough to redefine the "molecule" as having more atoms. Instead it just creates adhesion (tendency for water to stick on stuff, such as with dew on a leaf) and cohesion (tendency for water molecules to stick to eachother, which among other things helps water up a stem of a plant). However, smaller molecules CAN bind with other molecules to create a larger molecule, usually with a requirement of some energy for the chemical reaction. Glucose, for example, is a chain of six carbon atoms, bonded together, with hydrogen and oxygen atoms bonded along each carbon of the chain (twelve hydrogen and six oxygen atoms total). Its just a bit like a fuzzy stick. And believe it or not, that's a smaller molecule. Dextrose is a relatively simple sugar that connects ten of those glucose molecules with its own bonds. The glucose molecules are connected in what vaguely may look like a comb...I guess. Complex carbohydrates have many more molecules of glucose bonded on into one freakin' huge chain. So to my point, and what I consider interesting: I don't know what the chemical make-up of rubber is (though from what I've read, it does come from a rubber tree). I'd guess that rubber would still be microscopic naturally. HOWEVER, I've read that the rubber on a tire is not microscopic. The rubber molecules are all put in some sorta slurry and poured into a tire mould. Then, a large electric current is shot through the whole thing and the molecules are galvanized, bonding with eachother into one freakin' FREAKIN' HUGE molecule! If I understand it correctly, excepting the paint and such, each tire on your car is ONE molecule. So, I bought some shoes/sandals ("Tarahumara Huaraches") the other day which are basically made from recycled tires and straps of leather. My feet will be cushioned by a molecule each. :) EDIT: It looks like natural rubber and synthetic rubbers are not directly related; they are only related in that they both are considered elastomers. Still, the galvanization-one-molecule thing should be true, only I don't know what chemicals are in the slurry pre-galvanization. Can't remember where it is in the book... (Comment on this)
Thursday, August 27th, 2009
6:36 pm	NOT depressed - I have no money. - I have no car. - I currently live at home with my parents, so while the good news of that is that I have parents who will have me, the bad news is that I'm at home with my parents (have you met my parents?). - I DO have a job, but he has cut my hours. Gave me like two weeks to feel like I would actually have enough each week to pay off my creditcard debt in a slow-but-sure rate, and then cut it back down to nothing. - As just mentioned, I have debt. Not just student loans, which I have to keep deferring, but $2400 which started as $2200 for student health insurance and student matriculation. So, its been steadily increasing because of my unstable job situation and my unwillingness to budget myself less money then I already do. - I have $110,000 of debt in student loans and increasing. - I'm becoming more and more distant with more and more of my friends, because (a) its hard to visit people without a car, and/or (b) they live either far away or are doing different things with their lives now. For example, one of my favorite peoples Colleen is now married, and tends to just hang out with her husband. - I have no romantic life. I try every now and then, but when I do I'm reminded of four things. (a) Dating requires money. (b) Dating requires transportation (c) Dating is only worth it if the person is worth it; there just aren't that many people who would suit me, not even considering the look/gender/orientation that I'm into. (d) I'm not satisfied with my life enough right now to happily date; angrily dating, whinely dating, etc. just doesn't seem like it'd work. - Because of my student loans debt, I feel obliged to continue my psych degree - and for some reason an obligation is the sure way to make me lose my internal drive for something. Psych seemed a lot more interesting when it wasn't my only option. Only option, you ask? because: I have almost no useful trade skills. I don't think I've ever had a boss for over a year. A general masters degree is just not very applicable. ESPECIALLY right now, with the highest unemployment rate of my own personal history (why'd I have to choose NOW to take a break from school?!). - I am very VERY VERY good at not doing stuff. Procrastination. Not caring. Don't worry, I'm not depressed. I'm ANGRY. Anyway, its good to list all these, 'cuz while they're anxiety provoking, my normal very-effective way of dealing with such things is to ignore them. But I am angry, mostly at myself and to life at large. From how everyone speaks, people tend to go about their life because they want to. Well how come I don't have that? I understand the concept, I know what drives people, and I've seen it happen a lot. Whereas for me, I am pretty sure that the more of the things in my above list were solved (plus a couple unmentioned ones), the more likely I'd have that same internal drive. To simply do stuff. But to whittle that list down, I need the drive that I don't have... Its annoying. Especially because I've worked so hard to get where I am, and then I take a couple months off from life and now here I am. Biggest problem is letters of references really. All I need is to be accepted into a PhD program and my life will be in the works again. Debt doesn't really bother me as long as I have the potential to pay it off, and a career in psychology would be perfect. Only, I hate the idea of "working towards" letters of recommendations. It seems dishonest. Manipulative. I would TOTALLY pay someone money to solve my problems for me, seriously. Like, if you get me into a PhD program, I'd pay you maybe %20 of my salary for the first five years out of graduation. Er, not much for your investment, I'm sure. Or if you find me a job that's actually worth having (resume-worthy and pays me enough to whittle my credit card debt), I'll pay you %10 of the salary for three months. Or a year, if its that good of a job. I dunno. Maybe that's what I need - someone to figure out what I have to do everyday so all I have to do is grudgingly do it. That's a Life Coach, no? Unfortunately, I hate the concept of Life Coach. I'm angry. Life isn't supposed to be like this. Someone freakin' stop their car, and give my batter a jump already. ...*sigh* Didja see that metaphore? Man, I'd love to just be a writer. Spend 60% of my waking hours writing books, essays, short stories, and poems. Doesn't seem appropriate in today's world, though. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, August 26th, 2009
5:14 am	MMO Problem Problem: If a player is relatively new at the game (especially if new to the genre), then an pvp activity will have them slaughtered way to frequently for them to have fun. If rules are put in place to keep these newbs/scrubs/poor-gamers from dying so often, then fun, often-creative attempts by experienced pvp players won't get to occur, or if they do the player will be banned or punished. Inhibited. In either sense, its bad for the 'world.' Usual Solution: Create different servers, for those who wish to attempt the more pvp-oriented gamestyle and those who would rather play more friendly. My Proposed Solution: Instead of banning, players showing such skill should get 'promoted.' Supposedly many MMO games are toying more and more with multiple servers fuling one world (if I understand it correctly), so that ANY player of the game can run into ANY other player. This makes pvp/pve server types impossible, although zones can be designated. I'd prefer my fantasy MMO to not be so inflexible though: instead, players that haven't reached a certain level of pvp-skill won't see that same level of pvp-skill...I gotta work this out more, as if it were player-chosen, it wouldn't be what I have in mind (that'd be like simply enabling/dis-abling pvp-mode). It should also disregard the level - maxxed level characters would be allowed to be in both hard and easy mode. Perhaps the punishment for dying would be lighter until you prove yourself? Maybe gaurds start interacting more realistically? It could be a bunch of small things that suddenly make the pvp experience more real and unavoidable. Eventually, I'm gonna have to make my own MMO. I thought Darkfall Online had it right, but, they gots a lot of emphasis on PVP to the point where I worry they skimped on other details, and they've taken out my favorite component to their whole system: skill decay. I hope to marry a game developer, just so that he can make my game for me. *sigh* Fluid "class"; no levels; skill-based system; FPS fight system; no mini-map and, if possible, nothing else on the screen but what your character would see; and now that I've heard it, skill-decay. And if your faction conquers a city, it "gets" the city. And I'm thinking, bunches of random events that operate on a "country" level in the world of the game. ...just rambling now. I should really cement my ideas, so that if I ever see this perfect MMO come out, I can jump on it. Maybe its EVE Online?, only, I was hoping for fantasy-genre. (2 Comments |Comment on this)