Sick. I just figured out how to create hover-over text. This will be useful if I ever post again.
[1]
What up boyyyz
Monday, March 23, 2015
Discovering is fun.
My name is Marty. [1]
Sick. I just figured out how to create hover-over text. This will be useful if I ever post again.
[1]
Sick. I just figured out how to create hover-over text. This will be useful if I ever post again.
[1]
Sunday, February 1, 2015
(Jail [Cell) Phone]
Top Note: This was originally going to include more than just people and their phones, but the phone thing got pretty long. Maybe I'll write about the other stuff later.
I'm a big fan of people watching, and something I've noticed, more with kids and young adults, is that you can tell a lot about a person by how they act with their phone. Specifically smart phones. Normal phones are basically useless.
People are so connected to smart phones that they have practically become an extension of their inner self. They spend their life on their phone. They communicate with their phone. They are entertained by their phone. Their phone comforts them at night and greets them in the morning. Their phone has become such a part of their life that they feel it is a part of themselves.
Something I've noticed, because of that fact, is that people who are possessive of their phones are usually very conservative in their interactions with others. They are the type of person with many secrets. With trust issues. The type of person who would be afraid of telling an embarrassing secret to their spouse of sixty years.
Their phone may not actually have any embarrassing facts on it at all. It could be a stock phone that they just got two hours ago, and they will still be hesitant to let someone even touch the phone.
And the reverse is also usually true. If people give up their phone freely, they are usually more open about themselves. They aren't afraid of telling embarrassing stories. They generally don't have many secrets. More open to trusting people they meet. They are usually more outgoing and more extroverted.
This isn't a binary scale, either. It's not necessarily one or the other. It's a scale. People in the middle will give up their phone on occasion, but might be a bit hesitant. They do have secrets, but will only tell them to a select elite of their choosing, like family, friends, or loved ones. They will trust most people, but might be wary of some because of certain past experiences.
But wait, there's more!
Almost everyone has a lock on their phone (although I'm not quite sure why). And there is a scale of personality types that goes along with those locks.
On one side of the scale, you have the people who will just tell you their password when you take their phone. Why they even have a lock on their phone, I'm not sure, but they do. My guess is they like the feeling of being in control of the information that exists on their phone, but don't really care if other people see that information. It's kinda just a grasp for power.
I've heard people say they put a lock on their phone in case it gets stolen. That's retarded. No thief is going to look at a phone and think, "Aww crap! It's locked! I guess I better give the phone back."
In the middle of the scale you have the people who won't tell you what their password is, but they will type it in for you. It's not as much of a power grasp, but more of a filter. They only want certain people to see what's on their phone, and only if they know what the other person is doing. They don't do it necessarily to be in control of the other person, but because they have some trust issues and aren't really comfortable with people looking through their stuff.
And at the other end of the scale are the people who will not give up their password as if it's a national secret. They won't tell you what it is, and they won't put the password in for you. The explanation for this is exactly the same as for why people are super possessive of their phones. They have many personal things they are afraid to tell people and they are extremely hesitant to trust someone.
Bottom Note: That indented paragraph took waaaaaaay more work than it should've.
I'm a big fan of people watching, and something I've noticed, more with kids and young adults, is that you can tell a lot about a person by how they act with their phone. Specifically smart phones. Normal phones are basically useless.
People are so connected to smart phones that they have practically become an extension of their inner self. They spend their life on their phone. They communicate with their phone. They are entertained by their phone. Their phone comforts them at night and greets them in the morning. Their phone has become such a part of their life that they feel it is a part of themselves.
Something I've noticed, because of that fact, is that people who are possessive of their phones are usually very conservative in their interactions with others. They are the type of person with many secrets. With trust issues. The type of person who would be afraid of telling an embarrassing secret to their spouse of sixty years.
Their phone may not actually have any embarrassing facts on it at all. It could be a stock phone that they just got two hours ago, and they will still be hesitant to let someone even touch the phone.
And the reverse is also usually true. If people give up their phone freely, they are usually more open about themselves. They aren't afraid of telling embarrassing stories. They generally don't have many secrets. More open to trusting people they meet. They are usually more outgoing and more extroverted.
This isn't a binary scale, either. It's not necessarily one or the other. It's a scale. People in the middle will give up their phone on occasion, but might be a bit hesitant. They do have secrets, but will only tell them to a select elite of their choosing, like family, friends, or loved ones. They will trust most people, but might be wary of some because of certain past experiences.
But wait, there's more!
Almost everyone has a lock on their phone (although I'm not quite sure why). And there is a scale of personality types that goes along with those locks.
On one side of the scale, you have the people who will just tell you their password when you take their phone. Why they even have a lock on their phone, I'm not sure, but they do. My guess is they like the feeling of being in control of the information that exists on their phone, but don't really care if other people see that information. It's kinda just a grasp for power.
I've heard people say they put a lock on their phone in case it gets stolen. That's retarded. No thief is going to look at a phone and think, "Aww crap! It's locked! I guess I better give the phone back."
In the middle of the scale you have the people who won't tell you what their password is, but they will type it in for you. It's not as much of a power grasp, but more of a filter. They only want certain people to see what's on their phone, and only if they know what the other person is doing. They don't do it necessarily to be in control of the other person, but because they have some trust issues and aren't really comfortable with people looking through their stuff.
And at the other end of the scale are the people who will not give up their password as if it's a national secret. They won't tell you what it is, and they won't put the password in for you. The explanation for this is exactly the same as for why people are super possessive of their phones. They have many personal things they are afraid to tell people and they are extremely hesitant to trust someone.
Bottom Note: That indented paragraph took waaaaaaay more work than it should've.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
(Bipartisan System)atic Theology
The way I see it, all religions have two key parts: explaining the origin of the universe, and explaining how humans should treat each other. Everything else is pretty much just filler. Both of these things are great, and should be explored by the human race.
My problem with religion is, at least with the explanation of the origin of the universe, its not updated as time goes on. Science will always reveal things that someone 5,000 years ago could not have figured out, and those discoveries will conflict with various religions. Since religions wont update to accommodate those new discoveries, they are only left the option of denying those discoveries to be true.
This denial leads to generation after generation of people who are ignorant and paranoid. They are taught that the scientists are morons who couldn't possibly understand the truth of the universe, and their theories on the origins of the universe (TOU from now on) should be completely disregarded.
This is obviously a problem, but it gets much worse than that. When taught that something someone tells you is wrong, it's hard to believe anything they tell you. When told that a scientist's TOU is wrong, people tend to not believe any scientific discovery that they are told, even if it is a completely different category of science.
A great example of this is global warming. Christians (I only use Christians because of experience) are taught that the Big Bang theory (I feel like that may not be capitalized, but I don't care) and the theory of evolution are completely wrong, both of which are widely accepted by scientists around the world. Because of this, Christians are skeptical of other scientific discoveries, such as global warming.
The three of those discoveries aren't even associated with the same field of science. The big bang theory (There, its not capitalized. Happy?) falls under physics. Evolution falls under biology. Global warming falls under climatology. Very, very different fields. And yet, because the physicist and the biologist are wrong, of course the climatologist is wrong.
For a religion to truly be eternal, it needs to update itself with the things people discover to be true. Otherwise, future generations are going to be screwed, as they have been in the past.
Now for the second part of religion, the explanation of proper human interaction, I don't necessarily believe it needs to be updated over time. Do I think it would be better if it were? Of course. But if the two key parts of a religion keep changing over time, is it truly the same religion?
How humans should interact with each other, in theory, should not have to change over time. If you get the basics right, you should be good. The only thing that really changes is people become more tolerant with passing time. People learn to look outside of themselves and see the viewpoints of others. But if you make your religion very tolerant to begin with, you'll be fine.
Instead of telling people what not to do, just tell them what they should do. Tell them to love each other, or to help one another, or to be generous. Keep it simple, and it will be very hard for people to dispute your ideology.
Bottom note: It's been almost a year, and I still don't have a better word for blog. This is hard.
My problem with religion is, at least with the explanation of the origin of the universe, its not updated as time goes on. Science will always reveal things that someone 5,000 years ago could not have figured out, and those discoveries will conflict with various religions. Since religions wont update to accommodate those new discoveries, they are only left the option of denying those discoveries to be true.
This denial leads to generation after generation of people who are ignorant and paranoid. They are taught that the scientists are morons who couldn't possibly understand the truth of the universe, and their theories on the origins of the universe (TOU from now on) should be completely disregarded.
This is obviously a problem, but it gets much worse than that. When taught that something someone tells you is wrong, it's hard to believe anything they tell you. When told that a scientist's TOU is wrong, people tend to not believe any scientific discovery that they are told, even if it is a completely different category of science.
A great example of this is global warming. Christians (I only use Christians because of experience) are taught that the Big Bang theory (I feel like that may not be capitalized, but I don't care) and the theory of evolution are completely wrong, both of which are widely accepted by scientists around the world. Because of this, Christians are skeptical of other scientific discoveries, such as global warming.
The three of those discoveries aren't even associated with the same field of science. The big bang theory (There, its not capitalized. Happy?) falls under physics. Evolution falls under biology. Global warming falls under climatology. Very, very different fields. And yet, because the physicist and the biologist are wrong, of course the climatologist is wrong.
For a religion to truly be eternal, it needs to update itself with the things people discover to be true. Otherwise, future generations are going to be screwed, as they have been in the past.
Now for the second part of religion, the explanation of proper human interaction, I don't necessarily believe it needs to be updated over time. Do I think it would be better if it were? Of course. But if the two key parts of a religion keep changing over time, is it truly the same religion?
How humans should interact with each other, in theory, should not have to change over time. If you get the basics right, you should be good. The only thing that really changes is people become more tolerant with passing time. People learn to look outside of themselves and see the viewpoints of others. But if you make your religion very tolerant to begin with, you'll be fine.
Instead of telling people what not to do, just tell them what they should do. Tell them to love each other, or to help one another, or to be generous. Keep it simple, and it will be very hard for people to dispute your ideology.
Bottom note: It's been almost a year, and I still don't have a better word for blog. This is hard.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Deep in the Heart of Racism
So I found a picture of a map of skin color by region.
I thought it was a really cool map. And then I saw this comment:
Which, I do agree that racism is awful, but is it really based on skin color caused by melanin? Is racism actually the bias of one skin color over another, or is that a side effect of something bigger? If all people had the same color of skin, would racism cease to exist?
You might say, "Of course it's more than just skin color. It's called RACism, which means it's the preference of one race over another, and there are many things that make up a race: skin color, region, culture, language, etc." Which is true, but the bias of a skin color is so closely associated with racism that it's practically accepted to be the same thing.
People say, "You hate them because they're black! or because they're white!", but you don't really hear African or European. Yes, you do hear Hispanic and Asian, but I think that is because it's weird to call someone yellow or brown. Not socially weird, just like it literally sounds weird. Like calling someone orange or pink.
I think skin color gets too much attention for racism. I don't think the main reason the Europeans decimated the Native Americans or enslaved the Africans was because they looked a bit different. Yes, it was definitely to get richer, but I think the way they rationalized was telling themselves that because their culture was so different it was worse. And I think that is what is really the basis for racism: culture difference.
If you look at African tribes, both now and in the past, there is a lot of tribal fighting. And it's not just turf wars, it's basically small scale civil wars. And, I'm not an expert, but I'd imagine a big reason for these civil wars is hatred of the other peoples based on their differences. Looking at this chart, the skin color of most Africans is very similar, so it doesn't really make sense that that would be the basis for racism.
Anyway, that's basically all I had to say. Probably obvious to most people, but I figured I'd write about it.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
White men marrying black women? Disgraceful!
Speaking of others complaining (in my last chasmatic post, obviously), let's switch it over to something more fun: Society changing for the worse.
Gay marriage is the hot topic of our era, so I figured I should take a swing at that. If you're asking me, I'm for it. I believe that "All men are created equal" and that "All people are endowed with a certain set of inalienable rights" includes the right to marry whomever you so desire.
Yes, it's not biblical or moral, but is being an asshole on the list of morally correct things?
For this post, let's assume there are no morals. Nothing is absolutely right or wrong, nothing is relatively right or wrong. Let's just look at it from more of an unbiased approach (obviously it won't be unbiased, but it's close, so shut up.)
Things in society change (fashion, morals, recreation, whatever), but the behavior of society doesn't.
Now: People discriminate against sexual orientation, and rebuke their parents for being racists.
50 years ago: People discriminate against race, and rebuke their parents for being sexists.
100 years ago: People discriminate against sex, and rebuke their parents for owning slaves.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Do you think society is any worse off now than it was 50 or 100 years ago? Because, if so, we should take away all rights of people who aren't European men.
No, of course you don't want to do that, because it would be stupid. So why is it any different now? In 50 years, our kids will look back on us like we were morons.
So stop being so goddamn homophobic and let men marry men and women marry women. I highly doubt it will affect your life at all, and it will make them much, much happier.
Bottom note: Yes, I understand the irony in complaining about people complaining. Shut up.
Gay marriage is the hot topic of our era, so I figured I should take a swing at that. If you're asking me, I'm for it. I believe that "All men are created equal" and that "All people are endowed with a certain set of inalienable rights" includes the right to marry whomever you so desire.
Yes, it's not biblical or moral, but is being an asshole on the list of morally correct things?
For this post, let's assume there are no morals. Nothing is absolutely right or wrong, nothing is relatively right or wrong. Let's just look at it from more of an unbiased approach (obviously it won't be unbiased, but it's close, so shut up.)
Things in society change (fashion, morals, recreation, whatever), but the behavior of society doesn't.
Now: People discriminate against sexual orientation, and rebuke their parents for being racists.
50 years ago: People discriminate against race, and rebuke their parents for being sexists.
100 years ago: People discriminate against sex, and rebuke their parents for owning slaves.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Do you think society is any worse off now than it was 50 or 100 years ago? Because, if so, we should take away all rights of people who aren't European men.
No, of course you don't want to do that, because it would be stupid. So why is it any different now? In 50 years, our kids will look back on us like we were morons.
So stop being so goddamn homophobic and let men marry men and women marry women. I highly doubt it will affect your life at all, and it will make them much, much happier.
Bottom note: Yes, I understand the irony in complaining about people complaining. Shut up.
Forget the future; Let's live in the past.
I hate all articles/blogs/vlogs/rants/broadcasts/smoke signals that complain about how "this generation is so much more [negative adjective] than the last one." Most of the time that isn't true. Unless you're talking about something there is actual data on like amount of hours spent working or amount of people with cancer, it's probably just bullshit.
Most of the time the rant starts off "Kids these days are so [adjective]. Back in my day, blah blah blah." Yes, I know, not all of the people making these claims are 80 year old men yelling at people to get off their lawn, but their claims usually sound pretty similar. It's always about how people are so much more of something or so much less of something than they remember people being some time ago.
This isn't people changing, it's just you not remembering correctly. You probably don't remember people being that way either because A. It was a while ago and you don't remember it too accurately, or B. You were younger and didn't notice things like that.
The most famous of this type of rant is "This generation is so much lazier than my generation."
1. You raised this generation. It your fucking job to make it productive and useful.
2. Your generation was most likely just as lazy when you were as old as this generation is. The fact that you have to work now and they don't is probably what you're mistaking to be laziness. The other reason might be that when you were their age was a long time ago, and you don't quite remember it as it really was.
So stop complaining. If your generation made it through life, the next generation will as well. Just because technology might be a little different, doesn't mean society has gotten any worse.
Most of the time the rant starts off "Kids these days are so [adjective]. Back in my day, blah blah blah." Yes, I know, not all of the people making these claims are 80 year old men yelling at people to get off their lawn, but their claims usually sound pretty similar. It's always about how people are so much more of something or so much less of something than they remember people being some time ago.
This isn't people changing, it's just you not remembering correctly. You probably don't remember people being that way either because A. It was a while ago and you don't remember it too accurately, or B. You were younger and didn't notice things like that.
The most famous of this type of rant is "This generation is so much lazier than my generation."
1. You raised this generation. It your fucking job to make it productive and useful.
2. Your generation was most likely just as lazy when you were as old as this generation is. The fact that you have to work now and they don't is probably what you're mistaking to be laziness. The other reason might be that when you were their age was a long time ago, and you don't quite remember it as it really was.
So stop complaining. If your generation made it through life, the next generation will as well. Just because technology might be a little different, doesn't mean society has gotten any worse.
Monday, April 28, 2014
You Only Live As Much As You Want To
I found a great comic somewhere about how we can live more than once. If you're to lazy to click the link and read the 15 panel comic, then I'll sum it up for you:
It's often said that mastering something takes about 7 years. If you live to be 88, after age 11 you have 11 opportunities to master something different. Each time you master one thing, that is one life. With each new thing mastered comes new experiences, new people, new sights, which is like living a different life each time. This means you aren't limited to just one life. You can live over and over and over again.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I really like it. I don't want to do one thing for the rest of my life. I want to be one of those people you hear about who worked on fishing boats and drove trains and piloted planes and a whole list of other odd and interesting things.
My big problem with college is it kinda limits what you can do. No, it doesn't actually set any boundaries of the jobs you can work, but it does psychologically. You study in one field for quite a while, just so you can work in that field for even longer. You're basically convincing yourself that you will work in that field for the rest of your life. And I don't like that.
Now, I'm not saying it's bad to do one thing for 50 years. If you love your job and still want to work there; great. Do that. I'm just saying I don't want to do one thing forever. Even hobbies aren't enough to fill my wanderlust.
Top bottom note: If you haven't heard of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, you should definitely check it out. It's a hilarious webcomic that I quite enjoy.
Bottom bottom note: I don't know why I keep basically apologizing for what I say toward the end of my chasms. I really don't care if I offend you. Maybe I do care what you think, but I tell myself I don't. Hmmm. That's a puzzler.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)