What Happens When I Use An Online Dictionary ;; Nano

A couple people I know are partaking in the 'Nano Challenge,' a challenge to write 50,000 words in a month. That's about 1667 a day I think, or some number like that. I do not think I am following the rules exactly, and I am not signed up for it. I'm not planning on taking up this challenge but I wish to see how I compare. I think I would be able to do this if I tried but I have no interest in forcing myself to write. I don't write every day, I don't have inspiration every day, and I don't have time to follow every inspiration I have. This is just something to do for the fun of it, and to see how many words I put out a month. I'm sure I will be putting out more than normal just so I keep up a bit, so at the end of November I will see how I did.

I will be posting my word counts on my Twitter.

So a week ago I planned this post out and since then I have not gotten around to actually typing it up. If you were to take a look at my posterous (on this post), you would find details about it but none of them are expanded yet. Here it is though, for the all of.. well I know one person looks forward to what I post and I'm not sure if anyone else really reads my posts consistently. I can only hope. As long as I get my thoughts to words that's good enough for me.

I realized how great Dictionary.com is, for it has links to interesting articles posted under the search bar (I think) and they lead me from one article to another that I would like to comment on. If I ever have a lack of anything to read (pfft, not going to happen any time soon) I'll probably find myself wondering over to that site and taking a look for something of interest.

Anyways, onto what I was planning on posting.
The first article (What poetic term describes living your life while accepting it is full of uncertainty?) didn't really grab my attention that much, however the title of it was cut off and I was curious to see what the rest of it was. Seeing the full title I decided to keep reading, but by the end of it decided it wasn't all that great. There was a link to the next article though, and I enjoyed it much more.

The second article (you're not asleep, but you're not awake either. What's the name for that mysterious feeling?) was much better. As the title suggests it's about that odd feeling between sleep and awake. I don't get this very often, I usually just go to sleep or wake up with little transition time but I do know what it is referring to. The difference between being awake and being asleep is in the brain. Your consciousness enters a different state when you are asleep, however it cannot immediately go to this minimal stage. It must slip down into it, or atleast so my theory states. You can get into this state through hypnosis along with drifting to sleep, though that may be a bit more controlled because you will not necessarily fall asleep because of it. To tell what state of consciousness you are in, you could hook your head up to a brainwave reader and it will tell you what sort of waves your releasing. I'm not sure how that all works but I'll probably find myself looking into it at some time; possibly writing about it here too. Read the article for more, I haven't looked over it again so I wouldn't be surprised if some of my ideas conflict with the article a bit. I'm just going off by the title and what I remember.

I'll take this opportunity to talk about the day, more important how it relates to sleep in my mind. The day ends not when the sun goes down, or when midnight strikes, or even my bedtime (assuming I don't fall asleep at the time I've been told I should). Rather it ends when I go to sleep. In my mind the day is not over as long as I am awake. In the morning the day starts when I wake up. Not when the sun comes up, or when I'm told I should be up (unless that wakes me up). Between going to sleep and waking there is sleep time but it does not really exist in my mind. I am aware it happens, but because I cannot observe it I cannot say it is there for sure. I know logic states it is but I like to keep to my alternative thinking concepts even though I know they may not be completely solid. The only value sleep time has for my consciousness is the events others experience then. They may tell me about this, and I may gain knowledge about the events but it is all second-hand knowledge. Far as I know, what I'm being told about could of not actually happened but it's up to my own judgment to decide it if is legitimate or not.

This second article touches on that twitch that happens when you are close to sleep also. It doesn't go into much detail about it however I would just like to say I find this amusing. It's called a Myoclonic Jerk, and is characterized by an uncontrolled short muscle spasm or twitch that happens when you are about to fall asleep. I associate this with falling dreams because I know people often wake up from falling dreams like this. I wake up like this sometimes but I don't think I've had any falling dreams. I have one memory but I think it is a synthesized memory because I know it is a story that my cousin told me. A falling dream that he had that he told me about a long time ago. It seems really vivid though. I may of dreamt it at some time after he put the story in my mind. Kind of reminds me of Inception (the movie that is. It's great, everyone should see it twice if they can. I still need to watch it a second time. I may write about it some time).

Now, I'm not sure how I got to this though the third article (Bleep! What's the difference between cussing, swearing, and cursing?) discuses just what the title describes though I have a different idea between this all. Cussing is using words out of context; usually for emphasis or too often just by habit. They are words that have no need to be there. The statement 'the ****ing bird' and 'the bird' will mean pretty much the same thing. It all depends on who says it, but I'll get to that after. Often cussing is confused with swearing. Swearing would be exclaiming something, usually due to pain. It is the (often) yelling of words when something happens, often out of reflex. These one word statements have no meaning though allow the individual to express they are in pain or some sort of discomfort. Cursing is similar to swearing however it is using words against someone. To put it in its simplest form, cursing is name calling. No more or less to that.

Now then, what do these all have in common? They are all mistaken to be the same, and many would define them to be. Also they all are characterized by words that we have deemed to be foul. It may be due to the history of the word, the definition of it, or the way it is used. You can cuss or swear with other words but they just don't seem to have the same shock value (try yelling about vegetables next time you stub your toe). Over time sock value is lost though, mostly due to the over use of a word. The 'F-bomb' has been used so much that most people don't even notice it during conversation. It is used by habit and as filler 98% of the time (a statistic that I pulled out of air).

Personally I don't cuss all that much, I try to avoid swearing, and i see cursing to just be immature and not needed. The words people associate to all of these just are not installed in my vocabulary the same way other words and phrases are. I feel ridiculous using them often, not to mention many of my friends will be quick to point out if I have because they claim it sounds odd coming from me. This is where the shock value comes in. I know if I was to go up to someone and yell a string of curses at them using foul words they, and anyone else who knows me and who was around, would probably be very shocked. I would be too, though I might be pleased with myself that my message was put across.

More people need to avoid excessive cussing. It's not needed, and it's just annoying at times. It kills your vocabulary because you can use the same word with twenty, perhaps even more, definitions. If you use cuss related words often and are in a situation where you may not do so, stuttering may occur. I have troubles with stuttering already anyways. I don't know why, it just happens often. I get jumped up in my words often too, and I have no reason to. I am a confidient speaker, I think through what I am going to say usualy. I'll figure this out one day, or the annoyance will go away.

On top of all of that it annoys many people. Many people find it offensive, personally I just see it to be unneeded though it no longer bothers me that much. Public school has numbed me just enough. It bothers me when people cuss around people who I know don't want to hear it, often the young and the more elderly. Kids shouldn't be cussing, cursing, or swearing. They have no need to, for with their developing minds I'm sure they can think of more intelligent statements to use. If someone does not wish to hear such words for any reason they shouldn't need to worry about it. There should be stronger warnings on television if foul language is going to be used, even if it is censored. I know censuring it may make it more apparent, though it does help in a round about way. It may be easy to even figure out what word fits in, though the censor is there for a reason. The high pitch squeal of the audio cover may be annoying and I wouldn't mind that being replaced but other than that, it's needed.

I think I might of started a slight rant, oh well. Spell check and then time for bed. -- Bugworlds

What Is Perfection? ;;The KDR Must Be One

What is perfection? Where do you find perfection, who holds perfection? I would like to approach the visual aspect of this, for I'm sure it would be easy to just say, "No! Looks aren't everything" at any moment of this and I agree with that. Maybe these questions should be reworded; what does perfection look like, where would you find what looks perfect, and who holds the perfect appearance?

There's the golden ratio, and the idea of just having a lack of imperfection. What does this all mean though? When have you achieved perfection in art, in beauty, in theory?

The golden ratio is a ratio that is nice to look at, to state it simply. I'm not very familiar with it and even though I linked to an article about it I haven't read it recently (I read it once, but it was a fair time back) I will try to express my understanding of it. The golden ratio is when the width is a certain proportion of the height, or vice versa. Due to something in the way it looks, it appears to just look ascetically pleasing to the human eye (I wonder if it looks nice to other animals?). This is also a ratio that is commonly found in nature.

As for the concept of lacking imperfection. That is fairly straight forward too. If there is a lack of anything to distract you from the beauty beneath possible blemishes, you do not need to worry about observing those blemishes. My mind keeps wandering this idea back to faces. If you have no acne (not me) and the same face, you are going to look better than when you do have acne (definitely me, but I really don't mind all that much). In the case of faces this may be true always (well every situation I can think of) though perhaps not in art. Sometimes a little bit of dirt over something will make it look better than if it has been cleaned. A grunge look is always nice if done right, in art and nature. So what does it mean to look perfect regarding imperfection? It means you have no imperfection that draw your attention away from what is beneith them.

Now for the last question I presented. Who looks perfect? Well your mind may quickly jump to a loved one or someone who always catches your eye when he or she walks by you but I have a more cliche ending in mind. Sure this person or people you may of thought of may apear perfect, but only to you.

What would you consider to be normal? What would you consider to be average. I think due to media, what is actually normal or average is looked to be bad. It has become to look undesirable to be average looking, you must look better than everyone you can in today's society. I don't agree with this, I don't think it's true, though this is a general observation. The status quo sates you should look amazing, in order to be average. With everyone looking amazing, does that not just bring the average up? It does a bit, however this will hit a ceiling affect and soon enough people will hit their maximum pretty aspect (or handsome, if you are male and consider the phrase pretty to be feminine only). This is counteracted by the fact style and what is considered to look amazing shifts and changes over time, but that is going into culture more so and I'm getting off topic.

Back to that one person you thought of when I mentioned who is perfect? I'm sure everyone who read this thought of someone. Consider them in great detail, do they really look all that great? Around grade seven I realized that if you just remove hair from some one's head they look completely different. I would put my hand up so I could only see their face and I realized how unfamiliar some people's faces were. A few years later I remembered that and out of curiosity tried this again. Some people who you think look amazing are not always as phenomenal as you think, if you study them closely enough. Some people turn out to be vibrant always, but I always wonder how much work they put into it? I don't think anyone should put work into how they look, everyone should present themselves as who they are.

So you may of found out that this person who you are observing has the perfect dimensions to their face, and their skin is clear as water. You may of found out they are not perfect, but do you care? If you do (ah, this may sound a bit cruel) but grow up a bit and don't be superficial. For all those who answered no, good job, you're winning at life. Now I would like you to consider someone who you think is not all that great?

Do you think that everyone will agree with you? When you state that someone does not look good, that is a matter of opinion. The individual you picked, who you may or may not found out they are not as amazing looking as they appear (ooh, paradox? My English class is actually teaching me this year), may still look amazing to you. Perhaps even perfect despite their flaws. That is just your opinion though. Maybe someone thinks the person you have picked to be perfect, is not as perfect as you think? Everyone thinks someone looks perfect, someone will always think you look perfect.

With everyone thinking someone is perfect, perhaps even many people, then someone will always think you look perfect. Perhaps many people do also. You look perfect, you are perfect.

The only loop hole in this could be regarding self reflection, but all I have to say is no matter how much work you put into your looks you will never look perfect to yourself. Humans are far too self critical, we always want to be better. This is true often even if we have achieved the best in something. Don't leave your own opinion to judge if you appear well in others eyes because you don't see through those eyes. Let them see through their eyes and let them tell you what they think. If they think negatively on you, that's their loss. It's nothing against you. You have no need to aim to please, it is a want that comes with the desire to be socially acceptable. Even if you do not reach the status quo, you will probably still be accepted. If not, message me. I'm sure I'll see you to be perfectly acceptable but you'll never know until you try. (Does blogger even have a messaging system? I'm on Twitter, Posterous, Youtube; a few links can be found here, links to everything off my posterous. I'll get a message if you send it to me eventually.)

So who's perfect? You are, so go forth and be perfect by doing nothing more or nothing less than you do now. If you feel you want to do more or less, I won't stop you. Just keep this in mind, everyone is beautiful and everyone is perfect. Even amongst grime and grunge, art and perfection can be found, and even though spots so small they won't be found unless you are looking for them, no one will notice them but you.

Now onto video games. What a great transition, don't you think so?

I've spent a fair amount of time playing video games, a fair portion of that being first person shooters. One of my favorite first person shooters is a PC game called WarRock, it is all online in real time, it can be downloaded for free, played for free, and always for free. You will be encouraged to buy into it though, because if you do you may get better guns, more maps, and a couple other advantages. With some skill you can still win a match without having premium. I know I do when I play, however I haven't played for a while.

If you would like to look me up on it, my user name on it is Bugworld, but you won't find anything exciting around that name. I'm in a slightly active clan, have no guns at the moment (only default, you earn in game money by playing the game and you can use that to buy better guns if you don't want to spend real cash), and have not been online for a while.

In every first person shooter (well almost) you will run into what is called a KDR. That's Kill to Death Ratio for all you video game illiterates, and those who have lives away from electronics. It's a ratio of how many kills you get in one life (or how many lives it takes you to get one kill). Some games will have a positive negative system, some will just stick to a positive only. I prefer the positive only but I'll explain both.

The positive negative system deals with do you have more kills or more deaths? If you have more kills, your kills are divided by your deaths. If you have more deaths, you deaths are divided by your kills (and multiplied by negative 1). Something to be noted is your KDR in a system like this will always be less than negative one or more than positive one.

My preferred system involves all numbers being positive. A KDR of 1 means you have the same number of kills and deaths. You always divide your kills by your deaths, so if you have 0.02 (I've seen this before..) you need to find a new game. Many people will say you have a negative KDR if it is under 1 when you use this system.

What is considered a good kdr (I decided no more caps on it) varies from game to game, and I am basing this only off WarRock because it is the only real time online game I play. When looking at the kdr's of the people I play with, I notice numbers higher than one are very common but numbers less than one are less common. I understand this could be because there are some people with very high kdr's (well anything above 3 is considered great and the people who have over 6ish are amazing) but it seems like it should balance out.

In theory, if everyone stayed active so their kills and deaths were all counted, wouldn't it average out to one? That was a fair bit of lead up for that statement but that's all I wanted to say. Hmm, I was expecting more to this. Anyone else noticed kdr's seem to hover higher than the what-should-be-average one?

Collatz Conjecture ;; Or I'm Crazy ;; Oh, and Suggested Reading Part 1

I originaly put this on Facebook, before I was using Blogger. How disappointing to think I use to do such a thing, oh well. In conversation with my girlfriend today, I remembered this (anyone else think it's odd that things like this come up in our every day conversation?) and decided it would be much better on my Blog instead of.. pfft.. Facebook. I think if I was to rewrite this it would be much more lengthy with a few parts expanded but I decided to leave it as it is.

Also, before you get reading I would like to request that people actually read my 4100 word post. It can be found here. May I suggest reading it in sections? For this posts suggested reading, I would like to suggest you read the first four paragraphs. I would like to say the first five, almost six actually, but I think four is a reasonable amount. It looks to be a small read for me, the first four or five that is, however the seventh paragraph is where the story starts. That why I think up to six should be read. It's all up to you, that is all I have to say about it. If you want to read more, go for it. If you want to read less, I would love for you to do so also. If you wish to read it all, please drop a comment but only if you had any thoughts, questions, misunderstandings, or anything to add through the entire time. Even just one moment of, "Hmm, but I think..." must be noted in order for you to consider your reading worth while. If you don't your reading has been a waste possibly, and I know you wouldn't enjoy that. Have a nice day; or ever better than leaving you could take a glance at this first. Then have a nice day ^__^

I've spent a couple hours.. wait. Now that I look at the time a few hours on xkcd and was sent a link to this comic http://xkcd.com/710/ and of course wanted to understand what it was based on so Googled it and found a Wikipedia page, was quick to get into a discussion on how it worked and by the end the person who I was explaining it to had take a leave of absence from their computer but was kind enough to leave their MSN signed in so I may continue typing but now I have the desire to post it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collatz_conjecture
In the Wikipedia article there is a mention of someone offering $50 for a solution to this.. misfortunate he's dead?
A long time ago when my mind was wandering during math class the pattern of even and odd numbers when you add, subtract, multiply and divide them occurred to me. I think I may of almost found a useful .

Anyways, the rules are if the number is even you divide by two. If the number is odd you multiply by three then add one. No matter what number you start with, you will (theoretical) always end up with a 1). This is limited whole numbers larger than 0 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5... etc)

This through this before reading.. I'm curious to see other people's ideas? Once I’m done I'm going to tag a handful of people who may have a slight chance of being interested if I remember.

First I will look over the second rule, regarding odd numbers. When you take an odd number and multiply it by three you will always run into an odd number. By adding one you will have an even number. This leads you to always having an even number after an odd number, every time you have an odd number the number increases, however now to look at the first rule.

Every time you have an even number you divide by two, this will reduce the number. It will not reduce the number more than the second rule has in the previous step (ex. 5 -> 16 - > 8) but it will have a 1 in 2 chance of being even again. This is because every second number that is even (2, 8, 12, 16.. etc) divided by two is an odd number and that leaves every first number to be even. This means the number will reduce again. After you do this there is another 1 in 2 chance that the number you now have will be even and then reduce.

To recap and probably simplify.. this means when ever you have an odd number the next number will be even. Then you have a 1 in 2 chance of the number being even. If the number is even it will go down again.

Back to the example with more numbers and some explanation.. 5 -> 16 -> 8 . This is an odd, then an even, then another even. If you continue it.. 8 -> 4 -> 2-> 1 After the 8 is another even number, then another, then a 1. The larger the number you start with, the higher the chance is that it will be odd more often until you run into one of the numbers that are 2^x (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 246.. etc) The reason the chance of you running into one of these numbers is less when starting higher numbers is the higher you go the more spaced out these numbers are. 8 and 16 have a difference of 8 only, however the difference between 128 and 236 is 128, and if you continue this pattern a few times you can run into 32,768 and 65,536 having a difference of 32,768

Love Thy Enemy

In my Digital Media class I was given a paper today, the first one for a long time. I haven't been given the piles of paper I was promised I would be given at the beginning of the year, as I always am told. I have always had a lack of paper given to me also. Maybe I just see it to be not so much paper. My Psychology class is given more paper, much more paper. On top of that we have to actually read it in most cases in this class; opposed to just note this go play with Photoshop.

We were given a green paper titled Love Thy Enemy, by Jacob Holdt. All credit for what will be quoted goes to him. I intend on typing this all out and once I get a chance I will reply to it all, paragraph by paragraph. I was not told to do this, but the reading caught my attention on my first look though. I hope by typing it out I will read it with more depth. Lets get started.

"It is easy to be kind to people who are kind to us, to people who radiate
surplus energy and good will and to people whom we like, but what would the
world look like if we were to try being kind to our enemies, to people who have
been deeply scarred or marginalized in their upbringing, to people who don't
like or who we have every reason to fear?"

It is easy to be kind to those who are kind to us, so instead of looking for the people who are kind just be kind yourself. Then you will not need to look for those who are kind, they will become apparent through your life. You will be sought after and due to your kindness others will appreciate you. By being kind yourself, you may have reason to dislike or fear others, however they may have no reason to dislike or fear you.

"As a traveler, I have had a chance to try that out through my long-standing
policy of saying yes to everyone I meet on my way - without exception, to say
"no" - to turn your back on even a single individual, is to participate in the
systematic marginalization of human beings."

I think not saying no would be an incredibly difficult activity, even in my daily life. The concept of refusal is there for a reason, and ignoring it could have negative results. If you say yes to everyone however, considering what they are asking of you, it would create a very positive environment. To be the person people count on for help you will help so many, and is that not one interpretation of life? By helping others you help yourself, for if you ignore others perhaps there is no reason to enhance your life.

"Saying yes to the people you meet can, on the face of it, resemble a kind of
selfless generosity of a neighbor, like the good Samaritan, but the starting
point is and should always be one's own selfish interest: you simply deny
yourself invaluable adventures by saying no to people who challenge you, you
deny yourself, perhaps out of a fear for your personal safety, but these are the
barriers that divide us."

The good Samaritan is a story of someone helping someone else because they had a need, despite prejudice between the nationality of the two individuals involved. It is a story of helping because someone needs help, not because they are of the same nationality as you (nationality could be replaced with any term relating to groupings or denominations of humans). To deny yourself for personal safety may be a good idea at times however if there is no risk to yourself that is great why say no? Step out, take a challenge. The concept of if it doesn't kill you, it will only make you stronger is perhaps not the best idea but if it is taken non-literally it may help you with this idea of not saying no. Your own selfish interests may help you, but you will find the victory of helping others is just as good as helping yourself (if not better) and will benefit the individual you are assisting.

"Displaying kindness and openness toward the very people who directly challenge
or frighten us is simply the best way to guarantee our own survival."

Another statement that should not be taken literally, however it does address confrontation. Confrontation is not a bad thing, it is an opportunity. How it unfolds is up to you. I didn't consider confronting those who frighten us in the previous paragraphs however it is just a case of facing your fears. As for this guaranteeing our own survival, perhaps this is looking at the human race as a whole. I think taking up all challenges may just weed out the weeker of our species, the natural selection look of things (however natural selection no longer applies to humans I beleive), though as for individuals it is a different story. There are many challenges that confront us every day and we choose to work through them or avoid them without conscious thought. If a challenge is not to monumental, why avoid it?

"There is not a single person in the world you need to be afraid of (cars you
need to watch out for, but not people). Early on my travels, I began to free
myself from a paralyzing fear of 'otherness.' Since then it has been a true
miracle to travel, all the positive time I spent with the many inhabitants of
ghettos has helped me to see the humanity behind the threat."

It's not the gun that kills you, it's not the drop that snaps your bones. It's the bullet, it's the fall. People don't kill you, the cars they are driving do? I think cars should be looked at as a metaphor for physical threats, not just cars. The concept of otherness could be the fear of the unfamiliar. In particular the fear of unfamiliar individuals and situations. Once you are past a fear of those who you do not know there is no reason to have a fear of traveling, there is only opportunity in the act.

"When you stop fearing others, the doors open up for you to a universe truly
without borders. To show people trust is to declare your love, all people are
starving for love and affection, even the most dangerous or threatening people
who are held captive by a hunger for love."

I can't say I have much to add to this. When I started typing I just thought,'hmm, see last reply' though it seemed to go off in a different direction.

"If we are to create a world without crime and terrorism, we must embrace the
anger behind it all, to try to be kind to the marginalized people of the world
rather than further marginalizing them with our unfounded fears of them."

I'm starting to enjoy the word marginalize, though I don't quite grasp what it means. I'll take a look in the nearest dictionary soon. To create a world without crime and terrorism means we all must have the same views, in specific the same views around what is crime and terrorism. I just can't see that being possible at the moment, or any time soon. What is right and wrong varies too much from culture to culture to say there is no crime in the world by every one's opinion. Crime is not put in place for its reasons, however there is reason to it being there (if that makes sense). The reason there is crime is because it is not needed for the whole of society but it is needed, used by the few. As for the marginalized, why are they as so? The unfounded fear that is mentioned is the prejudice that so many hold. To abolish this prejudice is to create a world closer to having no crime and terrorism, and have no fear of the unfamiliar. The unfamiliar being the marginalized, the discriminated, the minority.

View Jacob Holdts website, http://www.american-pictures.com. I have not ventured past the entry page, howeve I must warn it contains images possibly offensive to some.
View Jacob Holdts wikipedia page.

OVER 9000!!!

This Saturday morning I decided to flip on my TV and kill some time before I actually got up and out of bed. I quickly found there was nothing that caught my attention after flipping through my forty or so channels, so I stopped at TV listings and waited for it to slowly scroll through all it would.

On a channel I usually don't watch, forty-nine I beleive, I noticed there were Saturday morning cartoons playing. At the moment it was a few minutes into an episode of Dragonball Z Kai, I debated for a moment then found my way to the show.

I was disappointed it was not Dragonball Z (the second in the series I beleive), and what would be even better Dragonball (the original series). Despite this I decided to continue watching, it looked to be in the same animation style as Dragonball Z.

The first few lines of dialogue that I heard were something along the lines of, "six.. seven.. eight thousand.." "What?" At this point I was getting excited waiting for an "Over 9000" line, but decided I missed it for there was no way the one episode that features that line was going to playing. Even less likely I would simply change the Chanel and run into it.

"What? What's wrong Vegeta?" "Uh.." My excitement that had subsided, began to grow again.

"What's his power level?" YES!!

"IT'S OVER 9000!!!!" "OVER 9000?!?!" "OVER 9000!!!!"

That.. was great. I couldn't beleive it, that I ran into that one meme just out of curiosity. For all of those who are not familiar with Dragonball, you should the link. Dragonball Z is the second series in the chain of series that go off of Dragonball, and Dragonball Z Kai is a remastered version of Dragonball (thank you for this information 'Hmm, it appears you changed your name on posterous so I am unsure what to use for a screen name for when referencing to people I like to use screen names.' And speaking of this person who I am referencing too I'm going to be speaking more about them, or replying to them atleast, in my next Posterous post. I'll probably advertise this post in it also. The original OVER 9000 footage is here. Here is the even more original and more lengthy footage, in Japanese as it was originally intended to be in. I'm sure with review of these videos you can see my dialogue was close.

And with me watching the original footage I discovered my dialogue was far off. Something closer to, "Vegeta, what does it say about his power level?" "IT'S OVER 9000!!!" Though I discovered in the original Japanese it was "over 8000," but I'm use to the 9000 remark so I will stick to it when referencing to this.

Links, for those who don't want to read through that:
Dragonball
Friend's Posterous
Over 9000
Japanese Over 9000

Memories, Empathy, Thoughts

A few days ago I had a very interesting moment. I have done a fair amount of reading about how the brain works and how memories work recently, and I am not sure if this is what inspired the moment or just allowed me to understand it more so. This has actually happened a couple times recently, no more than three times within the past two weeks. The first time this happened within this time frame has been the most memorable and at the moment it is all I can recall.


Before I explain it, I would just like to note how I find it odd that I can recall having the thought, but cannot remember what it was. I remember an event however only the fact it happened, few details about it, and what is was similar to. One way to look at recollection may be as a file on a computer. Before I continue with this, I'm going to note this idea is all theoretical and not original. When you first experience something you save it as a memory. Then when you think of this memory, when you recall it you are not experiencing the experience again. You are only opening the file. Every time you open a file it changes slightly (lets say the file is a .jpeg, because that type of file degrades a little every time you open it), and then when it changes it the changes are automatically saved. That means the next time you recall this memory you are recalling the memory and the slight change of it, along with another slight change. This could be why it seems every time a story is told it changes slightly. Of course this theory could be wrong and every time you remember something you could be directly recalling the original experience. Maybe if you are recalling the original experience, the more time that has past since the experience the less accurate the recollection is.

This interesting moment I had occurred when watching a video. In the video the young boy was missing his two front teeth, and for a moment I remembered what it was like to be missing my front teeth. I could imagine how it felt to have the oddly large feeling gap in my mouth, the texture of my gums even. I'm not sure how long this lasted, but soon as I was curious enough to feel where the space would be my tounge encountered my front teath and the moment was over. It was interesting none the least.

This seemed like more than just a regular memory, it was almost like an illusion? It's hard to describe. For a moment it was not as if I was remembering the moment, but experiencing it slightly.

At this point I almost wish I could have a three dimensional entry, the flow of the reading could be split right here to my next three points because I feel they could all fit in here equally. I'm sure after putting them into words there will be a better way to present them, but for now that is my opinion. Anyone else ever thought of this? I think it would be an interesting way to present an essay of sorts. To put it into Macromedia Flash (8, for that is the version I am familiar with) and have it scrolling. As you scrolled to this point you could not just scroll up and down, but forward and back between the layers of points.

What inspired me to put this together (I had plans on writing a different entry today but won't have time to do so, so I will put it off for another day yet again) was a moment today. Recently I have taken a liking to apples, after not liking them for a long time. I had been hungry and had decided I needed to try to put my fruit and vegetables in my diet (again, my previous attempts at this never stuck) and found an apple in my fridge. It made sense to try it to see if I would like the way it tasted this time. In fact I did. The next day my girlfriend was over and mentioned she was hungry, so I cut up an apple and some cheese for a tasty snack. The days past that I continued to eat apples when I saw them, and soon found myself seeking them out. I still have been doing so.


Upon getting home I grabbed an apple and my Rubik's cube, and began to consume one with my left hand and scramble with the right. I'm sure you can figure out what was in each hand. Doing both took longer than normal, and solving after scrambling was slower than most of my already slow one handed solves. Eventually I got a slight rhythm regarding when I would bite and when I would spin. As I continued to eat I got to the point where there was little flesh left on the apple, but still enough to continue picking at it. Eating around the regions where I would apply my fingers to hold it in place, and biting into the core more and more to see how close I could get to the seeds without actually consuming them. I dislike it when I get a seed in my mouth, they don't taste as good as I wish they would. For the longest time as a child I wouldn't eat apples to their fullest. I thought the core was hard and not to be eaten, and it would take me a very long time to eat what I considered to be the edible region. I'm not sure what inspired this, but I never questioned it at the time.


Upon looking at the skeleton of the fruit; with the stem sticking up and a slight green skirting around it's base, with the odd knobby piece at the bottom with similar skin still intact, and the more vibrant green veins of the middle of it leaving spaces for hollows where seeds resign I had a vivid memory. It was of my father holding an apple he had been eating, with the core of it exposed. I didn't picture his face or any other features, just the core of it. The image of the apple must of resembled the image within my memory closely enough to trigger it involuntarily.


It was a very vivid memory, but very short lived. It occurred as a thought, and I continued to think about it after it occurred. I will touch more on thoughts later on to this, and you may realize more about this. In this recollection of my father holding the apple I did not picture anything more than the appearance of the apple, in specific the core of it. I did not have any visualisation of anything more than the apple, though somehow still related it to my father. I'm not sure how this is entirely but I may have an idea. This memory was caused due to an external stimulus (the apple's appearance) and I think it may of been so vivid due to the similarity to the remembered image. All that was seen was the apple, nothing more. With this there was nothing more for me to remember so clearly, however there was something I could relate to what I was seeing. My brain searched though the library that we all have called our memory for a similar image, and quickly landed on a moment where there was an apple of very similar resemblance.


This searching happens at great speed. A search on Google for the word why took 0.09 seconds to find its results, that may seem fairly quick though to put it in perspective it means that search can be done eleven times in just under one second. The speed your brain processes is much greater than that. To put it into a how many searches a second, theoretically there is no limit. This is another point that will make sense further into this. Also 6,410,000,000 results were found. This may not be as much as it seems, for your brain my have much more information to search though.


Back to the memory. This image of the apple reminded my brain of a memory and then I remembered this memory that I was just reminded of. This remembering may of been so vivid because it may have relation to 'deja vu.' This could be a long shot, although that book I've referenced so many times (Is There Life After Death by Anthony Peake) does a fairly good job at explaining a few different ideas regarding what deja vu may be. One concept is a memory is triggered by something being so exact to a memory, the memory that you remember is played over what you are viewing at the moment. This may seem odd, but it is more possible than it sounds. Essentially, I may of had a moment of deja vu.


Now to go back to the first moment, featuring remembering what it felt like to be missing my two front teath. This, along with the apple incident, may of been closely related to apathy. Apathy is the concept of feeling what you observe other people feeling. If someone is sad, you are likely to slip into a less positive emotional state. You may also do the same if you are around someone who is happy. If someone hurts themselves, you can image how the pain would feel. If someone even describes a painful moment you may wince at it. I think this may be why people often want to turn away when they know something terrible is going to happen, they don't want to 'experience' themselves. By experience, I mean just that. The concept of apathy goes deeper than just emotions or feeling pain.



When someone does something it will cause part of their brain to activate. If you observe them doing this the same parts of your brain will light up. This was discovered by German (I think) scientists who were monitoring what parts of the brain lit up as a monkey tried to open a nut. The monkey failed to do so. At the same time, a scientist walked into the room, picked up a nut, opened it and ate it. The monkey's brain lit up just as it would if it had opened the nut itself. This happy accident, serendipity I beleive it's called, was the first clue into how apathy works on more than the observable level.



By the way, the monkey story I became familiar with from a RSA Animate video about apathy. Look up RSA, they explain some really interesting things and draw out what they are talking about. It's a great way to learn, the visual makes it really easy to follow along more complicated issues.



To relate this to the moment where I could feel the space in my mouth that wasn't actually there at the time; when you observe something parts of your brain are activated just as if you did that. This may be one factor into why seeing things may cause you to remember something else. As I watched the boy in the video I was both reminded of not having teath in the front of my mouth and had an apathetic moment. This caused my memory to be more than the usual memory, it was much more real. My idea around this is a bit loose and open for opinion but I think this is quite possible. Especially with combination of what a memory is.



When you remember something, what is it you are remembering? Is it a chain of words forming a sentence? Probably not. You think through a memory with much more speed than a speedy speaker would be able to describe. Do you see it? Well, you might. This is common in dreams perhaps, but when you are conscious you are not really seeing your memory. You may be able to imagine it, but you aren't seeing. Your sense of sight is still being used by the photons that are currently entering your eyes that reflect what is happening at the current moment of time. You do not smell, taste, or feel the memory either. Well... you could be doing all of this. I forgot to mention hearing. Just assume it follows the same model as the other senses.

What is a memory? As you are conscious you are constantly recording everything. You are recording everything that your senses can perceive. Everything you notice, and even what you don't is put away into your brain to be stored until it could be needed. That is a lot of information. I'm not able to find a constant answer to how much information your brain can hold, though I'm running into estimates of 10^15 to 10^20 bytes. A couple other sites have said around three terabytes (but I think that's fairly low). One or two have said 1 to 1000 terabytes (maybe a bit too broad of a scale). What ever the actual number is, it will vary from person to person. The brain most likely does not remember information in the same way as a computer so putting it into bytes may not be reasonable. However it is, I'm sure you can see how immense the sea of information that may be stored away is. With this in mind, it is quite easy to consider the idea that we record everything we ever see, smell, touch, taste, hear, maybe even think?

So what is a memory? A memory is a recollection of all of what you were experiencing at the moment that you are remembering. You can remember everything that you experienced at that moment, though you are just likely to focus on one aspect of it, how something looked or heard. You may of been more aware of one aspect at the time your brain recorded it, so when you remember that one aspect stands out more. The reason you suppress much of your memory and do not remember all of it, is so that your brain is not overloaded. Recently I read that if you activate more than two or three percent of your brain you will become unconscious. I am sceptical of this, but there could be some truth to it. I think the numbers are much higher, and like everything brain related, it will change from person to person. It's a good thing you don't remember every little aspect of your memories with this concept. Passing out every time anything reminded you of anything would be.. inconvenient. Proof that everything you ever experience is recorded can be found in multiple experiments done by.. well I forget their name but I might look it up later and put it in here.

So with all that confusion out of the way, what is a thought? Essentially, well I'm not sure. I would like to say a thought is a concept, an abstract concept . A thought 'looks like' neurons firing in your brain, sending signals to other part of the brain. A interesting thought surrounding this is does your brain cause consciousness through doing this, or is consciousness the reason this happens? Are thoughts voluntary or involuntary?

I beleive the answer is both. Just like a memory you can have something stimulate you and cause it to happen, or you can purposely think about it and remember it. A thought can be spontaneous or you can cause it to occur.

How many thoughts can you have at the same time? I think there is no limit to this. It all depends on your concentration. Try a little game I use to play when I was much younger. I wanted to see how many things I could think at once and now that I look back on it, it was incredibly useful to my ponderings I have. I would try to think about a solid hum, just an uninterrupted 'hmm' noise. On top of that I would think through the alphabet, and to make things even more complicated I would try to consider how many things I was thinking about. I'm sure it's possible to continue adding onto this. Another similar activity I tired once was to listen to music (with lyrics), say something else out loud (not related to the music), and write something else (also not related to the music or the speaking). It is amazingly difficult. I find music can be very distracting, especially with lyrics. I struggle to listen to music and read something out loud often. Even reading it silently can prove difficult at times. The same goes for writing but it is a bit easier. I think this is an activity that can be learned but I don't intend on practicing.

I'm starting a lot of these new paragraphs with a question. This is another one, likely to be the last however. How long does it take for a thought to occur? I'll give you a moment or two to think it over. How many thoughts have you had in the time it's taken you to read these few words? Just in the past few paragraphs? In the bunch of sentences? There could be a numeral answer to this, but I would like to state there is no limit to them. I cannot find where I read this (this must start to sound very illegitimate due to the lack of my ability to cite many sources) although, 'thoughts occur in the moment between moments.' This could be reworded a few ways, but to simplify it more you could also say thoughts do not take any time to be thought. There may be a moment before the thought is thought of, but individual thoughts (often chained together to appear as they take time to be thought of) are timeless. They happen between the minimal division of time. There is no limit to how many thoughts you can think of in a moment, and this is why the 0.09 second search is much slower than you may think it is. In the timeless moment it takes for you to search your entire muli-terabyte libary, you can recall one individual moment that may of happened millions of seconds ago. The only limiter on this that I can think of would be the speed the electrons (I beleive it is electrons, if not lets just call them the signals) can travel through your brain. This is just under the speed of light, and traveling at that quickly the tiny particles are going to experience a fair amount of time dialation, just to add one more level of complexity. If a photon (one particle of light) can travel 3.0x10^8 meters in one second, think of how quickly it can travel across your 0.2m (ish) brain!

And yes, I did take the nearest ruler and hold it infront of my head for a moment. The measurement won't be very accurate to the size of my brain, it should be smaller actualy. Also, a signal traveling through your brain may not have to go all the way across. It may only need to go to the next lobe, only 0.01m away. A final note on this, keep in mind you are firing several thousand, maybe million? No, I don't think quite million but I could be wrong, signals at a time. A thought may require a few of those to go the full distance across and a group is only as slow as its slowest members.

One a much lighter note I had a couple interesting experiences today relating to the fog. Another to some birds. I know I've seen it before, maybe the lighting was just perfect where I was, but I really enjoyed watching the fog roll in and overtake my school as I was waiting for the bus. It had been foggy on and off all day. Just a few minutes before it was sunny then another fog cloud rolled into the area. I just thought it was amazing how the movment of it all was so apparent. I could see the individual water drops in the air, along with the cloud look (well an actual cloud I guess) a bit further away. Fog as always ammused me a bit, the concept that just a few water drops close to you don't obscure your vission much but if you have just a few dropplets spread out over a large area you quickly run out of spaces between the drops and they pile up making it impossible to see even down the block.

When I was in my room doing homework after school a fog horn sounded, it was fairly loud considering the distance away it was (or I can only assume) and lasted a few seconds longer than I expected it would. The echo lasted a while, and continued to echo for much longer than expected also. I imagined the sound I was hearing was from such a distance away. An echo that reached me a second after the innital sound must of been over three hundred meters away, the echo that was a second later over six hundred fifty meters away maybe. It echoed many times, more than I've ever heard anything echo. I immagine the last few faint sounds I detected were from the other side of town, most likely only cut off there because of the forest. When I was on a walk later tonight, I heard another boat warn all around that it was there and I relized that the echos may of lasted for so long because there could of also been the sound of a boat replying that I missed. This would cause more echos.

Moments after this I was not focusing on much more than what I was listening to (when I think about it, all I really remember was the sound until I was interupted. An example of my memory being recorded at the time was focused on the sound only) a bunch of birds who had been singing out my window all flew away at the same time. The simutanious flutter of their wings made a noise that confused me at first and was the distraction that caused me to focus on what I saw also. I turned to my window quickly and through the slatted blinds I have closed almost always (and have recently put a poster up over one side of the window becuase I enjoy the way the light hightlights the highlights and some midtones in the picture) I saw the birds flying away. Just a slight glimps of them as the individuals who trailed behind slightly were leaving. This was mostly noticed in my less focused periferals, and I suppose I infered that the noise and black flash was caused by birds.

Well this turned out much better, and slightly longer, than I was expecing it to. I wish all of my posts were this easy to write. As I mentioned before I had something else I was planning on putting here today, but I will do this some other time. I'm glad I addressed this set of ideas soon as I was inspired to share them with the Internet. The walk I mentioned occured about half way through all of this. I was phoned and invited to join a few people, I told them I had recently started putting something on my Blog and wanted to finish some more before leaving it. I really dislike staring something and then leaving it only to pick up where I was. I would rather just start something and finish it in the same sitting. It worked out though, I put down notes of what else I wanted to add and borrowed a cell phone to message myself more thoughts I had to add to this to my Facebook's Inbox as I relized I forgot to add them when I had a chance before leaving.

I'm kind of proud, when I went to use the spell check that is on the Google toolbar, it told me that I had too many characters to check over all of it. I'm going to have to take a look to see how many characters there is, I'm sure it's not too long to copy and paste into Microsoft Word Processor. I'm sure it is notacable where my spell check dropped off, I don't feel like going out of my way to check the rest.

Please ignore the odd spacing between paragraphs, Blogger is not being friendly to me and not posting as I am telling it to do so do. I think I have it worked out now. I hope I do. I'm ready to give up on it and leave it at it's difficult to read state. For a moment I even thought I lost all of this.

- Bugworlds

You Don't Need An Excuse

It's almost Halloween, or so it seams. Soon as October comes around there is a slight hint of the last day for the full thirty one days. With it being Halloween, there must be a party or two that I could attend. At the moment I've been invited to two, but only intend on going to one. Misfortunately this one happens to be on Halloween day, or is it night? It is on the thirty first day of the month. I think this should be moved to the day before, Saturday, so I don't have to go to school the day after.

I intend on going to school if I go to the party or not, for so far I have a perfect attendance and maybe I can keep that? Last year I missed one day, it was disappointing but I was too sick to attend school and regret becoming sick for some time after.

I'm still curious why the party won't be moved to Saturday. The answer I've been given has been simple, because Halloween is on the thirty first so the party will be also. This is where I get to my main point.

You Don't Need An Excuse To Have A Party

Well, maybe. For now I will leave this statement resembling a title with too many capitals for emphasis. Why not move it a day back? I'm not just picking on this one social event that will be great no matter when it is. It just inspired to put my thoughts into words and express you don't need an excuse to do most anything. I'm sure there are exceptions, but why not have a birthday party four months after the day of the year of which you were born?

This is a very reoccurring situation for my family and relatives. They seem to wait for an excuse to have a party, though by my standards it is not a party. These events are more like a salutatory social gathering. They will look for a reason to have a gathering, look for an excuse to get together, give gifts, and eat cake.

Enough about my relatives and their ways that are not very logical by my view, back to expanding the excuse concept. Why do people look for excuses for events such as gatherings or parties? I understand, by definition of many, that having a limiting agent to parties is a good thing. Too much 'partying' may result in a bruised liver, and no one actually enjoy alcohol poisoning. What about those events that have a limited number of intoxicated individuals? Why wait for an excuse to have them? I think the idea of phoning up some friends and telling them to bring some snacks for everyone down to the beach and having a large social grouping is a great idea.

This is drifting away from the rough original topic; parties with an excuse. As I think this through more and put my thoughts to letters it has occurred to me that having parties frequently for no reason may take the fun away from them. Maybe all of that I previously stated was incorrect. It all boils down to a matter of opinion. Even if you are going to use an excuse for an event why can't it be moved around a bit? It's not up to me, so I guess I'll just show to to school on Monday tired. Maybe I'll just skip that sleeping thing. I have been wanting to pull an all nighter sometime this year, preferably soon, and see what it's like to go to school without sleep.

A while back I mentioned gifts, this is something else that has bothered me for a long time. Why give people gifts on Christmas and birthdays? The original meaning of Christmas has fallen apart into a pit of clever corporate schemes and constant calamity (Oh, I see what I did there). Even with the original concept of Christmas in mind, I see no place for useless gifts. This goes the same for birthdays. Why is an excuse needed to give someone something? If something is needed and you feel like providing the individual in need with something to fulfill this need why wait? I beleive if everyone followed this concept birthdays would be less special perhaps, though they would have less disappointment. Along with the disappointment that is often caused by birthday parties being eliminated there would be no more useless gifts given only due to a feeling of obligation due to someone living through one more solar cycle.

All of these statements could be caused by a root displeasure with my own experience surrounding Christmas and my birthday. There is always so much hype about the events and then when they occur I am not all very interested in it all. I have received far too many useless gifts that are stored away in my room and forgotten. I have chocolates on my shelf that I've been looking for a reason to eat from last Christmas (2009).

Maybe I should take my own advice and eat the chocolate with no reason. I just need some inspiration.

. - - Bugworlds