Hello.
As part of a team spirit thing, I am Shaving for a Cure (for Leukaemia - it is unclear why they do not properly specify).
Anyways as you may know I may not be a stranger to baldness, and neither are you. It does not scare me. I am not asking you to sponsor out of pity.
I am asking you to sponsor as part of a voodoo ritual to resurrect Fuzznut from the dead.
I dub this the Fuzznut Fund. Your contribution is most welcome
I could link you to this website that has a humoungous form with credit card details that is pretty hard to use, or just find me in real life with my snazzy cardboard box. Remember, donations of $2+ are tax deductible! (lol)
I be shavez on June 18th. You may eagerly await to violate my scalp then.
beam me up
Today I am going to sound like an infomercial. This is something I've told many people because it's cool. You should use it too, if you use Chrome.
Do you get tired of signing our of your preferred Google Account?
Just want to view the daysheet without all the foreplay?
*cuts to shot of exasperated teenager clicking at his/her computer*
What you need is Multiple Accounts Sign In! Activate it by following this link and checking the appropriate boxes...
Next time you try log into James Ruse Portal, from the dropdown menu in the top right hand corner, don't click the Sign Out button!
*cuts to shot of the Sign Out button with a big red cross over it*
Click the "Add Account" button instead!
*do a stupid flashing light effect around the Add Account or something*
At this stage you may input your 431...etc number and password! No more grief!
*guy slaps his own cheek in amazement*
From that point onward, every Google service you use, you will have the option to select between your Portal and actual Google account. If either one doesn't appear just click "Add Account" and type it in again (the password and stuff should be autosaved anyway), and you're off!
First infinite callers get this FREE.
That's an offer you can't miss. Call now for your FREE Multiple Account Sign In!
Terms and Conditions apply
- It's still a tiny bit buggy - it will forget the Portal account occasionally, or carry the sign-in from Portal to Gmail (so when you open Gmail it shows your crappy Portal inbox). The former can be fixed by "Add new account", which is better than signing out because it should save your preferred main account for stuff like Gmail and Youtube. The latter can be fixed by clicking the top right hand corner and selecting the other account (I've never had Chrome forget my main account before)
d/dx between the two
Differentiate vs Derive
I think I've stated this before.
To differentiate is to find the gradient of a curve at a certain point by using the gradient formula and determining the gradient as the horizontal distance between your two reference points approaches 0. It is synonymous to "d/dx" (or whatever variable)
To derive is to obtain an expression or formula by reasoning and logical deduction. It is synonymous to "deduce", or in the mathematical context, "prove".
Reason for misconception: The product of differentiation is the derivative. It may be logical to think that the process is hence "deriving". But it's not, and you're wrong (Y)
Grammar vs Syntax vs Spelling
This stems from the fact that correcting spelling can get someone the label of a "grammar Nazi". Which is sadly misled.
Grammar is the set of rules for using a language. It is why we say "This is my phone" and not "This is I's phone". Strictly speaking, grammar is rigid and there is only "one right answer" - that is, there is only "one right grammar". Variations to grammar are wrong.
Syntax is the ordering of words in a sentence. It's the difference between "The ball was hit by the bat" and "The bat hit the ball". It's possible to play around with syntax and still have a legitimate English sentence.
Spelling is the ordering of letters to make an individual word.
I acknowledge there is overlap between syntax and grammar in that we are not meant to split the infinitive verb (e.g. "To angrily smash the ball" is wrong. It should be "To smash the ball angrily". I personally give zero craps about this rule and I am happy to rebelliously do what I want.)
Electric Shock vs Electrocute
Electric shock is when a sufficient current runs through a body part to cause any sort of undesirable effects.
Electrocuting is death by electricity. You have not been "electrocuted before".
Reason for misconception: It's gotta have something to do with electricity if there's "electro" in it, right?
Complimentary vs Complementary
Complimentary is usually used as an adjective to mean "free" or "gift" such as "complimentary breakfast at the hotel". Complementary is used to describe two or more objects that come together to make a recognisable set.
:/ vs :L
:/ is a worried face, like that face that absolutely nobody pulls when they're worried.
:L is actually a laughing face. That links to Bebo, the now tumbleweed social networking site that was pretty big before Facebook. If anybody will remember, that is where the ":L" shortcut started. If anyone was using it before Bebo got big at our school, I'd like to speak to you.
Reason for misconception: Taken at face (hoho) value, :L does indeed look like a sort of worried face. But it's kinda too ugly to be a worried face. Though to be fair, ugliness didn't stop people from using idiot emoticons like :F.
:) vs (:
"(:" is a backward smiley for backward people.
Okay time to whine about stuff that annoys me yay. Just tacking it onto the end of a post.
Laughing at someone
I believe A is being a total asshole if they are laughing at B and the following criteria are true.
1) A is not better than B at the skill.
2) There was no recent display of fail from B (e.g. if A is laughing B's skill in ball sports, in the middle of a maths period, where presumably B did not just fumble a ball and smack himself in the face)
3) B never claimed to be better than A at the skill.
4) If A didn't even claim to be good at the skill, and B just came out of nowhere.
Note that if 2), 3), or 4) were false, then it becomes acceptable to laugh. If 1) were false it doesn't qualify A to laugh, but if it were true it does make A more of an asshole. These are also cumulative. The more criteria someone satisfies the greater of an asshole they are. I was going to list some examples but I believe this is relatively clear - happy to provide examples on request.
The word "technically"
You cannot use the word "technically" in place of admitting being in the wrong. When people are (trying to be?) logical, and have their flaws exposed, I have oft hear them say "well technically..." to either mean "You're only right but by a technicality" or "Technically I'm right but you're right in every other way". No, mate, when you're resorting to idiot unfinished sentences like this you've fucking lost through and through. Take it graciously (I can't even say "like a man" any more) and admit defeat.
I was going to insert the Inigo Montoya meme but Meme Generator is down so whatevers.
Same goes for "probably...", "maybe..." and a shrug of the shoulders.
The misuse of scientific terms to sound cool
Okay like I look around and I see shit like Olay DNAge, "isoactive" toothpaste, and pop science buzzwords like "neutrino blasters" or "photon cannon" or "quantum anything"
1) You should be very fucking scared of anything that claims to "repair" or in any other way touch your DNA. Remember, that's how cancers are caused.
2) "Iso" means "equal". What the fuck is "equally active". Is it actually doing anything?!
3) Neutrinos are particles that have no charge and are tiny (iirc same size as electrons) and so they practically pass through everything unscathed. The Physics textbook says something like 10^13 neutrinos (from the Sun) are passing through you all the time, night or day, because even if it's at night time, those neutrinos can easily pass through the Earth. You ain't gonna hurt anyone by shooting neutrinos at them
4) A photon cannon would be a very bright light. By that logic a Maglite will be a photon pistol.
5) Quantum quite literally just means "discrete". And as far as I am aware, the significance of quanta is greatly reduced as soon as you stop considering the subatomic level, whereby all your "normal physics" (like that F=ma and v=f\lambda shit from year 9 and 10) can start applying quite happily. Also, quantum leaps in real physics are tiny ass leaps where matter seems to "teleport" small distances on the subatomic level. So a quantum leap in a spaceship would be rather unimpressive.
The assertion that writers and composers of other media "do not consider all these techniques"
"I swear the author wasn't thinking about this when he wrote this. Maybe he just wanted a cloudy day!!!"
I disagree wholeheartedly. Do you remember when you wrote your Belonging story? How many times did you stop to think what kind of atmosphere would be most conducive of belonging or lack thereof? Did you look back and go "wait how the fuck is anyone going to understand this" or "is there a better way to phrase this so that it seems like more of a shock" or "will the teacher spot my clever motif?".
Hell I know people who spent more than enough time choosing a goddamn name for their character.
And remember, we're all fucking scrubs when it comes to writing. Those people do it as their livelihood, and you're telling me they won't stop to consider what kind of effect each and every word will have on their readers?
With the exception of Fay Weldon of course. She just wrote whatever the fuck she felt like in the wake of Austen's success.
No but seriously, I bet even Weldon stopped to consider how well her work will convey her point. It's just not her fault she's not very good at it.
I think I've stated this before.
To differentiate is to find the gradient of a curve at a certain point by using the gradient formula and determining the gradient as the horizontal distance between your two reference points approaches 0. It is synonymous to "d/dx" (or whatever variable)
To derive is to obtain an expression or formula by reasoning and logical deduction. It is synonymous to "deduce", or in the mathematical context, "prove".
Reason for misconception: The product of differentiation is the derivative. It may be logical to think that the process is hence "deriving". But it's not, and you're wrong (Y)
Grammar vs Syntax vs Spelling
This stems from the fact that correcting spelling can get someone the label of a "grammar Nazi". Which is sadly misled.
Grammar is the set of rules for using a language. It is why we say "This is my phone" and not "This is I's phone". Strictly speaking, grammar is rigid and there is only "one right answer" - that is, there is only "one right grammar". Variations to grammar are wrong.
Syntax is the ordering of words in a sentence. It's the difference between "The ball was hit by the bat" and "The bat hit the ball". It's possible to play around with syntax and still have a legitimate English sentence.
Spelling is the ordering of letters to make an individual word.
I acknowledge there is overlap between syntax and grammar in that we are not meant to split the infinitive verb (e.g. "To angrily smash the ball" is wrong. It should be "To smash the ball angrily". I personally give zero craps about this rule and I am happy to rebelliously do what I want.)
Electric Shock vs Electrocute
Electric shock is when a sufficient current runs through a body part to cause any sort of undesirable effects.
Electrocuting is death by electricity. You have not been "electrocuted before".
Reason for misconception: It's gotta have something to do with electricity if there's "electro" in it, right?
Complimentary vs Complementary
Complimentary is usually used as an adjective to mean "free" or "gift" such as "complimentary breakfast at the hotel". Complementary is used to describe two or more objects that come together to make a recognisable set.
:/ vs :L
:/ is a worried face, like that face that absolutely nobody pulls when they're worried.
:L is actually a laughing face. That links to Bebo, the now tumbleweed social networking site that was pretty big before Facebook. If anybody will remember, that is where the ":L" shortcut started. If anyone was using it before Bebo got big at our school, I'd like to speak to you.
Reason for misconception: Taken at face (hoho) value, :L does indeed look like a sort of worried face. But it's kinda too ugly to be a worried face. Though to be fair, ugliness didn't stop people from using idiot emoticons like :F.
:) vs (:
"(:" is a backward smiley for backward people.
Okay time to whine about stuff that annoys me yay. Just tacking it onto the end of a post.
Laughing at someone
I believe A is being a total asshole if they are laughing at B and the following criteria are true.
1) A is not better than B at the skill.
2) There was no recent display of fail from B (e.g. if A is laughing B's skill in ball sports, in the middle of a maths period, where presumably B did not just fumble a ball and smack himself in the face)
3) B never claimed to be better than A at the skill.
4) If A didn't even claim to be good at the skill, and B just came out of nowhere.
Note that if 2), 3), or 4) were false, then it becomes acceptable to laugh. If 1) were false it doesn't qualify A to laugh, but if it were true it does make A more of an asshole. These are also cumulative. The more criteria someone satisfies the greater of an asshole they are. I was going to list some examples but I believe this is relatively clear - happy to provide examples on request.
The word "technically"
You cannot use the word "technically" in place of admitting being in the wrong. When people are (trying to be?) logical, and have their flaws exposed, I have oft hear them say "well technically..." to either mean "You're only right but by a technicality" or "Technically I'm right but you're right in every other way". No, mate, when you're resorting to idiot unfinished sentences like this you've fucking lost through and through. Take it graciously (I can't even say "like a man" any more) and admit defeat.
I was going to insert the Inigo Montoya meme but Meme Generator is down so whatevers.
Same goes for "probably...", "maybe..." and a shrug of the shoulders.
The misuse of scientific terms to sound cool
Okay like I look around and I see shit like Olay DNAge, "isoactive" toothpaste, and pop science buzzwords like "neutrino blasters" or "photon cannon" or "quantum anything"
1) You should be very fucking scared of anything that claims to "repair" or in any other way touch your DNA. Remember, that's how cancers are caused.
2) "Iso" means "equal". What the fuck is "equally active". Is it actually doing anything?!
3) Neutrinos are particles that have no charge and are tiny (iirc same size as electrons) and so they practically pass through everything unscathed. The Physics textbook says something like 10^13 neutrinos (from the Sun) are passing through you all the time, night or day, because even if it's at night time, those neutrinos can easily pass through the Earth. You ain't gonna hurt anyone by shooting neutrinos at them
4) A photon cannon would be a very bright light. By that logic a Maglite will be a photon pistol.
5) Quantum quite literally just means "discrete". And as far as I am aware, the significance of quanta is greatly reduced as soon as you stop considering the subatomic level, whereby all your "normal physics" (like that F=ma and v=f\lambda shit from year 9 and 10) can start applying quite happily. Also, quantum leaps in real physics are tiny ass leaps where matter seems to "teleport" small distances on the subatomic level. So a quantum leap in a spaceship would be rather unimpressive.
The assertion that writers and composers of other media "do not consider all these techniques"
"I swear the author wasn't thinking about this when he wrote this. Maybe he just wanted a cloudy day!!!"
I disagree wholeheartedly. Do you remember when you wrote your Belonging story? How many times did you stop to think what kind of atmosphere would be most conducive of belonging or lack thereof? Did you look back and go "wait how the fuck is anyone going to understand this" or "is there a better way to phrase this so that it seems like more of a shock" or "will the teacher spot my clever motif?".
Hell I know people who spent more than enough time choosing a goddamn name for their character.
And remember, we're all fucking scrubs when it comes to writing. Those people do it as their livelihood, and you're telling me they won't stop to consider what kind of effect each and every word will have on their readers?
With the exception of Fay Weldon of course. She just wrote whatever the fuck she felt like in the wake of Austen's success.
No but seriously, I bet even Weldon stopped to consider how well her work will convey her point. It's just not her fault she's not very good at it.
choo choo train
I just had a sudden remembrance (or whatever the act of remembering is) that my dreams often consist of boarding a train.
In these dreams, I don't remember actually being on the train very often. The most memorable part is the part where I am buying the ticket.
Every time I dream about this the ticket machine is like this massive ass touchscreen thing that is so counterintuitive. I have like 20 billion categories of stations and I have no idea what the hell I'm doing.
The worst thing is that every time, I'm with friends, and they get through in like 15 seconds, and I'm stuck there like an idiot for like 2 minutes while they wait.
The good thing is that I never miss the train.
I don't even know what happens after I "buy the ticket".
Fuarr this repeating motif is so interesting. I hope I randomly discover more. Oh, in case you'd like to know, people I know from school are now appearing in my dreams. Before it was either family or anonymous, which I found interesting.
Now school people are appearing with regularity.
In these dreams, I don't remember actually being on the train very often. The most memorable part is the part where I am buying the ticket.
Every time I dream about this the ticket machine is like this massive ass touchscreen thing that is so counterintuitive. I have like 20 billion categories of stations and I have no idea what the hell I'm doing.
The worst thing is that every time, I'm with friends, and they get through in like 15 seconds, and I'm stuck there like an idiot for like 2 minutes while they wait.
The good thing is that I never miss the train.
I don't even know what happens after I "buy the ticket".
Fuarr this repeating motif is so interesting. I hope I randomly discover more. Oh, in case you'd like to know, people I know from school are now appearing in my dreams. Before it was either family or anonymous, which I found interesting.
Now school people are appearing with regularity.
parasite
Many of you may be sick of this already but I want to share this thought experiment(?). Anyways I invite you to come and join the discussion.
Postulate: An unborn human baby is a parasite.
The only logical argument I've heard against it that I will accept is that by definition, technically, a parasite has to be of a different species.
But that's the only reason I heard.
It still is a living organism that only takes and does not give. So by everything other than name, they are still a parasite.
For the purposes of this discussion, I will ignore the technicality that a parasite must be of a different species. I have a feeling that most people's disagreement to having foetuses referred to as parasites is not related to my glossing over of the "different species" fact, but stems from something more sentimental. For that reason, I think that although it is not a parasite, thanks to a technicality, it is not an emotionally fulfilling answer to the postulate.
If this oversight troubles you, I would like to know why, and why you are really disagreeing.
Here are some rebuttals I have heard, and I provide my rebuttals to their rebuttals (as I said it to them, basically). If I have left yours out it is purely because I have forgotten. Please remind me, in that case :L
People want babies.
Consider people who broke their condoms and accidentally conceived. Is that baby a parasite?
Furthermore, is the parasite status conditional - can a tapeworm or leech sometimes be a parasite, and sometimes not?
Think about dieters who swallow immature tapeworms so that they can lose weight. Are you going to argue with me that by intentionally eating raw meat, or even swallowing the cysts in tablet form, is not a manifestation of their "want" for this parasite?
So the fetus is only a parasite if unwanted?
Good question. That depends. Is a parasite only a parasite if unwanted?
If I really liked leeches and I let them take my blood, do they stop being parasites? Did they redeem themselves or something?
If the answer is "no, because leeches and tapeworms are parasites always", then I answer the same about foetuses.
I'm pretty sure there's research that says that during pregnancy stem cells and other cells from the baby also go into the mother to reinforce her immune system. And that those cells stay in the mother even after the baby's born and help to increase her resistance against autoimmune diseases or something like that.
Barring the unreliability of this claim, I think you may have missed the forest for the trees. Sure, the foetus may arbitrarily "boost" the immune system, but clearly not to the point that mothers never catch a disease. Let's not forget the raging hormones, inability to move freely, leeching off nutrients, potential spinal damage, plus the all of these.
Similarly, with pre-scientific medicine, there was "research (look for 'life of the patient was preserved')" that says leeching could get rid of bad blood and treat diseases. Remember leeching was a thing they used from at least 17th century (I have a feeling it could be earlier but I couldn't find any sources), all the way up until mid-19th Century. Does this wishy-washy benefit uproot the leech's status as a parasite?
A tapeworm causes mechanical damage.
This was after Vaish shamelessly asked Mrs Flanagan. Unfortunately it was the end of the period and I did not have the time to get into a deep discussion with her :L
A baby can cause damage to the spine indirectly (like how the tapeworm indirectly causes malnutrition). They can also fuck up the cervix and vaginal canal real good during birth as well.
Morning sickness, having to pee every couple of minutes, and hardly being able to get out of bed towards the end of the pregnancy can be seen as sacrifices of physical health.
A baby also acts as some sort of hallucinogen, influencing the host to have cravings for random foods.
A baby can boost your emotional and spiritual health.
Yes. At the same time, if it was a broken condom baby, you will be losing hairs as fast as they can clog the shower drain.
Like if any of you female readers were impregnated right now, please tell me that it would be beneficial to your emotional and spiritual health. I dare you :L
Also, again, using the tapeworm diet - aren't they gaining emotional security by achieving their own desires? While their physical health declines (as seen above, arguably a foetus isn't much better), their emotional health (maybe spiritual health - I don't actually know wtf that is) is increasing in their eyes, right?
But a tapeworm is disgusting!
That, my friends, is the human placenta. It looks no better nor worse than a tapeworm. In fact, a cleaned tapeworm looks pretty fine.
As you may point out, it is unfair to use a placenta in the argument involving babies. Well to be fair a freshly born baby, with all the blood-like fluids around it, and its crying, is not much more attractive than a tapeworm.
As a human I know childbirth is actually a uniquely beautiful process and that bloody mess of noise and umbilical cord is beautiful (sentimentally), but I think we abandoned human subjectiveness and its positive bias towards offspring a LONG time ago.
A baby will eventually leave your body
You can shit out tapeworms eventually. Next.
But I heard the guy at Field of Mars say that a parasite is only a parasite if it causes harm to the point of fatality to the host organism. Not all women die of childbirth... - Susmitha
I want you to name 5 human parasites.
Then, I want you to tell me how many of those kill you while they're sucking your blood.
From a parasite's point of view, it is very disadvantageous to kill the host. It is much better to have the same host sustain a parasite for the duration of the parasite's life - that would be ideal.
does that as soon as we exit the uterus, we are no longer considered a parasite?
In the same way that when you pull a leech off your skin it is no longer considered a parasite.
Though, yes you are correct even if your question did not explicitly address the point that outside of the mother/host, it will no longer die without being attached to the host. You know, barring breast milk and their tendency to swallow whatever they can find, among all the other suicidal things babies do. But yeah, once born it's not a parasite for the sake of this discussion.
But that means you were once a parasite.
Okay.
You wife is going to dump you if you tell her it's a parasite.
My hypothetical wife dumping me does not make the baby any less of a parasite.
That's offensive.
It is only because it has negative connotations in the English language. You should overcome your subjective stigmas against these organisms. It is a scientific term and has very objective origins.
But parasites are bad for most people! How would you like a tapeworm in your body?!
I think I'd rather have a tapeworm than have a baby in my body. It's a bit worrying to have a foetus.
If you add together all the prepubescent girls, and all the males in the world, I am sure that constitutes as "most people", and hence we can conclude that a foetus will be bad for "most people".
How about when I fall pregnant, you get a tapeworm in your intestines? [Female speaker, of course]
Just because you have a parasite doesn't mean I want one.
You're going to fail section 2 of UMAT.
You may think that but at least I'll ace section 1.
Anyways the conclusion I made in class (I had to use humour because logic didn't have the greatest presence by the time these kind of comments were being made) is that
Section 1: Babies are parasites
Section 2: Babies are not parasites
Section 3: There will be 3 parasites and 1 baby in the next frame
there is a whole list of reasons there if that helps.
The only un-waffle one is 1, and that's like the first thing I addressed. I'ma be blunt now and say that that list is pretty crap. Can I trust you to come back with the ones that you don't think are stupid? Then we can talk. I can't be bothered pointing out the obvious :L.
Postulate: An unborn human baby is a parasite.
The only logical argument I've heard against it that I will accept is that by definition, technically, a parasite has to be of a different species.
But that's the only reason I heard.
It still is a living organism that only takes and does not give. So by everything other than name, they are still a parasite.
For the purposes of this discussion, I will ignore the technicality that a parasite must be of a different species. I have a feeling that most people's disagreement to having foetuses referred to as parasites is not related to my glossing over of the "different species" fact, but stems from something more sentimental. For that reason, I think that although it is not a parasite, thanks to a technicality, it is not an emotionally fulfilling answer to the postulate.
If this oversight troubles you, I would like to know why, and why you are really disagreeing.
Here are some rebuttals I have heard, and I provide my rebuttals to their rebuttals (as I said it to them, basically). If I have left yours out it is purely because I have forgotten. Please remind me, in that case :L
People want babies.
Consider people who broke their condoms and accidentally conceived. Is that baby a parasite?
Furthermore, is the parasite status conditional - can a tapeworm or leech sometimes be a parasite, and sometimes not?
Think about dieters who swallow immature tapeworms so that they can lose weight. Are you going to argue with me that by intentionally eating raw meat, or even swallowing the cysts in tablet form, is not a manifestation of their "want" for this parasite?
So the fetus is only a parasite if unwanted?
Good question. That depends. Is a parasite only a parasite if unwanted?
If I really liked leeches and I let them take my blood, do they stop being parasites? Did they redeem themselves or something?
If the answer is "no, because leeches and tapeworms are parasites always", then I answer the same about foetuses.
I'm pretty sure there's research that says that during pregnancy stem cells and other cells from the baby also go into the mother to reinforce her immune system. And that those cells stay in the mother even after the baby's born and help to increase her resistance against autoimmune diseases or something like that.
Barring the unreliability of this claim, I think you may have missed the forest for the trees. Sure, the foetus may arbitrarily "boost" the immune system, but clearly not to the point that mothers never catch a disease. Let's not forget the raging hormones, inability to move freely, leeching off nutrients, potential spinal damage, plus the all of these.
Similarly, with pre-scientific medicine, there was "research (look for 'life of the patient was preserved')" that says leeching could get rid of bad blood and treat diseases. Remember leeching was a thing they used from at least 17th century (I have a feeling it could be earlier but I couldn't find any sources), all the way up until mid-19th Century. Does this wishy-washy benefit uproot the leech's status as a parasite?
A tapeworm causes mechanical damage.
This was after Vaish shamelessly asked Mrs Flanagan. Unfortunately it was the end of the period and I did not have the time to get into a deep discussion with her :L
A baby can cause damage to the spine indirectly (like how the tapeworm indirectly causes malnutrition). They can also fuck up the cervix and vaginal canal real good during birth as well.
Morning sickness, having to pee every couple of minutes, and hardly being able to get out of bed towards the end of the pregnancy can be seen as sacrifices of physical health.
A baby also acts as some sort of hallucinogen, influencing the host to have cravings for random foods.
 |
| You will really REALLY want to do the cinnamon challenge, minion. |
Yes. At the same time, if it was a broken condom baby, you will be losing hairs as fast as they can clog the shower drain.
Like if any of you female readers were impregnated right now, please tell me that it would be beneficial to your emotional and spiritual health. I dare you :L
Also, again, using the tapeworm diet - aren't they gaining emotional security by achieving their own desires? While their physical health declines (as seen above, arguably a foetus isn't much better), their emotional health (maybe spiritual health - I don't actually know wtf that is) is increasing in their eyes, right?
But a tapeworm is disgusting!
 |
| Delectable. |
As you may point out, it is unfair to use a placenta in the argument involving babies. Well to be fair a freshly born baby, with all the blood-like fluids around it, and its crying, is not much more attractive than a tapeworm.
As a human I know childbirth is actually a uniquely beautiful process and that bloody mess of noise and umbilical cord is beautiful (sentimentally), but I think we abandoned human subjectiveness and its positive bias towards offspring a LONG time ago.
A baby will eventually leave your body
You can shit out tapeworms eventually. Next.
But I heard the guy at Field of Mars say that a parasite is only a parasite if it causes harm to the point of fatality to the host organism. Not all women die of childbirth... - Susmitha
I want you to name 5 human parasites.
Then, I want you to tell me how many of those kill you while they're sucking your blood.
From a parasite's point of view, it is very disadvantageous to kill the host. It is much better to have the same host sustain a parasite for the duration of the parasite's life - that would be ideal.
does that as soon as we exit the uterus, we are no longer considered a parasite?
In the same way that when you pull a leech off your skin it is no longer considered a parasite.
Though, yes you are correct even if your question did not explicitly address the point that outside of the mother/host, it will no longer die without being attached to the host. You know, barring breast milk and their tendency to swallow whatever they can find, among all the other suicidal things babies do. But yeah, once born it's not a parasite for the sake of this discussion.
But that means you were once a parasite.
Okay.
You wife is going to dump you if you tell her it's a parasite.
My hypothetical wife dumping me does not make the baby any less of a parasite.
That's offensive.
It is only because it has negative connotations in the English language. You should overcome your subjective stigmas against these organisms. It is a scientific term and has very objective origins.
But parasites are bad for most people! How would you like a tapeworm in your body?!
I think I'd rather have a tapeworm than have a baby in my body. It's a bit worrying to have a foetus.
If you add together all the prepubescent girls, and all the males in the world, I am sure that constitutes as "most people", and hence we can conclude that a foetus will be bad for "most people".
How about when I fall pregnant, you get a tapeworm in your intestines? [Female speaker, of course]
Just because you have a parasite doesn't mean I want one.
 |
| You know you want one. All the cool kids are doing it! |
You're going to fail section 2 of UMAT.
You may think that but at least I'll ace section 1.
Anyways the conclusion I made in class (I had to use humour because logic didn't have the greatest presence by the time these kind of comments were being made) is that
Section 1: Babies are parasites
Section 2: Babies are not parasites
Section 3: There will be 3 parasites and 1 baby in the next frame
there is a whole list of reasons there if that helps.
The only un-waffle one is 1, and that's like the first thing I addressed. I'ma be blunt now and say that that list is pretty crap. Can I trust you to come back with the ones that you don't think are stupid? Then we can talk. I can't be bothered pointing out the obvious :L.
supernatural
Two weird freaky things that happened on UNSWMed Info Night. I swear the world is so much more supernatural these days.
1.
We were walking towards the carpark after the talk, and then a couple of metres in front of us an automatic door just opened by itself. We were definitely not in range, and nobody entered or left the building. It just opened. How mysterious
2.
We were driving along this road and heard sirens behind us. They got louder and louder and then just stopped (without the usual whoop that goes when turning off a siren). It was like the car disappeared. Maybe there was an intersection that is really good at blocking sound or something.
1.
We were walking towards the carpark after the talk, and then a couple of metres in front of us an automatic door just opened by itself. We were definitely not in range, and nobody entered or left the building. It just opened. How mysterious
2.
We were driving along this road and heard sirens behind us. They got louder and louder and then just stopped (without the usual whoop that goes when turning off a siren). It was like the car disappeared. Maybe there was an intersection that is really good at blocking sound or something.
i don't even care, we can have all three
I did a Myers Briggs personality test today. Because I had forgotten my last result =P
Apparently I am the ESFP, second closest to ISFP. That's:
Extraverted (interacting with people, broad interests, tends to be rasher in decisions) rather than Introverted (focused interests, measured decisions)
Sensing (looks at, and appreciates, clear facts) rather than iNtuitive (looks at potential, and the yet unknown)
Feeling (takes a personal, subjective view as a participant) rather than Logical (uses principles, views situations with a detached, objective view)
Perceiving (flexibility, spontaneity, keeping options open) rather than Judging (structures and controls life, makes decisions and establishes closure or stability)
My leadership is more Action oriented (as opposed to the rest of the ones in the rest of the circle. Unsure what some of the other ones mean)
My "natural partners" are ISTJ and ISFJ people. Ehh, it's a stone's throw better than horoscopes at least :L
Unrelated note. Well sort of. In any case if you think I'm a douchebag this will at least make you smile:
I realised that if I'm called out for doing something stupid my first instinct is to justify my action, as opposed to reflecting on it objectively.
I don't (think I) get into these situations often, though. And I'd like to think that if I was in the wrong I wouldn't've made a huge deal out of it, and hence is easy to forget. Usually it's a misunderstanding of motives or something.
If you do remember an unresolved conflict, and it wouldn't be too annoying to bring up, I am intrigued in what they are. Chances are, if the event is still memorable in your mind, it means I still don't think I'm in the wrong :L
Anyhoos time to do more maths because my 4u rank is hilarious.
In retrospect, I read some personality profiles of ESFP, but I have no real desire to be the centre of attention, or to party all the time. Perhaps that resonates with my almost-ISFP-ness :L
Might do more reading on this soon. Or maybe just take a different test that might be more accurate :L
Apparently I am the ESFP, second closest to ISFP. That's:
Extraverted (interacting with people, broad interests, tends to be rasher in decisions) rather than Introverted (focused interests, measured decisions)
Sensing (looks at, and appreciates, clear facts) rather than iNtuitive (looks at potential, and the yet unknown)
Feeling (takes a personal, subjective view as a participant) rather than Logical (uses principles, views situations with a detached, objective view)
Perceiving (flexibility, spontaneity, keeping options open) rather than Judging (structures and controls life, makes decisions and establishes closure or stability)
My leadership is more Action oriented (as opposed to the rest of the ones in the rest of the circle. Unsure what some of the other ones mean)
My "natural partners" are ISTJ and ISFJ people. Ehh, it's a stone's throw better than horoscopes at least :L
Unrelated note. Well sort of. In any case if you think I'm a douchebag this will at least make you smile:
I realised that if I'm called out for doing something stupid my first instinct is to justify my action, as opposed to reflecting on it objectively.
I don't (think I) get into these situations often, though. And I'd like to think that if I was in the wrong I wouldn't've made a huge deal out of it, and hence is easy to forget. Usually it's a misunderstanding of motives or something.
If you do remember an unresolved conflict, and it wouldn't be too annoying to bring up, I am intrigued in what they are. Chances are, if the event is still memorable in your mind, it means I still don't think I'm in the wrong :L
Anyhoos time to do more maths because my 4u rank is hilarious.
In retrospect, I read some personality profiles of ESFP, but I have no real desire to be the centre of attention, or to party all the time. Perhaps that resonates with my almost-ISFP-ness :L
Might do more reading on this soon. Or maybe just take a different test that might be more accurate :L
happily ever after
Here are some contrived morals and interpretation of some popular fairy tales. Because I was bored okay.
Cinderella
Fact1: All her nice clothes and apparent princess-ness disappears by midnight.
Fact2: She left her slipper behind. It stayed nice and glassy for long enough so the prince could find who it fitted.
Hence, we can conclude that the clothes that are not on her body at midnight stay nice and princessy, and so does she.
Lesson: Don't be a prude, have sex on the first date. Or at the very least, get naked.
Sleeping Beauty
It's fine to kiss a babe as long as she's not conscious.
I may be wrong though. All I remember of the story is 1.Pretty girl is sleeping 2. Prince sees her 3. Briefly wonders what to do 4. Kisses her.
The Ugly Duckling
It's not fair to judge prepubescent individuals. You must wait until after puberty before deciding whether to lust or ridicule them.
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
This is what Kiwis did before they realised how much fun they could have with sheep.
iirc, the boy cried wolf cos he was lonely. By that logic, it is basically a party if you call Wolf and all the villagers come armed with spears and shit.
Rumpelstiltskin
Dwarves/midgets are fucking assholes. They also sing about their own name when nobody listens.
Rapunzel
Human hair does indeed have a similar ultimate tensile strength to industrial grade steel.
Cyanide and Happiness's Repulsel teaches us that not all hair is attached to the scalp.
The Gingerbread Man
Taught me ???. If you're good at running, don't rub it in people's faces. Otherwise a horse will eat you. This is the stupidest story ever.
Hansel and Gretel
Don't go into houses made of candy if you do not want Jigsaw to tell you he wants to play a game.
I honestly don't know why this story is suitable for children. I swear to God they got put into an oven. I'm not hallucinating right?
Jack and the Beanstalk
It is ultimately rewarding if you're trying to sell something and a guy offers you "magic beans" instead. I hypothesise that in actuality he didn't show them to his mum, but just ate it and tripped balls about that golden goose shit.
We know this is a fairytale because it talks about going into the sky and meeting a big powerful man there.
Princess and the Pea
All I remember is there's this girl who wants to enter the castle because it was a rainy night. She's a babe and claims to be a princess so the Prince says okay. The Queen (the Prince's mother) wants to test if she's a real princess by putting a pea under like 50 mattresses.
SPOILER: The girl couldn't sleep cos there was a fucking pea under all those mattresses. Man if that hurts I wonder why she doesn't have a black eye from all that rain that fell on her face. Anyways this means she's a princess (in the context of the fairytale, it is not sarcastic), and then the Prince decides to marry her. I wonder if the wedding ring broke her hand.
Lesson: If she complains about stupid shit, for some reason she's a keeper.
Goldilocks and the Three Bears
Fact1: Goldilocks comes into the house and fucks everything up
Fact2: The happy ending is that the bears scared the fuck out of her (she accidentally got mixed up between a bear and a human house, see), and she never came back. Problem solved.
Conclusion: Breaking and entering, vandalism and petty theft is instantaneously rewarding, and the problem is technically fixed so long as you do not attempt the same crime at the same house again.
Little Red Riding Hood
I'm just trying to remember why the hell this is suitable for kids. What do you learn? Don't walk in the woods by yourself. Even if your grandma somehow lives in a freaking forest.
I've always thought Little Red Riding Hood was a freaking retard.
Fact1: She was close enough to see its teeth. In the good minute of "omgah you have grown such huge ___!!!", she did not realise the distinctly non-humanoid form of the wolf.
Fact2: She could not differentiate between her grandmother's voice and a wolf's
You know, I think the protagonist is the wolf here... Are all the main characters in these stories tripping absolute balls?
The Three Little Pigs
Asking randoms for raw resources is acceptable and will work without fail. Who needs resources anyway. They're so overrated.
Blowing someone is the best way to get into their house. Conversely, telling someone you intend on eating them [out] will not work so well, "by the hairs of [his/her] chinny-chin-chin." They will probably run from you to their brothers house.
Some others that I don't remember the storyline of, but may be mockable:
Beauty and the Beast
The Little Match Girl
The Tinderbox
Thumbelina
Puss in Boots
Three Billy Goats Gruff
Tom Thumb
Cinderella
Fact1: All her nice clothes and apparent princess-ness disappears by midnight.
Fact2: She left her slipper behind. It stayed nice and glassy for long enough so the prince could find who it fitted.
Hence, we can conclude that the clothes that are not on her body at midnight stay nice and princessy, and so does she.
Lesson: Don't be a prude, have sex on the first date. Or at the very least, get naked.
Sleeping Beauty
It's fine to kiss a babe as long as she's not conscious.
I may be wrong though. All I remember of the story is 1.Pretty girl is sleeping 2. Prince sees her 3. Briefly wonders what to do 4. Kisses her.
The Ugly Duckling
It's not fair to judge prepubescent individuals. You must wait until after puberty before deciding whether to lust or ridicule them.
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
This is what Kiwis did before they realised how much fun they could have with sheep.
iirc, the boy cried wolf cos he was lonely. By that logic, it is basically a party if you call Wolf and all the villagers come armed with spears and shit.
Rumpelstiltskin
Dwarves/midgets are fucking assholes. They also sing about their own name when nobody listens.
Rapunzel
Human hair does indeed have a similar ultimate tensile strength to industrial grade steel.
Cyanide and Happiness's Repulsel teaches us that not all hair is attached to the scalp.
The Gingerbread Man
Taught me ???. If you're good at running, don't rub it in people's faces. Otherwise a horse will eat you. This is the stupidest story ever.
Hansel and Gretel
Don't go into houses made of candy if you do not want Jigsaw to tell you he wants to play a game.
I honestly don't know why this story is suitable for children. I swear to God they got put into an oven. I'm not hallucinating right?
Jack and the Beanstalk
It is ultimately rewarding if you're trying to sell something and a guy offers you "magic beans" instead. I hypothesise that in actuality he didn't show them to his mum, but just ate it and tripped balls about that golden goose shit.
We know this is a fairytale because it talks about going into the sky and meeting a big powerful man there.
Princess and the Pea
All I remember is there's this girl who wants to enter the castle because it was a rainy night. She's a babe and claims to be a princess so the Prince says okay. The Queen (the Prince's mother) wants to test if she's a real princess by putting a pea under like 50 mattresses.
SPOILER: The girl couldn't sleep cos there was a fucking pea under all those mattresses. Man if that hurts I wonder why she doesn't have a black eye from all that rain that fell on her face. Anyways this means she's a princess (in the context of the fairytale, it is not sarcastic), and then the Prince decides to marry her. I wonder if the wedding ring broke her hand.
Lesson: If she complains about stupid shit, for some reason she's a keeper.
Goldilocks and the Three Bears
Fact1: Goldilocks comes into the house and fucks everything up
Fact2: The happy ending is that the bears scared the fuck out of her (she accidentally got mixed up between a bear and a human house, see), and she never came back. Problem solved.
Conclusion: Breaking and entering, vandalism and petty theft is instantaneously rewarding, and the problem is technically fixed so long as you do not attempt the same crime at the same house again.
Little Red Riding Hood
I'm just trying to remember why the hell this is suitable for kids. What do you learn? Don't walk in the woods by yourself. Even if your grandma somehow lives in a freaking forest.
I've always thought Little Red Riding Hood was a freaking retard.
Fact1: She was close enough to see its teeth. In the good minute of "omgah you have grown such huge ___!!!", she did not realise the distinctly non-humanoid form of the wolf.
Fact2: She could not differentiate between her grandmother's voice and a wolf's
You know, I think the protagonist is the wolf here... Are all the main characters in these stories tripping absolute balls?
The Three Little Pigs
Asking randoms for raw resources is acceptable and will work without fail. Who needs resources anyway. They're so overrated.
Blowing someone is the best way to get into their house. Conversely, telling someone you intend on eating them [out] will not work so well, "by the hairs of [his/her] chinny-chin-chin." They will probably run from you to their brothers house.
Some others that I don't remember the storyline of, but may be mockable:
Beauty and the Beast
The Little Match Girl
The Tinderbox
Thumbelina
Puss in Boots
Three Billy Goats Gruff
Tom Thumb
classical physics
Today we were discussing the quantised energy levels (again) because it was "crucial to repeat Max Planck's hypothesis 5 times"
Let me first introduce the bricks and water analogy with regards to explaining (what are we calling it at this stage? Quantised states of stuff?). To be fair, Mr Khoury did express his dislike for this analogy initially - I don't see why. If you weren't being retarded like we were, it's a pretty good analogy.
So energy levels. Classical theory thought it was like water - it was a continuous variable. You can have as much water in your bucket as you want. i.e. the amount of water is a subset of the Real+ numbers
Quantum physics thinks it is like bricks. You have to add one brick at a time, it is a discrete variable. You can't (for the purposes of this demonstration) add half a brick or a quarter of a brick. i.e the "amount" of bricks is a subset of the Integers+.
Mr Khoury said something like "So classical theory thought that energy was a continuous variable. Only when Max Planck's little trick came along did anyone start considering it as a discrete variable. But if you take a look at Planck's Constant, 6.6E-34, it is a very very small number. So you can forgive them for thinking that it was continuous. The packets of energy are so small that you would be fooled into thinking it was continuous"
Me, chiming: "You could say the same about water. If you wanted to you could count the number of molecules and it is discrete."
Khoury (lol-ing): "WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO ME! WHY ARE YOU COMING ALONG WITH THIS SUBATOMIC STUFF?!"
Brian: "But we can forgive you for thinking that it is a continuous variable."
(Sadly I don't think many people heard Brian's. It was much funnier :L)
Anyways by the end of the period, I discovered that we need to know nothing about physics to pass this stupid course.
Things we don't know:
-Why quantised energies of photons would solve the UV catastrophe (neither quantitatively nor qualitatively), just that it did.
-Its impact on quantum mechanics in any greater detail than that "because now we consider energy is quantised lulz."
-I can't remember the other thing but I was thinking I was screwed because I did not understand the reasons behind many cause-effect relationships. Turns out if we can just memorise the cause-effect flow without needing to have a proper understanding of why, this topic (whatever that photoelectric effect chunk is categorised as) is set.
I swear by the end of that episode, all you need to know about Planck can almost be summarised in the formula E=hf.
Let me first introduce the bricks and water analogy with regards to explaining (what are we calling it at this stage? Quantised states of stuff?). To be fair, Mr Khoury did express his dislike for this analogy initially - I don't see why. If you weren't being retarded like we were, it's a pretty good analogy.
So energy levels. Classical theory thought it was like water - it was a continuous variable. You can have as much water in your bucket as you want. i.e. the amount of water is a subset of the Real+ numbers
Quantum physics thinks it is like bricks. You have to add one brick at a time, it is a discrete variable. You can't (for the purposes of this demonstration) add half a brick or a quarter of a brick. i.e the "amount" of bricks is a subset of the Integers+.
Mr Khoury said something like "So classical theory thought that energy was a continuous variable. Only when Max Planck's little trick came along did anyone start considering it as a discrete variable. But if you take a look at Planck's Constant, 6.6E-34, it is a very very small number. So you can forgive them for thinking that it was continuous. The packets of energy are so small that you would be fooled into thinking it was continuous"
Me, chiming: "You could say the same about water. If you wanted to you could count the number of molecules and it is discrete."
Khoury (lol-ing): "WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO ME! WHY ARE YOU COMING ALONG WITH THIS SUBATOMIC STUFF?!"
Brian: "But we can forgive you for thinking that it is a continuous variable."
(Sadly I don't think many people heard Brian's. It was much funnier :L)
Anyways by the end of the period, I discovered that we need to know nothing about physics to pass this stupid course.
Things we don't know:
-Why quantised energies of photons would solve the UV catastrophe (neither quantitatively nor qualitatively), just that it did.
-Its impact on quantum mechanics in any greater detail than that "because now we consider energy is quantised lulz."
-I can't remember the other thing but I was thinking I was screwed because I did not understand the reasons behind many cause-effect relationships. Turns out if we can just memorise the cause-effect flow without needing to have a proper understanding of why, this topic (whatever that photoelectric effect chunk is categorised as) is set.
I swear by the end of that episode, all you need to know about Planck can almost be summarised in the formula E=hf.
survey away
WOW I LIKE BLOGGER'S NEW COMPOSE SCREEN. WOW SO CLEAN. Anyways to celebrate 50 votes and also my return, here is a survey that I meticulously filled out. I started it on 24/Apr so some "what r u doing rightz nao" questions may be out of date but who cares.
Umm I couldn't be bothered waiting for 50 votes because the trend was pretty obvious.
Winner: Riff2 (60%)
Runnerup: Riff3 (29%)
Wooden Spoon: Riff1 (11%)
I will upload a new one with drums courtesy of Sun, after some re-recording, as the first version has a couple of timing errors, and I also forgot to add delay to the distortion bit.
The people have spoken - here is the winning riff. WE ARE READY TO RUMBLE
Anyways to dive back into posting, have a survey which I filled out over a couple of days because it's just so damn long.
Umm I couldn't be bothered waiting for 50 votes because the trend was pretty obvious.
Winner: Riff2 (60%)
Runnerup: Riff3 (29%)
Wooden Spoon: Riff1 (11%)
I will upload a new one with drums courtesy of Sun, after some re-recording, as the first version has a couple of timing errors, and I also forgot to add delay to the distortion bit.
The people have spoken - here is the winning riff. WE ARE READY TO RUMBLE
Anyways to dive back into posting, have a survey which I filled out over a couple of days because it's just so damn long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)