So, here's the deal, I decided a few days ago to write about those people I like to call "loud people." One might assume, "But, for someone to be a loud person don't they just have to be, y'know, loud? I can do that, AHHHHHH!" Okay, shut up, yes. Yes, that can be a loud person, but that's not what I mean. "Loud people" comes from a conversation I had with my wife when I said something to the effect of, "There are so many pretentious people at college, well maybe not that many, but they just happen to be the loudest." What do I mean by that?
Okay, to illustrate my point, have you ever been in a class that you hated because the students keep sidetracking the teacher, you can't learn anything because people keep asking dumb questions or making stupid comments? I have. I had it in a Western religions class of mine last year. I noticed something however, the comments in the class did not come from a large majority of the class. To be honest, they didn't come from even a large minority, only a paltry 2 students. One student seemed to constantly be trying to prove (in what was essentially a history class about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) that God did not exist, while the other seem to think that we didn't know enough about the predominant religion in our area, which I am a member of and I'd imagine at least half the class as well. On both ends each thought that they were right and each thought that we should all know that they were right.
The problem I had with these two students is that they thought that their opinion/belief mattered more to the professor/students/me. I'm going to tell them this, even though they won't be reading and even if they are, won't know who they are. First, if you feel compelled to speak in class ask yourself, "Does this comment help me understand what the teacher is saying or does it try to show people how smart I am?" If your answer is the latter, shut up. Second, Remember that you DO NOT know everything, so stop trying to pretend that you do. Thank you.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
My life ISN'T a meaningless sequence of moments!
You heard right every person. Me writing in this blog has actually amounted to one (1) person following me. So happy I-just-realized-that-I-have-one-follower Day, what is it, January 4th? Okay, so from now on, January 4th is I-just-realized-that-I-have-one-follower Day. Anyway, no need to disappoint any of my one (1) follower(s). So what to rant about today? I say time travel!
So, here's the deal, for Christmas I received a book. A book written by a favorite author of mine, Orson Scott Card. And before you are all, "I love Ender's Game" shut up, Ender's Game is a good book yes, but it is not Orson Scott Card's only book, so read more of his books, in a series other than the Ender series, you might actually enjoy them. Anyway, back to the point. The book, Pathfinder, deals with something that's a little confusing to me, Time Travel.
In the book the main characters have the ability to travel back in time and do things in the past to change the present. the problem is when they should or should not go into the past and do such things. It's terribly confusing. In some cases the character Umbo will get a warning from himself about some danger. Originally, the characters believe that Umbo has to go back and warn himself at a later time, because he was just warned by himself, but they conclude that since the warning was already delivered and the flow of time has been altered, that Umbo now does not have to go back. However, in another situation, Umbo decides that he will take a jewel from their own pouch, at which point, the jewel disappears. Because the jewel disappeared, Umbo has to go back later and steal the jewel, which he eventually does. So the question is, when we as humans learn the secrets of time travel, are there times where it will be necessary and unnecessary to travel through time, or does Orson Scott Card have his ideas of time travel messed up? Discuss.
So, here's the deal, for Christmas I received a book. A book written by a favorite author of mine, Orson Scott Card. And before you are all, "I love Ender's Game" shut up, Ender's Game is a good book yes, but it is not Orson Scott Card's only book, so read more of his books, in a series other than the Ender series, you might actually enjoy them. Anyway, back to the point. The book, Pathfinder, deals with something that's a little confusing to me, Time Travel.
In the book the main characters have the ability to travel back in time and do things in the past to change the present. the problem is when they should or should not go into the past and do such things. It's terribly confusing. In some cases the character Umbo will get a warning from himself about some danger. Originally, the characters believe that Umbo has to go back and warn himself at a later time, because he was just warned by himself, but they conclude that since the warning was already delivered and the flow of time has been altered, that Umbo now does not have to go back. However, in another situation, Umbo decides that he will take a jewel from their own pouch, at which point, the jewel disappears. Because the jewel disappeared, Umbo has to go back later and steal the jewel, which he eventually does. So the question is, when we as humans learn the secrets of time travel, are there times where it will be necessary and unnecessary to travel through time, or does Orson Scott Card have his ideas of time travel messed up? Discuss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)