Today is November 11th, 2011, or 11-11-11. I agree with people that it is a bit of a novelty, being all ones, but is it as special as some people make it out to be. People are so excited to be getting married today that on the news I saw a line of people outside a courthouse just to file the papers to get married. I read an article a week or so ago in the newspaper about a woman who was adamant that she get married on either 10-10-10, 11-11-11, or 12-12-12, and she got today. I've been seeing 11-11-11 all over the place for the past month and, honestly, it's been bugging me a lot. I don't think I really realized why it bugged me so much until this morning at work.
I work at a job that takes care of developmentally disabled people and in the mornings I go to their houses and help them get ready for the day. As I was leaving one house this morning I noticed a flag on the lawn, placed there by the local boy scout troop in honor of Veterans Day. And that's when it hit me, today should be about veterans not the novelty.
Veterans Day has always been somewhat important to me, probably because it's the day after my birthday. Ever since I found out that Veterans Day was November 11th I have observed it in the very least by announcing to people that it's Veterans Day. This year however, Veterans Day has a more personal meaning to me. I feel that on Veterans Day we should not only honor those who have served in the armed forces but also those who are serving right now, regardless of their technical status as a "veteran." A few months ago my brother-in-law, husband of my sister, was deployed to Afghanistan. I'm gonna be honest about this and if he's reading, don't hate me for saying this. When I first met my Brother-in-law, Kelson, I found him annoying. When he dated my sister, I found him even more annoying, and when they got engaged was extremely annoyed, but something has happened. I've realized that Kelson is exactly what my sister needs and therefore exactly what my family needs. To hear that he was deployed was like hearing that my own brother had been deployed. I know that it's affected my sister, even if she puts the happy face on it whenever I talk to her. In the end though, Kelson is family.
This is for Kelson. Don't do anything stupid out there Kelson, because my sister needs you and we need you. I may still think you're kind of a doofus, but as Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly said, "You're part of my crew." So do what you need to do and get home safe.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Being an individual
I wonder about "individuals." What do people think being an individual is? I think that the most common definition is that being an individual means not doing things that everyone else does, but I feel like that explains everybody and nobody at the same time. On the one hand, everybody has their own things that they do, nobody really is an exact copy of anybody else. At the same time, most of the things we do we're only aware of because other people do those things. The guy at school might seem like he's really out of the ordinary because he's wearing a cape, until you see the other girl that wears a cape as well. Similarly, to all other eyes a person may seem like he conforms to social norms, but then you realize that person is a brony(That one's for you little brother). So really, what makes someone an "individual?"
In my opinion, an individual is not someone who chooses what they do based on how they feel about social rules. I always get tired of those people who enjoy something and then get tired of it because "everybody's doing it." An individual is someone who unabashedly does what they enjoy. If you're a brony, don't hide it, wear that t-shirt. If you like the way a cape feels, wear it for that reason, not because nobody else wears it. I own and wear two fedoras, not because I support snobby fedora wearers and not because I am opposed to those that don't wear fedoras. I wear my fedoras because I like them, they make me happy. If it makes you happy to wear the latest styles, then be an individual and wear the latest styles. If it makes you happy to wear a cape in public, do that.
Anyway, I just have something against people who say they're an individual when I don't think they are. I think they are just doing things because they don't want to conform. Conformity doesn't have to take away individuality and non-conformity does not add individuality.
In my opinion, an individual is not someone who chooses what they do based on how they feel about social rules. I always get tired of those people who enjoy something and then get tired of it because "everybody's doing it." An individual is someone who unabashedly does what they enjoy. If you're a brony, don't hide it, wear that t-shirt. If you like the way a cape feels, wear it for that reason, not because nobody else wears it. I own and wear two fedoras, not because I support snobby fedora wearers and not because I am opposed to those that don't wear fedoras. I wear my fedoras because I like them, they make me happy. If it makes you happy to wear the latest styles, then be an individual and wear the latest styles. If it makes you happy to wear a cape in public, do that.
Anyway, I just have something against people who say they're an individual when I don't think they are. I think they are just doing things because they don't want to conform. Conformity doesn't have to take away individuality and non-conformity does not add individuality.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Casey Anthony Trial
So, I was at home yesterday, turned on the news, and the anchorman was telling me that in just a little while I would hear the verdict of the Casey Anthony Trial. So I stuck around to see that verdict and to be honest, I'm not as pissed off about it as everybody else seems to be. Allow me to explain why.
First off, I have been following this trial to some degree. I work every morning from 6:30 to 8:30 am and have the opportunity to catch the news in that time. This means that I get the tail end of my local morning news and then I get the Today show. At 7:30 every morning for the past month, the Today show has covered what happened the day before in the Casey Anthony trial. I was aware of the evidence the prosecution had against Casey. I heard sound bites of testimony. I saw the prosecution and defense bicker like an old married couple over things I didn't understand. I saw so many pictures of Caylee and Casey that I have them permanently etched in my brain. What I'm saying is that I was very aware of this case, and a few things bugged me.
I should mention first of all that just before the trial started my sister wrote on Facebook:
I believe that quote helped me to look at the case in a more objective light. Yes, there are suspicious things about Casey's behavior, her lying, her car, etc. But just because you have suspicions doesn't mean you're right. All the evidence I saw in this case was circumstantial. There was no concrete proof that Casey murdered her daughter. And I can tell that I'm not the only person that believes that. Twelve jurors agreed that the evidence the prosecution brought forth was not enough to find Casey guilty of murder, manslaughter, or child abuse.
I think the reason people are so angry is because, first of all, very few people have a complete understanding of what happened in that trial. This trial was going from 9am to 5pm five days a week and 8:30am to 1pm on Saturdays, that's 44 hours and 30 minutes a week. When all was said and done there was over 230 hours spent in court on this trial, just over a week and a half. Are there any of us who had the time to sit down and watch that every day for a month? Were we there for the whole thing, or were we (like me) just getting little snippets on the news every morning and evening along with somebody analyzing it with the preconceived notion that Casey was a killer? I believe that the jury knew what it was doing in this case and that the verdict they arrived at was a demonstration of the justice system working in America.
I closing, give Casey a break, she has had to put up with your vile, hateful, toxic, attitude toward a situation of hers that you know nothing about. Stop treating her like scum and treat her, like my sister said, with respect.
Update: I just found this article from one of the jurors in the case.
First off, I have been following this trial to some degree. I work every morning from 6:30 to 8:30 am and have the opportunity to catch the news in that time. This means that I get the tail end of my local morning news and then I get the Today show. At 7:30 every morning for the past month, the Today show has covered what happened the day before in the Casey Anthony trial. I was aware of the evidence the prosecution had against Casey. I heard sound bites of testimony. I saw the prosecution and defense bicker like an old married couple over things I didn't understand. I saw so many pictures of Caylee and Casey that I have them permanently etched in my brain. What I'm saying is that I was very aware of this case, and a few things bugged me.
I should mention first of all that just before the trial started my sister wrote on Facebook:
I think the reason people are so angry is because, first of all, very few people have a complete understanding of what happened in that trial. This trial was going from 9am to 5pm five days a week and 8:30am to 1pm on Saturdays, that's 44 hours and 30 minutes a week. When all was said and done there was over 230 hours spent in court on this trial, just over a week and a half. Are there any of us who had the time to sit down and watch that every day for a month? Were we there for the whole thing, or were we (like me) just getting little snippets on the news every morning and evening along with somebody analyzing it with the preconceived notion that Casey was a killer? I believe that the jury knew what it was doing in this case and that the verdict they arrived at was a demonstration of the justice system working in America.
I closing, give Casey a break, she has had to put up with your vile, hateful, toxic, attitude toward a situation of hers that you know nothing about. Stop treating her like scum and treat her, like my sister said, with respect.
Update: I just found this article from one of the jurors in the case.
Monday, May 23, 2011
I got something stuck in my craw. . .
Y'know what my problem is? Well I gotta few. I'm not particularly good looking (which isn't that big a deal because I'm married, in fact that's not even really a problem now, considering I am married and would like to remain married), I'm kind of an airhead, I'm easily distracted, and so forth. But this isn't supposed to be about what's wrong with me, it's what's wrong with everybody else. That problem, my dear friends, is that we live in a society where people don't want to accept the consequences of their actions. I remember growing up and being taught that when you make a choice you have to deal with the consequences (I seem to remember some video in first grade involving a dragon or something talking about choices and consequences, but I don't remember it extremely well). Sure, people understand this concept on the surface, "If I'm not nice to my significant other they will leave me," or "If I eat this poisonous plant I will die." What gets me is how many people will make a choice, not like it, and then try to avoid unpleasant consequences.
The best example I have of this is abortion. We all learn that babies come from sex, it's just how babies happen, unless you're Angelina Jolie, in which case babies come from third world countries. Anyway, it is possible for a woman to avoid sex in most cases and it is also possible for a woman to, if she is having sex, avoid getting pregnant (again there are case where some things are unavoidable, but those are unsavory and I don't wish to discuss them today). I imagine that if a woman a) chooses to have sex and b) does not use contraception, then if she wake up one morning puking and finds out she has a baby growing inside her, she should totally not be surprised. It's the natural consequence of the choices she made. but in society today it is becoming more and more acceptable to avoid that consequence by getting an abortion, which in my mind is basically like saying, "So what if I made a stupid decision, I shouldn't have to deal with the logical course of events following that stupid decision."
My second example could be a touchy one for some people, but y'know what? The internet is a place where people say things they won't say out loud because they aren't jerky enough, so here I go. I have no problems with people who say they have ADD or ADHD, in many cases those are things that can actually make it very difficult for a person to function in school, work, or general social situations. What I have a problem with is parents who seem to not want to deal with the consequences of the decision they made to have children. I don't have kids yet, but I was raised with six younger siblings, so I am aware that children can be loud, needy, rambunctious, and so forth. I am aware that raising children will be hard when my wife and I start doing so. But if my kid is having trouble in school I'm going to try every other option I can before telling a doctor, "yeah, he probably has ADHD, what meds can we give him?" I feel like there are too many parents out there that don't want to deal with a kid who has ADHD and will put them on medication. When someone is put on medication early in life, what does that teach them? That if you're having trouble with something you just need to pop a pill and all your troubles will go away. Does anyone else think that sounds like someone who's likely to grow up abusing drugs? And those parents, what is their rationale? "I know kids can be difficult, but I didn't know it would be this difficult, if only there was some magic pill that made my child easier to deal with so I could have a break." I'm here to tell you something parents, you never get a break, I'm 23, married, and live 100 miles from my parent and they still don't get a break from me, my grandparents still worry about and deal with their children's problems. Kids don't just go away and they don't just magically become perfect specimens of calm focus. It's not going to happen.
In all, I'm saying, look at what you're doing in life, what your beliefs are. If you think that there are situations where someone shouldn't deal with the consequences of their actions, maybe you should re-think that point of view. But if you don't, whatever, your loss I guess.
The best example I have of this is abortion. We all learn that babies come from sex, it's just how babies happen, unless you're Angelina Jolie, in which case babies come from third world countries. Anyway, it is possible for a woman to avoid sex in most cases and it is also possible for a woman to, if she is having sex, avoid getting pregnant (again there are case where some things are unavoidable, but those are unsavory and I don't wish to discuss them today). I imagine that if a woman a) chooses to have sex and b) does not use contraception, then if she wake up one morning puking and finds out she has a baby growing inside her, she should totally not be surprised. It's the natural consequence of the choices she made. but in society today it is becoming more and more acceptable to avoid that consequence by getting an abortion, which in my mind is basically like saying, "So what if I made a stupid decision, I shouldn't have to deal with the logical course of events following that stupid decision."
My second example could be a touchy one for some people, but y'know what? The internet is a place where people say things they won't say out loud because they aren't jerky enough, so here I go. I have no problems with people who say they have ADD or ADHD, in many cases those are things that can actually make it very difficult for a person to function in school, work, or general social situations. What I have a problem with is parents who seem to not want to deal with the consequences of the decision they made to have children. I don't have kids yet, but I was raised with six younger siblings, so I am aware that children can be loud, needy, rambunctious, and so forth. I am aware that raising children will be hard when my wife and I start doing so. But if my kid is having trouble in school I'm going to try every other option I can before telling a doctor, "yeah, he probably has ADHD, what meds can we give him?" I feel like there are too many parents out there that don't want to deal with a kid who has ADHD and will put them on medication. When someone is put on medication early in life, what does that teach them? That if you're having trouble with something you just need to pop a pill and all your troubles will go away. Does anyone else think that sounds like someone who's likely to grow up abusing drugs? And those parents, what is their rationale? "I know kids can be difficult, but I didn't know it would be this difficult, if only there was some magic pill that made my child easier to deal with so I could have a break." I'm here to tell you something parents, you never get a break, I'm 23, married, and live 100 miles from my parent and they still don't get a break from me, my grandparents still worry about and deal with their children's problems. Kids don't just go away and they don't just magically become perfect specimens of calm focus. It's not going to happen.
In all, I'm saying, look at what you're doing in life, what your beliefs are. If you think that there are situations where someone shouldn't deal with the consequences of their actions, maybe you should re-think that point of view. But if you don't, whatever, your loss I guess.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
. . .sorry. . .
So, Y'all remember that schedule thing I was going to do? Yeah, I kinda screwed up, various events have zapped my desire to write a blog about silly things like that. In any case I think I'll go back to just writing what interests me at the time, which at this time is making sure my massive throngs of followers aren't disappointed that I haven't been writing. I am still alive everyone, but I'd like to know what I should write about. Give me some ideas, okay, i think I'll keep doing the R-Wad but I don't know when, as for SCuF, it takes so long, so unless I can outsource it to someone that has much more reliable internet access and a ton more free time than I do, I don't know if I can continue doing it weekly. Sorry. You'll be hearing from me soon, hopefully.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
SCuF for April 30, 2011
So, it's Saturday, time for the SCuF (Saturday Cuteness Factor)!
Without further ado, image one.
Without further ado, image one.
Fluffiness 2
Size (Tinier=better) 4
Affection 2
Anthropomorphism 0
Roundness 2
Eyes (Bigger=better) 3
Harmlessness 4
Total: 17
Explanation time!
Fluffiness - 2: Chihuahua's are furry but not really fluffy
Size - 4: This picture is definitely cheating in the size category, it's a chihuahua for crying out loud! The smallest dog in the world!
Affection - 2: This dog doesn't look so much affectionate as it looks bored, it doesn't even seem to care that it's getting its picture taken.
Anthropomorphism - 0: Honestly, this doesn't really look human-y tome at all, it just look dog-ish.
Roundness - 2: Okay, so his head is a little round but other than that you don't get much else.
Eyes - 3: In proportion to it's body, a little chihuahua has gigantic eyes, I just feel that if this one tried a little harder he could make his eyes HUUUUGE.
Harmlessness - 4: Like I said earlier, this dog looks bored, he ain't gonna hurt you at all.
So that gives this lazy chihuahua a score of 17, which, after a quick review is a record low. OUCH!
So, let's see what image two has for us.
Fluffiness 4
Size (Tinier=better) 4
Affection 4
Anthropomorphism 3
Roundness 3
Eyes (Bigger=better) 1
Harmlessness 5
Total: 24
Explanation:
Fluffiness - 4: The combined power of a fluffy baby chick and a big lazy furry St. Bernard gives this one a high fluff score.
Size - 4: This score is based, not so much on the size of both parties in the picture, but more on the juxtaposition, A St. Bernard will weigh, on average, 200 lbs, a baby chicken, however weighs 0.088184 lbs, which means this dog is approximately 2270 times the size of this chick, yet it is not crushing it. CUUUTE!
Affection - 4: These two look like they're about to freaking kiss each other, there's so much affection here, yeesh.
Anthropomorphism - 3: Other than the stated near-kiss that these two are doing, there's not much human-like about them.
Roundness - 3: A baby chick is inherently round, and a St. Bernard is somewhat rounded as well, but this picture might get a higher score if we had been able to see the roundness of the dog as well as the chick.
Eyes -1: Alas, the lowest score of this picture, it is because you can't really see a St. Bernard's eyes and the chick just doesn't have huge eyes anyways.
Harmlessness - 5: One look at this picture and you see that these two are in no position to harm each other at all, that chick wouldn't even get a scratch on that dog and that dog is too big and lazy to even try.
So, all tallied up that gives this picture a 24, which, surprisingly is a record high, easy to see who wins this one! Join me next week when I apply science to another set of pictures.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
R-WAD for April 27th 2011: Stan Goldberg
So, it's random Wikipedia article day and today's random Wikipedia article is on a man by the name of Stan Goldberg
So, if you're looking at the picture and thinking "eeeeeeewwwwww, he's an old guy." Then first, I have to agree with you, he is old. Second, do you know who else is old? Stan Lee, yeah, the guy who's responsible for all your favorite superheros that aren't Superman or Batman. "Why are you talking about Stan Lee in an article about ugly old Stan Goldberg," you ask? Well because this guy is responsible for Spider-man wearing red and blue. And I quote: "Stan [Lee] was writing Fantastic Four, Spider-man and all those books. I was doing the initial colouring on all those books; I was creating the colour schemes on all those characters" (Adelai Comics and Books). That's right, this guy put The Fantastic Four in blue, and Spider-man in red and blue. Also, he spells color weird, especially weird since he was born in New York.
 |
| This guy! |
Anyway, Stan started out working for Timely Comics (which was essentially the baby form to Marvel's full-grown adult) in 1949. In two years he had worked his way into the position of coloring-department manager and was in charge of, as he put it, coloring "every cover the rest of the decade," and during that time Timely Comics grew into the adolescent form, Atlas Comics.
In 1958 Stan went freelance and eventually ended up doing a lot of the coloring for Marvel. In 1968 he stopped doing freelance work for Marvel and then started being more associated with the Archie comics. He's did work for the Archie Comics up until mid-2006, since then it seems he's slowed down but still does a little bit of freelance work from time to time.
I get the feeling that a man like that never really grows up, sure he has to deal with adult issues, (bills, bills, bills, etc.) and now, because of his age (he'll be 79 on May 5th this year) he probably even has to deal with old person issues, (liver spots, sciatica, lumbago, rutabaga, asparagus, etc.) but he still probably finds the time and energy to add his own little touch to a few comics here and there. If there's one lesson I can learn from Stan Goldberg it's this. Never grow up, but even if you do, add a bit of you as a kid to everything you do.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Saturday Cuteness Factor(SCuF) April 23, 2011
Okay, so I was supposed to write this last night and post it this morning, but I got lazy. So, without any further ado, it's the SATURDAY CUTENESS FACTOR!!!!!!!!!!
Ahem, so Image 1
Now, as far as I know, a hexagon is not a circle. And this one fails at even being slightly a circle.
Eyes - 1: This one's got tiny eyes, or at least, squinty eyes, not really big ones.
Harmlessness - 4: This cat is just tired, it ain't gonna do anything to actually try to hurt you. It might glare at you with contempt but it's too lazy to get up and beat you up.
Total score is 18/35
Ok, second picture.
Ahem, so Image 1
Fluffiness 2
Size (Tinier=better) 3
Affection 2
Anthropomorphism 4
Roundness 2
Eyes (Bigger=better) 1
Harmlessness 4
Total: 18
Explanations:
Fluffiness - 2: This cat is furry, but not really fluffy. Furriness and fluffiness are two different (but slightly related) things. This cat is not really in the category of the super fluffy, hence below average.
Size - 3: I gave this cat an average score in size. Why? Well, first of all it doesn't seem like a kitten. though I can't see the whole body, that irked look totally says adolescent, "You just don't understand my pain" kind of cat, however, cats in general are small animals, in relation to us humans, so, being a large small animal, I averaged the two out, which ended up being, um, average.
Affection - 2: This cat is definitely not affectionate, in fact, it almost seems downright hostile, like, "Get that camera away from my face before I claw your eyes out."
Anthropomorphism - 4: This is actually a fairly humanistic pose, who doesn't like resting their head on something and glaring angrily at everyone? I don't mind doing it one bit, that's probably why people think I hate them so much. . .
Roundness - 2: This cat is not very round. in fact as show by this graphic, it is more of a hexagonal shape, even slightly triangular:
 |
| Yep, it's got 6 sides on it's face. |
Eyes - 1: This one's got tiny eyes, or at least, squinty eyes, not really big ones.
Harmlessness - 4: This cat is just tired, it ain't gonna do anything to actually try to hurt you. It might glare at you with contempt but it's too lazy to get up and beat you up.
Total score is 18/35
Ok, second picture.
Fluffiness 3
Size (Tinier=better) 4
Affection 2
Anthropomorphism 3
Roundness 4
Eyes (Bigger=better) 4
Harmlessness 4
Total: 23
Let's talk the why!
Fluffiness - 3: This cat is is still not really fluffy but a little bit fluffier than it's angry teenage brother up there.
Size - 4: This is a kitten, kittens are by very definition tiny cats, and cats are some pretty small animals anyway. which means that baby cats are tiny, hence an above average score.
Affection - 2: The emotion that comes to mind when I see this kitten is not affection. It's curiosity, which is good, but according to my very scientific method, does not affect any part of it's score.
Anthropomorphism - 3: The curiousness of this kitten is, in a vague way, human-ish. But not enough to say, "That is a very human-ish thing this kitten is doing."
Roundness - 4: LOOK AT THAT HEAD! This kitten looks like a freaking lollipop, what with that skinny little body.
Eyes - 4: If that head is a lollipop, those eyes are like the gum part in the middle of a blow-pop. Enough that you can't bite into it without getting gum, but not so much that theirs no hard candy.
Harmlessness - 4: The only thing this kitten is gonna hurt is itself,.Y'know, the whole "curiosity killed the cat" thing? Yep, they never say, "curiosity killed the cat and all other life forms around it." Although I wonder if that's more accurate. . . hmm. . . .
So, that gives it a score of 23/35
So the winner is the kitten by 5 points. Although I should mention that my wife disagrees with my score and thinks that lazy cat should win, but the numbers don't lie, it's SCIENCE!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Random Wikipedia Article Day: Robert J. Kleberg (King Ranch)
So, why am I writing about Robert J. Kleberg? Well here's why, it's Wednesday, and the thing about Wednesday is that I go here:
click on where I circled which takes me here:
And Click on where that other circle is, and it takes me to, as can be assumed, a Random article. Today that brought me to Robert J. Kleberg (King Ranch). And now I'm go to tell you what little I know about him and use my imagination to fill in the details this very short article doesn't address.
Kleberg was born in Texas in 1853 To Rose and Robert Kleberg Sr. He attended University of Virginia, and majored in 18th century agrarian business. He then wandered Texas for years looking for some use of his useless degree until he was hired by Richard King as the legal counsel, presumably because King was afraid of an uprising on his Texas ranch, conveniently called King Ranch. When King died, due to a coyote attack, Kleberg took over the ranch. One day, while Kleberg was shooting at some food, up from the ground came a bubbling crude. Oil that is. Black gold. Texas tea. Kleberg died in Texas in 1932, which for those who were the heirs of his massive fortune, was the only bright hope that decade, considering it was some sort of big depression thing at the time.
All right, so without reading the article, tell me, which parts of my account are real and which are fabricated, and if you can tell me what they are fabricated from I will give you 1,000,000 points.*
*Points not redeemable for any assets, tangible or intangible.
click on where I circled which takes me here:
And Click on where that other circle is, and it takes me to, as can be assumed, a Random article. Today that brought me to Robert J. Kleberg (King Ranch). And now I'm go to tell you what little I know about him and use my imagination to fill in the details this very short article doesn't address.
Kleberg was born in Texas in 1853 To Rose and Robert Kleberg Sr. He attended University of Virginia, and majored in 18th century agrarian business. He then wandered Texas for years looking for some use of his useless degree until he was hired by Richard King as the legal counsel, presumably because King was afraid of an uprising on his Texas ranch, conveniently called King Ranch. When King died, due to a coyote attack, Kleberg took over the ranch. One day, while Kleberg was shooting at some food, up from the ground came a bubbling crude. Oil that is. Black gold. Texas tea. Kleberg died in Texas in 1932, which for those who were the heirs of his massive fortune, was the only bright hope that decade, considering it was some sort of big depression thing at the time.
All right, so without reading the article, tell me, which parts of my account are real and which are fabricated, and if you can tell me what they are fabricated from I will give you 1,000,000 points.*
*Points not redeemable for any assets, tangible or intangible.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Guess what! I'm gonna have a schedule!
Okay all you people, I'm gonna start being a little more organized with this blog. I decided this morning that I could probably start doing a weekly schedule for my posts. So here's my plan, first every Saturday you're gonna get a discussion on why one picture is cuter than another, pictures courtesy of thecutest.info, and quantitative cuteness determined by a possibility of 35 points derived from:
Also, on every Wednesday I will post a commentary on whatever random Wikipedia article that I pull up. I will also randomly intersperse my own rantings, like I have been, but at least I have a basic schedule to keep to. So, without further ado, onto the SATURDAY CUTENESS FACTOR or the SCuF, as I'll call it.
Okay, today's first picture is:
Fluffiness - 5
Size (Tinier=better) - 5
Affection - 5
Anthropomorphism – 5
Roundness – 5
Eyes (Bigger=better) – 5
Harmlessness -5Also, on every Wednesday I will post a commentary on whatever random Wikipedia article that I pull up. I will also randomly intersperse my own rantings, like I have been, but at least I have a basic schedule to keep to. So, without further ado, onto the SATURDAY CUTENESS FACTOR or the SCuF, as I'll call it.
Okay, today's first picture is:
Fluffiness 2
Size (Tinier=better) 3
Affection 3
Anthropomorphism 4
Roundness 2
Eyes (Bigger=better) 1
Harmlessness 4
Total: 19
Explanation of scores:
Fluffiness - 2: Bears a less fluffy than, say, a bunny, however, these are baby bears, and as such they have a bit more fluff than they will will they grow up. Thus, below average in fluffy but higher than nothing.
Size - 3: Size was tough here, is it size in proportion to humans or in proportion to grown bears, in the end I decided to not worry about that and just average it out.
Affection - 3: On the one hand it looks like the cub on the right is giving his brother a piece of food or something, on the other hand, it could be that the one on the right is getting ready to punch his smart-mouthed sibling in his self-righteous stomach (2 points to me for alliteration). In any case, the uncertainty of what's going on give this an average score.
Anthropomorphism - 4: As stated earlier, the bear on the right looks as though he's giving the other on a sandwich, probably either tuna or knuckle. Giving someone a sandwich is a very human-y thing to do, and so, these little cubs score above average on the "I look human-like" scale.
Roundness - 2: Let's get this out of the way, bear cubs aren't round, but the way that one is standing he looks kind of round, so he gets a just below average score.
Eyes - 1: In proportion to their heads, bears have small eyes. these small eyes are not big eyes, and so, a poor score on this one.
Harmlessness - 4: Bears are not harmless, but baby bears are somewhat harmless. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Mama Bear is standing just outside the shot ready to maul this photographer that's stealing her babies' souls, but these baby's are pretty harmless themselves.
So, that brings us to a total score of 19/35
Okay, second picture:
Okay, second picture:
Fluffiness 3
Size (Tinier=better) 5
Affection 3
Anthropomorphism 4
Roundness 4
Eyes (Bigger=better) 0
Harmlessness 4
Total: 23
Explanation time!
Fluffiness - 3: You may look at this and say, "that's not fluffy, it's spikey!" And I say "Well it LOOKS kinda fluffish," And that is why I gave it an average score.
Size - 5: Seriously, do you need an explanation, it so tiny, you can tell!
Affection - 3: I'm not sure exactly what this little baby sonic is doing, but I'm not sure if it's considered "affectionate." Maybe it's asking for a cookie though in the most adorable way possible. On the off-chance that that's what it's doing, I'm giving this thing an average score.
Anthropomorphism - 4: This just looks like something a human baby would do to get a cookie (as mentioned above), or what any human does while yawning, therefore, above average.
Roundness - 4: The only thing that stops this little thing from getting a perfect 5 here is that it is spiny, which takes away slightly from the roundness.
Eyes - 0: I probably would have given this at least an average score, but I can't see the eyes, so they aren't a factor in my calculations.
Harmlessness - 4: The only thing keeping this from being completely harmless is those spikes, they keep getting in his way of a perfect score. Sad.
Anyway, that brings the total to 23 which means that the little yawning hedgehog beats the fighting bears by 4 points, but don't worry baby bears, you still probably beat someone else, even if it's just your brother.
Thank you for reading the SCuF! Hopefully you enjoyed it. Join me on Wednesday when I will discuss the topic of a random Wikipedia article. THANKS!
Monday, April 11, 2011
Mad Rantings at 2 am
For some reason I feel like blogging at 2 am. Yeah, weird, but I figure it's just a way to get things out, even if nobody reads it. By a raise of hands, how many of you have been in college? Okay, and how many of you were married when you were in college? Finally, how many of you had absolutely no money. Yep, that's where I am right now. Married broke college student. Not that I'm annoyed at the married, or the college student parts, it's the broke that bugs me. I mean, when you hang around 20-something's all the time, you feel like everyone's got everything figured out except you. You feel like everyone's got a better job than you, everyone's got more money. They can afford gas, they can pay rent, they can buy enough food to feed their family. The worst part, is everyone seems so darn confident about everything. I wish I could feel confident. I wish I could feel like what I'm doing is enough, but every time I get a paycheck it says, "You're not enough." Every time I go to class and don't understand what's going on it feels like everyone in class thinks, "Wow, this is so simple an untrained monkey could figure it out, you moron." So what in the world can I do about it?
I love being married, my wife is fantastic. She believes in me, thinks I can do anything, but, even though that makes me feel a little better, there's so much more in the world that says I can't do things right. I just wish there was some way to fall into a vat of money that's just enough for what you need. I wish we weren't in debt, I wish we didn't have all the bills we had. I want to be able to provide for my wife and make her feel safe, but I think it's impossible to do that when I don't feel safe myself.
So here's the big question? Why in the world am I asking the silly internet about it? The internet is famous for being a place where if you ask a question you're going to get a dumb answer, no matter how intelligent the question is. The internet is a place where people will mock and ridicule you for doing something you love. The internet is for overused cliches where people tell you, "It'll be okay, don't worry, it'll all work out." Well that's fine and dandy and thanks for offering advice on what to do so things work out. I don't need reassurance, I need advice. I don't need stupid answers, I need actual help. I don't need mock and ridicule, I need someone to build me up and make me feel useful to society, if only because I made them smile.
So, I pose this question to the few people on the internet that will read this, what can I do? And I don't need emotional solutions. I'm sorry, but I'm the kind of person that needs people to give me a place to go, a task to accomplish, and a result to expect. I feel like I've wandered around aimlessly for too long. Reassurance is good, but it's better when it comes with meaningful advice on how to solve the problem.
I'm sorry people of the internet for being as angsty as an emo teen. As consolation, here's a picture that will hopefully make you smile.
Thanks, all two of you, for reading my ranting.
I love being married, my wife is fantastic. She believes in me, thinks I can do anything, but, even though that makes me feel a little better, there's so much more in the world that says I can't do things right. I just wish there was some way to fall into a vat of money that's just enough for what you need. I wish we weren't in debt, I wish we didn't have all the bills we had. I want to be able to provide for my wife and make her feel safe, but I think it's impossible to do that when I don't feel safe myself.
So here's the big question? Why in the world am I asking the silly internet about it? The internet is famous for being a place where if you ask a question you're going to get a dumb answer, no matter how intelligent the question is. The internet is a place where people will mock and ridicule you for doing something you love. The internet is for overused cliches where people tell you, "It'll be okay, don't worry, it'll all work out." Well that's fine and dandy and thanks for offering advice on what to do so things work out. I don't need reassurance, I need advice. I don't need stupid answers, I need actual help. I don't need mock and ridicule, I need someone to build me up and make me feel useful to society, if only because I made them smile.
So, I pose this question to the few people on the internet that will read this, what can I do? And I don't need emotional solutions. I'm sorry, but I'm the kind of person that needs people to give me a place to go, a task to accomplish, and a result to expect. I feel like I've wandered around aimlessly for too long. Reassurance is good, but it's better when it comes with meaningful advice on how to solve the problem.
I'm sorry people of the internet for being as angsty as an emo teen. As consolation, here's a picture that will hopefully make you smile.
Thanks, all two of you, for reading my ranting.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
California
Today, I heard an interesting conversation. I walked up to my first class of the day and started waiting for it to start (side note: I'd like you all to think about the phrase "started waiting for it to start. . ."). As I was standing in the hallway outside the classroom I noticed a guy talking about how he had apparently just got kicked out of his apartment and his mom was going to come to Utah in early April to pick him up and take him back to California. Actually he didn't say a word about California until about halfway through his rant, but I surmised that California was where he was from early on. "But how did you know he was from California?" you ask, wondering if I have psychic powers. Don't worry, your plans for world domination are safe from me, for I have no psychic powers, only my awesome powers of deductive reasoning. See, this guy said, "man, I hate Utah so much." To which his friend replied, "So, your going to move from one place you absolutely hate to another place you absolutely hate?" Mover responded, "Oh, I'm not gonna live with my mom, I've already been paying rent on a place for the last couple of months." You see, this is how I learned he was from California.
As I've learned in life, There are some Californians have about as much pride in their state as Texans, but those Californians also have a massive disdain for any state that isn't California. Apparently this guy, though readily telling his friend about how much he hated living at home, was quick to point out that it would still be better than living on his own in Utah. Maybe this is just a think against Utah though, maybe he was all angry that there are so many Mormons in Utah. I don't know. Anyway, that's been my experience with some Californians. I guess people can be like that no matter where they're from. So a word of advice to you, No matter where you're from, have respect for the place you are in. It's amazing the kinds of things you'll enjoy when you stop whining about how much better your hometown is.
Oh, and happy birthday to Alex, Dan, and Sean. Yeah, I remember all of those and Facebook didn't have to tell me.
As I've learned in life, There are some Californians have about as much pride in their state as Texans, but those Californians also have a massive disdain for any state that isn't California. Apparently this guy, though readily telling his friend about how much he hated living at home, was quick to point out that it would still be better than living on his own in Utah. Maybe this is just a think against Utah though, maybe he was all angry that there are so many Mormons in Utah. I don't know. Anyway, that's been my experience with some Californians. I guess people can be like that no matter where they're from. So a word of advice to you, No matter where you're from, have respect for the place you are in. It's amazing the kinds of things you'll enjoy when you stop whining about how much better your hometown is.
Oh, and happy birthday to Alex, Dan, and Sean. Yeah, I remember all of those and Facebook didn't have to tell me.
Monday, February 21, 2011
I am still alive
So, I haven't written anything here for awhile. Sorry. I know that some of you have been sitting by your computer, constantly refreshing my blog to see if I wrote something new. And I'm sure some even said "Oh, how sad, he's probably dead." Well guess what! I'm NOT dead. But you know who is? Billy Mays.
Yes, that's right, I'm sure at least one person will say, "Who the crap is Billy Mays?" I'll tell you who the crap is Billy Mays. Billy Mays (or B-money as his "homies" called him) was a TV advertisement personality. He's famous for shouting about the wonders of OxiClean. He had a beard that was thick enough to rival that of the internet's most famous superhero, Chuck Norris (of course B-money's beard was sans fist). On June 28, 2009 B-money was found dead by his wife, Deborah "Deb-Mash" Mays.
So why did I decide to rant about this man that many people hate because he's either a) loud b) annoying c) a Republican or d) any combination of the above. Because somebody else died 3 days before B-money and completely overshadowed Billy's story. That man is Michael Jackson, who I have my own opinions on but won't say them for fear of being lynched by the girls that have a crush on him. As a side note, most of those girls fit into the age 12-50 demographic.
There is a real reason however, for this rant. The news will only report on what they think will bring them viewers, and at that time for some reason the news decided that every day we needed to know that Michael Jackson was still dead. Why do we care so much? My uncle died and we spent about two or three days planning for a funeral and after the funeral we moved on. We miss him. My grandma has put pictures of him up in her house with little quotes nearby (i.e. "When you have someone you love in heaven, you have a little bit of heaven in your home"). I have no problem with remembering those who are dead, it's the fixation. We fixate so much on some celebrities that we think we know everything about their lives. We might even feel like we are part of their family. But we don't know everything and we aren't members of their families.
My suggestion to you guys is, if you are so fixated on one person that you know things about that person that other people generally don't know, (i.e. Birth date, birth time, the hospital they were born in, the hospital they stayed in for rehab, the other hospital they stayed in for the other rehab, etc.) try getting a new hobby. Maybe something useful, like cooking, woodworking, breathing, having a life, dating, raising your children, etc. Just a little suggestion.
Oh and to a certain 15 year old sister of mine. . . This one's for you.
Yes, that's right, I'm sure at least one person will say, "Who the crap is Billy Mays?" I'll tell you who the crap is Billy Mays. Billy Mays (or B-money as his "homies" called him) was a TV advertisement personality. He's famous for shouting about the wonders of OxiClean. He had a beard that was thick enough to rival that of the internet's most famous superhero, Chuck Norris (of course B-money's beard was sans fist). On June 28, 2009 B-money was found dead by his wife, Deborah "Deb-Mash" Mays.
So why did I decide to rant about this man that many people hate because he's either a) loud b) annoying c) a Republican or d) any combination of the above. Because somebody else died 3 days before B-money and completely overshadowed Billy's story. That man is Michael Jackson, who I have my own opinions on but won't say them for fear of being lynched by the girls that have a crush on him. As a side note, most of those girls fit into the age 12-50 demographic.
There is a real reason however, for this rant. The news will only report on what they think will bring them viewers, and at that time for some reason the news decided that every day we needed to know that Michael Jackson was still dead. Why do we care so much? My uncle died and we spent about two or three days planning for a funeral and after the funeral we moved on. We miss him. My grandma has put pictures of him up in her house with little quotes nearby (i.e. "When you have someone you love in heaven, you have a little bit of heaven in your home"). I have no problem with remembering those who are dead, it's the fixation. We fixate so much on some celebrities that we think we know everything about their lives. We might even feel like we are part of their family. But we don't know everything and we aren't members of their families.
My suggestion to you guys is, if you are so fixated on one person that you know things about that person that other people generally don't know, (i.e. Birth date, birth time, the hospital they were born in, the hospital they stayed in for rehab, the other hospital they stayed in for the other rehab, etc.) try getting a new hobby. Maybe something useful, like cooking, woodworking, breathing, having a life, dating, raising your children, etc. Just a little suggestion.
Oh and to a certain 15 year old sister of mine. . . This one's for you.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
LOUD PEOPLE
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.
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.
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)