gha5t

how nerdy :)

2007-03-11T05:03:19Z

got stupid? :P

2007-03-06T15:42:44Z

http://www.stupidtester.com/index.php?fd

Human nature

2006-11-01T19:42:42Z

Interesting thing with us humans is that we seem to have a complete lack of ability to plan long term. It can be seen in individual behavior as well as in group behavior. Even if a person knows long ahead of time that something must be done, they will not do it until it absolutely must be done.

This can be seen in things like our approach to global warming, pollution, and government to name a few things. We know there are problems, but as long as they're tolerable we will not lift a finger to fix them, the only time people are willing to do anything is when things become intolerable.

An example is a government becomes oppressive. The people will refuse to rise up against it as long as they have something to lose. That however would be the best time for a change, instead people are willing to wait till they have nothing left and a revolution happens.

So are we as a species doomed by our short sighted nature, it's not that we cannot see the problems, it's just that we do not address them at the right time due to complacency, does this mean that eventually will misjudge a problem on a large scale and by the time we are pressed to face it the time for action will have passed?

shocking, I posted something! :P

2006-10-25T18:01:05Z

So I was discussing faith and religion after having started reading The God Delusion, and I came to a few realizations.
First religion itself is not the problem, religion is byproduct of faith. Also religion is no different from any other kind of faith. People seem to have the need to identify with a group and have a simple metric for making decisions. This can be seen by people identifying themselves as communist, capitalist, liberal, conservative, etc.

The common thing is that the brain seems to create reasoning patterns and apply them to situations, that way one does not need to make a deep analysis of each situation, and can quickly apply the appropriate pattern. The problem of faith occurs when people continue applying these patterns in the faith of contradictory evidence. Once it is demonstrated that a belief is flawed it must then be discarded. When a person fails to discard flawed beliefs then the mechanism which allows them to make quick decisions breaks down.

Therefore it seems to me that a person should be taught logic from the young age, so that they are able to identify the cases where their automated reasoning is no longer applicable and have the ability to adjust their reasoning patterns accordingly. On this note I'm curious how harmful exposure of young children to religion is. Since religion teaches faith, which is an act of non-thinking where the person learns that it is good to accept ideas without questioning them. It would seem to me that introducing this element into the environment when the brain is still developing could have adverse effects on the reasoning ability of that person throughout their lives. If this is the case should religious indoctrination be considered harmful to children and as such discouraged?

To make it clear, I have no issue with children learning about religion, I only see potential problems with religious indoctrination of children, where they are taught to accept things without reasoning them through.

Curious what people think of this, do leave comments :)

you are not seeing things, this really is a post!

2006-09-21T18:31:08Z

let's do some polling shall we :)

http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=9935030990046738815

Pure Nerd

60 % Nerd, 43% Geek, 17% Dork

For The Record:

A Nerd is someone who is passionate about learning/being smart/academia.

A Geek is someone who is passionate about some particular area or subject, often an obscure or difficult one.

A Dork is someone who has difficulty with common social expectations/interactions.

You scored better than half in Nerd, earning you the title of: Pure Nerd.

The times, they are a-changing. It used to be that being exceptionally smart led to being unpopular, which would ultimately lead to picking up all of the traits and tendences associated with the "dork." No-longer. Being smart isn't as socially crippling as it once was, and even more so as you get older: eventually being a Pure Nerd will likely be replaced with the following label: Purely Successful.

Congratulations!

Also, you might want to check out some of my other tests if you're interested in any of the following:

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Professional Wrestling

Love & Sexuality

America/Politics

Thanks Again! -- THE NERD? GEEK? OR DORK? TEST

My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 99% on nerdiness
You scored higher than 99% on geekosity
You scored higher than 99% on dork points

Link: The Nerd? Geek? or Dork? Test written by donathos on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

pure gold

2006-07-07T17:51:58Z

http://luminusdadon.wordpress.com/2006/05/04/how-english-becomes-german/

where do you stand

2006-06-28T13:16:12Z

http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/

My political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.23

Ah there is a sure way to get rid of telemarketers

2006-06-27T15:44:47Z

http://www.break.com/index/angrybt.html

ah another post from moi

2006-04-20T11:11:00Z

Came across this gem, and I had to share :)

http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/09/13/machtest/index.html

The Machiavelli personality test has a range of 0-100
Your Machiavelli score is: 94
You are a high Mach, you endorse Machiavelli's opinions.
Most people fall somewhere in the middle, but there's a significant minority at either extreme.

and now for some stunts... russian style!

2005-12-21T23:06:17Z

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=515642196227308929&q

now why don't we have training videos like this!

2005-12-17T04:40:46Z

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5943582546148919558&q=forklift

so yeah this is what 80's japanese zelda commercials looked like....

2005-12-07T22:09:24Z

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5206257500748953004&q=legend+of+zelda

boredom fosters creativity who knew... :)

2005-11-09T21:19:24Z

so I'm at work again and that means I'm bored! I realized that I had to do something quick or I'd probably fall asleep right on my keyboard and so I fired up the... GIMP! (a free photoshop wannabe). Earlier today I was looking through a boingboing post of kids doodles redone by adults and I was inspired to draw something creepy. I doodled up a head and went on to work on my new avatar :)

Musings

2005-11-04T19:14:36Z

So since people, namely shanmonster, have been bugging me to get an LJ account, I have. Since I don't find it entertaining to transcribe my daily events, I've decided to instead post my wacky ideas on random crap like philosphy, politics, martial arts or whatever the hell else I happen to be thinking about.

So since today I'm at work and unusually bored I've decided to finally write something. I finally got to do some sparring, so today I'm going muse about fighting...

First of there are two things to consider when talking about fighting. First is the physical skill of the fighter, this describes the technique and the speed of the individual. The second and often overlooked component is the strategy of the fighter. One could be very good at executing the techniques he or she has learned, but if they are not applied in an opportune moment all the training is for naught.

Therefore it is my belief that one must practice with others if they are to be a good fighter. Learning forms or katas and practicing the techniques can take you far, however it cannot teach you the strategy for a fight. The only way to learn what techniques are good to use in what situations is to try them. Sparring however should not for a second be confused with fighting, since in sparring you are not trying to kill or maim your partner it is fundamentally flawed in teaching one to fight. This also applies to competitive fighting like UFC tournaments. People often like to point out that grappling is very effective because grapplers tend to do very well in UFC. The reaon for this is that competitive fighting is stacked towards wrestling, since the fighters are not trying to permanently injure one another. Most good strking techniques if applied properly are designed to cause permanent injury. Such techniques include knee stomps, eye jabs, attacks to the throat, groin and solar plexus. These techniques cannot be practiced safely and require full commitment on the part of the attacker. You cannot half break somebody's knee, whereas you can put somebody in an arm bar and apply pressure until they tap out. Coming back to sparring, this must always be kept in mind, that when one spars the intent is not there. In a fight the intent should be to disable the opponent as quickly as possible, while in a spar the intent is to find the technique which are effective for the individual. The other thing that must be kept in mind, which sifu Rikcy often points out, is that there is no counter for speed. If the attacker is faster than the opponent, then it is irrelevant if the opponent knows the counter to the attack, he will never get to use it.

When engaging an opponent one must first consider ones own safety. Therefore it is foolish to initiate with an attack which exposes oneself to a counter-attack. One should always assume that the opponent is at least the same skill as oneself if not better. If the opponent is of inferior skill, then he will be defeated easily. However if the opponent is of the same skill or greater then he is most likely to take the advantage of the opening privded and to strike as one exposes himself to the opponent.

It would be prudent to open with such an attack which does not leave one vulnerable yet forces the opponent to react. An example of such an attack would be a kick to the knee or the shin. Such a technique leaves the attacker protected while forcing the opponent to move. Should the opponent not move out of the way of the attack then the technique will break the knee and end the fight.

Assuming that the opponent is competent and reacts to the attack, the attack serves its second purpose which was to make the opponent move. When both parties are ready, there are two main variables which must be considered, first the technique of of the attacker. The technique defines the power, accuracy and speed of the attack. The second variable is the oppoents reaction. The opponent may move out of the way of the attack and so even if the attack was executed flawlessly it will be ineffective. However if the opponent can be made to move prior to the attack then the second variable is eliminated. So the secondary purpose of the opening technique is to occupy the opponent by making him move to a predictable position, thus reducing the uncertainty.