Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Shoot for the Moon
There are many adages that we learn as we grow. For example, "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit." And that's absolutely true and semi-motivates you to want to be awesome. But some of these expressions are completely false and should not ever be repeated. One such example: "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars." Absolutely false.
Newtons first law of motion tells us that velocity (and thus momentum) is constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force. That means, if you shoot for the moon and miss, you're not going to land anywhere at all. The cold vacuum of outer space will turn you into a frozen ball of ice and you'll find yourself hurtling through space, forever.
Even if you're traveling in a space capsule or something built to withstand the environment, you certainly won't land anywhere, and more importantly, you won't be among the stars. Stars are billions and billions of miles apart from one another, so even stars aren't among themselves. And unless you have the luminosity of a star, no one is going to give a fuck that you're out there anyway. You're like the tree that fell in the woods.
"Hey, if a guy is flying through space and no one ever hears about it or sees him or it has any bearing on existence at all, was the guy even flying through space at all?"
Despite the odds being nearly nil, the best possible situation would be to get pulled into the gravitational field of a distant star and then you could potentially become a planet. Which would be pretty cool. Or you could be a moon of one of those planets. Despite taking it in college, I don't really know the physics of a body entering a foreign galaxy (unless of course we're talking about that night I spent in Bangkok. Huzzah.).
Past precedent tells us that you don't need to be shooting for the moon anyway. No other country in the world has ever landed a man on the moon other than the United States, and even NASA had a hell of a time pulling it off.
Is it possible that this expression was actually developed by NASA to motivate astronauts? Absolutely not. In the eyes of the world, three lost astronauts is a complete and utter failure, considering the desired intent was to hit the moon.
So, to the author of this seemingly motivational expression, fuck you.
-Craig JW, 110927
Newtons first law of motion tells us that velocity (and thus momentum) is constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force. That means, if you shoot for the moon and miss, you're not going to land anywhere at all. The cold vacuum of outer space will turn you into a frozen ball of ice and you'll find yourself hurtling through space, forever.
Even if you're traveling in a space capsule or something built to withstand the environment, you certainly won't land anywhere, and more importantly, you won't be among the stars. Stars are billions and billions of miles apart from one another, so even stars aren't among themselves. And unless you have the luminosity of a star, no one is going to give a fuck that you're out there anyway. You're like the tree that fell in the woods.
"Hey, if a guy is flying through space and no one ever hears about it or sees him or it has any bearing on existence at all, was the guy even flying through space at all?"
Despite the odds being nearly nil, the best possible situation would be to get pulled into the gravitational field of a distant star and then you could potentially become a planet. Which would be pretty cool. Or you could be a moon of one of those planets. Despite taking it in college, I don't really know the physics of a body entering a foreign galaxy (unless of course we're talking about that night I spent in Bangkok. Huzzah.).
Past precedent tells us that you don't need to be shooting for the moon anyway. No other country in the world has ever landed a man on the moon other than the United States, and even NASA had a hell of a time pulling it off.
Is it possible that this expression was actually developed by NASA to motivate astronauts? Absolutely not. In the eyes of the world, three lost astronauts is a complete and utter failure, considering the desired intent was to hit the moon.
So, to the author of this seemingly motivational expression, fuck you.
-Craig JW, 110927
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Athena's New Habit #2
When Athena wants me to wake up in the morning to take her to the bathroom, she jumps [up the (box spring + mattress) distance] onto my bed and lays down with her front half on the top of my head.
should this event ever be documented, i will upload pics.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
When your life is in total disarray, you feel exposed. Like when you're on drugs and you're sure that everyone can tell, but really, no one has any idea. And you just wish someone would come up to you and be like, "Hey man, did you just eat some acid?" And you would enthusiastically reply, "Yes, yes I did! Now please tell everyone so that I can stop keeping this stupid secret!"
But then that jackass would only be interested in where you got the acid to begin with, so it wouldn't matter.
But then that jackass would only be interested in where you got the acid to begin with, so it wouldn't matter.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Awareness: Part 1
'God' created man in his own image, which means that we are all gods.
But we didn't evolve into God v2.0 until Eve got chatty with that snake and ate some fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. At which point, Adam and Eve gained self-awareness, realized they were nude and hid behind bushes. This is why today we wear pants.
It would be absolutely ridiculous to cede self-awareness all of the time, but I would like to be able to shift between God v2.0 and God v1.0.
In the future, self-awareness will be selective. It will be a button installed behind our left ear (not disimilar to Kevin Costner's gills in Waterworld). One will be able to turn self-awareness off and on at will...
However, this creates an immediate paradox:
Once lost is self-awareness, so lost is free-will.
Therefore it would be impossible to willfully turn awareness back on!
So that would mean that if you turn self-awareness off, you would only be able to accidentally turn self-awareness back on, because of the lack of self-awareness and free will and all. Once you turned awareness off, you would have no idea where the button was (or that there was even a button that could do such a thing at all!).
You could also potentially always keep a self-aware friend around while you are non-awarenessing and just tell them how long to let you stay under, and then they can flick your gills at a chosen time.
Anyway, life becomes this really weird and strange game that involves you slipping in and out of awareness.
So, other than recreational drugs, how can we temporarily destroy our sense of reality?
Self-awareness is cool and all, but it seems to be the one thing that prevents me from doing anything. I do not always enjoy being able to view my life in the third person from the first person perspective.
I think it was Lit that said "It's no surprise to me I am my own worst enemy."
But we didn't evolve into God v2.0 until Eve got chatty with that snake and ate some fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. At which point, Adam and Eve gained self-awareness, realized they were nude and hid behind bushes. This is why today we wear pants.
It would be absolutely ridiculous to cede self-awareness all of the time, but I would like to be able to shift between God v2.0 and God v1.0.
In the future, self-awareness will be selective. It will be a button installed behind our left ear (not disimilar to Kevin Costner's gills in Waterworld). One will be able to turn self-awareness off and on at will...
However, this creates an immediate paradox:
Once lost is self-awareness, so lost is free-will.
Therefore it would be impossible to willfully turn awareness back on!
So that would mean that if you turn self-awareness off, you would only be able to accidentally turn self-awareness back on, because of the lack of self-awareness and free will and all. Once you turned awareness off, you would have no idea where the button was (or that there was even a button that could do such a thing at all!).
You could also potentially always keep a self-aware friend around while you are non-awarenessing and just tell them how long to let you stay under, and then they can flick your gills at a chosen time.
Anyway, life becomes this really weird and strange game that involves you slipping in and out of awareness.
So, other than recreational drugs, how can we temporarily destroy our sense of reality?
From what I know, self-awareness has evolved from the creation of the neo-cortex around the brain. The human neo-cortex consists of six layers. Other self-aware animals (such as dolphins, bats, dogs, cats) have three or four layers in their neo-cortex.
So if we could somehow prevent the higher levels of the neo-cortex from functioning? Or perhaps prevent the neo-cortex from functioning at all? What would disabling the neo-cortex even do to a human being?
And most importantly, why in the world would we even want to do this in the first place?
Self-awareness is cool and all, but it seems to be the one thing that prevents me from doing anything. I do not always enjoy being able to view my life in the third person from the first person perspective.
I think it was Lit that said "It's no surprise to me I am my own worst enemy."
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Athena's New Habit #1
I recently moved into a new room for the month of February. It is modest, adequate.
Due to space restrictions, Athena's food bowl is at the foot of my mattress, next to her crate.
Because of this proximity, she has taken to grabbing her food from the bowl, hopping onto the mattress, and then laying down and chewing. She repeats this process for every bite.
Due to space restrictions, Athena's food bowl is at the foot of my mattress, next to her crate.
Because of this proximity, she has taken to grabbing her food from the bowl, hopping onto the mattress, and then laying down and chewing. She repeats this process for every bite.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Arrested Development
If Arrested Development had not been aired on Fox, it would have likely gained a larger following and ran for at least two more seasons (also, seasons 2 + 3 would have likely been full 22 episode seasons).
(50pts) In 200 words, would that have enhanced the legacy of the show? Discuss.
(10pts)**50 word followup: What of the legacy if the show ran for 10 full 22-episode seasons?
(500pts)***5000 word post-followup: Assuming Fox wasn't such a shitty network for live sitcoms and was able to support a 22-episode fourth season (also assuming all previous plot points are kept intact), briefly outline the story arc of Arrested Development season four. Tobias Funke subplots should be expounded upon in-depth for full points.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)