Monday, May 28, 2007
Right now, all I need is procrastination. There are so many things I have to do right now. Lots lots lots lots. And it is hard to think of the basic things and the like, when I've gopt so much other stuff on my mind right now. I want life to slow down, so I have more time to do things.
Anyway, one of the things I want to do, (This one's not a must, but I really want to do it.) is something a friend told me I should do, and has half spawned from a post I recently posted on this site named "25 Things I LikeTo Do". So, the thing was the one where I said that I like to spend one-on-one time with people. I love doing this so much, but I am also very bad at setting aside time to spend with people in this way.
Consequentially, I have decided that I need to make a conscious effort to make time where I can spend with my friends one-on-one just to have fun, or to get to know better the ones that I possibly don't know well enough. This is so hard for me, though. Hard hard hard hard hard. Because all my life I have never initiated anything. Anything. I don't initiate. I am fine to go to things, and have fun, or talk with people, and stuff, when it is not me that has oranised the event, or initiated it, or whatever. Therefore, it is very hard for me to actually organise stuff, like this. There are more reasons why this is hard, but it is something I want to do.
Now, I am posting about this on my bloggish site for two reasons: One, to give those who read it something to read about that has stuff to do with my life/stuff and etc., and also to let people know that I want to find this time to spend with people, so that I can be held accountable, and so that I can't make an excuse not to do it.
Now, I'm actually not sure what it is I have comepletely written about in this post, as I started not knowing what I was going to write about, and now, I am not going to go back and proofread. I believe in no such thing. Proofreading is for proofreaders.
Now I have got to go and worry about all the other stuff I've got going on at the moment. Annoying. I need more time. I want a week of nothingness so that I can catch up on everything that needs doing. In short, I need holidays. But now. Right now.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
It's even more annoying that the song is so repedative. So I have had a short repedative song stuck in my head for two days. Otehr than that, it is one of the greatest songs ever. Listen to it. Now.
Dr Zaius Dr Zaius.
Dr Zaius Dr Zaius.
Dr Zaius Dr Zaius.
Oh, Dr Zaius.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Bats, bats, everywhere.
Bats, bats, in my hair.
Bats, bats, all around.
Bats, bats, on the ground.
Bats, bats under my shoe.
Bats, now they look like poo.
Bats, bats for you and me.
Wee, woopee, wee woopee.
I remember this song well, as it was the very first song I ever wrote on my own. If you want to know how it sounds sung, you'll have to ask me to sing it. But not right now.
If you have any desire to award me something for writing this song, send me it. Now. I'll have it if it's gold. Or edible.
Monday, May 21, 2007
2- Writing blogs, when I get the motivation.
3- Writing letters.
4- Writing stories.
5- Writing Warm Fuzzies. (If you would like to try your hand at this one, go to http://fuzzypad.blogspot.com)
6- Spending time with people, one-on-one. (This is probably one of the very favourites)
7- Spending time with people, not one-on-one, but with not too many other people. E.g. about six, or less. (Yes, this one is very different from #6)
8- Phone Calls.
9- Getting a good SMS after a long day at school, and realising it was there since, like, eight in the morning.
12- Lying on my back on grass.
13- Laying in bed while it's raining.
14- Being inside while it's raining.
15- Being outside while it's raining.
16- Night time in winter, with the open fire going.
17- Being able to go to bed early, and not doing it.
18- Being able to go to bed early, and doing it.
19- Doing maths/ physics/ english/ Indonesian/ chemistry/ biology/ viscom/ art/ psychology/ literature/ P.E./ media work, when I'm not forced to.
22- Reading. When I'm not forced to.
23- Playing sport. (Namely badminton*, ultimate frisbee*, aerobics*, squash, athletics European handball, running, volleyball, tennis.) (* Very especially these ones)
I wish I could do these things forever. But the reality is, I can't. I should really have had a 26th one: "Thinking about the 25 things I love doing most." But I can't go over the limit. It just wouldn't be a list of 25 with a 26th thing.
Monday, May 14, 2007
No, to be honest, I can't really think of anything else to write. This can just be a random strange blog entry. Fun! It would be really interesting, I'm thinking, if I had something decent to write. Hmm, but the more I think on it, the more I realise there is nothing. Oh well. That is all.
ps. That is NOT all! Aha! I have now got a "ps" at the end of this blog, implying that when I said "That is all" it was, in fact, not all.
pps. Oh, yes, and I forgot to say, also that...
ppps. ...Actually I can't think pof anything to put here either. Wow, I well and truely have nothing to write about today!
pppps. I love looking at many "p"s in a row. They are kinbd of soothing.
ppppps. Not much to say here, either.
pppppps. Q: Who is better, Tinkey Winkey, Dipsey, Lala or Po?
ppppppps. A: Po is the best.
pppppppps. All telly tubbies have stupid names. Stuypid stupid stupid stupid.
ppppppppps. Except for Po. I like Po. Po is cool.
pppppppppps. There! I beat the current record. Yes, I got all the way to a "pppppppppps" at the end of this post. I am such a champion. Yay!
Saturday, May 12, 2007
At school, I was told of the greatest game I have heard of in a long time. It is aptly named: Wikipedia Race. This game si the greatest for playing with firends. If you ever feel like proving to somebody that you are betetr than them, play them in this game, and the better person will be decided.
"So, how does one play this 'Wikipedia race'?" you ask. Well, I say, it is quite simple. There are two versions of Wikipedia race. I will explain both below.
WIKIPEDIA RACE 1.1 (Original version)
You need at least two computers for this one, and two people, and both computers need to be linked to the internet at approximately the same speed. Ok, so, to start, all players need to visit the site:
An, unless you are otherwise inclined, select English as the lanuage, and you're in to the arena! Now, one player can search through any Wikipedia page, and select one that he/she likes. A second player, now, must also select a page. Basically, from here, all players visit the page of the first person's selection. Then it is a race to get to the page that the second person ahd selected.
But there are a few limitations to your searching ability: You cannot use anything to search except for your mouse, and the links on the specific page that you are currently viewing. There is no using of Ctrl + F or any other cheating method. Hence, you must find a link you think is appropriote, and click on it. You also cannot use anything from the Internet Explorer toolbars, e.g., there is no 'Back' allowed, or 'Forward' or 'Favourites' etc. Basically, whoever gets to the target page first wins.
WIKIPEDIA RACE 2.7 (Jono's ultra mega version for those playing at home)
Basically, you do the same as above, but instead of play with anotehr person, you can simply record the time it takes you to do a certain two pages that you havn't done before, and challene somebody else to try and match your time. Once you have tried linking two pages, you are never allowed to try and link eiterh of those two pages again, because you become too familiar with them.
You can also play against eachother over MSN. But they key part of this version is being honest. No cheating. Below are some examples of pages I have sucsessfully linked on Wikipedia. Note: you have to find the pages first, to make sure they exist. All the following combinations are possible, and each took me between 1 and 5 minutes. I would lvoe to hear how anybody went trying some of these, or versing eachother!
- "Michael Schumacher" to "Bottled Water"
- "Marvel Comics" to "Desktop Computer"
- "Samurai" to "Dux"
- "Randy Newman" to "Concrete"
Have fun Wikipediaralising!
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
If you had a raw hotdog and a raw sausage. And you boiled the hotdog and barbecued the sausage, life would be normal, right? That's how life has existed until now.
BUT, what if you boiled the SAUSAGE and cooked the HOTDOG on the barbecue? Would the world implode? Probably. But assuming that it didn't implode, what would be the outcome?
Would the hotdog be just like a sausage in bread, and would the sausage that had been boiled taste like a hotdog should? Or would the hotdog still taste like a normal hotdog, and the sausage just taste like a wet sausage? And am I confusing myself? Answer to last question: No.
Maybe I shall investigate this. But it also beggs the question: Are raw hotdogs the same as raw sausages, but without the same skin? Hmmm.
I don't know I don't know I don't know.
Also, what is better, a hotdog or a sausage? Some feedback on this question, also, could be useful. Not that it makes a diference to anything said above. Or anything else in life, for that matter.
End of post.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
This morning, while eating breakfast and reading whatever was sitting on the table, I saw a sheet of paper titled: "Moral Dilemmas." I found this thing interesting. Anyway, here is one of the dilemmas...
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's descision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captian rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?
Anyway, it asks about if you were on the jury at his trial. I pose another question, what would you have done in the captain's situation? To what extent did you agree with his actions? I can see logic in both sides of the argument. But there is also a second level to the dilemma: If you were going to throw people overboard, would you throw the weaker people off? Hmmm. Thought provoking.
Personally, I would have let the whole ship of 30 drown before I saw 23 people killed. But would that be the right choice. Would that be ethical? Clearly, not very utilitarian, but I still think it is right. I am willing to hear opposing opinions, as well as complimenting ones, whatever.