When I was younger, video games played a much bigger part in my life than they do today. I spent many hours of my childhood playing on Games Consoles. The first Games Console we ever had was a Sega Master System II. We had a few Games for it including Sonic the Hedgehog which was one of my favourites! The console itself actually had a game built into it, that game was called 'Alex Kidd in Miracle World'
As a kid I never managed to finish this game, but then again I was always quite hyper so I would make silly mistakes and not focus on the game properly. As I have gotten odler I have managed to finish it but there are a few secrets in the game which many gamers would be forgiven for never discovering. Many of these I only discovered by chance or through guides online.
I will cover other Games I love in time, I'll move throughout the consoles I had and now have and I will cover modern games too. Oh and for Alex Kidd, I believe you can buy this game for the virtual console on Wii if you are interested in playing it - or you could just play it with an emulator.
This game is simple in its design and its controls, the story is non-invasive and you can easily sit down and just play for hours. There are no continue points in the game though so no matter how far you get if you lose all your lives you start from the beginning again. If you are bored or want something to do for a while I definitely recommend it.
There is also a PC based remake of the game which uses the same graphics basically but changes almost everything else but I find it annoying and very frustrating.
Success, the definition thereof
How do you define success?
Do you define it in terms of wealth? A well paid Job? A position of Authority? Power? Love? Family? Friends? or Popularity? maybe even fame?
My personal definition of success is simply to be happy. If you can be happy in your life no matter what your circumstances then I would regard you as successful, because you have succeeded where others haven't.
I don't regard wealth as an indicator of success. There are any number of ways one can come into money the majority of which do not involve you earning it - 'earning' money is a device, a mechanism used to convince others that money symbolises success. I say the majority as you can be born into money, you can win it, you can be given it, you can acquire it by proxy [e.g. your parents become rich and you do too via proxy], you can marry money or you could be awarded it as compensation for something wrongfully done against you. In none of these situations would I say the recipient 'earned' the money. You can work for your money, work encompassing a wide arrange of money making avenues. I would resolve that money in the majority of cases of people who have it, have not earned it. Only a few people who have money truly worked for it.
Even if you worked all your life or started a successful business, what have you really achieved? Business success and personal success are not necessarily the same thing. You can rise up to great business success and end up a cold miser with no real friends surrounded by people who seek to be rich via proxy. Nevertheless, so you have your well paid job and your position of power, what have you achieved with this great wealth? So you can buy anything you ever wanted, you even start buying things you never even knew you wanted. Does that make you happy though?
What about fame then? It is one of my favourite quotes to say "have you ever been alone in a crowded room?". In terms of Love and Family, if you want to be famous you have two real choices: find love before fame or find fame then find someone famous. I say this because as you grow in fame much too as you grow in fortune, there comes a point where meeting someone from a background other than your own becomes increasingly difficult. Once you become famous, you really are tied into finding love with someone else who is famous as finding someone who isn't is going to be one of the most difficult things to do. Logistically, going out in a small club or going out on dates will be hard due to the lack of privacy the public eye brings. More than that, fame accentuates personal attributes that were already present, namely paranoia. How will you know the person you meet isn't after you because you are famous or because they think you are rich - again we find the issue of money complicates things.
In terms of pairing with someone from your background that too seems rather difficult as the saying goes "celebrity couples hey, they never last" and this can be true for many reasons not least of all that your every move and action will be drawn apart and criticised, small fights will get blown out of proportion by the press and inevitably stress will take hold. The picture I am painting does seem rather bleak doesn't it?
I base my conclusions on what I see, and what I see I evaluate with an open mind. I have seen many people on TV and in Magazines, on reality TV Shows and the conclusions I draw are that Money does not make you happy - yes it can bring a smile to your face but smiles fade. Fame is ironic, you often end up incredibly lonely. Love is difficult enough as it is without adding the other pressures into the mix.
Of all the people I have seen not just there but in real life too, in many different situations and even been in a few of them myself, all this boils down to one thing for me - Happiness is hard to come by. As it is so hard to come by, if you achieve true happiness then you have achieved more than I.
One more thing before you reply or comment: you have nothing to prove to me or anyone else, you can argue against anything I said but I don't care what you say, the only person you have to convince is yourself so don't waste your time typing to me just ask yourself the question:
Are you happy?
Do you define it in terms of wealth? A well paid Job? A position of Authority? Power? Love? Family? Friends? or Popularity? maybe even fame?
My personal definition of success is simply to be happy. If you can be happy in your life no matter what your circumstances then I would regard you as successful, because you have succeeded where others haven't.
I don't regard wealth as an indicator of success. There are any number of ways one can come into money the majority of which do not involve you earning it - 'earning' money is a device, a mechanism used to convince others that money symbolises success. I say the majority as you can be born into money, you can win it, you can be given it, you can acquire it by proxy [e.g. your parents become rich and you do too via proxy], you can marry money or you could be awarded it as compensation for something wrongfully done against you. In none of these situations would I say the recipient 'earned' the money. You can work for your money, work encompassing a wide arrange of money making avenues. I would resolve that money in the majority of cases of people who have it, have not earned it. Only a few people who have money truly worked for it.
Even if you worked all your life or started a successful business, what have you really achieved? Business success and personal success are not necessarily the same thing. You can rise up to great business success and end up a cold miser with no real friends surrounded by people who seek to be rich via proxy. Nevertheless, so you have your well paid job and your position of power, what have you achieved with this great wealth? So you can buy anything you ever wanted, you even start buying things you never even knew you wanted. Does that make you happy though?
What about fame then? It is one of my favourite quotes to say "have you ever been alone in a crowded room?". In terms of Love and Family, if you want to be famous you have two real choices: find love before fame or find fame then find someone famous. I say this because as you grow in fame much too as you grow in fortune, there comes a point where meeting someone from a background other than your own becomes increasingly difficult. Once you become famous, you really are tied into finding love with someone else who is famous as finding someone who isn't is going to be one of the most difficult things to do. Logistically, going out in a small club or going out on dates will be hard due to the lack of privacy the public eye brings. More than that, fame accentuates personal attributes that were already present, namely paranoia. How will you know the person you meet isn't after you because you are famous or because they think you are rich - again we find the issue of money complicates things.
In terms of pairing with someone from your background that too seems rather difficult as the saying goes "celebrity couples hey, they never last" and this can be true for many reasons not least of all that your every move and action will be drawn apart and criticised, small fights will get blown out of proportion by the press and inevitably stress will take hold. The picture I am painting does seem rather bleak doesn't it?
I base my conclusions on what I see, and what I see I evaluate with an open mind. I have seen many people on TV and in Magazines, on reality TV Shows and the conclusions I draw are that Money does not make you happy - yes it can bring a smile to your face but smiles fade. Fame is ironic, you often end up incredibly lonely. Love is difficult enough as it is without adding the other pressures into the mix.
Of all the people I have seen not just there but in real life too, in many different situations and even been in a few of them myself, all this boils down to one thing for me - Happiness is hard to come by. As it is so hard to come by, if you achieve true happiness then you have achieved more than I.
One more thing before you reply or comment: you have nothing to prove to me or anyone else, you can argue against anything I said but I don't care what you say, the only person you have to convince is yourself so don't waste your time typing to me just ask yourself the question:
Are you happy?
This is the Age Of ....
What Age do we live in? I have thought about this. We are told we live in the Age of Information, but is that really true? Yes we live in a time where we are connected, more and more, through the Internet, through our Smart Phones etc, it has probably never been easier to stay in touch with someone on the other side of the world than at any other point in History. More-so it has probably never been easier to meet someone living on the other side of the World.
We have an extensive media presence, which although billed as a source of information and as an extension of our awareness, it is often inaccurate, biased and in many cases it can be out and out wrong. The point here is yes we live in an information age but is Information the greatest commodity of our era?
I would pose that it is perhaps not, in my eyes I would describe this era as the Age of Credit. I would say this because no matter who you are and no matter how rich or poor you are, somehow somewhere Credit will be involved in your life. We live with our smart phones almost permanently attached to our hands but those phones are expensive, the majority of people who use them got them 'free' when they signed up to a contract, that contract phone is a credit account. Your phone bill credited to the balance each month before being paid off by you. Students entire academic life are for the most part based in credit, those student loans that will be repaid when they are earning are also a form of credit.
In the world of consumerism we are conditioned to believe that credit is the path to consuming things which you could not afford to buy right now but can pay for over longer terms. The population of the USA is approx 310 million people. In the USA at present there are an estimated 1 billion credit cards currently in circulation that's on average 3 cards per person for every man woman child and baby in the USA. We are surrounded by information but a lot of it isn't free and we have to pay for it somehow, it seems the answer for many people is credit.
We have an extensive media presence, which although billed as a source of information and as an extension of our awareness, it is often inaccurate, biased and in many cases it can be out and out wrong. The point here is yes we live in an information age but is Information the greatest commodity of our era?
I would pose that it is perhaps not, in my eyes I would describe this era as the Age of Credit. I would say this because no matter who you are and no matter how rich or poor you are, somehow somewhere Credit will be involved in your life. We live with our smart phones almost permanently attached to our hands but those phones are expensive, the majority of people who use them got them 'free' when they signed up to a contract, that contract phone is a credit account. Your phone bill credited to the balance each month before being paid off by you. Students entire academic life are for the most part based in credit, those student loans that will be repaid when they are earning are also a form of credit.
In the world of consumerism we are conditioned to believe that credit is the path to consuming things which you could not afford to buy right now but can pay for over longer terms. The population of the USA is approx 310 million people. In the USA at present there are an estimated 1 billion credit cards currently in circulation that's on average 3 cards per person for every man woman child and baby in the USA. We are surrounded by information but a lot of it isn't free and we have to pay for it somehow, it seems the answer for many people is credit.
Let's Talk Guns
In particular the issue of whether or not Police Officers should carry them.
Americans have the right to bear arms through their constitution, so an American can have a Gun with them at any time so long as they have a license. In the UK we [the public] are not permitted to carry guns in public places etc - if you have a license for a Gun it needs to be stored properly in a Gun Cabinet except when in use for the purpose intended e.g. Hunting etc.
As it is illegal for private citizens to roam the streets with Guns the likelihood of a criminal having a Gun is significantly less than in the USA, therefore any criminal is deemed to be at most, dangerous to the point where several officers may be required to restrain him but not to the point where the chase warrants officers carrying firearms. Officers are only permitted to use firearms in extreme cases and in a large number of cases Officers will not even be carrying a Gun.
In the event of a criminal being reported as armed and dangerous, then and only then would an Armed Response Unit be dispatched which would include officers carrying Guns.
I personally am happy with this arrangement as I see the complete justification for it. Putting Guns in the Hands of every Police officer leads to trigger happy officers shooting when there is no need, cite: Jean Charles De Menezes who was shot in the head seven times and died at Stockwell Tube Station.
Menezes was later found to be completely innocent, with no connection to any terror plot.
There are a considerably higher number of errors in judgement and fatalities of innocent civilians as a result throughout the USA. You can't bring a person back to life but you can release one from custody who was arrested in error, I know which one I would favour.
On the flip-side, here in Northern Ireland Police Officers are always armed. Now with the same reasoning as above in the case of the USA, given NI's turbulent History, statistically it would be more likely than in the rest of the UK that a criminal may be armed. More-so there are still dissident groups which are armed and active in NI, so the threat, although significantly less than in the past, does still remain. Through all this I can perfectly justify Officers here carrying Guns.
Having grown up around this, seeing Officers carrying Guns, and seeing Soldiers carrying Machine Guns when I was young, and looking through the sight of a sniper rifle when I was about 5 or 6, I believe I am quite desensitized to Guns and see it as 'normal' for the Police to carry them. So much so to the point when I first moved to London I was actually surprised to see Officers weren't armed, if anything it took me a while to figure out how anyone could justify Police Presence as a deterrent if they weren't armed.
I guess my view on this is that it can be justified but depends entirely on the environment the Officers are placed within. Although I agree with the justification for the Police in the remainder of the UK being unarmed, I still find it a bit unsettling.
So my question to you, should the Police carry Guns as standard issue?
Americans have the right to bear arms through their constitution, so an American can have a Gun with them at any time so long as they have a license. In the UK we [the public] are not permitted to carry guns in public places etc - if you have a license for a Gun it needs to be stored properly in a Gun Cabinet except when in use for the purpose intended e.g. Hunting etc.
As it is illegal for private citizens to roam the streets with Guns the likelihood of a criminal having a Gun is significantly less than in the USA, therefore any criminal is deemed to be at most, dangerous to the point where several officers may be required to restrain him but not to the point where the chase warrants officers carrying firearms. Officers are only permitted to use firearms in extreme cases and in a large number of cases Officers will not even be carrying a Gun.
In the event of a criminal being reported as armed and dangerous, then and only then would an Armed Response Unit be dispatched which would include officers carrying Guns.
I personally am happy with this arrangement as I see the complete justification for it. Putting Guns in the Hands of every Police officer leads to trigger happy officers shooting when there is no need, cite: Jean Charles De Menezes who was shot in the head seven times and died at Stockwell Tube Station.
Menezes was later found to be completely innocent, with no connection to any terror plot.
There are a considerably higher number of errors in judgement and fatalities of innocent civilians as a result throughout the USA. You can't bring a person back to life but you can release one from custody who was arrested in error, I know which one I would favour.
On the flip-side, here in Northern Ireland Police Officers are always armed. Now with the same reasoning as above in the case of the USA, given NI's turbulent History, statistically it would be more likely than in the rest of the UK that a criminal may be armed. More-so there are still dissident groups which are armed and active in NI, so the threat, although significantly less than in the past, does still remain. Through all this I can perfectly justify Officers here carrying Guns.
Having grown up around this, seeing Officers carrying Guns, and seeing Soldiers carrying Machine Guns when I was young, and looking through the sight of a sniper rifle when I was about 5 or 6, I believe I am quite desensitized to Guns and see it as 'normal' for the Police to carry them. So much so to the point when I first moved to London I was actually surprised to see Officers weren't armed, if anything it took me a while to figure out how anyone could justify Police Presence as a deterrent if they weren't armed.
I guess my view on this is that it can be justified but depends entirely on the environment the Officers are placed within. Although I agree with the justification for the Police in the remainder of the UK being unarmed, I still find it a bit unsettling.
So my question to you, should the Police carry Guns as standard issue?
Reboot Button
A long conversation on the concept of consciousness with a friend resulted in the posing of a question: What if there are an infinite number of alternate time-lines, each one representing our lives with tiny variations of the path taken, ultimately resulting in any number of outcomes. You soul follows each one from beginning to end, before taking up the next and repeating the process. Each time forgetting what has already been learned from experience - or at least hiding this knowledge from your mind and your consciousness.
In essence when your life here and now runs its course and ends, your soul will go back to the beginning and follow another path. Each of these lives are existing now in parallel to this one from our perspective but followed in sequence from the perspective of your soul. How many times have you thought how different your life would be had you made a certain change, if you had changed schools if you had met different people. What if that thought is borne out of your soul recognising that the remainder of this time line is going to happen as it happened before that it is 'bored' and now contemplates how it could have been different? What if those moments of deja vu where you have felt something was familiar, like it happened before, out of body experiences, all those times you have known what someone was going to say, or do before they did it. What if they weren't coincidence, what if they were memories from your soul bleeding through?
Could you face the reality that you are repeatedly living the same life over and over again? Moreover, knowing all you have done and all you have been through, if it came to it, that you were going to repeat your life and you had the choice to be born a baby with all the memories of your previous time-line, all of them good and bad, would you choose to remember?
I do not know if I would choose to remember. I don't know if I could live my life again with the foreknowledge of everything that happened and was possibly going to happen again.
Update [26/02/2024]
I've been restoring some old blog posts and whilst I have pretty much left everything untouched save for a few editing updates and fixing broken links, I have to say this post in particular caught my eye. A lot has happened in the 13 years that have passed since I wrote it and in all honesty my view that I would not want to live my life over has been further cemented to the point where my resolution is now concrete - I do not want to do this again, I'd already been through a lot when I wrote this and everything since has not made it worth it. They said "It Gets Better" - it's been 13 years and it's only gotten worse.
Design
We live in a world of designs. It's quite easy to forget this or to overlook it, very easy in fact. The main problem I have with people who denounce conspiracy theories is not whether or not they believe them but the fact that those who outright deny them almost always fall into one of two camps: those who deny them with plenty of evidence to back up that denial, and those who deny them with no other justification other than the often touted reply "No one could put that much effort into designing a plan that complex". Therein lies the link between the title and the subject we discuss here. Not conspiracy theories but simply Design.
This extends into almost every area of our lives and in an unsettling point of view, is reminiscent of many a totalitarian dream or nightmare whichever your outlook.
The fact of the matter is that Design is often synonymous with control. Further to this we live in a world that is designed. Stop now and look at yourself. The clothes you are wearing, the underwear the socks etc they were all designed by their manufacturers, their colours decided based on trends of that season, their shape decided either for function or for fashion.
You're reading my blog right now, the majority are on PC's running Windows or Mac, my omniscience allows me to know this even if you are part of the others using a mobile device or something else, the screen you are reading was designed, the keyboard, real or virtual was designed, the software you are using to view this web page was designed, those subscribing by email, your email client was designed.
As you can see the list goes on now we have to look into the detail, not just see but really take in what we see:
This is written in a Font, and if you have never developed Games or other memory intense programs for computers I would forgive your ignorance of what a font is or how it works. Those 4 letters are not an image, they are not tiny images resized depending on the font size either. Fonts are drawn to the screen. A single letter although it may seem quite insignificant to you actually needs to be rendered tiny shape and line by tiny shape and line. The processor time this takes up is a bitch and that's why in Games design we avoid rendering Fonts as much as possible and try and use images instead.
As you guessed it, this font and every font you've ever seen was designed too.
Going even deeper into out lives the very food we eat has been designed. As natural as food may seem, at some point your supermarkets and suppliers will have designed the packaging, designed recipes for ready meals or for canned, or packaged food, the additives the ingredients etc. Even something as simple as a Carrot will have elements of design. The field it grew in would have been planned out, the food it was fed would have been selected, any plant steroids used to enhance and accelerate their growth [very common you would be surprised how many Tomatoes etc you are eating are full of steroids] all these things were chosen by design. The Carrot itself will have been subjected to quality control procedures which decided if it was safe for sale - and in some cases if it 'looked good enough' or 'looked carrot enough' to be sold.
Lastly the drinking water, the purest most simplest thing we rely on is also subject to design, whether you buy bottled water which has had its packaging designed its name etc or if you drink tap water which in most developed countries contains additives the most common being fluoride and chlorine [yes, fluoride is added to tap water for 'health' reasons as well as levels of Chlorine as a cleaning agent] this is common in the UK and the USA.
We live in a World that was designed, right down to the T - literally!
This extends into almost every area of our lives and in an unsettling point of view, is reminiscent of many a totalitarian dream or nightmare whichever your outlook.
The fact of the matter is that Design is often synonymous with control. Further to this we live in a world that is designed. Stop now and look at yourself. The clothes you are wearing, the underwear the socks etc they were all designed by their manufacturers, their colours decided based on trends of that season, their shape decided either for function or for fashion.
You're reading my blog right now, the majority are on PC's running Windows or Mac, my omniscience allows me to know this even if you are part of the others using a mobile device or something else, the screen you are reading was designed, the keyboard, real or virtual was designed, the software you are using to view this web page was designed, those subscribing by email, your email client was designed.
As you can see the list goes on now we have to look into the detail, not just see but really take in what we see:
This
This is written in a Font, and if you have never developed Games or other memory intense programs for computers I would forgive your ignorance of what a font is or how it works. Those 4 letters are not an image, they are not tiny images resized depending on the font size either. Fonts are drawn to the screen. A single letter although it may seem quite insignificant to you actually needs to be rendered tiny shape and line by tiny shape and line. The processor time this takes up is a bitch and that's why in Games design we avoid rendering Fonts as much as possible and try and use images instead.
As you guessed it, this font and every font you've ever seen was designed too.
Going even deeper into out lives the very food we eat has been designed. As natural as food may seem, at some point your supermarkets and suppliers will have designed the packaging, designed recipes for ready meals or for canned, or packaged food, the additives the ingredients etc. Even something as simple as a Carrot will have elements of design. The field it grew in would have been planned out, the food it was fed would have been selected, any plant steroids used to enhance and accelerate their growth [very common you would be surprised how many Tomatoes etc you are eating are full of steroids] all these things were chosen by design. The Carrot itself will have been subjected to quality control procedures which decided if it was safe for sale - and in some cases if it 'looked good enough' or 'looked carrot enough' to be sold.
Lastly the drinking water, the purest most simplest thing we rely on is also subject to design, whether you buy bottled water which has had its packaging designed its name etc or if you drink tap water which in most developed countries contains additives the most common being fluoride and chlorine [yes, fluoride is added to tap water for 'health' reasons as well as levels of Chlorine as a cleaning agent] this is common in the UK and the USA.
We live in a World that was designed, right down to the T - literally!
New Feature added! Definitions
A new feature has been added to my blog thanks to the lovely folks over at The Free Dictionary [ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ ]
As of today, you can double click any word on this blog and a window will open showing you the definition in the English dictionary. I am aware at times I sometimes use obscure words so now you need never be confused again. Enjoy.
You can go ahead and try it out below: [although it should work with any word on this blog at all]
Disingenuous
Convoluted
Expeditious
Sanctimonious
Opulence
If you are interested in adding this feature to your site then please visit this page and check out option 5:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lookup.htm#script
Note: due to the fact that my emails never contain JavaScript this feature will only work on-blog, readers who subscribe by email or through feeds will not be able to use this feature.
As of today, you can double click any word on this blog and a window will open showing you the definition in the English dictionary. I am aware at times I sometimes use obscure words so now you need never be confused again. Enjoy.
You can go ahead and try it out below: [although it should work with any word on this blog at all]
Disingenuous
Convoluted
Expeditious
Sanctimonious
Opulence
If you are interested in adding this feature to your site then please visit this page and check out option 5:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lookup.htm#script
Note: due to the fact that my emails never contain JavaScript this feature will only work on-blog, readers who subscribe by email or through feeds will not be able to use this feature.
The Point Of Silence
It has to be said that there is a point at which we reach with certain people, that is the point of Silence. More specifically it is the point at which silence in their presence is not awkward. Some might say that this is because you have said all that needs to be said but I would disagree as any of my close friends would argue, all that needs to be said is never fully said. Having spoke of something before does not mean you never speak of it again. There are several topics of conversation I fall back on with my friends time and time again and that's because our views change over time and we want to 'check in' with the other person and see if their views have changed too.
I would argue that the point of silence isn't a lack of things to say but rather that you have reached the point where you feel content in their presence, at ease. Their presence in itself is reassuring and you share your thought with each other to the point where you know if something was bothering the other person, they would tell you. Their silence doesn't worry you. All the while you have such a connection you can almost hear them thinking and there are times when you know a silence is unnatural and they are thinking.
Being in someone's presence, having the constant need to keep conversation moving and flowing isn't born out of the desire to be social. We are human beings and while conversation plays a part in this ritual, it is not the only driver. Quite the reverse is true actually from a Psychological point of view, when in the physical presence of someone, constantly talking and avoiding any silence at any cost is a behaviour born out of insecurity. You avoid silence because, silence is awkward; or at least that's the thought you have.
Your family, arguably should be the people you have known the longest in your life and as such over time they are sure to have grown to be aware of all your charms and quirks. Of all the people you know your family should be the template for proving this theory of the Point Of Silence. That is, you should feel comfortable in the presence of your family to the point where silence isn't awkward.
I have reached that point with my family. Beyond my immediate family I have reached this point with several friends and finally there are potentials, people I would hope to reach that point with.
I would argue that the point of silence isn't a lack of things to say but rather that you have reached the point where you feel content in their presence, at ease. Their presence in itself is reassuring and you share your thought with each other to the point where you know if something was bothering the other person, they would tell you. Their silence doesn't worry you. All the while you have such a connection you can almost hear them thinking and there are times when you know a silence is unnatural and they are thinking.
Being in someone's presence, having the constant need to keep conversation moving and flowing isn't born out of the desire to be social. We are human beings and while conversation plays a part in this ritual, it is not the only driver. Quite the reverse is true actually from a Psychological point of view, when in the physical presence of someone, constantly talking and avoiding any silence at any cost is a behaviour born out of insecurity. You avoid silence because, silence is awkward; or at least that's the thought you have.
Your family, arguably should be the people you have known the longest in your life and as such over time they are sure to have grown to be aware of all your charms and quirks. Of all the people you know your family should be the template for proving this theory of the Point Of Silence. That is, you should feel comfortable in the presence of your family to the point where silence isn't awkward.
I have reached that point with my family. Beyond my immediate family I have reached this point with several friends and finally there are potentials, people I would hope to reach that point with.
In your eyes I see a broken dream
No matter how the surface lies
The truth can be seen within your eyes
Put up a front for all the world
But in your face the truth is unfurled
The head can take charge and hide the thought
But within your heart the feeling is wrought
Bottle your feelings and you will soon find
That heart will always win when set against mind
The truth can be seen within your eyes
Put up a front for all the world
But in your face the truth is unfurled
The head can take charge and hide the thought
But within your heart the feeling is wrought
Bottle your feelings and you will soon find
That heart will always win when set against mind
Insomnia
I suffer from Insomnia, particularly a form in which I cannot fall asleep willingly. I've had this since I was a child, I have tried changing my diet every way I know how. I have tried going to bed earlier and so on but I just won't sleep no matter how hard I try. This isn't constant however and goes through cycles, periods where I have 'normal' sleep and periods where I have exhaustive sleep.
When I was in school I would go to bed every night at around half 9 or 10 and I wouldn't fall asleep until 3 or 4 o'clock. This would be the pattern for several days then I would sleep for about 14 to 16 hours. You may find that abnormal but that's only the beginning. As I have grown older the condition has in some ways got worse. This is by no means through any attempt to stay awake, I can lie in bed for hours not doing anything at all I just will not fall asleep.
I've adapted to this as I have got older though and I no longer lay in bed during that time, I do other things to occupy my times and hopefully tire myself out so that I can sleep. If I am ever sick however the reverse seems to apply, in that I feel incredibly tired all the time. The last major sickness I had was around January and I believed it was swine flu given many of the conditions. While sick I slept for 26 hours straight, completely missing an entire day. I went to sleep Wednesday night at around 8pm and woke up on Thursday at 10pm, I hadn't realized until Mum pointed it out, I thought I had slept 2 hours, and felt like I had only slept 2 hours.
There are many things I do to occupy my time, although I do like to watch Movies or listen to music while lying in bed as it offer me the option of falling asleep if it decides to come.
Some people in halls at Uni noticed my odd sleep pattern, one even said to me "if you're up this late anyway you'd be as well going out", it was an idea but one I never acted upon. Although I am awake I am by no means lively and energetic, it's been suggested that I was too tired to sleep.
It is a major inconvenience but one I have learned to work around. My family are not surprised by my sleep patterns, even my mum sometimes makes meals for me during the day and leaves them in the fridge for me to reheat in the middle of the night when my sleep pattern is so off that I'm asleep during the day. There is a 2 to 3 week stretch about once every month and a half that I have a normal sleep pattern now, that slowly rotates around the clock until I'm completely off and sleeping during the day and awake at night.
I read on a forum relating to Nystagmus that many people with the condition find themselves very tired and have odd sleeping patterns, after reading that I tried paying attention more to my sleep patterns and what I found was that:
For most people they are awake for 16 hours and sleep 8 hours a day. Ratio 2:1
I am awake for the same amount of time roughly 15 hours sometimes 16 but when I sleep I sleep between 10 and 12 hours on average. Ratio 4:3 [approx]
In essence this would mean my body is working to a 26 or 28 hour "day". Which accounts for the 'cycle' and the movement of my sleep pattern compared to normal people. I know the immediate reaction to this is to reduce the amount of waking hours to make it fit into 24 hours but as discussed above I can't control how long I stay awake, without being sick with some illness I'm always awake 16ish hours until I'm exhausted and practically pass-out. Likewise extending my waking hours isn't really an option as staying awake longer is very difficult, I get very drowsy to the point where I can hardly walk.
When I was in school I would go to bed every night at around half 9 or 10 and I wouldn't fall asleep until 3 or 4 o'clock. This would be the pattern for several days then I would sleep for about 14 to 16 hours. You may find that abnormal but that's only the beginning. As I have grown older the condition has in some ways got worse. This is by no means through any attempt to stay awake, I can lie in bed for hours not doing anything at all I just will not fall asleep.
I've adapted to this as I have got older though and I no longer lay in bed during that time, I do other things to occupy my times and hopefully tire myself out so that I can sleep. If I am ever sick however the reverse seems to apply, in that I feel incredibly tired all the time. The last major sickness I had was around January and I believed it was swine flu given many of the conditions. While sick I slept for 26 hours straight, completely missing an entire day. I went to sleep Wednesday night at around 8pm and woke up on Thursday at 10pm, I hadn't realized until Mum pointed it out, I thought I had slept 2 hours, and felt like I had only slept 2 hours.
There are many things I do to occupy my time, although I do like to watch Movies or listen to music while lying in bed as it offer me the option of falling asleep if it decides to come.
Some people in halls at Uni noticed my odd sleep pattern, one even said to me "if you're up this late anyway you'd be as well going out", it was an idea but one I never acted upon. Although I am awake I am by no means lively and energetic, it's been suggested that I was too tired to sleep.
It is a major inconvenience but one I have learned to work around. My family are not surprised by my sleep patterns, even my mum sometimes makes meals for me during the day and leaves them in the fridge for me to reheat in the middle of the night when my sleep pattern is so off that I'm asleep during the day. There is a 2 to 3 week stretch about once every month and a half that I have a normal sleep pattern now, that slowly rotates around the clock until I'm completely off and sleeping during the day and awake at night.
I read on a forum relating to Nystagmus that many people with the condition find themselves very tired and have odd sleeping patterns, after reading that I tried paying attention more to my sleep patterns and what I found was that:
For most people they are awake for 16 hours and sleep 8 hours a day. Ratio 2:1
I am awake for the same amount of time roughly 15 hours sometimes 16 but when I sleep I sleep between 10 and 12 hours on average. Ratio 4:3 [approx]
In essence this would mean my body is working to a 26 or 28 hour "day". Which accounts for the 'cycle' and the movement of my sleep pattern compared to normal people. I know the immediate reaction to this is to reduce the amount of waking hours to make it fit into 24 hours but as discussed above I can't control how long I stay awake, without being sick with some illness I'm always awake 16ish hours until I'm exhausted and practically pass-out. Likewise extending my waking hours isn't really an option as staying awake longer is very difficult, I get very drowsy to the point where I can hardly walk.
Blood of the Dead
Organ donation is a controversial subject for many. Many people would prefer to be buried intact without any organs or parts of the body being removed.
After having a debate with a friend over blood donation I got to thinking. When you donate blood on average you give around a pint of blood. The average human has around 8 pints of blood in them. When you die that blood is drained by the coroner before you are taken by the undertaker for the funeral preparations. That's when I had a thought "Can you use blood from a dead body?" apparently the answer is yes you can.
After reading an article on Time.com entitled 'Blood from the Dead' I got to thinking, since this blood is waste, almost in a mandatory matter, as you are not buried with blood still in your system, why can it not be reused? If we have such a large deficit of blood donors why should blood harvesting from cadavers not be common place? It is already removed so for those that do not wish to donate organs etc. there should be no added concern than already exists in the anticipation of death.
Approximately 70 million people will die per year between 2010 and 2015 according to the UN Crude Death Rate Data considering the top 10 causes of death and how many would be considered 'contaminated blood' approximately 50% of the crude death rate would be eligible 'good donors'. This represents 35 million people. Each with 8 pints of blood allowing for blood lost in certain circumstances if you halve this again to 4 pints you still have approx 140 million pints of blood per year that could potentially be used. All this beggars the question, should we use blood from the dead?
After having a debate with a friend over blood donation I got to thinking. When you donate blood on average you give around a pint of blood. The average human has around 8 pints of blood in them. When you die that blood is drained by the coroner before you are taken by the undertaker for the funeral preparations. That's when I had a thought "Can you use blood from a dead body?" apparently the answer is yes you can.
After reading an article on Time.com entitled 'Blood from the Dead' I got to thinking, since this blood is waste, almost in a mandatory matter, as you are not buried with blood still in your system, why can it not be reused? If we have such a large deficit of blood donors why should blood harvesting from cadavers not be common place? It is already removed so for those that do not wish to donate organs etc. there should be no added concern than already exists in the anticipation of death.
Approximately 70 million people will die per year between 2010 and 2015 according to the UN Crude Death Rate Data considering the top 10 causes of death and how many would be considered 'contaminated blood' approximately 50% of the crude death rate would be eligible 'good donors'. This represents 35 million people. Each with 8 pints of blood allowing for blood lost in certain circumstances if you halve this again to 4 pints you still have approx 140 million pints of blood per year that could potentially be used. All this beggars the question, should we use blood from the dead?
Linux
I have a love/hate relationship with Linux. I love the idea of it but I hate the reality. Time and time again one thing recurs in my experience - how easy it is to break Linux. Now I don't mean 'break' as in hacking or cracking I just mean it in the literal sense, as in to break it and make it unusable.
I have deleted xorg by accident, I have corrupted it by accident. I have played around with the Synaptic Package Manager and removed certain things and added others. There are various ways I have made it become unusable. Unlike Windows however many of the distributions I listed don't have the same user-friendly recovery tools as Windows.
To date, I have tried:
Ark
Fedora
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu
Mandriva
aLinux
Knoppix
OpenSUSE
Linux Mint
DEFT Linux
I am convinced there are others that I haven't listed but have tried, I have lost track of how many I have tried. The main gripe I have with Linux is that inevitably the terminal is inescapable. Windows users will know this as the command prompt and while in the World of Windows you can quite happily exist without ever having to use it, you will sooner or later have to use it in Linux.
Linux has improved in recent years but simple tasks like installing Flash can be a headache. Often you will find yourself Googling the answer then blindly copying and pasting commands from some random website you aren't even 100% sure you can trust. Beyond flash, installing almost anything becomes equally as cumbersome. You can't just download an 'exe' file and double click it. You need to download package files, often with dependencies leading to other packages you need to download and install first. The files themselves aren't always executable you have to make them executable which is counter intuitive, and again leads to the aforementioned Googling and blindly following instructions.
There is an xkcd comic strip 'workaround' and the quote:
Mac is designed for people with complete ignorance to the underlying technology in mind. Linux is designed with complete understanding of the underlying technology in mind. Windows is designed with the intention that no understanding is needed and the majority of users do fine without any understanding. Windows makes the provisions for those who want to have a greater understanding and provides access to many advanced features for those who are knowledgeable on the platform.
The three platforms seem firmly routed in their places and it appears not one would like to move. In my mind Linux will always be a Geek Operating System and it will remain that way. The annoying people are those opinionated people who move from one to the other and try to convince everyone to move, oblivious to this scale.
This blog post is by no means any attempt to dissuade or move anyone from their platform of choice. I am simply stating my reasons for not moving. I am sure there are many out there on platforms other than Windows who would have a long list of complaints about Windows and reasons why their platform is 'better'. To me you are the relative that has their own system, it works for you, but it's not for me. That statement is by no means a statement of animosity as I am perfectly confident that you probably think of me in the same way.
I have deleted xorg by accident, I have corrupted it by accident. I have played around with the Synaptic Package Manager and removed certain things and added others. There are various ways I have made it become unusable. Unlike Windows however many of the distributions I listed don't have the same user-friendly recovery tools as Windows.
To date, I have tried:
Ark
Fedora
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu
Mandriva
aLinux
Knoppix
OpenSUSE
Linux Mint
DEFT Linux
I am convinced there are others that I haven't listed but have tried, I have lost track of how many I have tried. The main gripe I have with Linux is that inevitably the terminal is inescapable. Windows users will know this as the command prompt and while in the World of Windows you can quite happily exist without ever having to use it, you will sooner or later have to use it in Linux.
Linux has improved in recent years but simple tasks like installing Flash can be a headache. Often you will find yourself Googling the answer then blindly copying and pasting commands from some random website you aren't even 100% sure you can trust. Beyond flash, installing almost anything becomes equally as cumbersome. You can't just download an 'exe' file and double click it. You need to download package files, often with dependencies leading to other packages you need to download and install first. The files themselves aren't always executable you have to make them executable which is counter intuitive, and again leads to the aforementioned Googling and blindly following instructions.
There is an xkcd comic strip 'workaround' and the quote:
However, I've learned an important lesson: if they say they've solved their problem, never ask howThis is my view of Linux. I use Windows. It works for me. Linux is akin to the relative you encouraged to solve the problem themselves. Their method seems convoluted and counter-intuitive. I am slowly learning not to bother even asking. I dip into Linux every now and then to see how it is progressing but I inevitably leave and return to Windows for one reason, it is built with abstraction, you do not need to know how it works, it just does. I hear the Mac Fanbois scream at this comment and yes I accept this is Apple's phrase of choice but I would argue Linux, Windows and Mac form a scale.
Mac is designed for people with complete ignorance to the underlying technology in mind. Linux is designed with complete understanding of the underlying technology in mind. Windows is designed with the intention that no understanding is needed and the majority of users do fine without any understanding. Windows makes the provisions for those who want to have a greater understanding and provides access to many advanced features for those who are knowledgeable on the platform.
The three platforms seem firmly routed in their places and it appears not one would like to move. In my mind Linux will always be a Geek Operating System and it will remain that way. The annoying people are those opinionated people who move from one to the other and try to convince everyone to move, oblivious to this scale.
This blog post is by no means any attempt to dissuade or move anyone from their platform of choice. I am simply stating my reasons for not moving. I am sure there are many out there on platforms other than Windows who would have a long list of complaints about Windows and reasons why their platform is 'better'. To me you are the relative that has their own system, it works for you, but it's not for me. That statement is by no means a statement of animosity as I am perfectly confident that you probably think of me in the same way.
My View on A.I.
We cannot perfect Artificial Intelligence at present because we still do not fully understand Human Intelligence.
Characteristics of Human intelligence including epiphany and eureka moments are still a mystery. The main barrier though in developing AI is that we cannot teach programs to believe something that is false. This is an integral part of Intelligence, Humanity has been able to evolve because it can pursue beliefs that have no foundations whatsoever. In other words Humans can have faith. Machines can't they are restricted to logic and can only learn what that logic can process.
The problem here isn't really the issue of programming computers but ironically that Science leads the way in AI and holds no place for Religion. Human Intelligence is defined by the ability to believe something even when all evidence points against it. This is integral in our ability to form a hypothesis and experiment. It brings forth new knowledge that is later connected to what we already know. This, in philosophy and in psychology is referred to as a priori knowledge i.e. knowledge independent of experience. Machines are limited to using posteriori knowledge - knowledge dependent on experience and empirical knowledge - in other words Machines can only learn through experience.
The other main barrier is that computers and machines are incapable of true random actions. A computer cannot act in true random fashion, their actions are always predeterminable. Computers cannot generate true random numbers - this can only be achieved through incredibly complex processes. Processes which for which it is not feasible to include within any AI setting. As a result AI programs cannot "evolve" instead they are "trained" in which an initial set-up is defined and they progress through millions of variations until they reach a variation that solves the task they were given. This still does not constitute machine evolution as it cannot encompass randomness in the way real evolution does.
This video below depicts Machine Evolution. This approach is a novel approach to Artificial Intelligence design that basically accepts that we do not understand Intelligence so rather than try to mimic it we should create very basic structures and give the A.I. the ability to evolve. Evolution is by far a simpler concept to model than Intelligence in itself. The difference here as opposed to Machine Learning is that the way in which the A.I. operates changes rather than staying static and building experience. Watch the video to understand more:
Now before you start worrying this still does not fully constitute Machine Evolution on a level that mimics Human evolution. Likewise these structures cannot evolve sentience. These evolutionary programs only work when the goal-set is tightly controlled. It is however interesting as a friend pointed out that these programs can develop 'brains' that work but we have no idea why they work. Being able to produce complex structures that mirror natural selection which results in the same complexity as natural evolution is potentially worrying as the potential for future generations to have extended fields of study such as 'Machine Psychology' arises - i.e. the rationalisation and study of Machines in an attempt to understand how they work, in the same way we study Humans; ultimately this is caused by the reality that future AI will reach a level at some point where we will have no understanding of its structure and coding at all.
In brevity Machine Intelligence needs a purpose, Human Intelligence has no purpose, or purpose unknown, which we have sought to define for thousands of years. We seek to define it because we believe there must be a purpose even though evidence for all intents and purposes would conclude that the possibility that we have no purpose is plausible. In other words, our continued existence is one pursued out of faith.
Characteristics of Human intelligence including epiphany and eureka moments are still a mystery. The main barrier though in developing AI is that we cannot teach programs to believe something that is false. This is an integral part of Intelligence, Humanity has been able to evolve because it can pursue beliefs that have no foundations whatsoever. In other words Humans can have faith. Machines can't they are restricted to logic and can only learn what that logic can process.
The problem here isn't really the issue of programming computers but ironically that Science leads the way in AI and holds no place for Religion. Human Intelligence is defined by the ability to believe something even when all evidence points against it. This is integral in our ability to form a hypothesis and experiment. It brings forth new knowledge that is later connected to what we already know. This, in philosophy and in psychology is referred to as a priori knowledge i.e. knowledge independent of experience. Machines are limited to using posteriori knowledge - knowledge dependent on experience and empirical knowledge - in other words Machines can only learn through experience.
The other main barrier is that computers and machines are incapable of true random actions. A computer cannot act in true random fashion, their actions are always predeterminable. Computers cannot generate true random numbers - this can only be achieved through incredibly complex processes. Processes which for which it is not feasible to include within any AI setting. As a result AI programs cannot "evolve" instead they are "trained" in which an initial set-up is defined and they progress through millions of variations until they reach a variation that solves the task they were given. This still does not constitute machine evolution as it cannot encompass randomness in the way real evolution does.
This video below depicts Machine Evolution. This approach is a novel approach to Artificial Intelligence design that basically accepts that we do not understand Intelligence so rather than try to mimic it we should create very basic structures and give the A.I. the ability to evolve. Evolution is by far a simpler concept to model than Intelligence in itself. The difference here as opposed to Machine Learning is that the way in which the A.I. operates changes rather than staying static and building experience. Watch the video to understand more:
Edit: Unfortunately the original video has been removed and those that have replaced it show algorithms beyond the scope of the time when this post was first written.
Now before you start worrying this still does not fully constitute Machine Evolution on a level that mimics Human evolution. Likewise these structures cannot evolve sentience. These evolutionary programs only work when the goal-set is tightly controlled. It is however interesting as a friend pointed out that these programs can develop 'brains' that work but we have no idea why they work. Being able to produce complex structures that mirror natural selection which results in the same complexity as natural evolution is potentially worrying as the potential for future generations to have extended fields of study such as 'Machine Psychology' arises - i.e. the rationalisation and study of Machines in an attempt to understand how they work, in the same way we study Humans; ultimately this is caused by the reality that future AI will reach a level at some point where we will have no understanding of its structure and coding at all.
In brevity Machine Intelligence needs a purpose, Human Intelligence has no purpose, or purpose unknown, which we have sought to define for thousands of years. We seek to define it because we believe there must be a purpose even though evidence for all intents and purposes would conclude that the possibility that we have no purpose is plausible. In other words, our continued existence is one pursued out of faith.
Are you listening?
Related to a conversation I had with a friend about text conversations this post extends the topic to all conversations, by phone, email, Skype, MSN and even in person [I know can you believe people still do that?]
The question is: How can you be sure the other person is listening? Now in the sake of emails and texts and other written communication that still applies as 'listening' in this respect means actually reading what you wrote. A long text or email for example, when the other person replies with one line or less, maybe even just 'k' infuriates me because it leads me to one of two thoughts: "Is that all you can say?" or "You didn't even read that?"
There are a number of ways you can respond to this, for me when this happens to me, I will ignore you. Indefinitely if needs be. Until you either apologise or acknowledge what you did.
This whole topic arose as the result of a text conversation I was having with someone which they did not reply to for over a week. That's not the longest they have ever gone without replying either, the longest has been a month. They acknowledge the text when they eventually reply which makes it worse because that lets you know they did get it - and ignored it.
Staying in touch is a duplex system. You have to make the effort and so do they. If they don't then why should you? I am adamant in my beliefs which I have shared repeatedly: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", this is a contract in my eyes, not only does it mean I should treat others as I want them to treat me, but it also means that I should treat others the same way they treat me.
I learned a long time ago, I don't need people I don't care about in my life and I don't need people who don't care about me in my life either.
Sexual 'Balancing'
I was watching an episode of Torchwood the other day, for those of you who have never seen Torchwood it's a Sci-fi/Fantasy series made by the BBC that spun-off from Doctor Who. One of the main characters is Captain Jack Harkness played by John Barrowman. Captain Jack is Gay - well actually his sexuality is depicted throughout the series and throughout Doctor Who as being quite fluid, although the majority of his intimate relationship revolve around him and other men.
The current series is called Torchwood: Miracle Day and revolves around the idea of a strange manifestation that affects the entire Human Race and as a result Death is stopped. No matter how people would die they just don't.
I won't name names for sake of preventing spoilers for those who haven't see; however there was a scene in which Captain Jack had an intimate encounter with a man he had a relationship of sorts with. The fact that they had sex on screen in itself was not odd. What was odd however was what happened next. The very next scene involved another main male character having a sexual encounter with a woman. Now again this act in itself isn't odd the timing however is - that is 1 Gay sex scene immediately followed by 1 straight sex scene.
Now if ever there was an example of something being shoe-horned in [no pun intended] this would be it. Now in context given that Torchwood is a BBC programme this isn't exactly shocking. The BBC is quite notorious for its regulations and guidelines on branding and any form of opinion basically. If you have ever listened to any Radio show such as the Chris Moyles show you will be familiar with the phrases of Producer Aled which are dropped in all the time "other brands are available", "it's okay because you've mentioned other brands" and to a lesser extent "as long as we cover both sides" relating to opinions on topics of a Political nature.
The BBC however although at this moment being the most prevalent in my mind is not the only broadcaster slash production company that has these guidelines and even now I have to refer back to a Gay Movie Review I recently wrote about a Movie called Shelter, in which the same "sexual balancing" can be highlighted. Straight sex and relationships being brought forward when they weren't really relevant to the storyline at all.
I am all for equal representation in the media but I think that Politics in General, Gender Politics and Sexuality Politics should not play such heavy roles in deciding content. They interfere with creativity, ponder if you will my Politically Correct "Balanced" version of Goldie Locks and the 3 Bears entitled "Goldie Locks, Brownie Ben and the 4 Bears":
As idiotic as the above sounds, having never been to a script reading or writing session for television this is what I would imagine these meetings to involve. At what point does Political Correctness interfere with creativity?
The current series is called Torchwood: Miracle Day and revolves around the idea of a strange manifestation that affects the entire Human Race and as a result Death is stopped. No matter how people would die they just don't.
I won't name names for sake of preventing spoilers for those who haven't see; however there was a scene in which Captain Jack had an intimate encounter with a man he had a relationship of sorts with. The fact that they had sex on screen in itself was not odd. What was odd however was what happened next. The very next scene involved another main male character having a sexual encounter with a woman. Now again this act in itself isn't odd the timing however is - that is 1 Gay sex scene immediately followed by 1 straight sex scene.
Now if ever there was an example of something being shoe-horned in [no pun intended] this would be it. Now in context given that Torchwood is a BBC programme this isn't exactly shocking. The BBC is quite notorious for its regulations and guidelines on branding and any form of opinion basically. If you have ever listened to any Radio show such as the Chris Moyles show you will be familiar with the phrases of Producer Aled which are dropped in all the time "other brands are available", "it's okay because you've mentioned other brands" and to a lesser extent "as long as we cover both sides" relating to opinions on topics of a Political nature.
The BBC however although at this moment being the most prevalent in my mind is not the only broadcaster slash production company that has these guidelines and even now I have to refer back to a Gay Movie Review I recently wrote about a Movie called Shelter, in which the same "sexual balancing" can be highlighted. Straight sex and relationships being brought forward when they weren't really relevant to the storyline at all.
I am all for equal representation in the media but I think that Politics in General, Gender Politics and Sexuality Politics should not play such heavy roles in deciding content. They interfere with creativity, ponder if you will my Politically Correct "Balanced" version of Goldie Locks and the 3 Bears entitled "Goldie Locks, Brownie Ben and the 4 Bears":
Once upon a time there were two children walking through a forest. Their names were Goldie Locks and Brownie Ben. Goldie Locks was an innocent little girl with long curly blonde hair and blue eyes. Brownie Ben was an innocent little boy with short brown hair and green eyes. They were walking through a forest playing games when they happened upon a House. Inside the House lived four Bears. Grandma Bear, Grandpa Bear, Mama Bear and Baby Bear.Heterosexual married couple with a child. Single parent with a child. No laws broken. Equal representation of dietary habits. Baby's gender not specified as it would be making a statement upon which gender a single parent should best hope for.
Grandpa Bear and Grandma Bear were happily married and had one daughter Mama bear. Mama Bear was a single Mother and was left alone to raise little baby bear. That day they were sitting down to breakfast. Grandpa Bear and grandma Bear were having toast with scrambled eggs and bacon. Mama Bear was a vegetarian and she was having a nice breakfast of Orange Juice and toast spread with strawberry Jam. Baby bear was eating Cow and Gate baby food, other brands were available and indeed Mama bear would vary her purchase every now and then.
They ate their breakfast and then decided to go for a walk. While they were out Goldie Locks and Brownie Ben had stumbled across the house. They came up to the door having smelt the delicious food. They knocked three times but no-one answered. They decided to be on their way as no-one was home and it would be wrong to enter someone's house without their permission. Indeed the door was locked, to get into the house the to children would have to break in which would have been a very naughty thing to do. So they strolled on upon their way and left the house in peace.
The End
As idiotic as the above sounds, having never been to a script reading or writing session for television this is what I would imagine these meetings to involve. At what point does Political Correctness interfere with creativity?
Money is disgusting
If I was to say to you: Would you sleep in a bed the sheets of which had not been washed in 10 years? You'd probably reply 'No'. If I asked you would you sleep in the same bed knowing in the last 10 years at least 1 million people have slept in it, maybe more, you'd probably shudder at the thought and definitely reply 'No'. You'd probably be adamant that you wouldn't even touch that bed right?
[I realise some of you will have said yes to the above questions and had no problems.]
If all this grosses you out or freaks you out then ponder this: the other day I got cash from a cash machine and I stopped for moment and looked at the notes in my hand. It hit me how little we actually think about what we are prepared to touch.
One single note on average is between 5 and 10 years old. It will have been handled by well over a million people easily. Now think about how many times you have ever used the toilet and not washed your hands, or how many of those people never washed their hands. Think of the places you keep money, ever kept money in your shoe? your sock? your bra? or in . . . other . . . places? Where has that money been? I'm sure you've been on Holiday at some point in your life and come home with foreign currency, not being something practical and people being procrastinators where do you throw it and forget about it? Quite literally where has that money been? How many countries has it been to?
When you stop and think about this one thing becomes clear - almost every single person in this world will handle money, the number of people who have handled it before you has the potential to be immense. Never being washed that's a lot of germs and bacteria to gather as it does the rounds. Really truly that money must be disgusting!
Fun Fact: In the City of Los Angeles, California USA 3 out of every 4 bank notes has been tainted or holds traces of cocaine or some other ilicit drug
Source: L.A. Times Archive: Prevalence of Drug-Tainted Money Voids Case Law
For my fellow countrymen living in the UK we do not escape this reality:
According to forensic experts, around 80 per cent of all banknotes in circulation are contaminated with drugs, a figure that rises to 99 per cent in the London area
Source: Guardian: £15m of notes tainted by drugs are destroyed each year
Soundtracks
Music is important in our lives. There is no escaping this. Whether you listen to music on a media player, have an extensive CD collection or Vinyl or purely digital - even if you don't have a music collection at all you are exposed to music everywhere.
TV ads, music played in shops, background scores to Movies, TV Shows and Video Games there is no escaping music. Music can, make or break a product. Music is one of the key devices used in any Media setting to engage with the consumer.
When studying Games Technology at University we covered the use of Music in Games. There are some emphatic tracks that exist, borne of the need for background Music in video games these tracks have become iconic representations of the memories and attachment we created through their association with our experience.
Below are 4 Youtube videos, these show a Movie, a Game, an Advert and a TV Show soundtrack. All 4 I am sure the majority of my readers will have heard before.
From these alone it is easy to see the range of emotions and the plethora of memories Music can evoke. So I leave you with a simple question, what is your all-time favourite background track? Movie, Game, TV Show, Advert wherever or whenever you experienced it please share.
TV ads, music played in shops, background scores to Movies, TV Shows and Video Games there is no escaping music. Music can, make or break a product. Music is one of the key devices used in any Media setting to engage with the consumer.
When studying Games Technology at University we covered the use of Music in Games. There are some emphatic tracks that exist, borne of the need for background Music in video games these tracks have become iconic representations of the memories and attachment we created through their association with our experience.
Below are 4 Youtube videos, these show a Movie, a Game, an Advert and a TV Show soundtrack. All 4 I am sure the majority of my readers will have heard before.
From these alone it is easy to see the range of emotions and the plethora of memories Music can evoke. So I leave you with a simple question, what is your all-time favourite background track? Movie, Game, TV Show, Advert wherever or whenever you experienced it please share.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)