Amusing

I couldn't stop laughing on the bus a few days ago. A guy was nodding off and a female was seated beside him. He was on the outer seat and was nodding very drastically left and right. When he nodded left he looked ready to fall onto the corridor. When he nodded right the female shouldered him away. The female saw me laughing silently and that made me laugh even more.

Recent observations and www.eve-online.com > www.worldofwarcraft.com

Something happened in tutorial today. A female beside me was surfing some WOW website while the tutor was talking. A male student beside me straightened up and visibly leaned closer towards me, which is actually leaning closer towards the female's screen. It doesn't take much to figure on the spot that he plays WOW too, and I reckon he would've said "hey you play WOW too" to the female if I weren't in the way. What he did instead was to go surf a similar WOW website himself - after the female has finished surfing hers.

The first question I have to ask is, why must the female surf that website during the tutorial? I propose 3 plausible answers:

A) She is bored.
B) She is thinking about the game.
C) She wants to let people know in an indirect manner that she plays WOW.

If it is A), then I must wonder why surf WOW and not some other website. It must therefore follow that WOW is on her top priority surfing list - which leads us to B) or C).

When we talk about B), she either has something important to do on that WOW site or she does not. If she has something important to do on that website, then her action is to some extent explained. If she has nothing important to do on that website, it must mean that she is simply satisfying a craving to be in touch with the game. Either way if a game is allowed to override attention to a tutorial, then I suspect addiction is involved.

C) may seem a bizarre explanation, but according to SirWhale's Razor, the most bizarre explanation is usually the right explanation. Including, of course, the previous sentence.

The second question I have to ask is, why must the guy surf the website himself. I propose two plausible answers:

A) He was reminded that he has some things to check on the site.
B) He was communicating to the female that he plays the game too.

A) is plausible but very unlikely. I covertly screened his screen and observed that he was just randomly clicking around. Or so it looked like, since I don't play the game.

Hence by eliminating A) we arrive at B). Even without eliminating A) I think it wouldn't take much to realise that, when you see someone sharing something in common (or hobby, or whatever) as yourself, you tend to get excited, but you also don't want to appear immature and/or overly eager in saying something like, "I play the game too!" What you want to do is to appear dignified in communicating to the other person that you have something in common with him or her, and perhaps hold the hope that the other person may make the initiative to make contact instead of yourself.

The third question I have got to ask is, why didn't I look at the female's screen to determine the nature of her surfing. I propose two plausible answers:

A) I don't play WOW. Who cares what she's doing on a WOW website.
B) I want to pay attention to the tutor.

I think both answers are equally valid, but it still doesn't address why I looked at the male's screen but not hers. The answer to this is actually quite simple: It is only when the male appeared curious about the female that I started being curious about them both.

On a seperate note, I hate group discussions and team projects. It is commonly observed that the cool people will always be with the cool people, and most recent observations have not proved otherwise. It has always been the case, and it will probably always be the case, given the condition of freedom of choice.

What I have from young always found interesting, though, is when 1 or 2 cool people land up on the outskirts and form their own group with not-so-cool people. Now, when I say cool, I mean they are generally capable as well, because in the context of group work, cool = sociable = better communication = better flow of ideas, better teamwork, etc. As opposed to a bunch of un-cool guys like myself who sit down, stare at each other, and be uncomfortable before someone musters the courage to talk, which could take up to 5 minutes. Even then what the person may first say is: What are we supposed to do? Or....Ok, lets start? In which case there will be another silent period of 5 minutes.

So when 1 or 2 cool people land up on the outskirts, it means that there is power distributed away from a dominant group, and so far it is still inconclusive whether 1 cool leader + 3 silent followers > 4 synergetic members.

I'm just going to do my part, as usual, and nothing more. I don't believe in group work when it comes to writing.

My kind of drink is a glass of milk

Discovered, in the course of studies, a couple of interesting websites.

This is a test on your relationship with information technology. I belong to the Connected but Hassled group, no surprises there.

This is a test on what personality you have based on the visuals that appeal most to you. It's not bad I think. I am a dreamer when it comes to moods, an escape artist when it comes to fun, a back to basics person when it comes to habits, and a nostalgic when it comes to social.

Channel 8

ME: The difference between liking someone is that when you like someone, you are always enjoying his or her company; when you love someone, you are always in tears.

FRIEND: Where did you get that from.

ME: I'll answer that if you tell me what you think of it.

FRIEND: Exaggerated and platitudinous.

ME: Channel 8.

More calm

The past few years of life have taught me to be more tolerant of unfortunate circumstances. These days, I don't go hysterical waiting more than ten minutes for a bus.

Heaven and Hell

In the case where heaven and hell exist, it is only reasonable to say non-religious people would go to the latter and religious people the former. Whether one is religious or not is made by personal choice, and I doubt God would be very touched - or fooled - by someone who is religious in name but heretical in nature. If I make the personal choice of disbelieving in his existence in this lifetime, I would have to accept my my going to hell should he exist, as is the common but not-so-well articulated consequence that must unfold. (As a matter of fact, I frequently wonder how a christian and a non-christian can be very close friends because the former, just by being a christian, is already saying the latter will have to go to hell in his afterlife)

What if, however, someone else is unable to make this choice in his or her lifetime? Common examples would be infants who die while still young, mentally handicapped people who cannot possibly make cognitive decisions, and even tribal people who are not aware of the existence of a christian god. Where would such people go upon the end of their mortal life? Heaven, hell, or neither?

Perhaps God is merciful and understands that it was not in their capacity to make the choice. He thus grants them a place in Heaven, because to send them to Hell when it was not their own doing is to be unmerciful and unreasonable. If this were the case, then I hardly see how he is being fair to either christians or non-christians. Christians, because they were devout followers who put in a lot of sincere commitment in their faith. If a place in Heaven is not contingent on sincere belief in the faith, then it just means their faith has been undermined and in some sense unnecessary. Non-christians, because by just being ignorant and not doing anything these people can gain eternal bliss while they on the other hand, have had to slog through a normal mortal life only to be awarded eternal punishment in the afterlife.

Now someone may argue that non-christians, since they are not handicapped in any way, are thus able to enjoy the full benefits of living on this earth whereas people who are handicapped are worse-off in this life, hence it may not be so 'unfair' that these worse-off people be granted eternal bliss after all. I personally believe this is a very contentious point. A mentally handicapped person may be missing out on all the pleasures of life that we get to enjoy, but at the same time he is oblivious to all the suffering life has to offer, assuming he has very little self-consciousness if any at all. Look at it this way: such people can be said to have lived their lives asleep, and at the end of their mortal lives, they emerge from their sleep to find themselves in a place called Heaven.

What if we say, maybe God doesn't grant all of such people a place in Heaven? Maybe he selects them, and he selects them on a fair criteria. For example, he being omniscient, he knows which of those people would become christians if they were given the ability to make a choice. He then grants those who would have been devout followers a place and denies those who would not have been devout followers a place. I have nothing much to say against this line of thought, except that an infant who find himself dead at birth may almost immdiately after find himself in a hellish place, and I hardly see the fairness in this.

If it isn't fair for God to send such people to Heaven, even discriminately, or for him to send them to Hell, then perhaps he adopts a neutral stand and sends them to a neutral place? I don't know if such a place exists in biblical literature, but if it does exist and it is true to its neutral nature then I would expect all their inhabitants to be in a state not unlike that when you are in a deep sleep. That is, they feel nothing at all. This is still unfair to non-christians. Why should, ultimately, a tribal person who had no awareness of the christian god have the privilege of eternal sleep when a prominent scientist who contributed to the progress of mankind be condemned to Hell?

There is a final situation we must address. Perhaps, when all is said and done in our mortal lives and we are about to die, God will approach us in the form of white light and give us non-christians one last chance of salvation. Infants who were dead at birth or mentally handicapped people who can't think will now be able to at the very least feel his magnificance, and it is likely God could communicate to them in special ways. Believe in him and we will go to Heaven, not and we will go to Hell. If he does that, I think it is likely almost everyone would choose to believe, not because they want to go to Heaven, but because there is, at long last, strong empirical evidence that he exists. I would naturally say I believe too, but at the same time I would feel this is being unfair to christians, because we need not have spent our sundays in church nor be constrained in leading a life by the bible, to enjoy the same privilege they have in the end.

Postsecret

Over here at postsecret.blogspot.com, people post their secrets anonymously. Sounds cheesy? Sounds girly? There's a funny one that says, 'I hope she loses so that I can still have a shot at becoming the first female president of the U.S.A'. There's a poignant one that says, 'I secretly wish my father would come to my wedding. Just to prove he hasn't really been dead for 17 years.' And there's a very beautiful one that says, in a seperate email message, 'I am a counselor in a locked mental health facility. We joke that we are just patients with keys.'

We ask god why we don't have achievements

Passed by a school today, it had huge banners outside saying, in bold, WE THANK GOD FOR OUR ACHIEVEMENTS. What do they say if the school doesn't have any achievements?

Just called a help centre, noted they have graveyard shifts. Can just imagine a few of them in an air-conditioned room, and it's generally quiet. Sometimes they talk to each other for a while, someone has a call, she goes to attend to it, the group conversation breaks up and resumes soon after. Or maybe it's perpetually quiet, each person at her own desk doing her own thing like staring into space.

In search for memories

I woke up this morning from some scant dreams, and for some reason which could be indirectly related to them, remembered that I had a few photos of nyjc and the tranquil neighborhood. However I did not remember seeing them anywhere, either in digital or hard copy, so I embarked on a 1-hr search of my room that churned out many forgotten memories but nothing that I was looking for.

There are 3 very important pieces of information that I draw from the search. 1) That I must go down to the neighborhood soon, while I am currently free. 2) That the army's rule of no bringing cameras to camp deprived me from capturing what could have been very beautiful memories. And most important of them all, 3), that there could be so many memories that have been captured but are now lost, just like my photos of the neighbourhood of my junior college.

And it has just (literally, just) struck me that I have taken photos of the college library when I was almost alone inside and it was all dark outside, and I did not see them anywhere in my search, which of course further reinforces point 3. This is very bad because while I can recapture the scenes of the neighborhood (the driveway surrounded by plants and was very beautiful when you walked out of it alone at 4pm; the small coffee stalls I consistently ate at instead of the school's canteen), it wouldn't be easy recapturing the atmosphere of the library as when I originally took it. I remember that particular evening when it was stormy and dark outside, which made the lights in the library seem warmer, and there was a row of empty tables and chairs in front of me.

Now, one can argue that one's memory is the best regulatory tool for, well, the keeping and dispensing of memories. Hence one can argue that memories which I can't recall are unimportant enough that I can't recall them and so it doesn't matter if I can recall them anyway. Conversely, the memories that I can recall are the most important ones, and they are all that should matter.

I am usually wary of such arguments because their reasoning seems so tight they exclude logic itself. For one thing, photos can be viewed as an integral part to memory collection, such that they expand your memory base. When I went through some photos I haven't looked into a long time poignant memories were invoked of the specific outings that were depicted. Sure the impression of a certain time will always be there, but photos fill up the intricate details of a general picture. For another, to be consistent in that argument, one would view cameras as unimportant enough to not use them - something I don't envision proponents of that argument doing. You might as well say that a manager doesn't need to keep reminders because if he doesn't remember a certain thing it probably is unimportant enough to not merit remembering.

Anyway, it still stands that there could be a few other pieces of memories that could be now permanently lost - and I don't even know what they are, and probably will never know what they are. Some would say it doesn't matter then, if you don't know what you're missing out. I wonder if such people are truly content with their lives.