Second Thoughts on the Mouse

Okay. The mouse is a great tool, we all know that, right? Well, I'm not so sure. To be honest, I would rather simply use the keyboard for everything. Not as intuitive, to be sure, and maybe it's just because I really hate track-pads, but I would like to have a completely keyboard-based interface for firefox, and perhaps the rest of the system as well. I still want the gui, though, which rules out the simple solution (BASH and wget).

Coming soon: Why I Hate Everyone So Much, And Thus Insult People When I Get Bored.

By soon, I mean eventually, you idiot.

Studying vs. Imagination

Normally, my attention span for things like studying is tiny (for an uninteresting subject, such as spanish, maybe 15 minutes. For a moderately interesting subject, such as english, I'll put in the effort to read a book. For a very interesting subject, such as math or biology, it's between 0 and 15 minutes). The fact that I can get along in most subjects (everything except spanish, really) without more than the minimum of studying means that this is normally not a problem. However, sometimes it is.

I'll begin with why I have trouble studying for math: There's nothing to study. Once I use a formula enough, I don't need to study to remember it. However, using formulas is so structured as to be useless. If there was something interesting to use them for, I would spend hours working on getting it perfect. As it is, they're just abstracts. Useful abstracts, perhaps, but nothing compared to how much fun writing a program is - it's both practice, and it does something.

For biology, I want to study it. It's a really interesting feild (in fact, contrary to what most people might think, I would prefer bioengineering or cellular engineering as a career to most things that are computer-centric), so much that I can't focus. For example, to study for a rather major test that's coming up in a month or so, I started trying to read the textbook. The beginning is not very interesting. However, what it does do is distract me. I start thinking of what could be done, and then I can't focus on the book. The same thing happened to me yesterday when I was building things that go Fwoom! Someone suggested that building a microbe (probably a fungus) that bursts into flame would be a nice project. It completely distracted me, thinking about possible ways to do it ...

Gah, distracted again. Probably a set of enzymes that seperate carbon, and then move it into a seperate segment of the cell. Maybe, in a larger organism, they could be designed to drop all of the carbon into a sac, which would grow off the organism.

Okay, so it would take a LOT of effort to do. But it would be fun, damn it!

Under the Influence of ...

From Wikipedia:

Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon an appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of an action. The individual needs to be in possession of relevant facts and also of his or her reasoning faculties, such as not being mentally retarded or mentally ill and without an impairment of judgment at the time of consenting. Such impairments might include illness, intoxication, insufficient sleep, and other health problems.

Somehow, I don't think that being constantly tired would classify under that. It probably refers to something more along the lines of being awake for >36 hours (I think that some of the people I know have done this). On the other hand, if the definitions of "impairment of judgment" is taken to be sufficiently liberally, well ...

* Under the influence of desire-driven capitalism.
* Under the influence of hormone-driven desires.
* Under the influence of biological imperatives.
* Under the influence of bravado.
* Under the influence of love/infatuation.
* Under the influence of sadness/depression.
* Under the influence of apathy.
* Under the influence of the Shiny!
* Under the influence of what seemed like a good idea at the time.
* Under the influence of trying to impress someone for the goal of sleeping with them.
* Under the influence of hunger.
* Under the influence of needing money to buy this thing.
* Under the influence of trying to rebel against one's parents.
* Under the influence of not having enough self-control.
* Under the influence of thinking that it was a fool-proof plan.
* Under the influence of temporarily forgetting that the laws of thermodynamics exist.
* Under the influence of biodegradability/impending death.
* Under the influence of insufficient education.
* Under the influence of over-education.
* Under the influence of trying to get as far away from the past as possible.
* Under the influence of hatred.
* Under the influence of boredom.
* Under the influence of being in a bad mood.
* Under the influence of philosophy.
* Under the influence of a possession-driven ideology.
* Under the influence of having no idea what to do in the situation.
* Under the influence of having no life.
* Under the influence of having a life.

Have any to add? Tell me!

Thoughts on the World: Equal Rights Amendment

From Wikipedia, for those uninformed about the Equal Rights Amendment:

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is the name of a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution intended to guarantee equal rights under the law for Americans regardless of sex. Amendments can only be a part of the Constitution when approved according to the process in Article V of the Constitution. The final deadline for approving the ERA passed in either 1979 or 1982—depending upon one's view of a controversial extension of the ratification time constraint. In the intervening years, public discussion on the ERA has been greatly reduced, though the proposal has been reintroduced in every Congress since 1982.

From the "Criticism of the ERA" section in that article:

Opponents of the ERA argue that its passage would have far-reaching implications, obliterating traditional distinctions between the sexes. Women, ERA opponents claim, would be required to register for the draft just as men currently do, and would have to serve in combat just as men must. Opponents go on to assert that the ERA would also remove laws that specially protect women, such as labor laws in heavy industry.

That's the thing: Equality means Equality. If you want equality, you lose all of the protections which were put in place as a result of perceived inequality. Yes, those laws could be rewritten to use some objective measurement (muscle mass, intelligence (IQ), etc.) or set of equations to determine what protections would apply, but that would be too complex, wouldn't it? After all, we don't have a government of experts, we have a government of people who are good at convincing other people that they have similar opinions. Popular rule is not as good as Scientific rule.

Of course, I suppose that I am in the segment of the populace which would gain a lot of power if scientific rule was implemented, so take that will a grain of salt. Still, for internet legislation, it would make more sense to have people who spend a lot of time on the internet, and know how it works. For wars, it would make sense for whoever is deciding where to send troops to actually know what's going on, and where those troops would be best served.

Anyways, back from that tangent: If you want equality, you lose specific protection. That is what equality means. You can't have both equality and special protection; wanting that is like having your cake and eating it to ("Oh Noes, we didn't want to be discriminated against, but we also wanted to be protected! Whatever shall we do?").

Yes, I do sound a bit misogynistic, don't I? I'm insulting the people who are arguing against something which I would like to see happen, perhaps mostly because of how funny it would be (think about how people would react. On the whole it would be a good thing, but all the idiots in the country would react hilariously).

Other critics have argued that the courts could rule that the ERA would mandate the recognition of same-sex marriage. They point to various court decisions, including a Hawaii Supreme Court decision in 1993, a Baltimore, Maryland circuit court decision in January 2006, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling for same-sex marriage in 2003, and to a decision by a California trial court in March 2005, all of which used state bans on sex discrimination as partial justification for the rulings.

So what? Why should I care what people choose to do with their lives? Why does it even matter? Okay, so if females marry other females, heterosexual males obviously feel threatened - after all, what if all of them decide that they don't need men? Why do they need us in the first place? After all, in the modern world, we're pretty much useless. When that revolution comes, I expect that the only thing keeping me out of labor/death camps would be that I know more about computers than most of the populace, both male and female, and that I occasionally do useful things (not often, however).

The same goes for males marrying other males, I suppose: the heterosexual females consider it somewhat of a threat, for similar reasons. After all, if women don't need men, why should men need women? Okay, childbirth and all that, but the world is overpopulated anyways, and I'm sure that we could find a way around that if we really wanted to (all that would be needed is the eggs - on that note, I heard about a way to cause fertilization of an egg that completely bypassed the need for sperm from males. I don't remember the details, though). Genetic engineering and all that. This argument seems a bit weaker to me, but I suppose that it's just as valid.

Further disclaimer: I'm pretty much asexual. I'm also an ero/agapephile (for those of you who don't remember the roots, that means that I'm attracted to people who love me romantically with "pure" aspects - as opposed to storgephilia, which is just weird. Really). Most people are, I suppose, but most people are not asexual as well. I have a longish essay on my sexuality lying around somewhere, and if you ask I might give you a copy. It makes very little sense.

Back from that tangent, to the tangent it emerged from: I couldn't care less about who, or what, you're attracted to. If you don't shove it it my face, I will, probably, never ask. If you talk about sexuality with other people, accept that I'm going to get irritated, as I've heard more about it in the last few weeks than in the prior years, and I'm fed up with it. It's amusing the first time - a fun chance to laugh at people who think that it matters. After that, just shut up already! If you insist on public displays of affection, I may make comments, such as "I hate the spring," "You people sicken me," and so on and so forth. Yes, I'm bitter. Deal with it.

Back from that tangent: Why should it matter? If you want equality, you get equality! You're not able to say stuff like "I'm not homophobic, but I don't want those damn gays to marry, there'll just be more of them." Yes, there will be more of them, because people will realize that there's less drama between people when who know how the other works! (See this Craiglist posting for amusement. It's rather interesting.)

So, moving on, again:

Some supporters of the ERA characterize some of the opponents' arguments as "scare tactics," or as overstating the changes designed that the ERA would impose in specific areas of the law. For instance, ERA advocates argue that the assertion that the ERA would require women to register for the draft ignores the fact that, under Article I of the Constitution, Congress has always had the power to draft women. Opponents respond that the status quo, in which Congress may draft women—but has chosen not to—is different from requiring that any draft apply equally to men and women.

It's better to continue in a status quo where women are discriminated against than to require that they not be discriminated against. It's better to continue with an institution that is recognized to be sexist than to go to an institution that is not sexist. Gah. I only realized that the system of drafting people still existed when I was reading up on the ERA! How the hell are you able to complain about having to register for the draft? It's dead. It's never going to happen again - attempting to reinstate it would result in a rebellion.

Critics also maintain that the ERA would prohibit single-sex schools, sports teams or even restrooms—they point to a decision by a court in the State of Washington which ordered a fraternal civic organization to admit women, based upon the ERA within its state constitution. Finally, some opponents of the ERA contend that the amendment simply is not necessary, and that other provisions of the Constitution—and various rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts—provide sufficient support for equal rights for both genders; and that the amendment would explicitly imply that women had never been equal under the law before the amendment's passage.

So? As a friend said, not matter which restroom you go into, there's going to be someone in there who's attracted to you. Solution? Go to single-person restrooms. Why do we need single-sex schools and sports teams anyways? The creation of latter is a recognition that the two sexes are unequal (which is, of course, not something that you're able to do in this world any more), and the creation of the former makes no sense to me. I suppose that, in some higher social classes, it makes sense - after all, if their children are not exposed to the other sex, they're not going to get involved in all of the drama, they're not going to have sex before they're of legal age, and all that. Strangely enough, I think that these are quite possibly the same people who object to the legalization of homosexual marriage, in at least some cases. After all, isn't it just common sense that not exposing someone to members of the opposite sex is going to make them less likely to be able to interact with the sex? It would also increase the amount of "experimentation" within the sex. Okay, so it's not a bad thing, but yes, it is. If you only allow homosexual "experimentation," how are people supposed to know if they're actually heterosexual?

Yes, I'm drawing some weird conclusions. I'm tired, my mind is doing weird stuff, my computer is being very, very slow, and I'm getting irritated at the world. If it makes you feel any better, pretend that I'm just working on building a setting for a story. Actually, that would be a pretty good idea, if I was better at writing dialog, believable characters, and so forth. Fictional Histories are so much simpler, and I suppose that these ideas are perfectly suited for one.

Erm ... I'll get back to that idea later.

Compare the ERA with the CEA:

Equality Rights Amendment:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Constitutional Equality Amendment:

Section 1. Women and men shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place and entity subject to its jurisdiction; through this article, the subordination of women to men is abolished;

Section 2. All persons shall have equal rights and privileges without discrimination on account of sex, race, sexual orientation, marital status, ethnicity, national origin, color or indigence;

Section 3. This article prohibits pregnancy discrimination and guarantees the absolute right of a woman to make her own reproductive decisions including the termination of pregnancy;

Section 4. This article prohibits discrimination based upon characteristics unique to or stereotypes about any class protected under this article. This article also prohibits discrimination through the use of any facially neutral criteria which have a disparate impact based on membership in a class protected under this article.

Section 5. This article does not preclude any law, program or activity that would remedy the effects of discrimination and that is closely related to achieving such remedial purposes;

Section 6. This article shall be interpreted under the highest standard of judicial review;

Section 7. The United States and the several states shall guarantee the implementation and enforcement of this article.

The CEA makes a lot more sense, right? Well, look at section 4: What's that supposed to mean? Does it make attraction to people based on their appearance unconstitutional? Does it prevent hiring people for hard labor jobs based on how strong they are? My best guess is that it makes unconstitutional any criteria which tend to weight high scores in the direction of any given group which is protected under this amendment. In other words, it makes DNA unconstitutional - after all, DNA tends to produce certain traits in certain groups more often than in others. It also prevents casting for movies or plays based on gender, appearance (race), or pretty much anything else.

Section 5, however, prevents it from removing discrimination under the mask of preventing discrimination: collage programs which try to promote minority groups are untouched. In other words, reverse discrimination is allowed. Sorry, am I interpreting that a bit more intelligently than they wanted? Too bad.

Section 6 prevents me from being able to interpret this. I know nothing about law, and thus my interpretations, no matter how accurate, don't matter. Section 7 is pretty standard, just making sure that it will enforced.

The ERA has not yet been ratified, though it has been reintroduced at every congress since 1982. The CEA has not yet been introduced.

That was a long post. Expect more as I find other stuff to get angry about.

Edit: Fixed some of the formatting. I still think that it should be 1.5-spaced, not single-spaced, though, and I can't find any way to fix that.

A Short Note on Religion

While watching Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, I had this thought:

Any religion or philosophy that encourages its members to have as many children as possible is still based in the era when having as many children as possible was a survivall strategy. Now, of course, with the survival rates of children in 1st world countries being what they are, and overpopulation being what it is, such religions should be considered a form of preemptive warfare, and should not be tolerated (think about it. Why would you need to have a vast population unless you needed to outcompete another group for something? In this world, its competing for resources, such as food and oil. What does competition cause? Wars. Thus, encouraging any increase in a population is warmongering).

In other news, I should probably not even try to think when I'm tired.

In other other news, sleep makes me tired. Not having sleep also makes me tired. Bit of a problem, isn't it?

...

As my life isn't going that well right now, and I have pretty much no desire to write anything, I'll try to post something next month, or the month after that. Eventually. Maybe never.

Those who read

My attention has been brought to the fact that at least one person I know reads this blog, or at least has once. So, would any readers mind going to goatse.cz/hello.jpg? (Warning: may damage minds, sear souls, and so forth. I suggest looking at the wikipedia article before actually going there (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/goatse). Any mental damage cannot be construed to be my fault - after all, I could have put it as a link saying "Cute kittens!" - which, speaking of which, is Here.

See you next month.