Portal's supposed to be coming out on the PC in a little over a week. This is awesome, as I don't have to buy an xbox for something I didn't particularly enjoy the first time I played it, though admittedly, it may have been the company I played it with.

The VG Cats song video is pretty cute though....


So what's up with this article? It appear to be saying that peahens don't choose a mate based on his plummage. They seem to be basing this on experimental results observed when they presented females with males that vary very little in their plummage. I...wha...? There are some other "wtf" correlations made in the article, so you should read it. I'm hoping I'll remember to read the actual scientific article, as a fair amount of these "science in 'normal' language" articles get dumbed down to the point that they omit critical information, or just end up being completely wrong.

Now that I think about it, my guess is that the scientists deliberately chose peacocks with little variation in feather pattern, because they wanted to test an additional or alternate theory for mate selection. Basically saying, "okay, we have studies showing peahens like teh featherz, but is it ONLY that?" Perhaps the person writing the "layman" article got confused and thought there was only one way to attract a mate for the cocks, and figured it must be replacing the current belief.

Ah well, if I remember to read the journal article, I'll try to post back on it.....


....heheh, cocks.

Woot, over a year since my last post!

Today is a nightmare post!
Niiiightmares

Last night I kept waking up in the middle of the night from nightmares - I blame it on all the X-files I've been watching lately. Most the world was dead, only a couple pockets of people were left. The people I was with were set up in the upper levels of a hotel. The rest of the people of the world had been turned into zombies. Creeeeepy. It seemed weird though - it seemed like we couldn't leave the hotel because of the zombies outside, but apparently the zombies walked around within the hotel after dark, too.

At one point I had to go downstairs to get some asthma medicine, in the pharmacy in the bottom level of the hotel. It took a while to get it - and I was constantly trying to keep an eye on the outside, to make sure it wasn't getting too late. If I didn't get the medicine now, I wouldn't be able to get it til the next day, which, if I needed it that night, would have been too late. I remember realizing, too, that at some point, the medicine would run out, and at that point, I probably would die, regardless of the zombies.

But anyway, so the drugs took a long time to get and it was nightfall. I looked out into the corridor and saw the zombies were already wandering around. It seemed to be that you were moderately safe on the lower level, but not as much as on the higher levels, as the people who'd been stuck downstairs with me kept trying to formulate plans to get upstairs. I tried following them up a couple times, but the zombies kept getting in the way, grabbing people, so I'd keep heading back.

I remember being worried that since I hadn't come back, my dad would come down to look for me, but I don't know if he did or not.

Anyways. So I just kept waking up from that, being all creeped out and jumping at any noise.

In non-nightmare events, last night I drank too much and pawed at random strangers. And halfway through the day, my stomach started hurting (perhaps when I realized how much work I had left to do during the weekend....).

This article annoyed me.

And here's why.

So the problem with the article is that ....well. Basically the writer's an idiot? I honestly had to read the article three times, cause my my brain kept shutting off at the sheer idiocy.

Problem one: check-cashing service?! Who the fuck needs to use a check cashing service? Employers are legally obligated to provide their employees a way to cash their checks for free. Usually at the employers bank. You do NOT need a bank account for this. If I needed a check cashed from chuck e cheese right away, I walked over to columbia, and they woud cash it. Straight cash. If I needed a check from brookdale cashed right away, I'd walk to Wachovia, and cash it. I didn't need a columbia account (ended up getting one anyway - love their interest rates), and I've never had an account at Wachovia. If the employer isn't providing someone with a way to cash their checks for free, then they're breaking the law, simple as that. Anyone who wastes money on a check cashing service for their job is an idiot. And now I'm getting riled up on the whole, "can't get a bank account" thing. Who the hell can't get a bank account? You have bad credit? Boy, that would be a problem if banks ran credit checks before giving out accounts. Which they DON'T. I'm so annoyed at the stupidity, that I need to italicize AND capitalize. You show up with $50 in your hand, and you can open up a bank account. Done AND done. Now you have a place to deposit your checks.

Problem two: So, what I'm getting is that if someone can't drive a car, they shouldn't be responsible for going to work? And if they can't drive because they got a DUI, well, we're stil supposed to feel bad for them? First of all, people who drive drunk should have their license taken away and why are we supposed to feel sorry for them? They put themself in the situation that led to their loss of license, through an actions that could have endangered a lot of people who were on the road with them. GOOD, I say to that, GOOD. Second of all, a car is not necessary to get to work. WALK. I walked to freakin chuck e cheese's for like, two years! ...bumming rides off people occasionally. But seriously. Walk, take a bus, ride a bike. A car is not the only way to get around.

Problem three: It's implied....or, well, outright stated if you include the quote from another source as part of the article, that there is no possibility to move between classes. This is utter bullshit. Now, the amount of change will be gradual, unless something spectacular happens, but I thought the goal for each generation was to provide a better life for the next generation. Perhaps I wouldn't be so annoyed by this if I didn't see it in action in my own family. My maternal grandmother raised six kids on her own. SIX. On her OWN. I've been to the house she raised those six kids in. It's in a pretty shitty part of town, and it's tiny. I'm amazed that seven people were able to live there. And did my grandmother decide that she was never going to get out of that shitty house, and give up, deciding to live paycheck to paycheck and spend her money on frivolous things? No. She got two jobs, put her kids through school (primary and secondary - she wasn't able to put them through college), kept working after they left home, and when she died, she own three houses. Fuck you if you say people can't move up.

My father's side was similar, except he was an only child being raised by my grandmother (her husband ran out on her when she was expecting - I have some winning males in my family. :-/ ). Again, my grandmother worked her ass off to provide for my dad. Moving on to their family - my parents are by no means wealthy. I worked a minimum wage job for four years in order to put myself through college, taking 18-19 credits a semester because you didn't have to pay per credit after 15 credits (blah blah blah you've heard this before, poor me.). And even though my parents weren't able to directly put me through, they helped me out with what they could. And at no point did my parents say, "we can't afford to put our kids through college, let's just spend every dime we have on things we want right now!" Of COURSE NOT. Cause they're not IDIOTS. They made sacrifices, so that if we needed help, they'd be able to give it to us. So my parents did better than my grandparents, financially. And I assume that with my advantage of being college-educated (which neither of my parents were), that I will be able to do better than them financially. Mercurial rise in one individual is not to be expected, but noticeable changes can be made. And through the generations, unless someone bothces up, your family will get to a point where they are comfortable. The "myth" of upward mobility is only a myth to people who aren't willing to work, and who want people to simply give them handouts.

Problem four: The point of the article is to bash anyone who believes that poor people should be held accountable for their actions. It implies that poor people will always be poor, and should be encouraged to blow their money on anything if it brings them a moment of happiness. Anyone who DARES question the spending habits of the poor is a heartless bastard, because they're not poor themselves, so what would they know? It's stated that people who are not poor believe the poor are not allowed to spend their money on anything not directly related to basic necessities, and should spend absolutely every minute of their time slaving away at their jobs. Eat, sleep, work, is all we think they should be allowed to do, apparently. This is assumed because someone made a comment that someone who's living paycheck to paycheck should probably not be taking in stray animals. A living creature is no small item! It requires food, attention, care. If you're barely making ends meet as it is, are you certain you're going to be abe to give these animals the care they need? And if you're willing to make sacrifices, great, but who's going to get hurt from those sacrifices? If both you and the cat need medicine and you can only afford one, do you buy the cat's, risking your own future health, leading to larger fines and possible hospitalization? Or do you make the cat suffer? This isn't an issue of someone buying a book, or a game. It's another living thing. And if you CAN afford the hospital bills for your cat, without any harmful sacrifices, then are you really as poor as you're suggesting you are?

People should be entitled to live life how they see fit, but that doesn't mean society on the whole needs to approve of it. It could be the logical scientist in my speaking when I say that helping out those who can help themselves is a darwinian instinct. Let's say you can lend a hand to one person, just one, maybe you came into $1000, and you're feeling really generous, and you have two choices, who are we instinctively going to help? Person a who is working two jobs and sacrificing needless creature comforts in order to make a better life for themselves and their kids? or person b, someone who whines about how they have no money, and as soon as they get some, spends it on something that has no value in the long run? And let's say you want to help both, but you can't, for some reason, you can't split up the money at all. You can only choose one. Who are you going to give the money to? The person who's working hard and deserves a break, or the person who's making no strides to better their life, and will probably blow through your money in a week.

What's with the "how dare we question these people!" too? Hey, if they want help, then yeah, I think it's our right to get up all in their business! When you apply for a grant, you don't say, "gimme money!" you say, "please give me money, cause I'm gonna spend it on these beneficial things, and these are some of the things I've done in the past that show you why giving me this money is a good thing."

In conclusion, poor people are not society's problem, stupid lazy whiners are. And we find them in all financial classes. Poor people are not saints. They don't deserve to be given infinite amounts of pity, and we as a society should not smile upon their poor decisions. To me, that's pretty condescending. Here's how it plays out in my mind.

Poor Person: "I got an extra $100 dollars today! I'm gonna spend it all on a new television!"
Middle Class Person: "But don't you already have one?"
PP: "But I want a NEW one! A NEW one will make me happy! Don't you want me to be happy?"
Rich Person (possibly republican...??): "Of course we do! You buy that new television!"
PP: "WHEEE!"
MCP: "But....but maybe you could....save that money? Put it away for later or something? Maybe one day afford to live in a nicer apartment? Have nicer things? Have to work less?"
RP: "SHHH! You'll give away our secrets!"

....of course, as you see from this, I've had some bad experiences with Republicans who believe poor people should receive NO help at all....I'm not against helping people, just against that help going to waste. Hahah, but seriously, I don't honestly consider all rich people bad! That was a joke, really.

Okay, my hands are cramping. So I'm gonna stop here.

Men are from.... Earth, Women are from.... Earth

So this blog entry , which ran in Rutgers' "The Targum", as well as a similar article printed in another college's paper, started a small discussion between several of my friends. Why are these articles written so often? Why are there so many article dedicated to men's confusion of female behavior? I assume it's because many of them are confused! In the linked entry, you can read that the author is confused why women wear a certain type of shoe, when men don't care what type of shoes they wear!

....Let's ignore for a minute that, after writing about how much men don't care what a woman has on her feet, he goes on to spend a page writing about how much he disliked a particular type of shoe. Yes, yes, just ignore that.

The bigger issue is the chastisement of women by the author for following current fashion trends, that women are severely slacking in their response to what will attract a man. Why are you wearing warm, comfortable shoes, even though most men find them ugly? The answer may be as simple as "because they're warm and comfortable", but it completely escapes his grasp. Note how the author doesn't wonder why women wear the oh-so-popular yet hideously-impractical high heel. No question why a woman would be willing to elevate herself 2 inches off the ground on a spike half an inch in diameter, causing her to suffer from ankle pain and impair her ability to flee from an attacker. Why would he question that? Cause women in high-heels = hot? To quote Superboy, "form over function, ergo, cool!" ....that lends no real weight to the argument, I just wanted to quote Superboy.

The author implies several times, if not outright states, that women should be dressing to please and attract men, and when they don't, it frightens and confuses him! Scary!

The reason so many of these articles need to be written for men to understand women, or to simply express their confusion over the actions taken by females, is that most men view females as, well, females. And that's the problem.

Now, to stave off any, "but....isn't that true?" comments, well, duh, we are. But the first way women need to be thought of and treated is as a human. An individual. Admittedly, there was a time when women were not individuals - they were the property of their father, and later, their husband. Women didn't really have jobs and had little to do in thir free time except make themselves pleasing to their man. I remember watching a commercial where women were going to the store with curlers in their hair. I asked my mom why women would do this - it seemed stupid, going outside a mess. My mom told me it was simple - the women wore curlers in their hair during the day, and took them out at night before their husbands got home, so they always looked their best for their man. Who cares how her friends and the world sees her, cause in reality, her man IS the world.

However, that was a long time ago.

A woman's primary goal in life is no longer to secure a man.... For some of us, it's at the bottom of the list, and for some of us, it does have a high priority, but some men are finding it difficult to realize it's not our only goal anymore. Often the things a woman does that confuses men are things that make her happy, without necessarily a man in mind.

Why do guys spit on the sidewalk? It's disgusting and it certainly doesn't attract the ladies, (you never hear your mother exclaim, "I was so impressed with the size of his loogie, I knew your father was the one for me!") but it doesn't so completely baffle me so that I have to write a rant on it. They do it because it has a purpose and they want to. There are several men I know who don't shower everyday. Ignoring the implication this has regarding their own personal health and hygeine, does a smelly man attract women more than a clean man? No. But guys aren't always thinking about women...well, thinking about being pleasing to women....they just do what they feel like.

So my big confusion? Why guys don't realize that women may not always be concerned with doing what will be pleasing to a man, and is sometimes doing things just because she feels like it.

It's rather interesting, too, I think. Women typically get confused or annoyed when men don't act or think like them (women), (when men believe the world revolves around them, and things should be done for them.....evidence shows that baby monkeys take three times as long in learning how to feed themselves if they are male than if they are females. The females quickly see what needs to be done and do it. The males simply allow their mothers to feed them - if they don't HAVE to do something for themselves, why should they.....and my experience with human males leads me to believe they vary from their primate counterparts only slightly.....), while men get confused when women do
act like them (men). Wearing unattractive yet comfortable clothing? What is that woman doing!? Nooooo! ....This also lends itself to a nice old rant about the double-standard of promiscuity in society....if a man sleeps around, it's natural. If a woman sleeps around, it's implied she's either doing it to be liked by men, or she has a mental disorder (nymphomania). At no point is it considered that a woman who has lots of sex may be doing it because she....likes it? .... ?!!?!?

....a good thing, too, cause that can't be right.

The end.

I can finally get this off my whiteboard. It's weak, but whatever! Need to redo C2 to include the detective agency! ....How embarrassing. I should name this blog "The Slippery Slope". Ah well.

Since it's Nobel Prize season, I'm really looking forward to now, when I ramble on and on about Mello in public, people might think I'm a super-smart nerd who is passionate about science and RNAi. And not some dork obsessed with two-dimensional psychopaths.

Blah. I'm so computer illiterate. After a month, I've given up on trying to get this to publish to my website. Oh well! I'm also upset that someone else has the same blog title! And even the same format! I so hate being unoriginal. So I must change it! Also quit Wordpress cause I couldn't figure out how to change my password!

Anyway, late night with an early morning, so I only give a link. Because I do need to find where my fucking keys went.

http://www.slibe.com/image/74093e76-googlein20years_/

I'm so boring!