Life according to Gordon

For some reason I feel about writing a very quick rant about things that I've noticed about people in relationships. Some of these things I've seen exclusively in others, some I've seen in myself whilst introspecting a bit about the past (because I am not currently in a relationship), and certainly some of these have been present in both myself and others. In fact I think most would fit in that latter category; I'm not as weird and unusual as I sometimes like to think I am. (But mind you, I am weird and unusual.) So here goes.

They disconnect from their friends
This one I see all the time. Sometimes people don't even realize they're doing it--especially if it's their first major relationship. They dedicate all their time and energy to being with the other person. And while it's good to have someone to confide in, to relate with, to spend time with, it's not as good if it means giving up friendships. Of course no one would ever really admit that they're doing this, at least until it's too late and they've spent enough time away from their former friends that when they finally try to reconnect they find themselves suddenly incompatible and then blame either their friends or themselves, depending on what type of person they are. Oftentimes people might not even consciously notice that they suddenly spend less time talking with or spending time with their friends because they're still too starstruck about being in a relationship to notice. Fortunately though, a lot of people who fall into this trap do so at an early age when it's still easy to make friends again after they eventually break up. I think this is kind of a lesson that you learn mostly in hindsight--to pay attention and not take for granted all your regular friends. It's good to spend a lot of time and energy on your partner, but it's also important that this doesn't come at too much of a cost to the friends you value.

They start to become slightly different, less interesting versions of themselves
Again, this is something that more often comes with the first major relationship than later ones, but I've seen both in myself and others how people will essentially sacrifice parts of themselves to be with the other person. Unfortunately this is kind of another lesson that people seem to have learn for themselves, and won't realize until after the relationship is over. Hindsight is everything.

They think they're cuter together and better for each other than they actually are
This one I find especially baffling, despite my ability to sympathize with it, because often people will naturally have ridiculously high/unreasonable standards for selecting a partner prior to entering any relationships, but once in one, suddenly a lot of the criteria they had in mind for a partner seems to fade away. And naturally, if confronted about this, many people will often rationalize and give excuses, thinking that what they've got is special and unique. Spoiler alert: it's not.

They suddenly become more careless/carefree when it comes to PDA
Public display of affection is generally only okay in very small doses. Hand holding? Great. Awesome. Spectacular. A quick kiss? Yeah, okay. Passionately making out? Ehh....can't you guys do it somewhere else? Groping/etc.? Get a freaking room! I think these are some pretty good standards for PDA, and I think most people would agree with me there. Some people even get irritated at nothing more than a light kiss in public, although I think that's silly. But what is truly strange is how those same people will later seem to forget how much it irritated them to be forced to watch others gloat in their passion when all of a sudden they themselves find themselves locked in a relationship. All those former rules, guidelines, and dos/don'ts about PDA...out the window. I'm not going to try and pretend that I myself never made this mistake, but that's the thing about mistakes...you learn from them. So the next time you're out with your sweet honey cakes at the park, in the pool, or wherever you may be, try to force yourself to experience some sort of existentialist look, and cool it on the passion. Or at least get the heck out of there and take care of each other in private, if you need it right then.

They suddenly start giving out relationship advice as if they know what they're talking about
This one annoys me to no end sometime. Just because you happen to be in a relationship right now does not mean you know anything at all--let alone that you know significantly more than those around you, particularly single people. Even if you have a lot of experience with relationships, experience hardly means a thing if you haven't learned from your mistakes. Never assume you know more than everyone else around you just because life seems to be going your way for the time being. There will be times when you know more than other people, and in particular there will be people who are not as wise as you. But the state of being "officially" in a relationship does not make you an authority on anything and everything who has all the answers. It makes you a person who happens to be in a relationship.

So those are the things I've noticed and felt like sharing. I feel like they all fundamentally boil down to the same, simple piece of advice: "try to have a little self awareness." I hope somebody reading this can get something out of it. Otherwise, stay classy, non-single people.

A recent trend among the Facebook-addicted to further bolster the narcissistic web-trendy persona has been to take a series of online quizzes that automatically post their results to your profile. So a little while ago I spotted a quiz that asked, "What's Your Bible IQ?" The result which I hoped for (and admittedly somewhat expected) was that it deemed me a "Bible scholar," meaning that I answered the majority of the questions correctly. (There were some pretty tough questions in there too, mind you!) It's been awhile since I've taken that quiz, so I don't really remember the majority of the questions it asked; however, there was one particular question that stuck out in my mind. It asked, essentially, "how many times is the Trinity referenced in the Bible?" It's a good question, I think, because I think it's an easy "trap" for anyone who's gone to a mainstream church their whole life but have never really invested their time to actually reading the Bible or trying to interpret anything for themselves. Spoiler: the answer is zero.

Yes, the concept of the Trinity, or tripartite Godhead made up of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, one of the fundamental tenets of many mainstream denominations, one of the most essential pieces of modern Christian dogma, is not actually mentioned in the Bible even once. Not directly, anyway. The concept of the Trinity is purely an interpretation, and one that I find to be a rather strange interpretation. Some people will get absolutely up-in-arms over even the mere suggestion that the Trinity might just be myth, even though the real, Biblical evidence can be shown to refute it. And that fascinates me. I remember when I took that 600-level Religious Studies course, at one point it was mentioned that the whole concept of the Trinity was solidified as creed in the Council of Nicaea in the year 325. So it was almost 300 years since Jesus' ascension that this was accepted as a sanctioned Christian belief. Although that's not wholly surprising, since I think it took a similarly long time to standardize which books were going to be included in the Bible and which books didn't make the cut.

Then, recently, I came across an absolutely fascinating article examining the historical background of the council of Nicaea and the power struggle between Arius and Athanasius. Arius taught a non-Trinitarian view of Christianity, while Athanasius spearheaded the Trinity. So naturally, they came into conflict, and because the article author certainly knows more about it than I do, I'll just give you a sample of the article here.

There are numerous accounts of Athanasius' followers beating and murdering non-trinitarian Christians in the lead-up to the Council of Nicea, torturing their victims and parading their dead bodies around. Non-trinitarians were accused of "rending the robe of Christ", crucifying Him afresh, and far worse. It would be wrong to think of the dispute as a matter of learned men of God disagreeing with each other over a matter of Biblical interpretation. Athanasius, who had the ear of Constantine more than Arius, was out for victory. He therefore emotionalized the issue and used every manner of politics and destruction of his opponents in order to get Constantine to come down on his side, exile Arius for heresy, and therefore leave him as the senior churchman of the Roman empire--which meant major political power, in an empire which had newly adopted Christianity and sought to enforce it as the empire's religion. It's highly significant that the draft 'creed' relating to the Godhead was initially acceptable to Arius; but because Alexander and his side simply wanted Arius 'out', they made the language more extreme; so that reconciliation wouldn't be achieved. And so they added the clause that Jesus was homoousios, of the same substance, with the Father--knowing Arius would have to reject this. Again, this was no outcome of sober, sincere Bible study. It was pure politics.

This kind of thing fascinates me. The battle between Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian churches rages on today, though thankfully I don't think we see quite as many instances of parading around the dead bodies of opponents. The things that have been done in the name of Christianity and its various sects always baffles my mind. The crusades, the invasion and forced conversion of indigenous people by the Spanish conquistadors, witch hunts, and even the torture and murder of so-called Arian heretics, all show a stark contrast with anything and everything Jesus ever said. Jesus was a consistent proponent of the "love thy neighbor as thyself" doctrine, the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" doctrine, and the "turn the other cheek" doctrine, through and through. So how anyone has ever been able to sanely extrapolate that killing in his name is a good thing is just beyond me. Nowadays it seems the conflict between different sects is a lot more passive-aggressive, with differing denominations decrying each other as being false or cultish, and emotionalizing the issue just the same, but without the whole "we'll kill you if you disagree" part. Although from the way some people get so flustered over this, I don't think it's entirely by choice that they hold back in this regard.

So feeling inspired to learn more, after reading that article, I went digging and found an interesting collection of Biblical quotes and corresponding analyses on the website of a church that identifies as being "Biblical Unitarian." Specifically they cover 17 verses from the Old Testament and 88 verses from the New Testament, all of which are the quotes most typically used in support of the concept of the Trinity. I thought it was very good, honest analysis of each Bible verse. And I do appreciate the disclaimer they have at the top, which starts off, "please feel free not to believe everything you find here." The site seems very genuine in its attempt to discuss each verse rationally and with proper historic context and does not attempt to force any particular doctrine down ones throat, so to speak, at least as I read it. And again, I find it all fascinating. I thought I'd quote here a sample of the analysis given on that site, in particular addressing what is probably the most famous quote given to support the idea of the trinity, namely John 10:30 ("I and my father are one").

There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God." The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what he meant--he and his father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "he who plants and he who waters are one" (1 Cor. 3:8 - KJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being." Furthermore, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as "he who plants and he who waters have one purpose." Why translate the phrase as "are one" in one place, but as "have one purpose" in another place? In this case, translating the same phrase in two different ways obscures the clear meaning of Christ's statement in John 10:30: Christ always did the Father's will; he and God have "one purpose."

I tried to confirm this myself by searching for the original Greek texts of both Biblical verses online, and learned two things: they were somewhat hard to find in the first place, and I don't speak Greek. I did notice that there was definitely a grouping of words in the first quote that was identical to a grouping of words in the second quote, which is enough for me. Plus I also noticed that in about half of the different English versions of the Bible, that line in 1 Corinthians 3:8 is translated as "are one" while the other half translate it as "have one purpose." Personally I have to agree with the Biblical Unitarian analysis here; why on Earth would certain editions of the Bible translate the two verses differently even though they have the same structure in Greek? (Probable answer: because the ones responsible for translating in the first place either wanted to find better support for the idea of the Trinity / Jesus' divinity, or felt pressure from above to do so.) So anyways, like I said, this kind of thing fascinates me, and I would recommend that you take a moment to look at some of the other analysis if this similarly interests you.

An old friend of mine from my school-of-ed-days called me up today in the middle of one of his classes with a math question. He was subbing in a precalculus class at some high school, and had come to a problem that was causing a lot of hubbub amongst the students, and apparently no amount of internal deliberation was clearing anything up. He read the problem to me over the phone in the hopes that I might immediately recognize what was going on and what the proper solution was. Unfortunately, I found myself in a similar boat as the students, and to give you a quick spoiler, I ultimately determined that the real problem at hand was that the question was extremely poorly worded and just not practical. Unfortunately since I never got to see the problem or the textbook from whence it came, I'm just quoting--as best as I can--what I think he said the problem was over the telephone, so understand that just as in the game of telephone, the accuracy of my quote may have already degraded. But if I recall correctly, it was something like this, below.

A company has a total of 14 computers, 1 host computer, and 3 printers. Using graph theory, show whether it is possible to connect the computers so that each one is connected to two other computers, the host, and one printer.

The first issue I have with this problem should be obvious to anyone who understands a decent amount about computer networking: he's doing it wrong. In fact he couldn't be more wrong about his general setup to this problem. In the real world, you would never use graph theory in this situation. The actual solution, which we'll get to eventually, is so much more straight-forward. So as you might imagine, when I first heard that question, I did not hear a sophisticated mathematician posing a practical problem about graph theory; instead I pictured a bumbling old man frustrated with technology walking into an electronics store ranting about the "best" way to connect a series of computers together--a bumbling old man who clearly doesn't understand a thing about modern networking at all, that is. Lord have mercy on whatever poor sales associate has to deal with him and try to explain how horribly inefficient his use of unnecessary mathematics is making things. So I don't see any real mathematical insight to be gleaned from that problem; I just see a lot of ambiguity that leaves the students worse off in the end. I see an older math teacher gradually losing touch with the modern world, struggling to explain concepts of graph theory to uninterested youth and desperately trying to tie in real-world examples to make the problem seem more interesting. While that's a good thing to do in theory, it's actually quite harmful in practice when the real world example doesn't make any sense. And take my word for it--in this particular case, it just doesn't make any sense.

First of all, he's omitted some very important details. Keep in mind that my phrasing of the problem above is not at all a verbatim quote, and from what I recall, one central point of confusion for the students was whether or not we should count the host computer as a "computer". For the sake of clarity, the question should explicitly label each reference to a computer as either the "host" or a "client," rather than using a broad term. It seemed to be asking to connect each client computer to 2 other client computers as well as the host computer, although they didn't really explain that well. So which is it? Do we connect each computer to 2 other clients + the host = 3 computers total? Or do we just daisy chain the host in there somewhere, essentially making it indistinguishable from any of the client machines? The latter option wouldn't really make sense, because it'd be extremely difficult to configure any of the clients not directly connected to the host to even recognize it as a host. Plus you'd have to have all of the computers powered on at all times for that to work, and even then, if any one of them had any hardware issues, all machines further down the line would lose connectivity.

And what about the printers? Are these the low-budget, only-has-one-USB-connection type of printers you'd find in a retail store? Or are these full-blown network printers? If they're the former, then they can only possibly be connected to one computer at a time, so the quick answer to the question is: no, you cannot connect each client to a printer. But even if you could somehow hack together some sort of one-to-many, direct plug connections with printers to computers, why would you? There are much easier and better solutions. You'd connect each printer to a single computer (and if you had any sanity to your setup, all three printers would be connected specifically to the host--though this would not be strictly required), and then configure them as "shared printers" on the network. But in an office where you need 14+ workstations, the likelihood of buying three low-end printers is already quite low; you would more likely get network printers which would be connected to the network at large and not directly to any computer (though you would still install the printer drivers on the host computer and allow it to act as a controller). But I suppose this doesn't fit well with the graph theory model to suggest that we don't have the printers attached to any computers directly.

So the real question at this point should start to become a little more clear, namely: what the hell does the author actually want us to learn? It's important to recognize that he clearly has a very misinformed view of how computer networking works, and instead try to abstract the problem into something meaningful. If our goal is to connect each object to no more than two other objects, then I don't really see the point. Clearly you can line the computers up in a circle and daisy-chain them together. That's easy. And with the additional (potential) requirement of each one connecting to the host and a printer, you just throw them in there somewhere as well. Here we have to abandon our sense of real-world common sense and assume that printers can magically have as many computers plug into them as is desired, when in actuality (as mentioned above), they would only ever allow one input connection--either direct USB through a computer or indirectly over a network. So our messy graph theory diagram might look something like this:

But again, I don't really see what the point of this would be. If all this exercise is intended to do is to get students to be able to line up things in a circle, then it seems completely trivial and a waste of time. If that was really the lesson, perhaps the class would be better suited standing in a circle holding hands to the benefit of any bodily-kinesthetic learners in the class. Although I suppose that hand-holding is probably considered sexual harassment nowadays, so scratch that. Looking at that diagram above produced from the problem, the real question we should be asking is: what the fuck is wrong with our IT department?! If we are directly connecting computers as the problem implies, there are still more problems this creates. First, computers typically only have one network card. If we are connecting them directly to each other, in any interpretation of the setup described, we will absolutely need at least two network cards in each computer (if not three).

From there we would either connect each node directly together with crossover cables, or we would need to place 2-port switches between each connection. I should probably be tarred and feathered for even mentioning the possibility of using crossover cables as such in a business environment, so forget that I even said that and stick with using 2-port switches. But let's not forget that 2-port switches don't actually exist; they generally only come in multiples of 4 or limited multiples of 5. So we'll get a bunch of 4-port switches to connect in between each pair of client machines. We might use the third port to also connect the host, but the problem now is that we potentially have redundant connections to the host, as each computer is connected to two different switches on two different network cards, yet each switch might have its own connection to the host. Fortunately, since we have an even number of nodes, if we daisy-chain them all into a loop, then we can alternate switches to also be attached to the host computer. If the problem had an odd number of clients, though, we'd be fucked. What I've described so far would look something like the diagram below. The hexagons are switches. And keep in mind that I'm not even bothering with printers on this one.

Next logical question: how the hell are we assigning unique IPs to each of these computers? We can only have one DHCP client (which is why I've chosen switches instead of routers), so is the host computer somehow magically handling this? That seems exceedingly complex, and would require it to have eight (yes, 8!) network cards installed (one for the internet), which is downright ridiculous. Of course I could modify my diagram above and have each switch feed into a central router that is also connected to the host. That would be reasonable (all things considered) and would no longer require the host to have eight network cards. But even still, this is getting exceedingly complex. The fact that we've got 14 machines with 2 network cards each is insane. And do we really want to buy fourteen 4-port switches when we'll only ever be using two ports on half of them and three on the other half? Who in their right mind would set up a network that way?

If you want to know how this would be done in the real world, it's actually quite simple. We'd have a server room that contains the host and a clusterfuck of network equipment, like most businesses do. There you would have your 24-port switch (instead of fourteen individual switches), your router, any firewalls and spam filters you might like, and your host machine. The host machine would act as the domain controller running Active Directory on a Windows network, or do something similar on a *nix-based network. There would be absolutely no daisy chaining. Each client would just be plugged into the one central switch, which allows it to connect to the host or to any other client machine. The printers would all be network printers and would similarly be connected to the switch and controlled by the host. Nice and simple. Here's the final diagram.

As you can see, we don't need to even think about using graph theory in this practical, real world example. We just get a switch with enough ports to accommodate all of our machines and peripherals (and then some, so we can always add a few more), and then just plug in everything and go. Graph theory should never enter into the equation. So now I kind of hope that at least one of the students in that class, or even the regular teacher, might see my analysis of that confusing problem here. The students have every right to question it. Whatever "right answer" was intended to be produced, I can assure you it was not all that "right." I understand that math is a mostly theoretical field which makes it sometimes difficult to tie in a broad range of real-world examples. But even so, this example just makes it look like the author isn't even trying. That was a terrible example, and I think it does more harm than good to ask a student something like this, because if they're in the least bit tech-savvy they should be able to tell you "you're doing it wrong," or simply fail to come up with any intelligible answer out of shyness.

If this question was intended to hint at some discussion of star topology versus ring topology between interconnected routers (not computers!), then maybe you'd have something worthwhile. But generally speaking, you would never connect two client computers directly to each other. You would connect them to a larger switch or router which has a host controller attached at some point, and that router may be connected to further routers. A much better question would have been from the perspective of an internet service provider trying to connect a number of network clusters. That question would probably have a number of parallels with the current question, but would have been substantially better seeing as it actually makes sense to ask that. Connecting different routers together that have to share a "host" connection to the outside world is an actual, meaningful problem with real world applications. Connecting 14 client machines in an office directly through one another is not.

Unfortunately it's questions like these that contribute to a general loss of interest in schoolwork. Because if the author is trying to illustrate all the uses mathematics has in the real world, he should probably, you know, make sure that his real world examples are actually plausible. Otherwise, what's the point? Lastly, a quick shout out to an online web app called Autodesk Draw, which is fantastic for making Visio-style diagrams if you don't actually have Visio and don't feel like paying any money. But anyways, the lesson to walk away with is that your high school teachers might not have a clue what they're talking about. Don't trust that they do, kids.

As some of you might already know, I'm a HUGE Legend of Zelda fan. It's been my favorite video game (read: franchise of video games) ever since I was a kid; I even like it more than Mario (although that is a close second). I've played and beaten just about every Zelda game there is, with the notable exception of Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, which I could never really get into. (Note: CD-i games and the like don't count. If you don't know what those are, you're lucky.) And I've always been the kid who, after beating a Zelda game, has to continue to make sure I've finished all the side quests, found all the pieces of heart, and unlocked every secret. It's a minor obsession of mine. There have even been many times where I'll be screaming at the console/hand held, fuming with frustration over having to attempt certain tasks over and over and over again, but I'll keep trying until I get them right. I think you might call it OCZD, or obsessive-compulsive Zelda disorder. And then I generally go back and replay each game years later as well. Right now I'm replaying Twilight Princess, and it's just as fun the second time.

But anyways, I've noticed a couple of common themes and hidden messages to the Zelda games over the years, and I've decided to compile them here into a short list. I'm not sure that the game creators had really intended for kids to take away these messages with their games, but nonetheless they seem pretty prominent to me, regardless of intent.

1. Everyone else's problems are your problems

And not only that, but in fact everyone else is literally incapable of solving their own problems without your help. The Legend of Zelda games, particularly since Ocarina of Time and especially true in Majora's Mask, have made the concept of "side quests" integral to game play. You learn that farm women are incapable of keeping their chickens penned without your help, carpenters are unable to locate their own tools without your assistance, and if anyone's ever in need of eye drops, a trip to the local pharmacy is utterly impossible; they need your help. This isn't an entirely bad lesson to learn. If it was intentional, then hopefully it's meant to teach kids a sense of empathy and to place value on helping others. But it's honestly ridiculous the lengths you have to go to help other people who would be perfectly capable of helping themselves in the real world. The flip side of the coin is that it teaches you to pry your nose into other people's business with an incessant desire to "help" them, as if to believe that you somehow have more capacity to do things "the right way" than everyone else around you.

2. The only skills in life that matter are the ones you've most recently acquired

The basic format of a Zelda game is to have to fight your way through a series of dungeons/temples, where each one contains a map, a compass (which has never actually functioned in the way any normal compass would, mind you), a number of "small" keys, a single "big" key, a unique item that grants you a new skill, and some magical artifact or piece of one. That's the format they've chosen and stuck with, and it works pretty well overall. But one thing I've noticed with this format: you're completely helpless in a given dungeon until you have acquired the new item/skill. Then, once you have this new item, it's pretty much all you need. Forget the fact that you've become an incredible archer overnight, forget that you've learned to jump vastly higher and farther than any normal human could, and forget that you have an amazing Batman-style grappling gun. None of that matters anymore because you gained all those skills in the last level. If you want to survive in this level, you need to acquire a new skill. In fact, this new skill is really the only thing that matters. Sure those other things seemed nice at the time, but you need to keep up with the latest trends, and all those things you learned before are now obsolete. There's no point in sticking with anything for too long or trying to see the larger picture; what you need to stay focused on is what's in the here and now.

3. You need to be a Jack-of-all-trades

With that said, Link still does retain all of the items and skills he gains and usually has to use them all again by the end of the game. The final dungeon is usually where the developers try to create an amalgam of everything you've done so far, thus requiring every skill you've learned so far. So while most of the game you only ever need to stay focused on whatever new skill you've just picked up, eventually you do need to bring everything together and use things you've learned in the past. And you often need to be able to do a lot of different things. Link certainly becomes very well-rounded and worldly by the end of each game. And he always ends up with an inordinate amount of stuff. Which brings me to my next point...

4. Never throw anything away; you will always have space for it

This game definitely teaches you to be a pack rat, just because once you gain an item, no matter how large or unwieldy it may be, you have it with you until the end. This often flies completely in the face of physics, as it doesn't really make sense that you're much heavier while wearing the iron boots you acquired on your feet, but normal weight when you're simply carrying them in your pocket. And how on Earth do you fit a pair of iron boots in your pocket to begin with? Isn't your pocket already full of sticks, nuts, bombs, boomerangs, slingshots, pendants, shovels, grappling guns, mirrors, boots, flippers, two changes of clothes, a dictionary, a giant hammer, musical instruments, baseball gloves, a lantern, a wooden raft, a step ladder, and more? I mean, seriously, it's just so much; how can you fit it all in there? (That's what she said...) The problem with this message is it teaches kids to keep acquiring more and more things without ever once thinking of where they're going to put it. It teaches them simply not to worry about space issues; what's important is that they keep getting more.

5. You can (and should) make unimaginably huge profits by mowing lawns and mugging people

In just about every Zelda game, you can find hundreds upon hundreds of precious gems just by cutting away shrubbery. In fact, this is actually what you need to do in some games. You need to acquire some item only available in one particular store that is impossible to shoplift from, so you need to get money. The way to do this is swinging your sword at any grass you can find, because surely this will turn up emeralds and rubies if you keep at it long enough. And indeed, you don't have to keep it up very long at all! And the other way you can get money quick is by assaulting anyone who crosses your path. Half the people you encounter are loaded and easy pickings if you stab them, and you can eat the flesh of the other half to recover your health. Very positive message there, Nintendo.

6. Every girl you meet will fall hopelessly in love with you without delay

This is true regardless of race, creed, or even species. Every girl you meet has never had any other friends her entire life, and as such will become instantly and completely infatuated with you. They will give you looks of longing if you leave, force you against your will to agree to marry them, and be playfully cheery and receptive to anything you say or do. The damsel in distress archetype really drives it home, too. None of these girls can seemingly do anything without your help (just like everyone else in the game), so you better believe they're grateful when you come to their aid.

7. ...But for some reason, you aren't getting any (and you won't, no matter what)

Despite the fact that all the girls seem to be head-over-heels for Link, none of them will put out. In fact, no matter what unbelievable lengths Link goes to, no matter how many incredible deeds he does on their behalf, and no matter how much time and effort he puts into fulfilling their wishes, none of them are willing to give Link any sort of reward for it. In the end, all the female characters are just a bunch of teases. Honestly I feel bad for the guy, but that's probably because his experience sometimes seems to mirror my own. While none of the female characters actually encounter each other during the game, I'm pretty sure they actually continue living after you turn the game off and talk to each other. I'm sure the only real reason they show so much interest in Link when he's around is not because of anything about Link, but instead because they want to compete with the other girls in the game. It's not about Link; it's about becoming the alpha female. So they'll play coy when Link's around, doing only what they have to in order to lure him in, but they only do so for the purpose of proving to the other ladies that they're the most attractive one. As soon as Link starts asking for things, though, you better believe his needs are going to be ignored. Either that, or I need to get out more and stop personifying game sprites.

So it's been almost exactly a full month since I last blogged. It's actually been 29 days, which is you know is the length of February when it's trying extra hard, but everyone knows February is still a pansy as far as months go. Although it is a great time for snowboarding and music videos. Anyways, I've already received several complaints that I've dropped off the face of the Earth with lack of blog updates from multiple people, since in internet/nerd time, everyday is as long as a life-age of the earth. So I'm back, and I have updates.

First of all, I now have a new roommate. I'm not sure if I ever formally mentioned here on this blog that I've been living alone in my own fancy-schmancy apartment, but I have been since January, up until recently of course when I got a roommate. She is a she. And I actually kind of have a deal with her that she doesn't have to pay any rent, and I also have to purchase all of her food. This is, of course, because she is 9 months old (going on 10!) and wholly my responsibility. I also have to clean up after her as you might imagine. She is half black and half white, and actually a little bit furry. Her name is Emerald. And she is adorable. She absolutely loves to snuggle up in my armpit as I'm lying on the couch, or crawl over my face to wake me up in the morning. She likes to cuddle. However, I would generally describe her as a bit of a "scaredy cat," so to speak, since she doesn't seem to like alarm clocks or vacuum cleaners.

Oh, by the way, she's a cat. Also see this chart for an explanation of what my conversations with her are like.

My sister and I went to Petsmart a few weeks back after learning from one of my bosses that a number of local animal shelters had a bunch of their animals for adoption on display at said retail chain. I immediately fell in love with Emerald because she immediately made it clear that she would not be outmatched for "most cuddliest" by anyone. She's maintained that title very well since I've had her. When she first moved in, she was naturally very scared, as cats always are when they move someplace new. She found hiding spaces I never realized existed. Most of her time was spent those first few days hiding in various nooks and crannies in my second bedroom, which I use exclusively as a music studio. Little did she realize that all those big "safe" things she was hiding under were amplifiers and drums and other things that make lots of noise. She found out later on.

But even when she was still in the "omigosh my world's been turned upside down" phase, she's still been remarkably obedient. From day 1 she's come on command whenever I snap my fingers twice, and no one ever trained her to do this. She just picked it without delay on her own. She also now knows that when I clap my hands and scrunch my face up menacingly it means that she's doing something (or about to do something) that she shouldn't.

Speaking of doing things she shouldn't, thankfully all my furniture is still shipshape. She has all her claws but has hardly even thought about touching the couch or anything else valuable. She does go ahead and let loose on the carpet I have under my coffee table, but that's fine with me since it's not the best carpet to begin with. As a result, I've kind of been going back and forth on whether or not I should declaw her in the front. I've been acting like a damn woman quite fickle in this regard, as it's been hard to come to a decision. We always got the cats I grew up with declawed in the front and thought nothing of it at all. For some people it's necessary because some cats will go after the furniture as soon as you leave the room. But Emerald is not one of those cats. Like I said, she's been extremely obedient. And I was reading some stuff by animal rights activists and veterinarians saying that declawing is cruel, although they're probably hippies and vegetarians. So I don't know. It might just not be necessary. And if it's not necessary, I might not do it. I'm still deciding though.

In other news, one thing I've been keeping mildly busy with is trying to do volunteer things around town. Every Sunday at 2:00 at the Capitol Building, the Lutheran Campus Center sponsors an event called "Savory Sunday." It's an event where they bring a lot of food to give away to the homeless. Apparently a number of local restaurants donate plenty of leftover ingredients to the Lutherans, and then at 11:00 on Sunday morning they come together in the kitchen and basically say, "okay, what can we cook?" They cook whatever they can muster using whatever ingredients they happen to have, and then bring it over to the capitol building to serve at 2:00. So far I've only taken part in the second half of it all--serving it to the homeless people--though I think I might try my hand at the cooking portion one of these Sundays. The third and final portion which I also have helped out with once is the cleanup afterward.

It's been a very interesting experience. Some of the people there are fascinating, and everyone shows an incredible amount of gratitude for something so simple. One man I met actually held a Bachelors of Science degree in architecture, yet was homeless. That's just not the typical portrait of a homeless person that you'd envision. Another man who goes regularly is blind, and my friend Ginger often walks with him and helps him pick out which food he wants. Yet another regular is a man who is a strict vegan. I guess I had never expected that from a homeless person either; I always just assumed they'd take whatever they can get. But this man apparently refuses to sacrifice his principles of not eating any meat at all even though his financial situation is far less than ideal. I find that incredibly admirable, even though I am a person who usually mocks most vegetarians (as both my sister and friend Karen could tell you). I also encountered a man who told me how he used to "kill people for the government" (presumably in the Army or Marines), but explained how that's just not the answer and just wasn't right. For someone who has actually killed other human beings, he seemed like a remarkably gentle and compassionate man with the way he spoke.

I've actually only done this about four times now, but I always value the experience and plan to continue doing so as long as the Lutherans keep hosting it. But in the spirit of continuing community service, I also recently signed up to help out with a very large community service project that a local evangelical church is hosting. I saw their chief pastor explain in a sermon that church is not defined by the building they're in, and church is not simply the act of attending a lecture every Sunday, but instead church is the very body of people who were present, seeking God and wanting to help others. And so on Sunday, May 3rd, instead of having church services, they were organizing an array of community service projects around the town and asking for as many volunteers as possible. In principle I think this is a fantastic message that I'd love to see encouraged in just about every church. I signed up for an activity that sounded a little more "manly" than some of the others, something that involved potential heavy lifting and sawing of branches. Unfortunately I don't know a soul who will be involved, but I think it's still something I'd like to do. I can freely admit that getting involved in social situations where I don't know anyone is something I find extremely intimidating, but it's good to face your fears, right? Plus I don't think I did nearly as much community service as I would have liked during college, so it's about time I start making up for that.

Lastly, I've recently discovered a website that I think is absolutely incredible. To say that I discovered it only recently is actually a little misleading, because in truth I've known about the whole website for awhile, but I only recently stumbled across one section of this website that I will focus on. The whole website I'm talking about is of course reddit.com, a relatively popular social bookmarking site and a site I've known about for some time now. It's basically a collection of links to interesting things on the internet that people submit and vote on, and is a quick way to find what's popular. All of the content is submitted by users, and it's sorted into categories which are similarly maintained by users. The admins of the site are generally very hands-off; they just provide a framework for people to submit things or leave comments about them, but it's up to the people to come up with the actual content.

There are literally hundreds of different categories, like funny, happy, or cute; pics, videos, or entertainment; science, technology, and programming; feminisms, mens' rights, and equality. There's even a category exclusively concerning bacon. But the one that really caught my eye and that I thought I'd bring to your attention is called Suicide Watch.

Suicide Watch, or SW as they prefer to go by, is really a fantastically incredible community. The whole purpose of that little section of the site is to allow people to vent, share their stories, ask for help and advice, and generally just find someone with a willing ear to listen. And the people who have found their way into that little community are some of the most helpful and caring people you'll ever meet, electronically that is. Many of them have really been there. Unquestionably the main reason people come there looking for help is because of relationship issues coupled with depression. Many of the people who regularly offer advice have been through very abusive relationships and things beyond my comprehension. But the degree of openness, honesty, acceptance, and support of others is unmatched by anything else I've ever seen. And the advice is quite often very good.

I would say that right now about 50 or 60% of the people there asking for help are people who are seriously contemplating suicide and need the support of just about anyone to help talk them out of it, while the remaining are people who will acknowledge that they are no longer at any real risk of committing suicide, but still wanted an outlet to vent and find support, answers, and advice. I myself fell in the latter camp just a little while ago when I posted a rant venting about how I was feeling, on a night when I was feeling quite low. And like I said, the willingness to listen and offer support from this community is virtually unparalleled by any other group I've seen. I've chimed in a couple times now to share my own stories and offer my own advice to others asking for it and felt like I've actually made a difference in some lives. It's wonderful to be able to have a positive impact on people who are feeling very low and looking for whatever support they can get, and if you know anyone who is going through a hard time and also can at least manage their way around the internet, I'd definitely recommend it to complement whatever other support structures they have.

Also right now, I'd say that probably about 40% of the submissions to that category are "songs of the day," when people find music videos they find inspiring or uplifting and want to share them, while the remaining 60% of the submissions are just rants, posts, or brief cries for help. While that may sound dreary, I am just very grateful that it exists as a truly helpful support structure for a number of people, and encourages healing in a very tangible way. If you think you have any advice you could offer anyone in need, I'd encourage you to take a moment this weekend to browse through some of the submissions, see if there's anything you'd like to chime in on with advice, and if so create an account to do so. One of the major advantages of reddit is that they hardly collect any personal information at all. All they ask for is a user name and password (entering your e-mail address is entirely optional!). If you know me and think you might actually be interested in volunteering your advice or just a listening ear but are afraid of technology, just ask me sometime and I'll show you how to get started.

In related news, I've actually been working on a small pet project website that will function extremely similarly to SW. Since I've started to notice a slight trend of people who really aren't considering suicide but still ask for help with relationships and depression in SW nonetheless, I have plans to create a website for people to share their stories of heartbreak and offer advice to each other in much the same way. I thought I'd also include mechanisms to easily post artwork, music, poetry, and articles that people have found helpful. While in many respects I will be ripping off some ideas in trying to create a community with a very similar but somewhat distinct focus, I figure no one will mind, as the more support structures are out there, the better. I'll have an update on that site whenever I actually get around to finishing it, which I cannot even estimate yet.

I have also very, very, very slowly but surely been continuing work on creating an album of original music. I still have a good number of songs in incomplete draft form, a handful in complete draft form, and a couple of ideas floating around nebulously as well. I can tell you right now that several of the songs will probably come off as being "emo" when they're finished. But I'm quite satisfied with the way they're turning out nonetheless. Also, I have very rough plans to write a song explaining how to do partial fractions, mostly because that topic by far confused me the most in high school when I took calculus and I don't think there are any songs about it yet. Although, that's one of the nebulous ideas, as I haven't written anything for that yet.

So that's that. Now that it's midnight:50, I'm off to bed.

Warning: Rant

I got into another small political fight on the internet recently. I don't fully know why I get involved in these things, since they can really get me riled up and frustrated, and I often end up with a serious case of someone is WRONG on the internet, but I do so anyway. There's a little background to this, first of all. This argument I got involved in is actually one I've heard before, and thought was utterly ridiculous from the first time I heard about it. But it kind of subsided for awhile, but was recently brought up again, and it's still just as ridiculous as ever. Back when President Obama was still only President-Elect Obama, he was using change.gov as his online base of operations. (Now everything on that site has since been migrated to whitehouse.gov.) But back when we were still in that brief transitional period, he had all of his agenda bullet points neatly organized, and this argument I haven't explained yet regards one of the bullet points he used to have on the change.gov site regarding education.

His team had come up with the idea that, as a graduation requirement in public schools, middle and high schoolers should have to do a total of 40 to 50 hours of community service. Shortly after this was published, conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh saw this and lambasted it as "reenacting slavery." To avoid bad press, they just quietly removed it from the change.gov website. And I hadn't really heard much about it since then, until recently, when I happened upon a hypersensitive internet troll looking to pick a fight.

First of all, before I get into the nitty-gritty details of the argument that took place, I just want to say that I think the idea of including 40-some hours of community service as a high school graduation requirement is a spectacular idea. I'm an Eagle Scout, so I was blessed with many opportunities to help out with community service-y stuff growing up. And I think it's great. It builds character to be out there, laying down new mulch on a school playground, or building a new sandbox, or cleaning up church basements from flood damage, or giving food to the homeless, etc. etc. etc. Not only does it directly help the community you're serving, but it helps you indirectly. It can teach you the value of a hard day's work. It can broaden your perspective some by actually making you get off your ass and help other people. Bottom line is I think community service is wonderful, and not enough people do it.

Now I'm not going to try to hide the fact that I am not a big fan of Mr. Limbaugh. I think he's an arrogant hypocrite. The man preaches that anyone who does illegal drugs should be sent off to jail without exception. Well--except for him of course, when in 2003 it was revealed that he was addicted to illegal drugs. And his message on family values would probably be more sincere if he hadn't been through three divorces now. At this point I really think he only serves to poison the Republican party, because he just comes off as a wolf in sheep's clothing. And his claim that 40 hours of community service is slavery is just downright absurd to me, and epitomizes the sheer laziness of the times.

Think back with me for a second, to when America was first formed. Pilgrims at all. It's not hard to envision that "community service" was pretty much an unspoken requirement. People just did things for each other. They didn't complain. They didn't fight tooth and nail against any idea of helping their neighbors. They just helped them. It was the right thing to do. Think barn raisings, for instance. Whole communities would band together to build barns for each other. The same communities would also come together to build churches. It was a time where if something needed doing, people didn't moan and whine about it, they just got it done. And this is an area where I will freely acknowledge that times have changed. Nowadays, we seem to live in a somewhat narcissistic and selfish society by comparison.

I mean, first of all, just think about the logistics of this. Middle and high school adds up to seven years of schooling. And since there are 180 days in a standard school year, with class 7 hours a day, that means spanned across this interval you have a total of 8,820 hours devoted to school. Keep in mind this does not include homework at all (which could greatly increase the number of hours, depending on how serious the kid is about good grades and whatnot). 40 hours is one standard work week for adults, and it's less than 0.5% of all the in-class time during this period. Bottom line is: if your kid can't do one week of work spanned across seven years of school, you've got some problems. 40 hours is nothing at all. I think it's pathetic that someone would compare 40 hours of service work in a 7-year period to be "slavery." I mean, really? If that's "slavery," then just how long will it be before we have parents suing the schools for assigning too much homework? Where do we draw the line? Because that's just like involuntary servitude, too, dontchaknow. I can hear it now... "You can't force my child to do all this homework, it's just not fair!" I mean, honestly, just how lazy can we be as a country?

So anyways, someone very briefly mentioned the topic, and I replied with my thoughts, and then another person stepped in to argue with me, adamantly assuming the position that this 40-hour plan would without question be illegal slavery. I pointed out that the idea is no more slavery than homework is slavery, and he came back at me, saying, "don't young people have rights too?" I pointed out that, in fact, young people have significantly less rights in American society. They cannot smoke. They cannot drink. For the most part, they cannot drive a car. They cannot vote. They cannot be outside during certain hours in most cities. So on and so forth. My opponent conceded that they did in fact have fewer rights, but further insisted that they must have some rights (with the implication that making them do one week of community service is a clear demonstration that they have no rights). He also gave a hypothetical situation in which a child was forced to go door-to-door for the sake of a political cause they didn't support.

That's a valid concern, even though it's ultimately completely off-topic. I agree that children shouldn't be forced to labor for one specific cause, if it goes against their political or religious ideals. But that's not something anyone has actually proposed--other than this guy who I was arguing with, making up ridiculous hypothetical situations. I really am inclined to believe that he's probably never done a single hour of community service in his short life, because if he had, he would know that what he was describing is just not how it works. In fact, in college, students in the education program already are somewhat required to do community service! They've had this requirement for decades. They have to help tutor young kids in after school programs. No one's ever called that "slavery" before. But that's college, not high school, and college is optional--so the argument goes. Actually high school is optional too in a way--you can home school, pick a private school, or the kid could choose to simply not do the requirement and thereby not be rewarded with a diploma. You're not being forced to graduate, after all. A diploma is something you're supposed to earn through hard work.

Also, the majority of community service projects I've seen are completely apolitical and completely secular. For instance, I don't see how pulling up weeds from a school playground can possibly be offensive to someone. Or scrubbing off graffiti from walls. Or handing out food to homeless people. Or mopping floors. Or volunteering at an animal shelter. Etc. etc. etc. Sure, there are some groups you could volunteer for that have political or religious affiliations, and surely these causes are not something everyone wants to support. But in the grand scheme of all things community service, they're still in the minority. If I were to come up with a hypothetical situation, I can imagine that if a student wanted to help out with some political organization and have that count toward their community service hours, that would probably be okay. But the thought that a school would tell students they specifically had to work for one organization and one organization only is just ludicrous. That's just not how it works. The teacher education programs in colleges already serve as a prime example of this; students get to choose where they volunteer.

I pointed this out to my internet opponent. He came back at me again, querying, "Is this really an educational requirement? What the heck does involuntary service have to do with reading, writing and arithmetic? Does the school have the mandate or the capacity to teach morality? Why not religion, then?" At this point it was pretty clear he was not about to swayed no matter what I said. So I just ended the argument, saying that we were going in circles, and that he was being utterly ridiculous. But I will share my thoughts on his last round of questioning here. He seems to think of education as nothing more than reading, writing, and arithmetic. As someone who was in the teacher education program for four years, I think of it as hopefully a lot more than just that. As it happens, schools did used to teach religion and morality for quite a long while. The removal of religious teachings from the education system is still fairly recent in our nation's history. Teachers used to whack misbehaving students with yardsticks, made them do physical labor, and many other things beside just bookwork. That's not a new thing at all (and this continued well after the 13th amendment passed, mind you). Now I'm not advocating going back to the early 1900s style of education, but I'm just pointing out that the precedent is set that education is (or at least used to be) a good deal more than just course material. And I really do think it should be more than about just passing tests. My opponent also asked me this next question, which I'm just going to quote verbatim, because it's just so damn poetic.

What if they have better things to do? What if my child is an entrepreneur who has their own work to attend to? Or would like to work a part time job in order to save up funds for some hobby? Or to practice the music or math they love? You'd take that time from them without apology, and feel self-satisfied in having done so?

Yes. Yes I would. I derive all of my satisfaction from knowing that I've forever stolen 40 hours of your child's free time. That's 40 hours less he'll be playing the latest rendition of Grand Theft Auto or Halo. That's taken 40 hours away from the time could have spent experimenting with alcohol and trying to bang a cheerleader. That's 40 hours less he'll be watching porn. Oh, woe is you. Your poor, poor child. My heart weeps for the fact that he'll actually be exposed to community service and might learn a thing or two about the idea of helping people in his community--you know, those ideas you've done such a spectacular job of instilling in him yourself. Your poor, poor child.

Seriously, though, all those "better" things he listed--being an entrepreneur, having a part time job, practicing music and other hobbies--there's already something school-related that gets in the way of that, and it's called "homework." How is this any different? It's just a different type of homework assignment. Students are already expected to put their part-time jobs on hold and their hobbies aside to finish their homework. That cuts into their personal time. But they're expected to just get it done. Are we that touchy-feely of a society that we should be expected to weep with sorrow and sympathy for these poor children being forced to volunteer at animal shelters, hospitals, and nursing homes for one week? Again, as a nation, are we really just that damn lazy? The thought is just appalling to me.

So, as I said, I ended my discussion with this interesting internet fellow, because he just wasn't getting it. But of course, he felt the need to get in the last word, where he said, "such a program would subvert the choices and waste the time of an unknown number of children and parents." Cry me a river. And stop being so damn lazy. Teaching our kids the value of community service is exactly what this country needs.

Earlier tonight I saw this little gem. Someone wrote a quick JavaScript program to emulate the forces of gravity in space. Think of the little white dot as the moon, and your mouse cursor as the Earth. By the way, this works in Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Chrome, but not Internet Explorer. Anyways, the "goal" of this is to see if you can create a "stable orbit"--that is, get it to a point where the white dot will continuously circle around your mouse cursor without having to move the mouse to adjust at all. It's harder than you think, and there were a couple things I noticed as I tried it.

First, you absolutely cannot get too close. If you move your mouse too close to the dot, it will almost immediately whiplash the moon away from you. Even though gravity is a force of attraction, getting too close too fast actually just violently repels things away. Secondly, things have a natural tendency to accelerate very quickly, creating stronger and stronger attraction, until the aforementioned repulsion occurs. If you do nothing, this is how it will naturally play out. The attraction will grow and grow, until things are suddenly and violently thrown out of orbit. Lastly, you have to do a very careful "dance" to get the moon to actually stick around, so to speak. You have to carefully try to orbit it as it orbits you, not getting too close nor letting it get too close. The important part is that you have to maintain your distance the whole time, which requires actually moving around the other object to keep this distance. Basically, if you don't try to close the distance yourself, the other object will. So if you want to prevent that catastrophic repulsion, you have to make a very careful and coordinated effort to ensure that distance is maintained. If you do that properly, you can then slow down until you reach a point where you don't have to do anything, and then the other object will naturally orbit around you, with a constant amount of distance between you.

Okay, now getting to the point of posting all this: is this a metaphor for human relationships? If so, it's actually pretty depressing. If one person does nothing (shows no overt romantic interest), is the other naturally inclined to be attracted at some point? Someone once told me that whenever a boy and a girl spend a lot of time together, it's completely inevitable (and absolutely unavoidable) that at least one of them will be attracted to the other one. It's better when the attraction is mutual, but this is not always the case. I believe this statement is true. And just because someone's attracted to another person, this doesn't necessarily mean that they'd actually act on it or even vocalize it. But I think it still happens nonetheless.

And then when people are attracted to one another, is it inevitable that if they get "too close" they'll just end up repelling each other away forever? That's the part that kills me. I don't like the idea that you'd have to maintain a constant amount of "distance" between the other person if you want them to stick around. I mean, people need space, sure. They need private, alone time. Girls need girls' nights, and guys need guys' nights. That's not what I'm talking about, though. I'm thinking that if you get too personally close with another person, if you know too much about them, or something along those lines, is that a repelling force? I'm not sure. I hope not, though.

Oh, and the idea that you have to do a very, very careful dance around the other person if you want a stable orbit to occur is potentially discouraging. The implications of that would mean that nothing stable can happen naturally. Because if you just do nothing and wait for something to happen naturally, something will happen naturally--you'll become strongly attracted to someone and then repelled away even more strongly. If you want to establish a stable relationship, you'd have to do a very careful and precise dance around the other person until things finally settle down. And even then, you'd still have a solid amount of distance between you and the other person, and you'd never be able to get any closer without the risk of destroying the orbit altogether.

Then again, this is only a simulation. In reality, we have a lot of planets orbiting things, a lot of moons orbiting those planets, and so on and so forth. All of those things occurred naturally. So what's the difference between that and this simulation? Simple: in this simulation we have chosen the object we want to create an orbit with. We are trying to alter the situation to make this particular object orbit us. So that's not really letting things happen naturally, after all. That could be interpreted to mean that if we try to make one specific person be attracted to us in a very specific way, that it will fail. The only way we can establish a solid relationship is for it to happen naturally, and probably not with anyone we've preselected. In other words, there really isn't any good simulation for that. I guess that's encouraging?

So what do you think? Is the gravitational orbit of different planets a good metaphor for relationships? Anyways, have fun playing with the little JavaScript thingy. See if you've got what it takes to create a stable orbit.

EDIT: I find it ironic that yet another developer recently released this, which is a similar concept, except that you start out with a picture of a heart, and each pixel is a "moon" so to speak. The rules he uses to define gravity seem to be quite a bit different, but still, I just find it interesting.

Recently I've heard a few people expressing the sentiment that my generation (generation Y), is basically comprised of a bunch of lazy, egotistical jerk-offs with no work ethic or real character. Although I think the people who said that said it in slightly more eloquent terms. My mom interviewed me with an array of career questions as part of a project she was doing for one of her master's classes. She had to give the same interview to a number of different people, all different ages and in different walks of life, and since she's my mom and can be a little more naturally candid with me than her other interviewees, I got some commentary on my generation that was not entirely positive. A little while later, I saw a video clip of Conan O'Brien interviewing a stand-up comedian named Louis C.K. The message of the video is "everything's amazing, but nobody's happy." He focuses on the incredible technological advancements we've made and how our culture is generally very ungrateful for any of them. And then, some time after that, my friend Debbie recently wrote a blog post that references that same video and gives her take on this generation, which is, again, not entirely positive.

The bottom line is that I don't think this is true. But this post is not going to be about that. This post is going to instead concede and assume that generation Y does have problems, and recommend something to help that out. This isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all solution that will permanently change this generation for the better; in fact I don't think I could even come close to something like that if I tried. But this is one simple step I can recommend from personal experience that I think will help. And it's very simple: ask other people "how are you?" more often. Allow me to explain.

Back in October, I was talking to one of my friends online on AOL instant messenger. We were just having a normal conversation about whoknowswhat, when all of a sudden in the middle of it all, she interjected with "you haven't been asking me how I was or generally been interested in my welfare the last 4 or so times I've talked to you." This kind of caught me off guard a bit, because it seemed rather out-of-the-blue given the fact that we had a pretty decent conversation going already, and it also seemed downright false at me to first. I care about my friends. I want them to be happy, I really do. Now I've had my fair share of moments where my own thoughts on how things should play out, or my ways of trying to cope with bouts of depression, have seemed to come into conflict with this, but underlying it all I really do want the people in my life to be happy. I hope they know that. But since that's always kind of been my mindset, that I care about my friends and want them to be happy, I just kind of assumed that they knew that already. Then I realized how silly it is to expect anyone else to really understand the things I think about but do not vocalize. And I thought about (and checked the logs of) the last 4 conversations I'd had with this friend, and indeed, I had never actually used the words "how are you?" in any of them.

So I apologized to my friend and tried to explain some of this as I was processing it. At the time I felt a little like I was apologizing for something I shouldn't have had to apologize for, and that she was being a tad hyper-sensitive, but I apologized nonetheless. And that helped. Ever since then, I've made a point of asking her "how are you?" in every conversation we have online, and she's always done the same without me having to ask for it. And I really feel like that improved our friendship in a subtle sort of way. It has really helped me feel closer to this particular friend.

Now I will point out something that seems obvious to me, but I want to be sure everyone's on the same page. Asking "how are you?" is only half the battle; you actually need to follow through with this and listen to what the other person has to say. You know, show some empathy and let them talk. I think "how are you?" is thrown around a lot in real (not online) interactions as a generic placeholder greeting. The kind of greeting that you say because that's what you say, but oftentimes not used as something to actually illicit a response. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. But just in case you don't, I've made a convenient flowchart to illustrate how a lot of empty conversations occur between people. Keep in mind that I do not think this how "how are you?" should be used, but alas, it is sadly the case in many situations.

Admit it. You've had conversations that went something like that. You can hardly call them conversations at all, really. But it happens. That's what the phrase "how are you" has been denigrated to. I will point out that this flowchart really only applies to spoken conversations, not online conversations. But either way, this is not how it should be used, in my opinion. I'm a person who strongly believes that you should always say what you mean, so if you're going to ask someone how they're doing, be prepared for a response. In fact, go one step further and prod for a response if you need to. Show that you care and you really do want to know how they're doing. Pretty much everybody responds to that question with "good" or "fine" initially, which means that if you really want to find out how they're doing, you have to keep asking in different ways. And while this might seem like a hassle, is it really? Is it that hard to be interested in how people are doing?

Anyways, ever since that day, when my friend pointed out to me that I didn't specifically ask her "how are you?" the last 4 times we chatted, it's opened my eyes and made aware of how frequently (or infrequently, rather) people use that phrase. Now when I'm talking to people online, I notice when they forget to say it, and it's interesting because sometimes it can seem somewhat insulting. A lot of conversations now start off with me asking how the other person is doing, them giving me an answer, but then they never follow up with a reciprocal "how are you?" And now that I've been paying attention to it, that kind of sucks. It feels like they don't care about how I'm doing. I feel like I'm in the position my friend was in earlier when she thought I seemed to not be interested in how she was doing. Like I said, at first it felt to me like she was being hyper-sensitive about it, but now that I've seen her position first-hand, I can really understand where she was coming from.

So my recommendation is to consciously make an effort to ask people "how are you?" and then follow up on it. Find out how they're really doing. It takes a lot less effort than you'd think, and it can mean a lot more than you'd think. If this generation really is crap, then rather than just complaining about it, I think we had might as well start looking for small ways in which we can improve it. And getting people to genuinely try to care more about each other, I think, is a good first step. So find out how your friends are doing today. Find out how everyone you talk to is doing. Spend a couple more seconds to try and connect with them rather than just filling space with empty words.

Lastly, how are you?

This is a cross post from Facebook. Facebook is a site that I use frequently, and earlier this evening I noticed that they drastically and suddenly changed a lot of their layout around. I wasn't entirely happy about all of this, so I decided I would send them feedback, and I decided I'd have some fun writing it. So this is the unabridged feedback email I sent them.

Dear Facebook,

We need to talk. For your benefit, and because it's always good to feel appreciated, I'll start and end this letter on a positive note. But be aware that the creamy center of this message is full of chocolate, nougat, and all the real issues that we'll have to address. (Minus the first two; sorry to dash your hopes.) So in case this message reaches a random intern who has to make a quota of reading hundreds upon hundreds of feedback emails each day, and said intern is not really all that interested in my superfluous and empty flattery surrounding the real meat of this, you can kindly skip ahead to the area sectioned off with asterisks. That way you'll have more time to update your LinkedIn profile and try and land yourself a better job.

So look, Facebook, you've got a lot going for you. You really have a lot to offer and you usually provide a pretty fantastic service. $300 million in revenue last year is saying something, but what's really great is your continued integrity in the face of temptation. That punk Yahoo! offered you $1.4 billion, but you weren't about to sell yourself to a jerk like that. You stay classy, and you don't let some hotshot search engine try to take advantage of you, even when the money is really good.

And from my side of things, it's mostly been great. Sure you've had your days where you've needed to cool your jets and you wouldn't let me log in for an hour or two, but these things happen when a man and a social networking platform enter into a relationship like this. I can understand that you've got bugs and issues that you need to take time to work out, and I can give you your space--provided this sort of thing isn't a regular occurrence. And to your credit, it hasn't been.

Now I know you've got to maintain your independence. A lot of people gave you a lot of crap after that first big makeover--you know, when you tried on the news feed and the mini feed for the first time. That was a big day for you, something you should have been able to remember in a positive light, but people whined and moaned about privacy, even though you spent so many hours getting the privacy control settings ready. Well I noticed. I have a pretty good idea how much time you put into that, and I always though it looked great--and still does! And then there was the incident with going from your old layout to "new Facebook." You got a lot of flak for that, too. But I just want you to know that I always supported you during that troubling time. I thought the new Facebook was wonderful! I thought it gave way more control and really facilitated stalking to the extreme the exchange of information in an optimal way. I know you had haters, but I really liked what you did with yourself.

**********

But we still need to talk. I came home today and it didn't take long for me to see what you've done. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, but this latest facelift of yours is not exactly one for the books. As hard as this may be to hear, I started thinking about wanting to break up with you, Facebook, after seeing some of these changes. I know that's harsh, but that's why I want us to talk this through. I think if we listen to each other, we can really solve some problems and both feel better about the situation. I'll go first.

First, what the hell is this flabby crap you've got hanging over the right called "Highlights"? Seriously, what is it? It looks like a button or two on the news feed snapped and some of that just started spilling over onto the right. Honestly, tuck that in; it's a mess. You can do better than this. Now in all seriousness, the highlights on the right are totally redundant. Why can't they just be absorbed into the news feed? They're the same kind of thing after all. I mean, do we even need a right-hand column? Now I can admit that I'm not an expert on design, but I do know that the latest style isn't always actually the greatest thing, because all that crap hanging off on the right is making me lose my already-virtually-nonexistent sense of focus. It's too much at once. Tone it done a few notches, Facebook.

And speaking of things that are latest but not necessarily greatest, I'll just come out and say it: I think the rounded corners on the thumbnail images look terrible on you. I know what you're trying to do, with the whole Web 2.0 thing, but let's face it: everybody and their grandmother is going for the rounded corners thing right now, and when you add it to just about everything, you just really come off like you're trying way too hard. Not to mention the fact that you're not even being consistent--the search auto complete images, main profile image, and a couple other places still have square corners! If you're going to do something, at least do it right the first time. So I think you should just drop it altogether. I don't think you'll be able to pull it off quite right. Go back to the nice, orthodox thumbnail images that we all love. Maybe you were thinking that if you rounded everyone off like that, that maybe those ugly "highlights" wouldn't show throw quite as much on your Home screen--but maybe you were wrong this time, kid. And if this really bothers you, then let's meet in the middle: go back to square images for now, and if your friends at Microsoft ever decide to fully implement the "border-radius" CSS property in Internet Explorer, then we'll talk. There are some elegant things you could do with that. But until then, lose it. It's gaudy and cheap.

Next, you really did it this time with the status updates. What the hell, Facebook? They're basically indistinguishable from any other wall post now. Are you trying to embarrass me? Are you trying to make it look like I spend all my free time talking to myself online? These aren't self-directed wall posts; they're status updates. But thanks to your new found disregard for distinguishing the two, you make me and everyone else updating their status look like buffoons. Is that what you want? You want me to look like a damn fool to all of my friends, like I'm always just talking to myself in front of them? I thought you knew better, Facebook. I thought you knew that if there was any one message I wanted to send to my friends, it's that I stalk them electronically all the time like any normal person--NOT that I talk to myself all the time. Lose the self status update pictures on the profile screen, bring back the bold font, and get your act together. This is pathetic. If you want to keep showing my picture on status updates on other people's home screens, fine. Be that way. But no way in hell I am going to approve of this embarrassing kind of mix-up under my own roof--on my own profile page.

Also, I've always known that you've never really been the best at being careful to respect other people's languages and cultures. I try to work with you on this because I know it's hard for you. But I've got to put my foot down. When you keep changing your mind on things willy-nilly, it's really hard to understand what you're trying to say. I usually keep my language set to "Pirate English" rather than just regular "English," and yes I know it's still in beta. But look, when you keep changing your mind and altering things, your message gets lost. You forget that other people aren't always on the same page as you. I can't read your mind. You have to be clear with what you say, and you have to make sure to actually remember to properly translate things (and double check them!) before you go changing them all around.

Take wall posting for instance. You changed the button that you use to make a wall post. Don't try and deny it. Now, for native English users, it says "Share." It didn't used to say "Share." I don't remember exactly what it said, but it wasn't "Share." I know you don't think that's a big deal, but think about the unseen implications. When we sat down that day and spent all that time doing your foreign language homework, how do you think we translated the word "share"? Did we do it in a way that would still make sense now that you're using "share" to mean "post"? You don't remember, do you? You can't remember how you translated it! I knew it! Look Facebook, you really need to pay closer attention to these things. Because you forget, and then you just change things without realizing that it might not make as much sense in a foreign language.

That "Share" button I was talking about? Yeah...it currently translates as "Divvy spoils t' all ye mateys" in Pirate English. "All ye mateys"? That doesn't make any sense in this new context--that's clearly plural. I'm trying to send a wall post to ONE person. It implies that when I press that button, it's going to send out whatever I just wrote to more than one person. So I think you can imagine my confusion earlier tonight when I tried to make a simple wall post to a friend. I wasn't sure who all was going to receive it! Now I know, after double-checking the original English, that my fears were ultimately unfounded, but look--you need to be clear about these things. Make sure that you mean what you say, in every language you claim to speak.

Lastly, those filters on the left column on the home screen...why?! It's too much. It's much too much. What is it with you and columns these days? As if those ugly highlights on the other side weren't distracting enough, you had to go ahead and add yet another column with crap nobody's going to click on? Too. Many. Columns. You had a perfectly nice way of filtering things before, with that little equalizer control that was linked to at the bottom. What happened to that? I really hope you didn't throw that away. I hate it when you just throw things away without checking with me first. Because it was beautiful. Sure, I know it maybe wasn't the most obvious thing to everyone, but at least it was classy, whereas this new side filter is just tacky. If you really need it out there so badly, at least give us a way to collapse the damn thing and keep it out of sight. Yuck.

**********

So look, Facebook. I know this is going to be a hard letter to read, but I really think that at times like these, it's best for everyone to just be honest with each other. You're doing a good job for the most part. I just really wish you wouldn't go off and change everything around like this without telling anyone and then just come back expecting everyone to accept whatever changes you feel like that month. It's not fair to me, and it's not fair to us. I've been pretty quiet--you don't hear a lot of complaints out of me for the most part. I don't think you always appreciate just how lucky you are, with all the things I'm willing to put up with. But these recent changes are too much. I'm afraid that if I don't start calling you out on some of this stuff, it's not going to stop. I'm afraid that you'll start taking hints from players like MySpace. MySpace is a bad influence that I want you to stay away from. I mean, so far you've pretty much been fine, but I just worry that if you're going to be going out like this and going wild--abandoning all sense of responsibility and aesthetics--well who knows what can happen. I just worry.

And remember Facebook, it hurts me more than it hurts you to have to say all of this. I don't want either of us to be hurting. So please, this time, listen. Really take the time to listen. I know you're better than this, Facebook; you're great! Look, we have something really beautiful here. I value that. I don't want to lose that. So please, please, please, take all the time you need to fix these things. I don't expect this overnight. But those extra columns have to go. Status updates need to be status updates, not public soliloquies. Don't round off the pictures in an effort to fit in. And for heaven's sake, make sure you actually know what you're saying to other people when you start speaking other languages.

Now you can always let me know if there's anything you feel that I could be doing better. You're great, Facebook, and I don't want to lose you. But I think it's only fair that you recognize that I've got to have my standards. You've done a great job of exceeding them for such a long time, that I want you to be able to stay at that level. So you can go ahead and take your time with getting these things sorted out. That's ok. We can work through this together as a team. It'll be just you, me, and 175 million other members. It just saddens me a little to see some of these changes. I know you can do so much better, Facebook. If you're going through a rough time, or something's bothering you, we can always talk. In fact, I think open communication is probably always best. I would have much preferred to have known about all this before you went and just changed everything on impulse. You should have told me, and I could have given you preemptive feedback. Now it's just a sticky situation.

But I said I was going to end this message on a positive note, and I am. I have faith that you can do the right thing, Facebook. I've seen how great you can be, so I want to encourage you to reclaim that greatness. So please just take a moment to read over the things I've layed out here a couple times (feel free to ask any clarification questions, of course), and do what needs to be done to keep this great. Here's looking at you, kid.

Gordon Myers

It's been awhile since I've really written any posts, because I've been busy. I've had one post that I've been trying to write for awhile now which kept getting too long-winded so I'd scrap it and start over (multiple times), and this is not that post (I'm still scrapping and reworking that one). I've mostly just been distracted with multiple personal projects/goals, sleep, and television. So I'm sorry for any faithful readers who have, at least temporarily, given up on me. I'll try to post more to keep you all in the loop.

I was just thinking, though. I have a number of regrets. I would say that 2008 was easily the "angriest" year of my life. There are some things I said or wrote that now I almost wish I hadn't, looking back. I mean, it is what it is, you can't change the past, and I accept the consequences of that. But in retrospect, I can see that I didn't always handle things gracefully. I've never really thought about regrets before, because honestly I've never really had them. But there are a few situations that I think I should have handled differently. I think there are two classes of regrets: things you regret doing, and things you regret not doing, and personally I think the latter is far worse. There are things I've done, things I've said, and things I've written, that I kind of wish I hadn't. But there are also some opportunities that I just recently realized I missed because I got too caught up in myself--and that's what really kills me.

It's very easy to get caught up in ourselves. Emotion is a powerful thing. It's very easy to treat your own experience as being "more significant" than the experience of anyone else around you. But the thing about emotions and pain is that they're inherently subjective. They're not something that can be quantified. It doesn't make sense to argue and bicker over who's had it worse, because it's all relative. But at the same time, some people do go through harder experiences than others. That happens all the time, in fact. And it can be insulting to one person who's gone through a lot of pain to have another (who unwittingly hasn't) compare their experience as if they were on the same level. And it's hard to reconcile these two realizations.

The times when I've really felt discouraged, hopeless, or dejected, while I did want to talk about it with people, I sometimes approached it from the viewpoint that whatever they possibly had to say probably wouldn't be as bad as whatever I was going through, and basically that "no one really understands." This is so silly, though. Everybody understands, but nobody understands that anybody else understands. But this unspoken attitude that says, "I want to talk but whatever you say is going to pale in comparison to what I'm feeling right now" is really more like a challenge, an invitation for others to bring up their worst moments and compare the two. A friend of mine, Creighton, once coined the term "misery dicks," pointing out the similarity between the way people compare their painful experiences with the way some men compare penis size--incessantly saying, "mine's bigger!" and trying to constantly one-up one another.

One example that comes to mind: one of my gripes with feminism is admittedly with just a small handful of self-identified feminists who have seemed to exude this sort of "misery dick" attitude. I've witnessed some of them go pretty far overboard. I can think of a few times where one person was sharing some of the painful experiences they've had (in an online forum), and out of nowhere a feminist commenter felt the need to butt in with how her experience--nay the experience of all women--was unimaginably worse. That sort of hijacked the discussion, and I thought it was quite rude. It just seemed very self-righteous, unsympathetic, and hollow. I've seen similar things happen more than a few times now--both online and in real life--so at the moment, suffice it to say that I've been left with a pretty bad aftertaste in my mouth for modern feminism. I'm not saying it should be done away with, per se, but it definitely has some issues that are not being addressed. (And yes, I know I shouldn't judge a whole group based on the actions of a few.)

But I'm getting off track. 2008 was my angriest year, but this is because it was also one of my most emotional years. I know that when I did something I regret, I did because that was my way of handling the emotion at the time. I had a spectrum of feelings I was dealing with, from dejection to depression to desperation, and they can be overwhelming. So I said or did things I somewhat regret because that was the only way I could handle it at the time. In that sense, I'm not obligated to feel regret. You do what you have to do to get by. Plus it's not like I did anything too shockingly abhorrent. But I do regret that I wasn't happier. And not for my own sake, but for others. I think we have an obligation to be cheerful. Plus I want to hold myself to higher standards.

Soap box time. Plenty of people are dealing with depression, loneliness, and other difficult but hard-to-quantify things, and I can assure you that a good number of them are less vocal about it than I am. Plenty of people go on a search for happiness, because they feel like either they lost it and wish things would go back to the way they used to be (the "good ol' days"), or that they never really had it in the first place. But the thing is, we all have the capacity to be happy. We all have the capacity to love unconditionally. In fact, I think this is that natural state of the human heart. We naturally desire to love others. I think you can learn a lot about the natural tendencies of humans by observing children. One of the reasons people have kids is because are so naturally honest, pure, and happy, that it's downright inspiring. Children seem to exude and spread contagious joy. So when many people get weighted down with the pains of adult life, they forget what it was like to love others so freely and effortlessly, and often find themselves wishing things were the way they were when they were kids. But I don't think it's impossible to go back to this sense of childhood eagerness, happiness, and love. In fact, I think it's not only possible, but requisite, for living a truly happy and productive life. And I think that's what Jesus getting at in Matthew 18:3:

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I think it's clear he's not talking about actually magically turning back the clocks and reverting people out of adulthood, but speaking more qualitatively of how we act and think. Think about the qualities we associate with a child: joy, eagerness, honesty, purity, curiosity, so on and so forth. At the same time, it's still important to maintain some of the qualities that come with adulthood, such as maturity, patience, and restraint. But I think the secret to happiness is to make a conscious effort to actively sustain these childlike qualities to counteract any negative adult tendencies, even when we're faced with a tough situation that would try to drag us away from any sense of cheerfulness. One more quote, this time from Martha Washington, our nation's first First Lady:

I am still determined to be cheerful and happy, in whatever situation I may be; for I have also learned from experience that the greater part of our happiness or misery depends upon our dispositions, and not upon our circumstances.

Recently I started working out again, a little bit. In particular, I've done ab exercises, including sit ups, crunches, leg lifts, and so on--the works. And being the kind of "over the top" person I am, I naturally decided that even though I hadn't really done any such workout in probably over a year, I'd start by going all out and doing a ridiculous number of everything, with a focus on obtaining this lofty number, ignoring whatever pain I felt because of it. That was a bit rough. I literally did more situps than my body was really able to handle. I know this, because the day afterward, I was sore. And because the day after that, it hurt to just get up from my chair at work. And the few days following that it was still somewhat painful to move around. That's a pretty clear indicator that I exceeded what my body was ready to handle. But this physical situation, for me, is a clear analogy for my emotional situation last year. While my recent workout was too much for my body to handle at the time, all the emotions and experiences last year were too much for me to handle at the time. I did what I had to, even when that was less than graceful, to maintain sanity. (Who am I kidding, though? I'm clearly not sane.) And sometimes when things really get rough, you lose yourself a little bit. You forget who you are, and do things you might regret later. It's kind of a catch-22, though, because sometimes you just have to, to maintain sanity. Nobody's perfect, I guess. I think I've learned a lot over the last year, and that I've matured some, and I like to think I'm always continuing to mature. But I still kind of wish I had done a few things differently. Oh well.

On the bright side, I still have a long bit of life ahead of me. There's a lot I want to do. Mostly I've been realizing that a lot of the experiences I've had that have been so difficult aren't so strange. There are a lot of people out there who are lonely, scared, angry--you name it. Plenty of people in worse condition than I am. In fact, at the current moment, I'm quite grateful for all the blessings in my life. I've got a good job, a good family, good friends, a nice apartment, a car, lots of nice things, and I've got some talents. I really am quite blessed. But I know what it feels like to think that none of those things really matter, to think that there's no light at the end of the tunnel, or to wish you didn't exist. It's rough, and it makes me sad to know that so many others can feel that way to.

And because of this, I want to do my part to heal the world. I have a couple of ideas already for projects I can do, though I'd prefer not to disclose details on some of those yet. But in the immediate future, I recently found a small, online "suicide watch" community, where a group of people who are going through rough times have asked for support, advice, and friendship. Some of them share their stories about painful breakups, deaths of someone close, and other catalysts for their struggles, which I find very interesting, albeit sad. So I'm going to try to volunteer my best listening ear over there, as well as offer whatever advice I can. Also, back in the real world, here in Madison, there's a group called "Savory Sunday," sponsored by the Lutheran church next door to where I used to live, that comes together on Sundays to cook and serve meals to the homeless at the Capitol building. I'll be volunteering some of my time to help them.

So the long and short of this was just to say that I have a few regrets about last year, and I'm sorry if I was mean or hurt anyone in my weakness, but also that I look forward to the future as an opportunity to help others.