the story is all questions

people say im smart, but then they dont listen when i tell them im not. therefore they must believe that although i am smart, they are smarter. so from now on, when someone calls me smart, i will respond with, oh yeah! well, youre smarter!

these are my new phrases, stuck in my head for no particular reason:
seeking heat by hell was in my head
we are all of us, far too caught up in the details.
quarantined mind.
quietly confident
i am tempted to accuse you of the most vile things.
things are always better in conflict.
a noisy venture.
theres something phony about this.
is it now?
can you see? its beautiful.

if a man says he is lying, is what he says true or false? i think lying doesnt imply false, it implies not true. (not true)≠false, which is the basic assumption in boolean logic i guess. but outside of boolean logic, in real life, i think it could mean something different. could we merge probability with logic? instead of making it boolean...

these are from futurama:
dont tell no one. spread the word.
extremely inappropriate banter.
some say im robbing the craddle, but i think shes robbing the grave.
you gotta try the pasta. its got a real nice profit margin.

hey, look on the bright side, you dont look creepy when you smile, so youve got that going for you.

an expression of praise, congratulation or encouragement
a misspelling for complement, meaning something which makes the original object complete.

if i wrote you a note in every fold would you promise not to peek? (peak!)
with eight folds of play, reading one every day, could you wait the entire week?

in my spare time i write love notes to strangers and hide them in novel places.

when i was little, and my parents left for a party or something, and said they would be back by some certain time, id get worried when if they didnt get back at that time. although i knew it was worrying, so i quelled it (to use a word not normally in my vocabulary). but still, in the back of my mind, i would start to wonder, what if they were in an accident or something, and got injured, or killed? how would i react? what would happen to my family?

also, when i laid in bed at night, i got very jealous hearing my mom laugh at television shows. it made me feel like i was missing something fun. even now, when i hear people in a nearby room having a lot of fun, i get a somewhat excluded feeling.

i dont know how to abandon the visual aspect of life. thats probably where my embarrassing desire to be blind comes from.
i want to try sculpting something, (maybe clay?) while blindfolded.

i quit drinking, but that meant i had to quit sleeping. and if im not sleeping, well fuck it! who needs to eat?? and since eating sleeping and drinking took up a lot of time, now that ive quit them i can dedicate more time to hallucinating. although i have never enjoyed being alone with my thoughts.

the consensus among those who consider this a disorder is that the threshold is met when the behavior causes distress or impaired social functioning.


nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse.

how do you win at three card monte?

whenever i critize the subject of history (the study of it) i am met with the same response: we mustnt repeat our mistakes; we must learn from the past; those who dont know the past are doomed to repeat it. i am fairly certain these are widely held beliefs that have been passed around as decent arguments for the study of history. also, let me clarify, i dont believe the study of history is not to be pursued, i just believe it is not any more important than any other study. in fact, my interest in physics i believe to be extremely useful to mankind; however i dont believe it to be that important. and i believe history is in the same exact position (naturally, im biased in the way of saying physics is more important, but im aware of that bias, and removing it for the time being). now, on with the show.

they must have known.

learning from the past? avoiding historical mistakes? repeating ourselves? fuck that. learn from the present. the present is so unlike the past that history is barely even relevant most of the time. remember, history also enables resentment. its history that has created the problems of kashmir, the problems in rwanda, the problems between israel and palestine. its history that created the first and second gulf wars. it was history that the nazis believed to be righting when they killed millions of jews. not that i think history should be banned, im just saying, lets be honest about its contributions to society. physics hasnt just contributed the principles behind nearly every comfort of modern living, its also responsible for what was probably the largest uncomfort in modern living: nuclear weapons. and i suppose to further clarify, its not historians who are responsible for these idiotic wars and genocides, its psychotic leaders and groupthink mentalities enabling them.

on thursday dr Wolf told me it was too much at once, to expect all humans to treat each other well all year long. so i guess i should promote baby steps?

its so bizarre, Corey's confidence in knowing enlightenment. i suppose my problem is due to other people: if one is enlightened, are they then qualified to declare that others are enlightened? are they qualified to declare that others are not enlightened? could i be enlighteneed and not know it? no, i believe Corey stated you would know. but how can he say that without being enlightened?

i left the contents of my stomach in san francisco (actually it was keene).

the original argument began when i stated that there is no difference, (to the one experiencing it) between 'premature enlightenment' and 'the real thing'. i should have gone the one step further to use that as an argument against the concept of true enlightenment altogether, but alas, i did not conceive of it in that moment. Corey responded by explaining that he believes that i would know if i were enlightened, unequivocally. which is odd, because that just plain violates the rule that we should ultimately always doubt our senses on some level. as a strict physicalist, it seems very obvious to me that my perception of the world is just a complex pattern of novel chemical reactions, in which case, the idea of 'enlightenment' and the associated physical feelings, are nothing more than a defined state of those patterns, and in which case those patterns can occur without any logically meaningful insight... dammit, im rambling a lot. i also want to add now, what the fuck does enlightenment even mean? some vast secret revealed? there are no secrets! some deeper meaning? there is no meaning! these questions are all so poorly defined they will always fail under minor scrutiny and bend to personal interpretation. yet i keep going.

if one is not enlightened, can they detect enlightenment in another person?

all of this quantification i do, it destroys humans. i think humans are much more interested in qualification. and feeling. i want to learn to feel for a while. but ill need someone to teach me.

those were all things i wrote about while doing my laundry this evening.

ive been learning/hearing more and more recently about depression of mothers after childbirth... and its weird. id say id like to learn more about it, but i suppose i dont want to ever experience it (which makes it sound like i myself might have a baby one day, which i will not).

i wonder if the severe limitations that internet communication introduce promote our ability to articulate.

when Chris left tonight, he said, "see you cody" so i responded "see you later" except the way i said it made it sound like i was calling Chris 'later', which made me felt awkward, cause i felt like it meant i didnt remember his name or something. but he didnt seem to even notice. then i told Bryant.

objectionable content!

tonight i read this about Einstein: His was not a life of prayer and worship. Yet he lived by a deep faith — a faith not capabIe of rational foundation — that there are laws of Nature to be discovered. His lifelong pursuit was to discover them.
His realism and his optimism are illuminated by his remark: "Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not"("Raffiniert ist der Herrgott aber boshaft ist er nicht."). When asked by a colleague what he meant by that, he replied: "Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse." ("Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.")
and i thought it neat.

for a second i thought i might be 25 years old... that was a really weird feeling...

also, i read some stuff about Paul Erdos (umlaut o): he called god the "supreme fascist", and blamed him for things like hiding his glasses, visas and other stuff, when he couldnt find what he was looking for. this included the most elegant proofs of mathematical problems that Erdos was working on. "the supreme fascist created us to enjoy suffering" he said, "the sooner we die, the sooner we defy his plans".

why cant we get fucked up everywhere we go?
its dollar draft night down at the botanical garden. - Doug Stanhope
i think he once said that if he wins in '08 and you voted for him he will let you take a dump in the upstairs bathroom of the whitehouse, so hey, its worth a shot!

as hard as i am to read is as hard as it is for me to read other people.

you get someone to play.
(do these silly puzzles i build entertain anyone?)


torches and pitchforks

im alone, not lonely.

mogwai's friend of the night. is that "the one who is friends with the night", or "friend who you know at night"? pj harvey's line, "love for money is my sin". is that prostitution or just greed? is she trading love for money, or does she just plain love money? these examples help motivate my campaign to set up a process for the quantification of ambiguity. granted, im pretty sure now that that is an oxy moron, its still fun to say. 'quantify ambiguity'.

i want a girl insatiable. she is heat incarnate.

"The basic point is that, when we talk about NP-complete problems, we're not just talking about scheduling airline flights (or for that matter, breaking the RSA cryptosystem). We're talking about automating insight: proving the Riemann Hypothesis, modeling the stock market, seeing whatever patterns or chains of logical deduction are there in the world to be seen." -Scott Aaronson

automating insight i think is an excellent phrase.

i have finally learned, concretely, what it means to be in NP; it makes perfect sense too. so heres the deal: NP are problems that can be solved on a nondeterministic turing machine in polynomial time. since we have no such thing as a nondeterministic turing machine, we have to settle for checking the answers in polynomial time, which makes sense, because finding the answer requires checking every 'branch' of the 'tree' as where checking the answer is just plugging it in and verifying that the specified 'branch' satisifies the problem.

i feel as though i do not laugh out loud as often as the people around me.

it seems that computer scientists must have determined the very fewest amount of entropy change that must occur to go from the NP problem input to the yes or no output... seeing as how information has to be manipulated. also, i would like to see turing machines rigidly defined and set up so that all inputs can be seen for tiny machines, and all outputs seen. i know that makes more sense now then it will later.

put everything on the walls.

i need to stop relating things to myself. im nothing like most things, and most things are nothing like me. we are like homeless junkies who start with a small scab and scratch it incessantly turning it into a gaping wound. i want us to have relative motion.

you smile cause you fake it, and its all for show.
acting dumb, thats what youve come to expect.

can we figure out a way to classify the complexity of the question P vs NP in terms of its computational complexity? it is after all a decision problem, right? (yes/no output...)

sheep-in-wolfs-clothing: "ive never been good with words, which is why i'm in such a delicate conundrum."

"-honesty is not synonymous with truth.
yeah, you lie. you lie. is it to do some good, to get somewhere personally, or, what, just for the fuck of it...
-well, i suspect that, some people do it, to keep things on an even keel.
change. your life. radically. change anything. change everything.
...youre hot shit.
...heavy lies the crown, sort of thing...
...ill deal with something being wrong for the rest of my life.
...you know most good looking women are cops?"
---i just watched the departed, and holy fuck. everybody gets it.---

secular progressive, that sounds like me!

stefan just reminded me of my old desire to perform my own autopsy. thats the most distant desire ive ever had i think. unobtainable perhaps is a better word.

how unfair is it that the undercover cop endures hell to get to his undercover position, while the 'undercover' criminal gets paid well, becomes a respected authority.

all we want is a headrush
we all just want to die a little bit.

Back in the days before electricity, we were forced to watch TV by candlelight.

i am so cautious to not influence people, yet hopeful that people will influence me. why is that?
the most interesting things are the things which are the least well understood. in general, im not well understood, hence, interesting.
people tend to think that i "know" what im "doing". which is funny because i do so little.


i guess the earth shattered

according to wikipedia, "in the 16th and 17th centuries, there was much speculation in learned circles that lemmings were in fact spontaneously generated by conditions of the air".

"i thought maybe if you heard a familiar voice, it might help keep your mind together. but, who knows if it really got through."
alright, im insane. but im still sane enough to know it.

i smoke all of my weed out of bible pages. what? thats the best way to smoke weed! it filters out all the evil. -Sean Rouse

i want to be so rushed that the clothes dont even have time to come off.

pants party. and now i have to demean myself with ralph just to get closure with you. gladiator academy. 'born to lose' tattoo on my chest.

there is a one sided-ness in certain situations. for instance, cops have to be concerned about bystanders, as where criminals do not.

they all fell into love with criminals. some of them knew. some of them didnt. gettin made. nothings wrong, everythings right. off the radar. larger than this, there seems to be no continued structure, a phenomenon which has been referred to as the End of Greatness.

i want to switch from using the words 'okay' and 'not okay' to a much more continuous range of expressing okay-ness. great, fine, decent, magnificent, horrible, wonderful, terrible, alive, dead. happy, blessed, blest, blissful, blithe, can't complain, captivated, cheerful, chipper, chirpy, content, contented, convivial, delighted, ecstatic, elated, exultant, flying high, gay, glad, gleeful, gratified, hopped up, intoxicated, jolly, joyful, joyous, jubilant, laughing, light, lively, looking good, merry, mirthful, overjoyed, peaceful, peppy, perky, playful, pleasant, pleased, satisfied, sparkling, sunny, thrilled, tickled, tickled pink, up, upbeat, blithe, casual, cheerful, cool, devil-may-care, easy, easygoing, feckless, free-minded, heedless, improvident, insouciant, irresponsible, lackadaisical, lighthearted, nonchalant, reckless, unconcerned, untroubled, sad, bereaved, bitter, blue, cheerless, dejected, depressed, despairing, despondent, disconsolate, dismal, distressed, doleful, down, downcast, forlorn, gloomy, glum, grief-stricken, grieved, heartbroken, heartsick, heavy-hearted, hurting, in doldrums, in grief, languishing, low, low-spirited, lugubrious, melancholy, morbid, morose, mournful, pensive, pessimistic, somber, sorrowful, sorry, troubled, weeping, wistful, woebegone, bad, calamitous, dark, dejecting, deplorable, depressing, disastrous, discomposing, discouraging, disheartening, dismal, dispiriting, dreary, funereal, grave, grievous, hapless, heart-rending, joyless, lachrymose, lamentable, lugubrious, melancholic, miserable, moving, oppressive, pathetic, pitiable, pitiful, poignant, regrettable, saddening, serious, shabby, sorry, tear-jerking, tearful, tragic, unfortunate, unhappy, unsatisfactory, upsetting, wretched... and so on.

actually, i dont want my vocabulary to be that big. maybe i could learn to express myself in terms of mathematics. although itd probably defeat the whole concept of expressing oneself, since most people dont seem to know that much math.

friends! ive come to free you from your complicated lives! free you from the complicated part i mean not the not the lives part. emergency beans.

do drugs, just dont have drugs. -Doug Stanhope

zone of avoidance (wikipedia) (great attractor and great wall)

i hate how there people have a concept of right and wrong; good and bad; good and evil. i wish they would call it, preferable and not preferable. i wish people didnt think there was such a thing as normal and weird. they should think in terms of familiar and unfamiliar. i want to seek out unfamiliar. even the 'weirdest' of things is probably done by hundreds if not thousands of people, at the least, so even weird is going to be normal to a lot of people.

Bertrand Russell said something great, (a lot of great somethings really, but this in particular has been in my head lately): "So long as there is death there will be sorrow, and so long as there is sorrow it can be no part of the duty of human beings to increase its amount, in spite of the fact that a few rare spirits know how to transmute it."

game over losers. i have all the money. compare your lives to mine and then kill yourselves.
you look beautiful. incidentally my favorite artist is Piccasso. like most of lifes problems, this one can be solved by bending.

if either of my brothers get real famous, ill make myself a shirt that says "from the makers of collin/tyler"

oof... if that stuff wasnt real, how can i be sure that anything is real? is it not possible nay, probable, that my whole life is just a product of my or someone else's imagination?
-no, get out.

holy shit computer science is hitting me right now. its so incredibly profound. it is as if you took the rigid limitations that mathematics studies, and moved them one step closer to reality. but it doesnt suffer from the unavoidable uncertainty that empirical studies like physics will always contain.


and the next thing i know

how fucking bizarre is that? my brain enjoyed watching my phone slide down my backpack after i threw it onto my bed, just like it enjoys following the curves of girls.

i intend to keep my life in a constant state of change; moving furniture every few days, cutting hair every few weeks. changing walls changing thoughts changing opinions. ill speak in tongues ill speak in metaphors. someday im going to ask a girl to incorporate, one way tickets behind my back. also, im growing an ego. i intend for it to mature sometime this semester. it would be wonderful if people played along and helped me educate the beast as it matured.

heres a relatively simple question: how cold would i have to make a single ice cube so that it could freeze an entire glass of water which was both at room temperature and in a room temperature environment? is it even possible?

heres a question im not sure how to answer, for corey: if the great wall of china were made out of a magnificently bright light, would it be visible from space?

and the next thing i know, im walking through customs with a condom full of coke in my colon. and you say, SAME THING HAPPENED TO ME! NOT GUILTY!

these are two beautiful statements made by Scott Aaronson:
"What I’m trying to say, Bill, is this: you can go ahead and indulge yourself. If some of the most brilliant unbelievers in history — Einstein, Erdös, Twain — could refer to a being of dubious ontological status as they would to a smelly old uncle, then why not the rest of us? For me, the whole point of scientific rationalism is that you’re free to ask any question, debate any argument, read anything that interests you, use whatever phrase most colorfully conveys your meaning, all without having to worry about violating some taboo. You won’t endanger your immortal soul, since you don’t have one."

"Two other perfect examples of "obvious-in-retrospect" theories are evolution and special relativity. Admittedly, I don't know if the ancient Greeks, sitting around in their togas, could have figured out that these theories were true. But certainly -- certainly! -- they could've figured out that they were possibly true: that they're powerful principles that would've at least been on God's whiteboard when She was brainstorming the world."

Scott also had a humerous way to solve np-complete problems in polynomial time if the universe follows the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics: "first guess a random solution. then, if its wrong, kill yourself! technicality: if there are no solutions, youre out of luck!" maybe whoever reads me wont find that funny, but i thought it was hilarious, and ingenious.

a few weeks ago with matt, i began to wonder, could time travel be shown impossible through violations of conservation laws? and even more so, through violation of the second law of thermodynamics? surely if you could go back in time like doc brown and marty mcfly then you would violate the law of conservation of matter (or more generally energy), but wouldnt you have more seriously violated a law of information or order in the universe, by bringing your highly complex machine, (or even you yourself being a highly complex machine) without having generated the necessary disorder to obey the law? i think this might be a question worth posing to smarter individuals than myself.

the vast majority of human behavior, from ancient history up until present day, makes very little to no sense to me. how bizarre we are. how little sense we make. scott says indulge yourself. and he is correct.

when i was little i suspected that adults might have some secret that they all knew and all kept from children. i wasnt sure what exactly the secret was, i didnt really even have a guess, it was more that had a guess they had the secret, but never speculated on what the secret was. to some degree, the secret does exist, although it is not a grand conspiracy as much as a naivety among adults; children dont really know much about the real world, i dont think. or at least i didnt.
when i was little and they told us in school that we shouldnt do drugs, i would stay up at night and wonder if maybe i had done drugs that made me forget i had done them.
it only occurred to me a few months ago that these sort of things might not have happened to every kid. it has only occurred to me over the last few months that maybe a lot of the things about the world that i take for granted, about people and society, and behavior, are not viewed in the same way by most people. in retrospect, i must have been a relatively paranoid little kid.

it seems to me that human interaction should be within the realm of mathematical modeling.

how long would you wait on hold before hanging up?

i want to keep myself on my toes. which is why i am turning my apartment into a very serious fire hazard. FIRE HAZARD.

visible only to those who know where to look.


gotta get off this mary-go-round

always one foot on the ground?

assume the worst. assume the position.

"---i knew i should have checked your showboating globe trotter algebra.
---man, i thought you knew that algebra was all raz-ma-taz. a globe trotter always saves the good algebra for the final minutes."

so im reading over my notes on buddhism, and check this out: this is not tolerance. you do not tolerate other things, you embrace them. teach by example. it is an offering, not a commandment. "come and see", i offer it as a gift. do not carry me on. leave me when you have crossed. allow me to take you to the other side of the river. i will show you the way, then you must be free. worrying is okay, but be mindful... dont let the future ruin you. i think those are all things my teacher told me, or really told my class.

"youd sacrifice a beautiful woman for a moderately attractive ape? you must have smoked some bad granola."
bite the bullet.

everythings profound. these are all from the syllabus for intro to abstract algebra, which shouldnt be as exciting as it was:
write out the words
you expect this of me therefore i expect it of you
please communicate with me
whichever is more favorable to you
learning is primarily your responsibility
i am in an underlining mood
questions are encouraged
distinguishable: the same or different

i dont see too much of a difference between being highly attracted to someone and being in love with them... is that a problem?
"a few of you will be forced through a fine mesh screen for your planet."
seems the best parts are always missing.
leap then look
isnt that delicious!?
we have all these things, but i dont know where they came from.

ive noticed that it is uncertainty that gets to me. it might result from my analytical/scientific nature, but even uncertainty with bounds is much more comforting to me than complete uncertainty. do you think we could quantify ambiguity? at the very least i think it makes a nice phrase; quantify ambiguity.

i think the lie is probably the worst invention mankind has ever devised, right next to the reflection.

threats of physical violence and guilt are the methods by which most religions coerce good behavior, which in my opinion is just plain bad behavior. just like how parents who tend to 'forbid' their children from doing things motivate their kids to do those things.

why do i seem to have an irrationally rational mind? does that even make sense? i have an impressionable mind. i tend to reject tradition, and yet i also tend to fear and avoid change. i noticed dan is very good at accepting and dealing with change, and yet he preserves traditions in his program. it seems very foreign to me. i before e except after r.


hit or miss. miss. miss. miss!

and you open the door and you step inside. now imagine your pain is a white ball of healing light. thats right; your pain, the pain itself, is a white ball, of healing light... ...i dont think so.

"im not popular enough to be that different" -Homer

why cant money solve all problems? there is some reason, i just dont quite see it. any clue anyone?

"aunt jemama and mrs butterworth 'just friend' "

people are just a bunch of chemicals.

"unregistered sex offender notifies neighborhood in his own way"

i am okay now with seeing no purpose in life, yet appreciating people anyway. the key came from dawkin's book: although i see no grand purpose or meaning to life, i do expect to "have a good lunch". and in general, i do. and also therefore care about people, which i do.

"stand by to take the blame... steady, hold it... now!" -zapp

wash your eyes out with soap. math of soda can balancing? ball-gag barbie? gormet buffett. risk and reward will always have the same relationship. all bubbles burst. peaches and cream¿ stackability? all directions turn red. my eyes cant tell. language is STUPID.

"we have to go to holland and smoke pot, and get so high we make shoes out of wood" -Colbert

why is it that human problems appear intractable? it seems they should require considerably fewer steps to solve than the typical real world math problem. the only reason i can see immediateily is that people dont want their problems solved, but that seems odd... it seems a problem should be something someone wants solved. although the automated proof checking comes to mind, and it seemed to illustrate that WAY more information is contained in even the simplest mathematical proofs than i would have expected. which implies that perhaps human problems are far more complex than i would initially suspect.

and then the 1000 chips delicious song plays.

"i think when i sneezed, i got toast up my nose" -Tom

its probably more afraid of you than you are of it.

today at work my head briefly felt like a radio when you are switching stations... as if i just heard bits and fragments of songs, people, movies, phrases, ideas, or whatever else... it had pictures too, but that wasnt as distracting.

tie me up. tie me down.


heaven knows that im a fake

"how did you do? --- how did i do? i passed! but i failed! yeah! --- well then im happy and sad for you."
should you congratulate me on losing? cause i play to lose.

when you listen to songs, do you ever think of yourself as the singer? do you ever think of yourself as a person being sung to? do you ever think of other people you know as the target of the lyrics?

all gravel and glass. we're both so sorry.

heaven knows that we're all faking it.
look up, look up.

all these lyrics, they dont add up at all.

and i'll think, hey what luck
such magnificancies take me in divinity
and we'll all live on live on the beautiful beast
wrestling the tension I don't want to need

mirah is really cool.

in this city, i feel as if anything that stands still too long is suspect. but i keep standing here anyway. i look everywhere for something to interest me, but it all fails miserably.

and now im thinking that i would like this planet more if it took 36 hours to rotate; but my memory says in high school i said the same thing, only with 30 instead of 36 hours, so maybe its worse.


waging war, inciting fear

there is nothing funny to add, so here this is.

it seems i have lost my 4B pencil somewhere in my parents house. and its annoying me. i cannot think of where else to look. now its a bit frustrating.

when in rome, drink the punch.
[if it looks like a duck, hes probably lying]

so a moment ago i was reading about the naming of eris, and how the naming was delayed due to uncertainty in its classification as a planet or otherwise (and there are different naming protocol depending). now, i am not in a position to criticize the cold, rigid methods by which scientific disciplines regularly classify/label/deconstruct phenomena, but this example gives me the impression that the process we have constructed to allow everyone to agree on something removes much of the human aspects of the something we are discussing. so we have all these rules and regulations, to make sure that no one is unfairly left out, but the rules and regulations remove all the 'fun' of the thing we are doing. and this applies all over the place, not just in science. i suppose it is generally summed up in discussions of bureaucracy (which is a hard word to spell). i am the type of person who tends to just quit when bureaucracy strikes. i probably should change that.

"this concept of 'wuv' confuses and infuriates us!"

tomorrow night –> gone for a few days? i suppose so...


the world warms up to me

this morning i woke up and fled the sunrise.

why does fresh air make bread/chips/cookies/insertfooditemhere go stale? i could probably find out with minimal research. ah ha, well, yes, i did actually look it up, and in the case of bread, it just dries out... which makes sense. except i should have been able to piece that together in my head, i would think. oh well, no regrets.

mostly after work i flee the sunset.

what? the unambitious physics student is considering interacting with the world? and trying to become a leader? that doesnt make sense! how nonunambitious of him/her! how nonobjective! on principle alone it should not be done. interestingly, philematology is considered a scientific discipline (?) and therefore i have at least the chance to excel in it.

today after work i chased the sunset. alas, it eluded me once again
(...though i got a renewed parking permit and my winter coat out of the trip, so it wasnt a complete loss)

what i learned at work yesterday: my head is not quite as thick (wide?) as my torso (deep?), which is not nearly as thick (deep?) as my pelvis.
what i learned at work today: you can only inhale so much fiberglass insulation before youll want to die. and also, the idea of fiberglass in your eyes is probably just as painful as actually getting it there. and finally, fiberglass is itchy. itchy itchy itchy.

oh yeah, i also figured this out (with the help of an incompetant translator):
most excellent = excellence = outstanding performance = remarkable yields = remarkable productions = the production which is remarkable = production it is noticeable = harvest it is noticeable.
therefore, most excellent = harvest it is noticable. whatever the hell that means.

"turtles might be immortal" -Kevin Loverdy


im a fan of ridiculous

dont underestimate my incompetence.

so you learn about annealing, and you learn about fracture mechanics and you learn about hydrogen embrittlement. you enjoy the "schematic representation of the steps in ductile fracture".

happy Ancestry Day to haiti. mark your calendars for january 6th, epiphany(!)(in various countries).

maybe tomorrow ill try to think up something new.

im a man of principle. or not, whatever the situation calls for.
something logically impossible is called a contradiction.
i fit the description, ill take the hit.