The Setting: I was coming home for the summer. My flight was scheduled to leave at 11:35. Technical difficulties...Long story short, plane leaves at 4:35.
Other Important Information: You need to pay for the wireless.
So here I am, stuck in the airport, with no internet. Putting aside the world's smallest violin, I began thinking about my predicament.
I could pay for the internet in the airport (what is it, 5-10 dollars an hour?) but i didn't want to pay that much money. I thought, if it was only a dollar then I might pay, but I wouldn't want to take out my credit card and pay a dollar over the internet.
This is where things got pretty interesting:
What if there were vending machines for the internet. You would pay a dollar get an internet code - maybe a username and password - and then you could have internet for an hour. You wouldn't have to use your credit card, and I think the vendors would make more than they would if they had a 5-10 dollar flat rate. (Because then I could have spent 2 dollars on internet, and so could the next guy who usually doesn't... etc. )
Viable?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Original Sentences
As I was out to pizza with a friend of mine, an interesting conversation/question arose about original sentences.
The question is as follows:
Considering all the sentences in daily conversation, are there more original sentences (sentences which have never been arranged in such a way before) or sentences which have been said before.
Arguing for the side that there are more original sentences in everyday speech consider the following.
1) There are many ways could I say this sentence. There are many ways can this sentence be formed? The formation of this sentence can be done in many ways. The formation of this sentence can be done in a lot of ways. This sentence can be formed in numerous ways...
(One thought that follows: All these sentences convey the same idea. We were not discussing the probability of whether ideas were unique, but rather if the structure of the sentences were.)
2) Think of all the synonyms. It only takes one synonym for one of the words to make the sentence original.
3) Consider context. Most of the things we say are in context of a conversation, meaning the sentence could be referring to the sentence which came before it. Also, maybe the person we are talking to. We talk to kids differently than adults; Coworkers differently than bosses...etc...
4) Language. While there are many people in the world, they speak different languages. Therefore it is less likely that someone speaking the same language would say the same thing you would. Also, think dialects (soda/pop), think slang (changes over time)...
5) Personality - bias. People relate differently to different ideas and conversations.
Arguing for the opposite side
1) All the people who lived ever...throughout all time.
2) The shorter the sentence, the more likely it would have been said.
3) Commands - Habits.
4) There may only be limited ways to say certain things.
I am sure there are many more ideas out there for both sides of the argument, and I am curious to hear what you all can think of. Let me know. Also maybe weigh in and chose a side?
(I think there are more original sentences than non-original ones)
Let me know.
The question is as follows:
Considering all the sentences in daily conversation, are there more original sentences (sentences which have never been arranged in such a way before) or sentences which have been said before.
Arguing for the side that there are more original sentences in everyday speech consider the following.
1) There are many ways could I say this sentence. There are many ways can this sentence be formed? The formation of this sentence can be done in many ways. The formation of this sentence can be done in a lot of ways. This sentence can be formed in numerous ways...
(One thought that follows: All these sentences convey the same idea. We were not discussing the probability of whether ideas were unique, but rather if the structure of the sentences were.)
2) Think of all the synonyms. It only takes one synonym for one of the words to make the sentence original.
3) Consider context. Most of the things we say are in context of a conversation, meaning the sentence could be referring to the sentence which came before it. Also, maybe the person we are talking to. We talk to kids differently than adults; Coworkers differently than bosses...etc...
4) Language. While there are many people in the world, they speak different languages. Therefore it is less likely that someone speaking the same language would say the same thing you would. Also, think dialects (soda/pop), think slang (changes over time)...
5) Personality - bias. People relate differently to different ideas and conversations.
Arguing for the opposite side
1) All the people who lived ever...throughout all time.
2) The shorter the sentence, the more likely it would have been said.
3) Commands - Habits.
4) There may only be limited ways to say certain things.
I am sure there are many more ideas out there for both sides of the argument, and I am curious to hear what you all can think of. Let me know. Also maybe weigh in and chose a side?
(I think there are more original sentences than non-original ones)
Let me know.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Comments
Well, a lack of comments won't stop me from writing in my blog, though it will make me wonder: what does it take to get people to leave comments on a blog?
Well besides the post having to be interesting and comment worthy, I suppose people comment only if they have something worthwhile to say. In that regards a comment is less feedback, and more of a weighing-in.
So if there are no comments....then I must have said something non-controversial
Well besides the post having to be interesting and comment worthy, I suppose people comment only if they have something worthwhile to say. In that regards a comment is less feedback, and more of a weighing-in.
So if there are no comments....then I must have said something non-controversial
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Building Rubble
Here is a hypothetical scenario for you.
Imagine that you are in a slowly, but inevitably collapsing building. That is to say, that the building is falling down slowly...and that it will fall down.
The point of it falling down slowly, is that if a part of the building fell down before another part, then it would allow for the following scenario:
You are on the ground floor of a building. The building starts to fall down slowly but inevitably. Would you have a better chance of surviving the building by just ducking and covering, jumping underneath a nearby table, or jumping into already fallen debris?
Putting aside the morbid nature of such a scenario, i was thinking it would make the most sense to jump into the already fallen rubble. My thinking is that it is made of strong material (The wall, and roof) and you would have a much better chance of surviving the heavy falling debris there, then under a table, or by yourself.
The down side would be that you will be alive underneath all the rubble of the building, and you would have to wait a while before being rescued.
but maybe I havn't thought this through all the way. What do you think?
Imagine that you are in a slowly, but inevitably collapsing building. That is to say, that the building is falling down slowly...and that it will fall down.
The point of it falling down slowly, is that if a part of the building fell down before another part, then it would allow for the following scenario:
You are on the ground floor of a building. The building starts to fall down slowly but inevitably. Would you have a better chance of surviving the building by just ducking and covering, jumping underneath a nearby table, or jumping into already fallen debris?
Putting aside the morbid nature of such a scenario, i was thinking it would make the most sense to jump into the already fallen rubble. My thinking is that it is made of strong material (The wall, and roof) and you would have a much better chance of surviving the heavy falling debris there, then under a table, or by yourself.
The down side would be that you will be alive underneath all the rubble of the building, and you would have to wait a while before being rescued.
but maybe I havn't thought this through all the way. What do you think?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Left Overs
There are many foods which people say taste better as leftovers. Now I don't know if it is all in the head, or if is scientific....like allowing more time for bacteria to creep in, but still if people like leftovers so much, why don't they make leftovers?
Seriously. Make a lasagna, wrap it up in tin foil, and throw it in the fridge. Wait a few days, and then heat it up. Yum! Much better!
I think they should even go so far as to start packaging leftovers marketing them. They can even make it look like its already been eaten and remove some of the pieces. Then it would be authentic.
Just wondering.
Seriously. Make a lasagna, wrap it up in tin foil, and throw it in the fridge. Wait a few days, and then heat it up. Yum! Much better!
I think they should even go so far as to start packaging leftovers marketing them. They can even make it look like its already been eaten and remove some of the pieces. Then it would be authentic.
Just wondering.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
5 Second Rule
Where do you think the 5 second rule comes from?
My thought was that people project the absorption properties of fabrics (that tend to slowly sop up a mess) onto food and germs.
Thoughts?
My thought was that people project the absorption properties of fabrics (that tend to slowly sop up a mess) onto food and germs.
Thoughts?
Healthcare for non-Americans
I was watching our lame duck give the State of the Union last night, and it sparked a little wonder in me.
It was clear from the standing applause that Bush received during the State of the Union that Republicans strongly believe that health care belongs in the individuals arena. Which makes sense, since Republicans believe in limited government.
Yet, at the same time, the Republicans strongly support foreign aid. (that is not an allusion to the war). Republicans seem adamant on the fact that increased federal funding to foreign aid is the way to go.
So please explain to me why the Republicans feel that the USA should be responsible for non-American lives? (don't get me wrong, I think that as humans, we are responsible for human rights, and therefore I agree with the foreign aid policies, but also agree in health care in the US and helping relieve the poor!, but my opinions aside..) If the ideology of the republicans is limited government, then shouldn't they also believe in limited government in foreign policy? Or rather the opposite, if they support foreign aid, then all the more so, they should support Americans, and the poor, fund equal (if not more....its the governments responsibility!) aid in the US.
food for thought...
Also to consider: I talked this point with some friends, and one interesting response was that it boosts the USA's reputation when they help foreign countries. This is true...but is it not fair to also say that a functioning strong US, with a good stable economy, and a balance of opportunities will become more formidable in global perspectives?
It was clear from the standing applause that Bush received during the State of the Union that Republicans strongly believe that health care belongs in the individuals arena. Which makes sense, since Republicans believe in limited government.
Yet, at the same time, the Republicans strongly support foreign aid. (that is not an allusion to the war). Republicans seem adamant on the fact that increased federal funding to foreign aid is the way to go.
So please explain to me why the Republicans feel that the USA should be responsible for non-American lives? (don't get me wrong, I think that as humans, we are responsible for human rights, and therefore I agree with the foreign aid policies, but also agree in health care in the US and helping relieve the poor!, but my opinions aside..) If the ideology of the republicans is limited government, then shouldn't they also believe in limited government in foreign policy? Or rather the opposite, if they support foreign aid, then all the more so, they should support Americans, and the poor, fund equal (if not more....its the governments responsibility!) aid in the US.
food for thought...
Also to consider: I talked this point with some friends, and one interesting response was that it boosts the USA's reputation when they help foreign countries. This is true...but is it not fair to also say that a functioning strong US, with a good stable economy, and a balance of opportunities will become more formidable in global perspectives?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)