Day

I had an amazing day today. Why?

1) I got a fairly decent job with flexible hours.
2) I finally saw Chris Ee today. And yes, he has lost plenty of weight. I only managed to recognize him by his big ears.
3) I managed to avoid getting fleeced.
4) COD 4 was fun!
5) Williams was even more amazing.

But on the other hand, I realized just how much waste an office can produce if mistakes were to be made. Something needs to be done about our paper problem before it gets much worse.

Down The Road

This morning I was doing a bit thinking and I kind of realized something. I've been there and experienced it many times before but I hardly seem to be any wiser at it and each time a question is posed, my answers are always the same. I don't know why but that's how it is.

But at least, on a more brighter note, if things go my way tomorrow, I wouldn't have to sacrifice my Tuesdays afterall. Plus I really did feel bad about getting a job that I didn't put much sweat into and hopefully, I wouldn't have to take it.

I took a slow drive with my mother's car today and it felt really good. Going down the freeway, smooth as water, that's how life should be. We should be able to have the liberty to sit back, relax and notice the finer things in life.

Employment

Oh no, not again....Robbed. Employment sucks.

A Thought

I did a bit of thinking and I came up with two questions. What are the chances of us finding alien civilizations in our very own backyards? And is it possible that we are aliens in our own world?

According to the math, 75% of the earth is covered by water and another 25 % is covered by land. And assuming that in that 25%, perhaps 10% of the original 25% is inhabited by mankind, this means that, of the 100% surface mass of the earth, only 2.5% of it is being lived on by humans. And if 2.5% can accommodate the needs of 6.6 billion humans, imagine what the other 97.5% of the land mass can accommodate?

Second question. What are the chances of us being aliens on planet earth? According to research and scientific experimentation, the earth is determined to be around 4.55 billion years old. The first traces of life, which were singular celled organisms were formed at about 3 billion years ago. It remained that way for the next 2 billion years. Then, about 1 billion years ago, these singular celled organisms developed into multi cellular organisms. These then developed into complex forms of life. Some swam the oceans and while some of them roamed the lands. Humans were calculated to have existed only about 11500 years ago. Assuming that life on earth began at about 3 billion years ago, the percentage of years which humans existed on this earth is around 3.83x10^-4%. In other words, humans only exist for about 0.00038333% of the time since life first started. This of course leaves a balance of about 99.9996% of time for other forms of life to call earth their home. Recent discoveries have proved that living organisms thought to have been extinct for millions of years have shown up in modern history. A good example would be the discovery of the Coelecanth fish which existed at a period when the dinosaurs walked the earth, swimming in the Indian Ocean. Apart from that, many of our everyday animals like the crocodile and the turtle have been around for millions of years, steadily evolving over a period of time. So, if such feats are possible, surely there can be a good base to start an argument that other life forms could have developed during this 99.9996% of time when humans were not around and that we may be their direct descendants or that some of our primitive ancestors may still be hiding out among the 97.5% of uninhabited space, watching our every move and they may possess technology far more superior than what we have and could be the reason why we have not been able to detect them. And according to the math, the idea doesn't seem too far fetched.

All we need to do now is to find the points and argue.

Iron Suit

So, today makes it twice in a row and thrice in a week. I know that its probably not the biggest of records but I watched Ironman twice and The Forbidden Kingdom once, all in the span of a week. Now when was the last time I did that sort of thing? But the good part is that, I wasn't really focusing on the story but in fact, I was focusing on the iron suit. After doing some thinking, I believe that it is in fact possible to build such a suit. Perhaps not a suit that enables supersonic flight like what we all saw in the movie but a suit which allows for subsonic flights. Perhaps at the range of about 300 miles per hour.

But even at that scale, there are a couple of problems which we need to solve. First of all, how do you power the suit? Obviously, fossil fuels would not be feasible due to the need to install large tanks which may act as an aerodynamic hindrance. Therefore we need to find a solution like what we saw in the movie. Something small yet powerful. Secondly, would the suit fly based on some sort of jet pack or will it be propeller powered. Both pose unique challenges because, if it is powered by a jet pack, what kind of materials do we need to make the suit out of in order to divert the heat away from the user? Propellers seem to be the more simpler solution for now but further thought has to be put into it before anyone can some up with a conclusion. What should the maximum altitude be? How would the suit be pressurized to accomodate high flying altitudes? Of course, there are many more problems left to solve but if we could solve the first problem, I believe that we are already more than halfway into the journey of creating the suit. But such a project will take lots of hours of hardwork and a whole lot of financial backing to complete and unless we have the money and expertise, we would have to rely on extrenal sources for money. And this of course presents a whole new set of problems which I would rather not discuss right now.

But eitherways, the possibility is there. All we have to do is find a way to do it.

Direct or Indirect Guilt?

Yesterday, an old friend asked me a question which went along these lines. Why do you want to create something that will only end up killing people? At that time, I didn't answer her question because I really didn't know how to answer it. My only sensible answer was that I create to prevent. The argument is based on the idea that if I could create something powerful enough, I'd never have to use it because no one in their sane mind would want to try and attack someone who is more powerful then themselves simply because they wouldn't want to risk annihilation themselves. Which means that no lives will be lost at the hands of these weapons.

But then again, how credible is this idea?

Personally, I don't think that this is a very credible idea because while I agree that there have been events in the past where prevention really did stop nations from going to war, for example the cold war in which both sides were reluctant to fire at each other because of the nuclear bombs, other events have also suggested that prevention doesn't always work out. And in fact, some have actually managed to defeat nations with more powerful weapons.

For example, if we were to take a peek into history, we would come to a conclusion there have been groups or even nations that have risked possible annihilation by either resisting more powerful armies or even trying to provoke a fight between themselves and a nation with much greater firepower then them. Take for example the terrorists. In pursuing what they are doing, terrorists and nations that harbor terrorists often run the risk of being completely annihilated by the nuclear arms and other high tech weaponry of its more powerful adversaries. And as we have seen, many of these weapons which are supposed to act as deterrents have failed to do its job and have been used in combat and subsequently taken the lives of many terrorists and innocent civilians alike.

So, having said that, we can now realize that having a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean that it will prevent conflicts between a small power and a bigger power. Which means that more people will end up getting killed by this weapon anyways.

This of course brings me back to my friend's question, why create something which will only end up killing people?

I obviously can't use the deterrent argument. So, how do I answer this question? Honestly, I still don't know. I do admit that I find pleasure in blowing things up and pushing the frontiers of technology. But what is for sure is that I don't find pleasure in knowing that people out there are going to suffer and lose their loved ones because of something I created.

So I now have to ask myself, why delve into something that would eventually kill people?

Can I rid myself of the guilt by arguing that people kill people, not guns or that a weapon is morally neutral until it is applied? It sounds tempting. But then again, if that weapon is eventually used, blood would be on my hands. Just like how it was on the hands of all those who were involved in the Manhattan Project over 60 years ago eventhough it wasn't them who pushed the button.

Sigh...

But on a more lighter note, it was great meeting an old friend again and all the better to have "Baka" around..

SPCA

Yesterday, Jon and myself made a trip down to SPCA. We went there as volunteer photographers for a pet adoption magazine and apparently, we were the first people ever to offer our services as photographers. Here are some of the pictures of our four legged friends which we photographed on that day.






























The more I use my K200D, the more and more in love with it I get.