Friday, August 31, 2007

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, and good night.

After about 30 minutes on a crash course of learning about Genders of german, I finally have this straightened out.

Why is there a difference in "gut" (good) when concerning the phrases, "guten morgen" and "gute nacht" or good morning, and good nigh, respectively?

Well, it has to do with genders. German, like spanish has genders. Although German has three.

Masculine: Der-- as in, der Morgen.
Neutral: Das-- as in Das Auto.
Feminine: Die-- as in Die Nacht.

As such, Morgen is masculine. It should be Guder; however, in the case of the phrase "good morning", it falls into the accusative case. For some reason in the accusitive case, the masculine form of a word changes from ER to EN. This is why good morning is "guten morgen.
This is also the gase with "good evening", and "good day". Evening and day are masculine, and would be "der abend" and "der tag", respectively.

Good night is also an accusitive case, but "nacht" is a feminine word-- therefor, nothing changes. It is Die nacht, and therefor, gute nacht.

And it's spoken as guten nacht in the same way that brittish people say "an hypothesis" Mechanically it's not correct. It's only correct when you speak it.

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Re: Evidence

in response to Ottoid's recent post, concerning the nature of evidence, and the nonexistence of something that might be bullshit in the first place.

The argument is this: I say that there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed. He agrees. But he says that he cannot prove one hundred percent that he does not exist.

I say that the probability doesn't matter, because like any other premise that derives from the bible or any other faith based literature, there has been no evidence for their existence, and therefore, they probably didn't exist. Yes, I said probably. Probably, like there's probably no flying Spaghetti monster, or invisible pink unicorn. Is there a small possibility? Yes. But I think it's negligible. It leads me to decide that Jesus did not exist, based upon additional historical accounts that we have looked over from that time, where we did not find his name. This fact has been verified numerous times by historians across the globe. The only thing saving Jesus is people's continued belief in him only. Christian Apologists come up with "proof", but most are questionable at best.

In the case of Jesus, the lack of evidence for his existence, is the evidence for his non-existence. If he existed, you would think we might see him in some of the secular writings of his time-- not decades or centuries after, with no personal or independent accounts. The case for the historical figure of Jesus is something that we can analyze with fact, and has nothing to do with faith, but the idea of faith too, is relevant. It's relevant because the argument that Christians use to "prove" god's existence is this:

Well, you can't DISPROVE him, can you?

No, you can't. And that's problematic. Try to disprove the existence of anything that doesn't have any evidence in the first place, and you won't get anywhere.

Alright Otto, that's my official reply to your post. If you want to read on you may, but these are merely thoughts that arose while writing a response to you. Some of it is repeated, other is actual evidence of actual events that further prove my point. I don't think you understand the scientific method, and I don't think you understand falsifiability.

I realize that it takes evidence to prove the existence of something. In science, that's all we rely upon, the evidence, and the merit of such evidence, as decided upon by the learned scientific population of nations together.

He keeps complaining about my invoking of faith into this argument-- I do not mean to focus my attention on faith, but that's ultimately what it comes down to. Just like with any other scientific concept, we didn't prove that the sun didn't go around the earth, we proved that the earth went around the sun.

What we were talking about in our argument, however, was disproving the existence of something that arose out of faith, such as god, or Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a celestial teapot. You can't disprove the existence of any of these. Since they are NOT falsifiable, there is no reason to believe that there will ever be any evidence that proves its existence. It comes down to falsifiability as far as faith is concerned.

When we speak about scientific terms, we don't seek to disprove something, we seek more and newer evidence. Say we're talking about evolution. If there ever was a case where we found a human skeleton in the same layer of strata that dinosaur bones are in, then evolution would be in serious trouble. It would have to either make up for itself, or it would just phase out of existence. Or it was a fabricated hoax. Scientific concepts are constantly changing in this very way. It's what we call the scientific method.

in the matter of faith however, these ideas have existed for millenia. There are supposed "historical accounts" that hardly have any merit when one looks at the artifact record of that time. Just a few of those stories are linked very loosely with actual historical occurrences. The Great Flood, for instance. This is hardly a history textbook we're talking about here. This goes for anything that people just make up on the spot. This is why the idea of god is as stupid as the celestial teapot. This is why we don't have to disprove the existence of god-- because it's as ridiculous as the teapot. We simply can't falsify those claims, like we can with evolution, with gravity, with atoms.

Prove to me first that there's any real evidence that god actually exists, then we'll start talking about falsifiability. Philosophers have been trying for centuries. There is, as of yet, no evidence. I imagine it will remain so.
Just as the discoveries of the micro-cellular world of biology, you need to prove to me that something really small is there, before I can say, "now hold on a minute, that's not what the evidence suggests..."

You can't disprove the existence of something that doesn't have any evidence. It's completely illogical.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
~Carl Sagan~

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

What the shit?

Yay! I'm so happy to be going back to school, now that I have a new direction and all! Everything is complete, and all I'm waiting for is my FAFSA!!!!

Otto: Here's your mail from today, it's from CNM.

Me: Okay, cool, maybe they've already given me financial aid! *RIIIIIIP*

"Dear Student,

Your FAFSA ... blah blah blah... has been selected for review by the department of education. Please submit COPIES of your taxes, your parents taxes, both W-2 forms, your birth certificate, your social security card, your grandfather's social security card. The death certificate of your mother's aunts second cousin twice removed, your prepuce (if applicable), a complete copy of yours and your parents genome and your right kidney.

This verification is completely random, and it has nothing to do with how much we trust our students to not make errors on our applications, even though we already make it as contrived as possible. After all, it wasn't difficult for you to have someone drive you to your parents house to get their tax information, sit for several hours deciphering the language that we use on your FREE application for federal student AIDS-- er, aid, and double check to make sure that you didn't miss anything, was it? No, your parents don't live on the complete opposite side of town. Your parents also don't make you fill out everything yourself, even though it says "Parents" on it. We are Jedi.

Thank you for your cooperation,
and by the way, we will send a law enforcement Clydesdale horse to assrape you if we find ANY inconsistencies on your application.

Again, thank you for your cooperation.

Have a nice day!

~CNM Financial Aid bureau-- I mean, department~"

I forgot how fun Financial Aid was :)



Friday, August 03, 2007

Rendeem Pest

(For a translation scroll down)

E heve e beef weth peeple thet spell thengs cempletele wreng when they knew perfectle well thet they ere beeng cempletele encerrect.

Recentle, me ceesen end me heve teken te enventeng e new tepe ef wreting. Thes sentex censests ef repleceng evere vewel en the englesh lengeege end petteng en "E" en ets plece. Ebveesle, "Es" den't chenge.
E let ef thes pest cemes frem wetcheng e stell yeenger ceesin tepe en hes MeSpece te hes MeSpece freends. Et's e bench ef shet leke thes:

wat up?
wat school u go to
call me 555-5555
yeah lol im grounded now too

end se en end se ferth.... yee get the edee. Me beef es thet peeple leke hem ere cempletele ewere thet they're besterdezeng the lengeege. End they den't cere thet the rest ef es heve te set there end trenslete theer reterded lengeege-- end they're ekey weth thet. E den't cere thet they speek te eech ether thet wey, bet when E get en enstant messege from enebedy, end they telk leke thet, et mekes me went te greb e neerbe het peker end sheve et ep theer ess. These ere the tepe ef peeple thet get "there, Their, end they're" mexed ep.
Se E thenk thet thes es the seleteen. Evere teme thet semeeene telks te me leke thet, E em geeng te replece evere vewel weth the letter "e" end let them trenslete me vere ewn besterdezed (bet fer mere destengeeshed) verseen ef Englesh.
end then when they tell me, "can u plz speel write?" E'll sey, "net entel e de e dembess."

They'll never know what hit them.

I have a beef with people that spell things completely wrong when they know perfectly well that they are being incorrect.

Recently, my cousin Otto and I have taken to inventing a new type of writing. This syntax consists of replacing every vowel in the English language with "E". Obviously, "Es" don't change.
A lot of this post comes from watching a still younger cousin type on his myspace to his myspace friends. It's a bunch of shit like this:

wat up?
wat school u go to
call me 555-5555 laterz
yeah lol im grounded now too.

and so on and so forth.... you get the idea. My beef is that people like him are completely aware that they're bastardizing the language. And they don't care that the rest of us have to sit there and translate their retarded language-- and they're okay with that. I don't care that they speak to each other that way, but when I get an instant message from anybody, and they talk like that, it makes me want to grab a nearby hot poker and shove it up their ass. These are the type of people that get "there, their, and they're" mixed up.
So I think that this is the solution. Every time that someone talks to me like that, I am going to replace every vowel with the letter "e" and let them translate my very own bastardized (but far more advanced) version of English.
And then when they tell me, "can u plz speel write?" I'll say, "net entel e de e dembess"

They'll never know what hit them.

In other news,
I was looking at The Outlook, the newsmagazine that shows up with the Albuquerque Journal, yesterday, and read that Sony ImageWorks is going to be building a studio in Albuquerque. They said that they'll be bringing people from abroad, but that they're also going to be working locally with colleges and universities to recruit people.
Since Imageworks focuses on computer animated movies and the like, this might be something I should look into, given my recent change in majors. I wouldn't have to move to somewhere like California or India to to computer animation work.

I only fear what David's going to say when I tell him that my aspiration is to work at Sony <.<;;;