February 2008


In English22 Feb 2008 12:00 pm

It’s 10:54. We’re sitting here. Sitting and ranting about having to sit and rant and not being able to do anything smart. Eduroam actually works for once. Praise t3h l0rd, Bill Gates and all other deities of the modern world. So. We’re still here 20 seconds later, still not doing anything smart and still cursing the inability of our stupid department to actually come up with a way to let people know if a class is canceled. Well, they do, but you have to check back for a few weeks and sometimes you better check 10 min before the class actually starts, otherwise you might get there and then have to sit in front of the lockz0red door all by yourself and your mates. So how in the blazes can someone in this day and age of instant messaging systems, instant information sharing and other such instant blahblahs be unable to provide realtime info about which class actually WON’T take place and give us thereby the option to actually NOT COME to the freakin bench in front of the classroom?

All is nice at our faculty. Supposedly. Yeah, we got WLan. Technically. ATM, me and Onix, the tech gurus of 3rd year translation here are staring in awe at the little box they conveniently call “antenna” instead of AP and are shocked to notice that it actually WORKS for the first time in ages. That also merits a very special line of text in this rant:

KUDOZ LITTLE GRAY BOX! STAY LIKE THAT AND I MIGHT NOT HAVE TO CHANGE MY GFX CARD!

Aaaanyh00. Why not just make a little PHP, CGI, RoR or whatever other cool acronymicly-named-technology based website, where the professors can simply CLICK if their classes are canceled? NOOO! That’s waaaay too much work. Instead they prefer the let-the-kids-simply-wander-through-all-news-of-the-past-2-years-aimlessly-searching-for-info approach.

ARGH!

In English21 Feb 2008 11:00 pm

I bet this one is going to induce a great deal of eye-rolling… I doubt any of the guys will think my idea is stupid… and neither will some of the ladies, I’m sure… well, most of them still will though.

Question… should women be in the army? Ok… I know this may sound pretty sexist… but I don’t think women should be allowed to join the armed forces. Sorry if I offended any of you… but that’s my humble opinion.

Now… you can’t state something without something backing that statement up, right. So here’s the deal:

First some basics, foundations or safety-measures that must be taken into account… after all… this is a sensitive subject. Not sensitive to me, but you know what I mean =)… gender differences and talking about them, let’s just say it never ends well…

  • Everything I state is based on general facts… known to anyone thinking clearly… without anger, hormones or booze affecting him/her. Exceptions… do occur everywhere.
  • The term army I will be using refers only to the running, shooting etc… the actually armed part of the armed forces. Higher ranking officers who don’t lift their butts when it comes to a fight (well… they do when it’s time to run) are not included.
  • This is only my opinion… some might agree, some might not… like I care=)… there’s still freedom of choice…

Reasons… why women shouldn’t be in the army. Let’s see now, there are various reasons. We can start with physical reasons.

A female body cannot endure as much pain as a male body. Yes, you go through pain every month, bleed for several days and still don’t die and they say that labor pain is one of the worst pains ever. HOWEVER, the fact of the matter still stands; if a woman and a guy get hit or shot… the difference in how much pain they can handle and the way they will handle it will be obvious.

Men are more athletic, better at sports. Yes, everyone gets trained in the army, sure, but if 10 different people train 10 different results will be seen. How does being more athletic mean you’re better suited for the army… alright:

  • Accuracy: Shooting; the guns won’t aim themselves. Throwing grenades… I don’t even want to start talking about the way women throw things. Women are dangerous to those around them even with a ball in their hands … not to mention a grenade. Well… they might be able to throw it 20 meters… but I wouldn’t want to be in the first line when Pam throws a grenade from the second. Nooooo thank yuz… I guess you’d call that collateral damage.
  • Stamina, endurance; face it… if women and men train the same amout, the results the guy will show will be a lot better. Less fatigue, better stamina also a great difference in speed etc.
  • Strength; A 50 kg woman carrying 50 extra kg of survival equipment… or even better… a 50 kg woman carrying her wounded comrade weighing 100 kg out of battle… right… A problem will already occur at using guns alone. Gun recoil… it’s not like in the movies where they wave their guns around while shooting them… even small pistols have a pretty strong recoil… not to mention bigger arms. Hey you… the 50 kg girl in the first line… here’s the rocket-launcher… go take that tank out… hmmm … I can already see that tank going up in flames … =) (Borat-style) not!

Mental reasons and intelligence. Well the pain you experience in the army is usually not only physical… it’s a mixture of mental and physical pain, the worst combo ever . Women will break down quicker went it comes to the pain (like torture for example… not to mention that a woman can also be tortured differently than a man). You can act tough and criticize this opinion all you want… but that still won’t make it wrong.

Another problem, a big problem women have is the need to actually kill someone. A big difference can be seen in the attitude towards killing animals already (sadly, but most women can’t even kill a spider without going through hellish mental problems and waves of guilt)… and killing a human is much more difficult.

Women are smart though and cunning and they could be useful as spies or higher officers… hiding … devising plans, strategies… thinking about ways how to trick the opponent… since women are really good at tricking people =). On the other hand, thinking too much in the army… the armed part of it… is just a distraction and can prove dangerous. Instinct is very important in the army.

Killing instinct, fighting instinct, survival instinct… sorry, but men surpass women in that field by a whole lot. It’s all connected with the way we are brought up. And we ARE still brought up in a different way, even in this modern society. While girls play with barbie dolls or they play kitchen, skip the rope etc… boys play video-games where they have to kill everyone… play with legos building things and play war with small plastic soldiers shooting each other. Another thing… technology, guns, machinery… women and those things; need I say more. =)

And now for some practical reasons:

  • your husband goes to battle. It might come to casualties, it’s war after all. You can live on with your kids, maybe even get a new husband etc… If 50 women and 5 men survive repopulating will be much easier and faster than in the case that only 5 women and 50 men survive. Not to mention women are better with children… have that motherly instinct - and guys, well there are a few exceptions, but in general we’re not that good with kids. Some women will complain about all of this, but if you ask me… Being a widow sure beats the hell out of being a corpse.
  • Women in the army influence the moral and concentration. A nice pair of legs running around might raise your morale, but it sure won’t do good things to male concentration. They might be used against enemies, but that would be exposing them to unnecessary danger. Anyone who can prove to be a distraction… and put not only herself/himself in danger, but his/her allies too… should stay away from the army.
  • Responsibility and danger… if there is someone better suited for something and you could die and endanger others with your presence too… don’t join. Anything that can lower the number of casualties and mistakes has to be taken into account and used.And since men are much better suited for the army… Well, you probably know what I mean by now. =)
  • Another important thing… “the deadly period” and health. Women do tend to live longer, but they have more health problems than men. Men don’t get sick as much, but when they do it’s usually pretty serious, while women get sick more often, but not as seriously (migraines etc.). WAR IS A CONSTANT DANGER… WE MIGHT NOT BE AT WAR NOW, BUT WE NEVER KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN 30 MINUTES. And when it comes to war… You cannot expect someone to call for a time-out during battle. You cannot walk up to your enemy and go,”I’m sorry, but I don’t feel well today, could we postpone this shootout till tomorrow?” One of my female friends commented this with,”but in the army they don’t eat too well and stuff, so women don’t get their periods at all”. If the army doesn’t eat well… then I don’t know how all those guys keep and even grow their muscles. You’ve got to eat pretty damn well to get muscles.

Well ok… some of the reasons I stated might be a little low, sexist etc… but think about each one and you’ll see that there’s truth in them. It’s just my opinion =)… there’s still freedom of choice, ‘equality’ and things like those… so anyone can choose anything they want. I know times change but with war… well, I’ll just end this with a quote:“War, war never changes.”

In English20 Feb 2008 12:31 am

1. Believe in your one TRUE group
2. Don’t diss your pals!
3. Hold the weekly gatherings sacred
4. Respect your more experienced friends, so they can help you get experience yourself
5. Don’t try to ruin the friendship
6. Don’t cheat on the group with a girlfriend
7. Don’t try to get out of paying when it’s your turn
8. Don’t hide that you’re a member of the group
9. Bros be4 h0s
10. Don’t wish you were as another. BE AS HE IS!

In English05 Feb 2008 05:49 am

As always, keep in mind that everything you read is written IMNSHO and while I like people to comment, I don’t really care if you agree with me or not.

I’m not really get along too well with people, whose reasoning processes are based more on their EQ than IQ. But I simply can’t stand it, when people dismiss arguments purely on the basis on “it doesn’t sound right”, although the arguments are based on simple and direct logical reasoning. The common view of most of my female acquaintances, friends, colleagues and others is that I’m anEQ-challenged machist. Why? Well I do tend to question the balance of power, which is supposedly in men’s favor and I tend to disagree with women when they’re not making any rational sense. My ego certainly is huge, however I don’t think it impacts my ability to connect A to B and then conclude that if A == B and B == C then A == C, which is often completely incomprehensible to some people. But this is not supposed to be a bash on women (although from my point of view, speaking frankly, the vast majority of people, who disagree with me are, in fact, women) but more a question to reason.

In my simplified opinion, there’s 2 types of men. Those whose “dark side” is controlled and those whose isn’t. All men like to look at good-looking women. Period. Show me a man who claims that even while in a relationship never has, never does and never will even look at a cute pair of legs walking past him on the road and I’ll show you a liar. Or a saint - these fellers, however, tend to be quite rare. That’s the dark side. Now the type who actually has control over his more sinister nature will look at the legs, smirk to himself and walk away. The type who lacks that control however, will do anything in his power, to get that pair of legs to spread apart in the horizontal position.

I do have a simplified opinion about women as well. Again, 2 types exist. The controlling, uberpossessive and overly jealous completely self-unconfident hag, who has nothing better to do, than limit her man’s happiness is the first type. You recognize them by their men, who don’t even dare to check out the aforementioned legs, because they risk hell at best, if they get caught doing it. And there’s the self-confident woman, who doesn’t get intimidated by her man catching a glimpse of a random pair of walkers on the opposite side of the street (I’d say these are even rarer than the saints though :P).
You can guess, which woman (and man) makes the better partner.

There’s this philosophy I quite like myself:
Flirting is the essential part of happiness in life. ALL human contact includes some amount of it. As long it doesn’t mislead anybody to come to wrong conclusions and as long it stays completely harmless it’s OK, no matter who indulges in the sweet science of exchanging witty punchlines and even if someone hooks up with a stranger for a coffee, it’s no biggie. After all it’s completely natural, to widen the social network of acquaintances. It can come in handy in various situations throughout life. It’s a thing of the couple, where to draw the line. But I seriously dislike it, when people try to brainwash (or just bug someone) into accepting their theory about much and too much flirting.

I know people, who think that a happily coupled girl/guy doesn’t/shouldn’t feel a need to meet new people of the opposite sex unless it’s inevitable. “AND IF YOU MEET SOMEONE NEW YOU BETTER DON’T EVEN SMILE TOO MUCH!!!” That’s something you’d get to hear from the negative type of the woman, or most men (who in general have lower self confidence, when it comes to their women, than vice versa).
I once mentioned to some (girl)friends that I think everything goes until it gets physical in the sexual sense. They were appalled to say the least. Comments ranged from me better being happy that I have a GF who sticks with me despite me obviously being a total nutcase, to hilarious lines like that if I ever happen to get dumped by my s/o, I’ll spend the rest of my day in involuntary celibacy, because no other women are crazy enough to want to have anything to do with me.
Due to their extremely EQish perception, which launches a counterattack without even considering all facts, they failed to realize though, that I was saying that the rules apply to BOTH sides. I am COMPLETELY against ANY type of one-sided rules in a REALationship. This goes from paying 50:50 (or according to financial capabilities), to getting the right to sleep with another person if your partner does. And before some IQ-challenged EQ-oriented person jumps at that, calling me names, I suggest you notice that I didn’t say anything about actually using the right.

As funny as it might sound to the people (women) who know me, I’m completely for 100% emancipation, equality, same rights for everybody and all the other kinds of not-making-differences-based-on-stupid-things.
Now my definition of the abovementioned happens to include the duties as much as the rights. I like hearing about stereotypical sex-biased differences. I actually like researching differences and discrimination. I do work from the male viewpoint though, since women have (had) more than enough workers for their side. The most typical two stereotypes are:

Men are paid more for the same efficiency
Nobody takes women seriously

#1 is inherently retarded. It’s the era of capitalism. Whole industries move to the third world (or 2nd at least), because it’s cheaper. I can’t really imagine a business paying €100 if they could only pay €90 and get the same result. SOMEONE would notice the potential in saving €120 per employee per year and USE IT! On the other hand, in the USofA, chairwomen get paid more than men on average. Go google for statistics if you don’t believe me.

#2 is women’s own fault. How can a sane person take someone seriously, if they can’t competently participate in a debate? I haven’t EVER participated in a debate, where a woman wouldn’t be taken seriously, IF she made sense. I have quite a few really smart girl friends, who always provide good arguments in more or less scientific debates and I can’t recall anybody not taking them seriously in a serious debate. Of the 3 people whose opinion I value the most, 2 are women after all. The sad part is, some women think they can get credibility by wearing a low-cut dress instead of actually making sense. AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN! That can actually ruin (or at least worsen) your chances even if you DO make sense. Our dark side kind of interferes with our logical thinking and so we fail to see your point due to seeing too much of something else. And unless we’re really REALLY interested in what you have to say, we just won’t care about your 1337 knowledge about whatever.

I’m getting kinda bored with writing this, although It’ll probably prove useful in the future. If nothing else, I’ll just refer the next gazillion people, who call me a pig, to this post. I’ve said all of this numerous times and I’m slowly growing tired of having to defend my viewpoint. Yes, even though I criticize women, I actually like them. I criticize men as well. But everyone is used to men being criticized, so nobody pays any attention to that, while saying that a woman is less then perfect is blasphemy, which almost requires an immediate inquisitional process. Even though I like to look, chat, meet and flirt with other girls, I do love my GF. I firmly believe that jokingly saying stuff to other girls is better than (can you jokingly “do stuff”?) doing stuff to other girls and if someone says that saying (or god forbid thinking) something is the same as doing it, I won’t hesitate to remove him/her from my list of intelligent people. And I don’t care if you don’t care if you get removed. Just don’t expect me to take you seriously afterwards. I’m only human. I need a vent. And there’s no way I’ll apologize for venting sheyat outta my system as long I do it in a completely morally legal and legal legal way.

And for all the women out there, who feel offended by men grading women based on looks - GET OVER IT! It’s just a convenient way of quickly reminding a (usually male) friend of somebody you both saw. You might think it’s objectifying women but then you’re just stupid - sorry. If you would be thinking logically, you’d see that saying “the 8+ of last night” isn’t any worse than saying “the one with big tits, nice ass and sexy eyes”. If I ask a girl friend to describe someone, she’d start describing the looks. Such and such hair, hair color, eye color, type of clothes, color of clothes, shoes, bla bla bla. Same shit. I say chicken, you say that-animal-that-used-to-have-feathers-and-is-now-neatly-packed-and-ready-to-get-roasted-with-potaters. And if it makes you feel better, a select few have developed a scale, which takes into account all of your other traits, virtues, vices, perks etc. But that usually fscks up a woman’s rating. Sorry, we’re picky too, when it comes to personality. Actually, we’re MORE picky than you gals, when it comes to personality. That is, once we really start looking for the one to settle down with. Till then, looks will suffice.

Besides, I’ve never met a good-looking woman criticizing the looks-scale >:]] I wonder why that is.