Is Facebook worth it?
Sure, it is a way to keep in touch with people. Find out what they're thinking, doing, or planning. For a fairly introverted person like me it has the advantage that I don't actually have to talk to them to find this stuff out.
Occasionally I use it to ask for advice. Often I even get useful advice that way.
But the signal-to-noise ratio is very low. Despite my efforts to use FB's filters, I mostly see junk. Poorly written and/or ignorant political posturing (including plenty from people nominally on 'my side' of issues) seems to be the dominant life form even now that the election is over.
I've considered a merciless pruning of my friend list (do I really care what someone I haven't seen since high school is doing? Not really)... but that would be a lot of work. It doesn't help that I've now got a bunch of SCA folks friended; often I don't remember their legal names. Further complicated by friends with similar names, and the fact that no one seems to use a straight face shot of themselves as their profile pic. I'm very afraid of deleting someone because I don't recognize their name or profile pic only to find I've deleted my Baron.
A much easier solution is just to stop visiting (perhaps deleting my account, perhaps not). Then, however, I lose what little signal I was getting. Along with the cute cat pictures - they probably don't count as 'signal', but they're fun.
Showing posts with label UnanswerableQuestion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UnanswerableQuestion. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Monday, October 29, 2012
Mandatory retirement age for airplanes?
This past week Boeing announced that the youngest B-52 in service with the USAF had reached 50 years of age.
That’s right folks, the YOUNGEST aircraft in the USAF B-52 fleet has been flying for half a century. 76 B-52’s remain in the USAF fleet. The B-52 got its designation because it first flew in 1952.
It doesn’t end there, though – the B-52 fleet is expected to remain in service past 2040. That means some of the planes will have been flying for 80 years. It is conceivable that someone might fly into combat on the exact same bird their great grandfather flew on deterrence patrol. The 2040 date, for that matter, assumes that the retirement of the fleet (once scheduled for LAST CENTURY) isn’t pushed out AGAIN.
Why is the USAF flying such elderly aircraft? Well, let’s first note that while the B-52’s are the extreme for combat aircraft, they’re hardly the only aging birds in the fleet. In fact, the average age of the USAF’s 5,000+ aircraft is 23 years. For comparison, during Vietnam the average age was nine years.
The last KC-135, still the backbone of the aerial refueling fleet, rolled off the lines in 1965. There are still over 400 in inventory, including 183 assigned to active units. They are supplemented by a mere 60 of the ‘modern’ (last built 1987) KC-10. The FIRST delivery of the replacement, the KC-46 which I’m working on, is still years away.
The F-15 first flew in the 1970’s. The latest model, the F-15E, dates from the 1980’s… and is still in production for overseas customers though the last one for the USAF was built in 2001.
The C-130 first flew in the 1950’s.
OK, I think you get the picture.
But still… why are we flying 50 year old bombers? Well, for one thing, if we just retired them we’d lose 40% of the heavy bomber fleet. Aside from the B-52 there are only 20 B-2’s (1990’s) and about ninety B-1’s (1980’s) in service with NOTHING in the pipeline. OK, there’s the ‘next generation bomber’ or whatever we’re calling it now, but that’s essentially a blank sheet of paper with the earliest forecast delivery in the 2020’s.
Not all is doom and gloom! The F-35 is brand new. So new that although it first flew in 2006 it still isn’t cleared for operational use.
OK, maybe all is doom and gloom. Do we need a mandatory retirement age for airplanes?
That’s right folks, the YOUNGEST aircraft in the USAF B-52 fleet has been flying for half a century. 76 B-52’s remain in the USAF fleet. The B-52 got its designation because it first flew in 1952.
It doesn’t end there, though – the B-52 fleet is expected to remain in service past 2040. That means some of the planes will have been flying for 80 years. It is conceivable that someone might fly into combat on the exact same bird their great grandfather flew on deterrence patrol. The 2040 date, for that matter, assumes that the retirement of the fleet (once scheduled for LAST CENTURY) isn’t pushed out AGAIN.
Why is the USAF flying such elderly aircraft? Well, let’s first note that while the B-52’s are the extreme for combat aircraft, they’re hardly the only aging birds in the fleet. In fact, the average age of the USAF’s 5,000+ aircraft is 23 years. For comparison, during Vietnam the average age was nine years.
The last KC-135, still the backbone of the aerial refueling fleet, rolled off the lines in 1965. There are still over 400 in inventory, including 183 assigned to active units. They are supplemented by a mere 60 of the ‘modern’ (last built 1987) KC-10. The FIRST delivery of the replacement, the KC-46 which I’m working on, is still years away.
The F-15 first flew in the 1970’s. The latest model, the F-15E, dates from the 1980’s… and is still in production for overseas customers though the last one for the USAF was built in 2001.
The C-130 first flew in the 1950’s.
OK, I think you get the picture.
But still… why are we flying 50 year old bombers? Well, for one thing, if we just retired them we’d lose 40% of the heavy bomber fleet. Aside from the B-52 there are only 20 B-2’s (1990’s) and about ninety B-1’s (1980’s) in service with NOTHING in the pipeline. OK, there’s the ‘next generation bomber’ or whatever we’re calling it now, but that’s essentially a blank sheet of paper with the earliest forecast delivery in the 2020’s.
Not all is doom and gloom! The F-35 is brand new. So new that although it first flew in 2006 it still isn’t cleared for operational use.
OK, maybe all is doom and gloom. Do we need a mandatory retirement age for airplanes?
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Triage
In the world we live in there are usually two answers to any question: the simple one, and the real one.
Politicians only seem to have time for the simple one.
Partially, that is because the modern media has trained them to talk to the public in sound bites. So any concept too difficult to fit into a sound bite, such as the real answers to most questions that the government should be addressing, doesn’t get talked about. Now, if you’re a politician and mostly concerned with getting re-elected, why spend time on something you’re not going to talk to the public about?
So the simple answers tend to be the only ones that get into legislation.
“But Federal laws are enormous! Thousands of pages! Surely they can’t be simple?”
Wrong. The basic concept that the law is based on is often quite simple.
The basic concept of Obamacare, for example, is that everyone should have healthcare. Simple concept. Easy to say, easy to defend on an emotional level.
Problem is, not one bit of that enormous bill with its simple concept answered the question of ‘how do we make healthcare better?’
To see why, let’s talk about triage.
If you provide a paramedic (or a doctor, but let’s talk about paramedics since I am one) with one patient, they treat that patient. Healthcare or no healthcare, we treat that patient. We do our best to collect their healthcare information so they can be billed later (because that’s where we get the money that allows us to treat the next patient), but bottom line is whatever healthcare they have or don’t have, we treat the patient.
If you provide a paramedic with ten patients, they treat none of them.
Wait, what?
Yup, you read that right, NONE OF THEM get care. Because our lone paramedic is going to do something called ‘triage’. He’s going to assess each patient and put them in one of three or four (depending on exact protocol) categories. These are color coded, and the colors are often used as shorthand even outside of triage. Exact definitions vary by region, circumstances, and a few other factors, but more or less they break down as:
Red: requires immediate care, but with immediate care can probably be saved.
Yellow: requires care, but not immediately.
Green: does not require care. Note that this doesn’t mean uninjured: someone with a paper cut is injured, but they’re going to get better on their own (OK, if they’ve got a couple of rare blood disorders or if they swoon from the sight of blood and fall down the stairs they won’t get better, but those are extraordinarily rare and triage is all about playing the odds).
Black: probably cannot be saved even with immediate care. Again, note that this doesn’t mean they’re already dead, or that we wouldn’t treat them if they were the only patient. If we’ve got one patient with no pulse we treat them (we do that quite often in fact). If we’re passing out triage tags someone without a pulse gets a black tag.
Let’s talk about those green and black tag patients a little more. Again, a green tag doesn’t mean you’re just going to be sent home. Triage is done quickly, which means that it can miss things. Someone who feels, and looks, fine may have internal injuries for example which are actually very serious. So some of the available medical resources watch the green tags. They’re watching a much larger group, so they’re providing little to no actual care. Then the black tags. Most people don’t respond well to being told “sorry, you’re going to die, please go sit in the corner over there so your blood doesn’t create a slip hazard.” In civilian triage we seldom reach the stage where we black-tag people who are still conscious, of course, but it does happen. In the military a large dose of morphine is often applied to solve the consciousness problem. On the civil side someone is often assigned to cover the bodies. Again, they aren’t giving care, or at least not care that is going to save anyone.
The bottom line is that as you increase the number of patients the amount of care given starts to drop. If you flood a medical unit (hospital, ambulance company, whatever) with minor to moderate cases the amount of care given will drop sharply. If the unit is not well managed or if the crisis is prolonged, effective care can approach zero. This doesn’t happen in the US, where there are numerous methods in place for temporarily overwhelmed units to get temporary support and providers are generally well trained and equipped. It happens all the time in the third world. It happens in Europe on a fairly frequent basis.
All clear? Good, stick a pin in that key point and let’s move on.
ERs and ambulances spend most of their time treating people who would be ‘yellow’ or ‘green’ in a triage situation. We complain about it on a regular basis. Sometimes these people know they aren’t really seriously ill but want the attention. Still, most people who aren’t actually that badly off don’t seek emergency medical care. They, in effect, self-triage themselves as green or yellow and don’t clog up emergency services with their problems. Another key point: people without insurance self-triage better than those with. Someone who knows they’ll have to pay for their care is much more likely to take some over-the-counter medication and hope they get better. Another key point: most people DO get better on their own given some time and a little self-treatment. Sometimes, of course, they diagnose themselves incorrectly and wind up being red. And yet another key point: just about everyone who winds up being red gets treated whether they have insurance or not.
See where I’m going? The higher the portion of the population that has insurance, and thus a great reduction in their immediate cost for getting emergency care, the more low-priority cases the emergency medical system has to deal with… and eventually the less efficient it gets at providing care.
Now to me the obvious solution is that if you think you’re close to a capacity problem (which the rapidly rising cost of health care and the generally crowded state of emergency rooms leads me to believe we are) the logical thing to do is increase the capacity of the medical system. How do you do that? Train more doctors. Train more nurses. Medical technicians of all types. Pharmacists. Lab techs. Build or expand medical facilities while you’re at it, and maybe buy a few more ambulances.
On the surface, this solution ought to be very appealing to politicians – after all, that’s a lot of JOBS, the majority of which pay at least a living wage. Two problems: one, that takes a lot of time. It takes the better part of a decade to turn someone into a doctor who is a net provider of care (interns actually reduce the care provided since they have to be so closely supervised, and in some branches junior residents aren’t much better). That’s bound to be an election away whatever office you hold, so no politician really has an interest in pushing for it. Second, how do you train more doctors? Uh… teach them? Yes, but how do you increase the pool of people who are willing AND capable of becoming doctors? That’s a VERY complicated problem – and one that we’re not only not solving, that is becoming worse. The only thing that is keeping the US medical profession growing are the addition of non-clinical positions (usually as the result of government legislation) and the importation of providers from overseas. That’s right folks, a LOT of doctors are trained in India or the UK (to give two examples) and then work in the US. While this is just fine from a temporary prospective (most of those doctors are just as good as the ones we train in the US), it hardly seems sustainable. The domestically-trained pool of nurses is graying fast, and nursing schools are shrinking. Paramedic training is healthy last I heard, but the drop-out rate in EMS is appalling.
So at the same time our glorious leader has ensured medical care for all, the pool of providers is shrinking. Further, as discussed above, as the ratio of patients to providers rises, the amount of care drops. Can anyone say “negative feedback” and “descending spiral”?
I’ll be fully frank and honest: I don’t know how to solve the healthcare problem in the US, and yes we most certainly DO have a problem. The long term trend is especially bad. On the other hand, I do know what we need, and what we don’t need. We need more providers. We need fewer lawsuits over claimed malpractice. We need less well-meaning but ignorant government legislation (HIPPA was the crowning example when I was active, but was neither the first nor the last – what do you call someone who goes to the hospital every three days with the same problem? A Medicare patient). We need, as we need so desperately in so many fields in the US, to think about the long term.
But most importantly I don’t know any way to make actually solving our healthcare problem appeal to politicians, because I don’t know any way to compress this post into a sound bite that will help them get votes.
Politicians only seem to have time for the simple one.
Partially, that is because the modern media has trained them to talk to the public in sound bites. So any concept too difficult to fit into a sound bite, such as the real answers to most questions that the government should be addressing, doesn’t get talked about. Now, if you’re a politician and mostly concerned with getting re-elected, why spend time on something you’re not going to talk to the public about?
So the simple answers tend to be the only ones that get into legislation.
“But Federal laws are enormous! Thousands of pages! Surely they can’t be simple?”
Wrong. The basic concept that the law is based on is often quite simple.
The basic concept of Obamacare, for example, is that everyone should have healthcare. Simple concept. Easy to say, easy to defend on an emotional level.
Problem is, not one bit of that enormous bill with its simple concept answered the question of ‘how do we make healthcare better?’
To see why, let’s talk about triage.
If you provide a paramedic (or a doctor, but let’s talk about paramedics since I am one) with one patient, they treat that patient. Healthcare or no healthcare, we treat that patient. We do our best to collect their healthcare information so they can be billed later (because that’s where we get the money that allows us to treat the next patient), but bottom line is whatever healthcare they have or don’t have, we treat the patient.
If you provide a paramedic with ten patients, they treat none of them.
Wait, what?
Yup, you read that right, NONE OF THEM get care. Because our lone paramedic is going to do something called ‘triage’. He’s going to assess each patient and put them in one of three or four (depending on exact protocol) categories. These are color coded, and the colors are often used as shorthand even outside of triage. Exact definitions vary by region, circumstances, and a few other factors, but more or less they break down as:
Red: requires immediate care, but with immediate care can probably be saved.
Yellow: requires care, but not immediately.
Green: does not require care. Note that this doesn’t mean uninjured: someone with a paper cut is injured, but they’re going to get better on their own (OK, if they’ve got a couple of rare blood disorders or if they swoon from the sight of blood and fall down the stairs they won’t get better, but those are extraordinarily rare and triage is all about playing the odds).
Black: probably cannot be saved even with immediate care. Again, note that this doesn’t mean they’re already dead, or that we wouldn’t treat them if they were the only patient. If we’ve got one patient with no pulse we treat them (we do that quite often in fact). If we’re passing out triage tags someone without a pulse gets a black tag.
Let’s talk about those green and black tag patients a little more. Again, a green tag doesn’t mean you’re just going to be sent home. Triage is done quickly, which means that it can miss things. Someone who feels, and looks, fine may have internal injuries for example which are actually very serious. So some of the available medical resources watch the green tags. They’re watching a much larger group, so they’re providing little to no actual care. Then the black tags. Most people don’t respond well to being told “sorry, you’re going to die, please go sit in the corner over there so your blood doesn’t create a slip hazard.” In civilian triage we seldom reach the stage where we black-tag people who are still conscious, of course, but it does happen. In the military a large dose of morphine is often applied to solve the consciousness problem. On the civil side someone is often assigned to cover the bodies. Again, they aren’t giving care, or at least not care that is going to save anyone.
The bottom line is that as you increase the number of patients the amount of care given starts to drop. If you flood a medical unit (hospital, ambulance company, whatever) with minor to moderate cases the amount of care given will drop sharply. If the unit is not well managed or if the crisis is prolonged, effective care can approach zero. This doesn’t happen in the US, where there are numerous methods in place for temporarily overwhelmed units to get temporary support and providers are generally well trained and equipped. It happens all the time in the third world. It happens in Europe on a fairly frequent basis.
All clear? Good, stick a pin in that key point and let’s move on.
ERs and ambulances spend most of their time treating people who would be ‘yellow’ or ‘green’ in a triage situation. We complain about it on a regular basis. Sometimes these people know they aren’t really seriously ill but want the attention. Still, most people who aren’t actually that badly off don’t seek emergency medical care. They, in effect, self-triage themselves as green or yellow and don’t clog up emergency services with their problems. Another key point: people without insurance self-triage better than those with. Someone who knows they’ll have to pay for their care is much more likely to take some over-the-counter medication and hope they get better. Another key point: most people DO get better on their own given some time and a little self-treatment. Sometimes, of course, they diagnose themselves incorrectly and wind up being red. And yet another key point: just about everyone who winds up being red gets treated whether they have insurance or not.
See where I’m going? The higher the portion of the population that has insurance, and thus a great reduction in their immediate cost for getting emergency care, the more low-priority cases the emergency medical system has to deal with… and eventually the less efficient it gets at providing care.
Now to me the obvious solution is that if you think you’re close to a capacity problem (which the rapidly rising cost of health care and the generally crowded state of emergency rooms leads me to believe we are) the logical thing to do is increase the capacity of the medical system. How do you do that? Train more doctors. Train more nurses. Medical technicians of all types. Pharmacists. Lab techs. Build or expand medical facilities while you’re at it, and maybe buy a few more ambulances.
On the surface, this solution ought to be very appealing to politicians – after all, that’s a lot of JOBS, the majority of which pay at least a living wage. Two problems: one, that takes a lot of time. It takes the better part of a decade to turn someone into a doctor who is a net provider of care (interns actually reduce the care provided since they have to be so closely supervised, and in some branches junior residents aren’t much better). That’s bound to be an election away whatever office you hold, so no politician really has an interest in pushing for it. Second, how do you train more doctors? Uh… teach them? Yes, but how do you increase the pool of people who are willing AND capable of becoming doctors? That’s a VERY complicated problem – and one that we’re not only not solving, that is becoming worse. The only thing that is keeping the US medical profession growing are the addition of non-clinical positions (usually as the result of government legislation) and the importation of providers from overseas. That’s right folks, a LOT of doctors are trained in India or the UK (to give two examples) and then work in the US. While this is just fine from a temporary prospective (most of those doctors are just as good as the ones we train in the US), it hardly seems sustainable. The domestically-trained pool of nurses is graying fast, and nursing schools are shrinking. Paramedic training is healthy last I heard, but the drop-out rate in EMS is appalling.
So at the same time our glorious leader has ensured medical care for all, the pool of providers is shrinking. Further, as discussed above, as the ratio of patients to providers rises, the amount of care drops. Can anyone say “negative feedback” and “descending spiral”?
I’ll be fully frank and honest: I don’t know how to solve the healthcare problem in the US, and yes we most certainly DO have a problem. The long term trend is especially bad. On the other hand, I do know what we need, and what we don’t need. We need more providers. We need fewer lawsuits over claimed malpractice. We need less well-meaning but ignorant government legislation (HIPPA was the crowning example when I was active, but was neither the first nor the last – what do you call someone who goes to the hospital every three days with the same problem? A Medicare patient). We need, as we need so desperately in so many fields in the US, to think about the long term.
But most importantly I don’t know any way to make actually solving our healthcare problem appeal to politicians, because I don’t know any way to compress this post into a sound bite that will help them get votes.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Elements
Something occurred to me tonight - why are the four classic elements (earth, air, fire, and water) the four classic elements?
It is an easy game of 'one of these things is not like the others'. So who thought fire belonged with the other three?
Really, there are three basic elements - not coincidentally, there are also three basic states of matter. OK, once you get a fair amount of energy or the ability to look at really small things a fourth one shows up, but plasma is a latecomer at best and a stretch at worst.
Even if you do insist on four elements, why fire? Why not the one stable thing you can have in a primitive world that is not like earth, air, or water... life.
You can't, at least not in a primitive world, have a bucket of fire. True, it is hard to conceptualize that an empty bucket is a bucket of air, but once you do it becomes clear that fire doesn't belong, yet there is one thing in your world that is not earth, not air, not water, and yet can fill a bucket: living things. Flesh and leaf, blood and feather. Life becomes the fourth element that weaves through the other three, while most fire can only survive in one.
It is an easy game of 'one of these things is not like the others'. So who thought fire belonged with the other three?
Really, there are three basic elements - not coincidentally, there are also three basic states of matter. OK, once you get a fair amount of energy or the ability to look at really small things a fourth one shows up, but plasma is a latecomer at best and a stretch at worst.
Even if you do insist on four elements, why fire? Why not the one stable thing you can have in a primitive world that is not like earth, air, or water... life.
You can't, at least not in a primitive world, have a bucket of fire. True, it is hard to conceptualize that an empty bucket is a bucket of air, but once you do it becomes clear that fire doesn't belong, yet there is one thing in your world that is not earth, not air, not water, and yet can fill a bucket: living things. Flesh and leaf, blood and feather. Life becomes the fourth element that weaves through the other three, while most fire can only survive in one.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
It's Life Jim, but NOT as we know it!
It really isn't!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575652940497021092.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
A NASA researcher has found arsenic-based life. Yup, that's right: alien bacteria are among us!
Green-skinned women are probably still a ways off.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575652940497021092.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
A NASA researcher has found arsenic-based life. Yup, that's right: alien bacteria are among us!
Green-skinned women are probably still a ways off.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
"Contrail" off California
The Official Words is that it is (probably) a contrail. A full bird colonel has made a statement (nearly 24 hours after the first report) that the matter is under investigation and that it certainly wasn't a non-US launch.
Now, if the matter is still under investigation, how can anyone be sure that it WASN'T someone else? I can see being sure it wasn't a US launch (we counted all our missiles and we've still got them all), or a plane (we examined the video and it clearly is/isn't a plane)...
I am not, as I think all two or three of my loyal readers will accept, a member of the Tinfoil Hat crowd. However, some things bother me about this.
1. That doesn't look like a contrail to me. I've spent most of my life looking up when I hear a loud noise, and quite a bit of it watching things flying overhead. I am not, as previously noted, a rocket scientist, but I know that delta-V = Ve * ln (R). That looks exactly like a rocket/missile launch to me.
2. No one has shown a nice, enhanced frame from that video that shows an airplane. Contrails make it easy to spot aircraft because they point you right where to look. No one has said "it is a contrail - see? You can tell its a 747/C-17/etc."
3. It took WAY too long for the contrail story to pop up. Again, no claims to be a rocket scientist here, but contrails have been photographed and video'ed from every angle known to man. Why does it take the infinite monkeys of the internet nearly 24 hours to come up with a near-match to the image that's a contrail when only hours after the event comparison imagery taken of rockets was being put up that was much closer to the actual video of the event?
Note that I'm not crediting media sources here, but bboards and fora. IMO most reporters couldn't tell the difference between an airplane and a rocket if they were both sitting side by side on the ground in front of them. The internet, however, is full of actual rocket scientists (in addition to a lot of people who claim to be but aren't), pilots, and anti-aircraft specialists. Most of the credible posters I know said "missile" or "rocket" when they first saw the video. All the contrail reports come from 'official' sources (which took far too long to check in), and media outlets.
At this point, I'm leaning towards "missile/rocket" and more than a little upset that we are once again being lied to, probably 'for our own good.'
Now, if the matter is still under investigation, how can anyone be sure that it WASN'T someone else? I can see being sure it wasn't a US launch (we counted all our missiles and we've still got them all), or a plane (we examined the video and it clearly is/isn't a plane)...
I am not, as I think all two or three of my loyal readers will accept, a member of the Tinfoil Hat crowd. However, some things bother me about this.
1. That doesn't look like a contrail to me. I've spent most of my life looking up when I hear a loud noise, and quite a bit of it watching things flying overhead. I am not, as previously noted, a rocket scientist, but I know that delta-V = Ve * ln (R). That looks exactly like a rocket/missile launch to me.
2. No one has shown a nice, enhanced frame from that video that shows an airplane. Contrails make it easy to spot aircraft because they point you right where to look. No one has said "it is a contrail - see? You can tell its a 747/C-17/etc."
3. It took WAY too long for the contrail story to pop up. Again, no claims to be a rocket scientist here, but contrails have been photographed and video'ed from every angle known to man. Why does it take the infinite monkeys of the internet nearly 24 hours to come up with a near-match to the image that's a contrail when only hours after the event comparison imagery taken of rockets was being put up that was much closer to the actual video of the event?
Note that I'm not crediting media sources here, but bboards and fora. IMO most reporters couldn't tell the difference between an airplane and a rocket if they were both sitting side by side on the ground in front of them. The internet, however, is full of actual rocket scientists (in addition to a lot of people who claim to be but aren't), pilots, and anti-aircraft specialists. Most of the credible posters I know said "missile" or "rocket" when they first saw the video. All the contrail reports come from 'official' sources (which took far too long to check in), and media outlets.
At this point, I'm leaning towards "missile/rocket" and more than a little upset that we are once again being lied to, probably 'for our own good.'
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Dreams
"I'm going to be unconscious, hallucinate, and have partial amnesia about it."
"OK, sleep well."
I sometime find it odd how much we take dreaming in stride, and how little we think about our dreams.
Do we dream because we are human, or are we human because we dream?
Are our dreams our subconscious trying to talk to our conscious?
Are dreams windows into alternate dimensions, where we see through the eyes of our parallel selves?
Science has reached the point where they can identify when someone is dreaming, but no one, as far as I know, can tell us where dreams come from.
ZZZzzzz...
"OK, sleep well."
I sometime find it odd how much we take dreaming in stride, and how little we think about our dreams.
Do we dream because we are human, or are we human because we dream?
Are our dreams our subconscious trying to talk to our conscious?
Are dreams windows into alternate dimensions, where we see through the eyes of our parallel selves?
Science has reached the point where they can identify when someone is dreaming, but no one, as far as I know, can tell us where dreams come from.
ZZZzzzz...
Saturday, June 12, 2010
I don't know what it means, but...
If you google the exact phrase "I should have kissed her" you get 617,000 hits.
If you google the exact phrase "I shouldn't have kissed her" you get 272,000 hits.
If you google the exact phrase "I should have kissed him" you get 414,000 hits.
If you google the exact phrase "I shouldn't have kissed him" you get 215,000 hits.
So are we more likely to regret not kissing someone than kissing them? Or just more likely to put it on the web?
Do guys regret the girls they didn't kiss more than girls regret the guys they didn't kiss? Or, again, is it just that guys are more likely to stick it on the web? Or are there a massive number of regretful lesbians out there?
If you google the exact phrase "I shouldn't have kissed her" you get 272,000 hits.
If you google the exact phrase "I should have kissed him" you get 414,000 hits.
If you google the exact phrase "I shouldn't have kissed him" you get 215,000 hits.
So are we more likely to regret not kissing someone than kissing them? Or just more likely to put it on the web?
Do guys regret the girls they didn't kiss more than girls regret the guys they didn't kiss? Or, again, is it just that guys are more likely to stick it on the web? Or are there a massive number of regretful lesbians out there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
