When I was still going to school as a boy in the U.S., I kept hearing about Martin Luther King Jr. — and I noticed we celebrated a holiday in honor of him in the United States. Now as a man, I know he is great since he fought for equality for his people. Too bad, he was assassinated and so he couldn’t live longer to touch more people’s hearts. Anyhow, I had never seen a real interview of his, and so I’m really glad I’d stumbled on one of his interviews in a black and white video on YouTube. Why don’t you check it out too? The video is right after the break.
Is it safe to assume that when a country is still young and full of energy, it prefers to take more risks and expand? Is it safe to assume that when a country is old, it prefers to play it safe? What would make a country young? In my opinion, a country is young when it got a huge amount of people that are between the age of 12 to 27. Why? These young people can and will be able to lead their country in the direction that they want since the older generations have to pass their torches eventually. Furthermore, a young country got enough young soldiers to wage a war! This will not be that important when a country decides to employ more AI robots and automation in a war, but at the presence, human soldiers are still being mainly a deployable asset for any combat situation. Human soldiers are still driving and flying war machines and drones.
A small country with a small population and not enough economic power and technological might cannot be a threat to bigger countries even though such a small country may have a huge population of young people. It would be a different story for a huge country with a huge population size because such a country can deploy young, energetic human resources to grow and expand a country’s multifacet powers. It’s even more dangerous when such a country got a really large, energetic, young population. Why? Assuming we’re not going to use automation anytime soon, and so if I’m running such a country I would think about capitalizing the power of a huge young population to grow and expand my country. For an example, I wouldn’t be so timid in launching a war against a hostile country.
I have a feeling that even when automation gets to be in the driver seat, an unrest young population of whatever country could still drive their country into a more risky proposition than otherwise. After all, logically if they’re not taking risks when they’re young, what would make them excited when they’re old? If my theory is correct, I wonder could we see a lot more wars and deaths if the world’s population is full of young people? Of course, I could be wrong in a way because older people do take risks too! What if a small group of older people can make and drive the agenda that make use of the aggressiveness features of the young population? Nonetheless, I still think the huge population of young people still is an important element in the equation for taking risks. Without the huge, energetic young population, nothing will happen even if the small group of old people wants to wage a war!
Real life stories about famous people like Steve Jobs are inspiring. In China, Jack Ma’s real life story is too also inspiring. Nobody knows what will the future hold for Jack Ma, but it’s already truly inspiring and amazing to see how Jack Ma has built his Alibaba company in his apartment to the size of Alibaba today which has tens of thousands of employees. I got to know about Jack Ma’s amazing real life story thus far through Crocodile in the Yangtze documentary which was written and directed by Porter Erisman — a man who once worked for Jack Ma’s Alibaba company. How Jack Ma from nothing built a company that went to war against Ebay, a truly super large company, in his own country, China, to bringing the competition to Ebay’s doorstep in America is definitely not something everyone can just wake up one day and say I can do that too. So, check out how Jack Ma had done such an amazing feat through the video right after the break. Enjoy!
I’ve found a very interesting geopolitical video on YouTube which carries a debate on the current Ukraine crisis. Enjoy!!!
Thinking out loud, I’ve cool ideas for a video game. Nonetheless, this cool video game might not be for a faint of heart to play or make. The ideas go like these.
- This video game should be extremely immersive, therefore the next generation graphics or whatever that is better is a must have. As the game grows older, the game’s graphics should be improved with time.
- The game’s starting point replicates real life’s contemporary period, on the specific day, exactly to the letter. No deviation should take place at all. For an example, from seconds to hours to days to physics should be as close to real life as possible. One exception, the human characters within this game should not use real names and details of real fellow human beings in real life (for legality purpose obviously). Nonetheless, there should be a very effective system of authentication which can prevent the creation of multiple game accounts by the same gamer. This to prevent a gamer from rejoining the game once his or her in-game character is dead.
- This game should be an open world as in anything is possible as long real life physics isn’t being contradicted. Such as gravity should be gravity, and so people cannot just flap their hands as fast as they can and fly.
- Human gamers can join the game at anytime of the lifespan of the game, but each gamer can only create a game character once. Once a game character dies, that’s it. This means a gamer who had his character killed (in-game unnatural death) should not be able to make new character and should not be able to join the game again, ever! Nonetheless, he or she could always spectate the game progress in general.
- The game lifespan is as long as real life lifespan. This means, there won’t be an ending to this game. The game itself will grow as long as there are new gamers who join and old gamers’ characters that just won’t die. Imagine a game character with real life 120 year old lifespan, isn’t this cool?
- In-game negativities should not affect a gamer’s real life. For an example, a gamer’s idiotic in-game decision which could very well be very immoral should not translate into real life moral values. This is why in-game characters can be killed, albeit a gamer won’t be able to play the game again but he or she should be fine in real life. Here is another example, a gamer’s character goes to prison in the game for a very immoral wrongdoing (in-game of course), this should not translate into a prison sentence for a gamer in real life. In-game prison sentences though, should be just as long as the real life ones.
- The rewarding system for this game is all about connecting virtual achievements with real life achievements. This means, within the game, if a gamer achieves something awesome, in real life a gamer would either gain real money or real life offers of important things. The more a gamer achieves in virtual world the more a gamer achieves in real life. Obviously, real life rewards for a gamer’s in-game achievements should not be outrageously luxurious, because real life has real limitation… and so a gamer should not expect money rain down on him or her. Nonetheless, real life rewards for a gamer’s in-game achievements should not be petty to the point that there is no incentive to achieve in-game achievements. It will be a very delicate balance kind of rewarding system. Basically, rewarding system which connects in-game achievements and real life ones should not be unethical, outrageously demanded, and morally wrong.
- The story should start out with a very mundane plot which relies on real life events according to a real life date of a specific day. Nonetheless, it’s purposely allowing the gamers to play the game out in whatever fashion they want, within the limitations that I had described earlier and farther down this blog post.
- In-game objects should be very similar to real life objects. For an example, in-game characters that are taking drugs through needles should be portrait as destructive as real life.
- Although in-game math, science and physics rely on real life math, science and physics, the game should allow gamers to experience real math, science and physics. This means that a gamer can innovate fantasy technology (futuristic) which may or may not be achievable in real life. So deviation from science facts to science fiction can be achievable within the game, as long the starting point isn’t deviate from real life facts.
- In-game choices should be very consequential to everything. This means, a gamer’s decision on whatever can affect the other gamers’ characters within game even though such a decision is trivial. Nonetheless, an in-game real connection (i.e., relying on real science… physics… math… and etc…) should exist in order for a gamer’s in-game decision to materialize in consequential way.
- In-game natural death should allow a gamer to create a new game character, thus the same gamer can continue to play the game with a new character as his or her original character was rest in peace by natural death.
Basically, these are some cool ideas for a game that I have on the top of my head at the moment. I might not revisit this post again, therefore I might not add more ideas to this thinking out loud of this sort of game. Nonetheless, it would be cool if someone can make it happens, right? Obviously, playing this game might not be super fun, because a gamer might not be able to play the game for a second time if his or her in-game character dies violently and of not a natural death.
- Relax! This Hardcore Gamer Takes His Virtual Life A Little Too Seriously (Video) (elitedaily.com)
- I Feel Blessed Some Gamers Don’t Do the Same Real Life Jobs (rogue1618.wordpress.com)
- Gift guide for great gamers: GTA V (vgarmada.wordpress.com)
- CATS Logbook – Session 6 – TED Talk – Jane McGonigal: “Gaming can make a better world” (sanctuarygames.wordpress.com)
- Virtual Learning (ehookwayjones10.wordpress.com)
- The Year Selfies Came to Video Games (motherboard.vice.com)
- CATS Log Book 6- TED Talk Jane McGonigal The Future of Gaming. (phasegaming.wordpress.com)
- The Importance of Character Customization (wedsthoughts.wordpress.com)
- The Gamer writes the Story (theyoutubegeneration.wordpress.com)
- Go 40%!! The Gamer Girls (iconicgamer.wordpress.com)
Was a woman the first prototype of homo-sapiens to appear on this special planet known as earth? Or was such a prototype of homo-sapiens a man? Of course, religions have their own answers to this ancient riddle, but none would be the one true answer to this ancient riddle. Why? Only the believers of the specific religions would believe and accept such answers. Therefore, we would not be able to know for sure, right? Instead of relying on the religions to give answers to this ancient riddle and in the process we might invoke unnecessary hatreds, and so we should look toward science for a more concrete answer to this ancient riddle.
Unfortunately, as now science isn’t yet being able to actually solve this ancient riddle. Nonetheless, we know science is very methodically and scientifically at solving problems. This is why science might come up with a more concrete answer for this ancient riddle. Still, we have to wonder how much longer would science have to take to be able to solve this ancient riddle of ours. In fact, this ancient riddle has been a mystery for ages, as far back as the first body of homo-sapiens walked the planet earth. It’s just fascinating to ask ourselves was the first body of homo-sapiens who walked the planet earth a man or a woman, right?
As now, we can’t really come up with an answer to finally demystify this ancient riddle of ours, but we can at least take a look at the clues we have. OK, before I go any further on this subject, I must confess that I’m not a biologist or even have a good enough understanding of biology or microbiology, therefore my understanding of the microbe world might not pan out entirely correct. With that being said, let us take a look at the clues we have so we might move in the direction in which perhaps someone might come up with the answer to our ancient riddle soon enough.
We know first prototype of homo-sapiens was probably not just sprung into the existence out of the thin air. In fact, it might be the evolution of single cell organisms. I believe single cell organisms would divide itself fast enough which gave them a lucky chance where an error in the cell division would occur and produce multi-organisms, but of course we might not know for certain how long was it took for single cell organisms to actually, randomly produce error which led to an evolution of single cell organisms, and the end result was the very first multicell organisms had sprung into the existence. To cut short, I believe from the evolution of multicell organisms, the very first homo-sapiens would spring into the existence.
Let us digress at this point and take on another angle. We know man or woman must born out of a woman belly, because it’s the truth as we observe it everyday! Perhaps, every single second we take notice, a baby is born? Don’t scrutinize me on this, because I don’t actually have the math of how many babies are born in a second in the world, but anyway let us go on. So, it’s unthinkable for us not to realize that our ancient riddle is in fact might be too difficult to solve. Why? Because we have to wonder how could a woman impregnate in the first place if every prototype child must be born from a woman belly. You see, there must be an entity which had impregnated a very first female body of homo-sapiens in the first place so that prototype of first child of homo-sapiens would come into existence. After all, everybody of homo-sapiens had always been born from a woman belly!
Of course, someone might argue confidently that there must be a very first male prototype (singular as in a man) of male homo-sapiens to go about and impregnate the very first female prototype (singular as in a woman) of homo-sapiens, otherwise how would we explain the existence of female wombs (i.e., how female homo-sapiens would bear the responsibility of giving birth), right? Nonetheless, how could we satisfy our ancient riddle if the mystery is still pointing to that everybody of homo-sapiens must come from a woman belly? The mystery points out that a very first male prototype of homo-sapiens must had been still first come into existence inside a belly of a very first female prototype of homo-sapiens.
Of course, we can always surmise that single cell organisms might evolve into a prototype of homo-sapiens which could be both male and female at the same time. Through times, such a culture of a bi-special prototype of homo-sapiens might choose to develop in a way which each member would choose a specialty of their own. This way, a group of bi-special prototype of homo-sapiens might specialize in only hunting, therefore had no need in bearing children — slowly moving away from developing wombs and evolving away from female-hood. This might explain how we arrive to have male and female homo-sapiens, right?
Nonetheless, evolution of developing specialties for certain needs doesn’t seem to be satisfactory. After all, it will take ages to do so if it’s even possible. This is why I think it was the freak accidents that actually gave way to the existence of female and male homo-sapiens. Freak accidents? In this context, it’s a good thing. It’s Darwinism! It’s an evolution of how single cell organisms evolved into multicell organisms; multicell organisms evolved into bi-special prototype of homo-sapiens; bi-special prototype of homo-sapiens evolved into specializations of prototypes of homo-sapiens (i.e., female and male homo-sapiens). This evolution template branch might be a mere blueprint for all living things, I think. Why a mere blueprint? Perhaps, each living thing might evolve quite similarly but each also might take each own unique timeline to arrive at specific point where a clear distinction between female and male prototypes of living things would occur. Anyhow, we have digressed at this point as I try to go into the matter of all living things.
In conclusion, our ancient riddle stands unsolved, because there is not a scientific proof of how man had come into the existence. I guess, the existence of a woman was and is always a given. After all, all offsprings must come from women’ bellies. Of course, as where this stands, the mystery of a very first man doesn’t belittle the role of men at all. After all, before the existence of the science of in vitro fertilization, women could not be impregnated without men. This is why the mystery is deepening, and so our ancient riddle is too! Isn’t this fascinating?
Note: Links to the original photo in this blog post is http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6023/5987360973_ff481cb2df_o.jpg and http://www.flickr.com/photos/kozyphotos/5987360973/sizes/o/in/photostream/.
- Letter: Homo sapiens only species that needs to blush (tcpalm.com)
- Why did Homo Sapiens start eating meat? (ldunnjr.wordpress.com)
- A Response to Joseph Kuhn’s Dissecting Darwinism (afarensis99.wordpress.com)
- How to communicate like a Neandertal… (oup.com)
- Father of Human Pharmacology (adityathedarwinian.wordpress.com)
- Global Warming: Welcome to the Age of Mankind (chimalaya.org)