Time

Too many things eating at my time. When I see something, I think about how much time that item represents. A video game can take 100 hours to complete, so it represents 100 hours of my life (assuming I finish it, which I wouldn't). The actual dollar amount I would pay for any item is nothing compared to the time I would spend with it. Assume some number of hours of live left, and from there one can work out the minimum percentage of ones life that item or event represents. If you are going to be hit by a car and die tomorrow, it represents a bigger part of your life.

So how does one decide? To many things calling out to me. "Spend time with me!" says the TV set. "Watch all of the shows. Sure, they might suck, but at least you will have something to talk about with other humans." "Eat me", says the Super Premium Ice Cream in my freezer. "Munch me.", says the snack food. "Come to me and spend the day.", says KFC. "Lick me from head to toe, stopping at some key locations to make sure you get the job done", says... well, I'll leave that one out for now. Then there is Internet Porn, "Look at all that I have to offer! Just 3 hours a day of your life is all I ask, and your every fantasy can be filled. Sex with plants, I've got thousands of movies and pictures for you." That Internet Porn, it always seems to know my weakness.

So, what is the point? Well, the price you pay for something is nothing compared to the time. You can make more money, but you can not make more time. So, stop watching bad TV shows, stop going to movies, don't play games, stop looking at porn (hold your horses until I finish before you think about lynching me for proposing this radical idea), etc - then you will have saved all of your wonderful, luscious time to do quality things, things that you really want to do... What else is there to do? If you give up everything, you have all of the time in the world, but the only thing left to do is sit around waiting to spend that time on something Really Big!

The Edward

PS Waste your time how you feel, since even reading a classic book is still just wasting time. (or "using time" as an bloody optimist might say, those sad little people with nothing better to do that tell you that the glass is half full - well, I can tell them what to do with that other half of the glass! "Always look on the bring side.", what, so I can be blinded by their pithy sayings? "You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar", yeah, and they all drown slowly in the thick syrup, painfully suffocating, you sick "happy" bastards.) All things are equal in death. So, do anything you want, while you can. Even downloading plant porn.

Nothing...

Too many changes in the "real" world affecting my arcane view of your world. I'll get back in the saddle again, ASAP!

Meanwhile: Battlestar Galatica! The latest ad claims the first week in October for the latest season to begin. I thought I remember it being slated for the last week in October. Has something changed?

A new company. I believe it is time for me to go back to my own company. It will be different this time. I already have the name: ArcaneLab. But, what would you expect from a company with that kind of name? Deep, interesting researchy kinds of things, I hope! I'm sure the world will shudder at the first product announcement. The problem: how can one top that kind of reaction at successive product announcements?

"This product is so devastatingly amazing that entire worlds will be destroyed each time you use it."

"Time and space will lose all meaning once you try ArcaneLab's latest product."

"What's that sound? Is that the sound of the impending apocalypse? No! It is the collective sigh of the Universe, overwhelmed with the joy of the knowledge of this product and what it can do to make life have meaning again."

"Every creature that has ever lived or will live will be at your local store trying to be the first of own the latest from ArcaneLab."

"Billions of Branes have collided, pulled together by the intensity of ideas in the newest ArcaneLab product."

"Nothing."

Me

The Beautiful Explanation

I'm tired of reading Scientific American, and pretty much any other science journal. Why? Besides the seemingly endless array of logic errors? Well, they seem to espouse something I heard about a while ago that still bugs me: If there are two or more theories, the one that is probably correct is the most beautiful one. It gets mentioned in almost every String Theory article and book - String Theory is to Beautiful to be wrong.

Ever hear of Kepler? He had a beautiful model of our solar system. He reasoned that the known planets orbit the sun base on the five perfect Platonic solids: cube, tetrahedron, octahedron, icosahedron and dodecahedron. Beautiful theory - he ever created some very nice models. The main problem with it was that it was wrong. He eventually figured it out and we now have a better theory of planetary orbits.

There are other examples, but all illustrate the same point: Why do we believe that the Universe is simple and/or beautiful? The presumption is that we are smart enough to create an internal model of the Universe, but where is the proof? We believe that the rules of the Universe will seem beautiful to us, why? We are such a very small part of the whole, with so much of it beyond our grasp... Maybe it is because of this that we try to simplify the Universe first, we say it is banana shaped, which gives us a grasp on it. If we evolve enough, maybe we can move up to the next shape, eventually reaching something that we currently wouldn't believe to be beautiful, but those future "humans" would. Or would they?

The Edward

Why I'm not a Vegetarian

Plants. They are our friends. They are here for us. We make clothing and bedding and napkins out of them. Could you imagine a leather napkin? Or leather panties? I know that I can not! They supply us with so much goodness, it just makes me feel all gooshy inside. With such a great ally, how can we go wrong?!

Lies! Plants our not our friends! They think they are our masters! They once ruled the earth. They were everywhere. They took in all of that lovely C02 and output a poisonous, corrosive, explosive gas, something that no sane creature could live off of - pure oxygen, O2. The Devil's Gas. Early on, all was fine when there weren't that many plants. But once they grew in population and dominated the world, their buildup of toxic gases was too great for them. They needed a solution. They needed a set of creatures that could not only survive in this newly forming toxic wasteland of O2, but maybe even output the much needed CO2 that all higher beings, plants, needed. The plants put their best scientist on the problem, and a solution was reached...

Animals appeared to fill that void! The plants were happy again! But some upstart species came along, thinking it was the dominate species, even though any logical creature could tell that the plants control the hu-mans, gave them everything that they needed in order to keep them sucking in all of that waste and outputting delicious CO2. The hu-mans started trying to starve the plants, cut back on CO2, so the plants are fighting back. They are trying to reassert their dominance!

What can we do keep control? What can we do to prevent plants from continuing to rule "us"? We attack on two fronts: 1) we kill their kind and turn them into paper that we wipe ourselves with (just to rub it in their "faces") and other products that we do not need (ie kill them for no reason, just to make them feel helpless), 2) we starve them by cutting back on their CO2 producing meat-machines: animals.

The more goods we consume, the more we can control their numbers. The more burgers we eat, the more we can control their CO2 supply. Do not be fooled, this is war - a war I want "us" to win! So, let's all do our part! I'll be there for you, there to lift that burger if you fall.

The Edward

This just in, proof of what I said: pictures of plants mating with human women. I'd hate to see the offspring of these unholy unions! Is there nothing plants will not do to regain their Power?

IBM

I heard this term recently: IBM. It was on a show about games, so I wasn't sure at first, but it turned out to be in the context of booth babes' skirt length. They said, Inch Below Muff. I never heard that term before, but I sure did get a chuckle out of it.

It got me to thinking... There is something exciting about a women with no panties on. No panties on under pants, shorts, etc, is exciting, but with a dress or a skirt, it becomes too exciting for words. I'm not sure why. Even though I probably would never see anything being exposed, just the thought that there is pussy right there exposed to the air, so close yet so far ...

I have had one or two women tell me in the past that they were not wearing panties, or that hadn't with certain types of clothing. I never verified that it was true, but it still sends shivers of joy down my spine to this day. It is a very appealing thought, and after years of analysis, I haven't determined why. Why?

Obviously, since I never have verified, any excitement that I felt was all in my mind. I never tried just imagining that a woman I was near was panty-less, but once the words are spoken everything changes. I guess I do not give myself permission to think of people in certain ways (sexual), but if someone is going to rub it in my face (I hope), then I am free to fantasize about that which was stated. (and I will - go ahead and try me)

Nothing really deep or insightful in this post (not that there is in any other post, just that I at least attempt to be in most other ones, or at least funny) - I just thought I would share a little bit more about myself. So, now you know I like cream (or half & half) on my cereal and that I like the idea of panty-less women in short skirts. I'd suggest trying them both!

The Edward

PS At least one person did try the half and half over cereal and told me it was an interesting experience. Now I need at least one woman to be panty-less and tell me - I'm sure the results will be just as interesting!

Funny Topics

Though I had more to say on the past thread of topics, I will save them for The Future. I have had people come up to me and say "Edward", which is good because if they had said "Ed" I would have smacked them. "Edward", they say, "What's with all of the serious topics recently? Make with the funny. Talk about pussy again." Which is interesting, because when I was pussy-talking before, a different group of people thought that I was too focused on the pussy. And there is yet a third group that thinks I switch around too much, I should have a focused blog, maybe doing movie reviews. So, maybe I should try to combine them and appease everyone! (or upset everyone!) A focus, funny, yet serious, blog entry about movie pussy.

I remember way back when, R-Rated meant that there would be nudity, and we liked it. We would line up around the block for the chance to possibly see a breast, or heaven forbid, a pussy shot. Now a days, with this Internet porn thing, there really isn't a reason to see movies in the theatres. And most actresses seem to think that their bodies are so much better than everyone else's that they no longer do nude scenes. Although the net outcome is that it forces people to download pictures of these actresses faces on porn star's bodies and pretend that they pictures are not fakes, and not see the crappy movies. And since almost all movie scripts are utter crap, without the titillation of possibly seeing something "naughty" on screen, the mind-numbingness of movies really shines through.

My recommendation to this problem: See X-Rated movies! There are a few companies out there that try to make "women friendly" movies, which means that they almost have a plot (and no up-close-and-personal shots of pussy being penetrated). If the demand for these types of movies increase, they could easily become the new R-Rated movies. The quality of the scripts are about the same as old R, the amount of sex is a little higher, and the FX budget is a lot lower. So, if more people buy/see these types of movies, I think the budgets will go up, and the quality will rise like a happy audience member.

So, see some pussy and help the movie industry! You'll be thanking yourself all night long.

The Edward

PS I wasn't sure, but in the end I had to say something, so I will keep it short and to the point: I think there is a common thread through all of my posts.

Once in a lifetime

Have you heard about the 100 year plant? It blossoms once every 100 years. Say you had one of these plants, but you didn't know what it was. 50 years, it just sits there, staring at you, looking like any other non-blossoming plant. Then, one day, it blooms. 50 years, nothing, now this. What would you say? Would you think it would bloom again next year (ie did it take 50 years to mature, now it will bloom every year)? Or some other cycle, or are you in the middle of a 100, or 1,000, or some longer cycle? Maybe too long for any human to have ever seem the first event of this cycle? What would Science say?

That is the problem with Science - it can not say anything. Science is a method - one based on inductive reasoning. So, if something is reproducible or has a long series of occurrences, then you can induct certain things, then you can claim you believe something might happen because of something else, or happen with a certain frequency, etc. But what of things that happen with too long of a cycle for humans to observe? What about things we can not control or reproduce on demand?

Psychic powers. People think science says that they can not exist because we can not recreate them in a lab on demand. Psychics say that they are not really to the "on demand" state yet. So, Science says "Bogus." Can I demonstrate a Big Bang on demand? Can I demonstrate a Supernova on demand? Pulsar? Quantum string?

Science is a method used to determine how likely something is based on past events - not much more than that. There are large groups of things that Science can not speak to. Science is mostly a faith these days. If Science can not prove something, then it probably doesn't exist. Yet Science can not say something about most things in this Universe. Within our limited time-frame, we do not know how stable this universe is, we do not know that water will boil or that protons are stable or ... We just infer based on inductive reasoning, Science. But inductive reasoning doesn't work. We believe in Science as a faith and it has gotten us this far, but will it take us to the next level? No.

The Edward

PS Alien influence. I claim science can say something about this, not based on experimentation, but based on inductive reasoning, which I have explained somewhat in previous blog entries.