A few of my more recent obsessions

Things I currrently care about, by percent

Another reason why I spend too much time on/ thinking about Wikipedia

I found out today that going to any random article and clicking the first link on the page (excluding parenthesis) will always lead you to the Philosophy page. (try it!!!) I found this interesting and wanted to know why. Here's what I came up with. I call it the Network Theory of Abstraction. (That'll be in textbooks in fifty years give or take)

- The first sentence in Wikipedia articles introduces the subject to the reader on the most basic, broad level, that most readers should be familiar with.
- This lends itself to a pattern of increasing abstraction
- Philosophy is the 'end of the line' of abstraction.

Anyway, I just thought this was really, really interesting, and it kind of makes me wonder what other kind of statistical patterns we could find if we could collect and organize all the data on Wikipedia? So at this point you may be asking, "so what"? This is important because no other collection of knowledge has even come close to 1) the sheer volume of information and 2) the internal consistency and inter-correlative nature of Wikipedia's content.

In English: I love Wikipedia.

Hey girls

ADD is not an adjective, and other assorted grammar gripes

ADD is not an adjective.

Neither is OCD. Both are mental disorders, which constitutes status as a noun.

"You guys" is not grammatically necessary.

The word "you" in the English language can mean an individual, or a group. If it isn't obvious whether you are referring to the group or an individual, there are a multitude of creative ways to imply whom you are addressing, which can really spice up an otherwise dull conversation. And, no, that abomination that goes by the name of "y'all" doesn't count.

I and me.

"These are some pictures of Jan and I."

NO.

How many times have you said "These are some pictures of I?" That's what I thought. I distinctly remember having an argument with my first grade teacher (Mrs. Krosen, for the record) about how she was wrong that you always use "I" when mentioning two people in such a manner. They way to determine if you need to use "I" or "me", is take the other person out of the sentence and write it just like you normally would.

We suck at direct/indirect object stuff.

Let's face it: we suck at knowing when to use who, whom, that, which, etc., so we've come up with some pretty creative ways around this, most of which are more wordy and inconvenient than that which we were attempting to avoid in the first place.

Feminists are to blame for the improper use of "they"

Somewhere in the deepest, darkest depths of the 80's, conspiring women decided than the gender-neutral "he" was responsible for the disparity in wages between men and women, and the way to combat this was to force the world to use the tongue-twisting phrase "his or her" when referring to an individual of indefinite gender. Seeing as this was both impractical and just plain stupid, people decided to use the word "they" for the gender-neutral pronoun:

"I don't know who was on the phone but they said to call them back"

Wait, wha? Were you talking to more than one person? Because last time I checked, "they" referred to more than one person. Thanks, ladies.

Cause and effect

It doesn't take a genius to know that the nature of the human mind is frail before the complexity that is our Universe. One topic that I've been giving much thought lately is causality, more casually known as cause and effect. An inquiry into this topic sheds a little light on how fundamentally blind we are to the nature of... uh.. everything.

The water is boiling. Why?

The water is hot. Why?

The water's molecules have a greater density of kinetic energy than the surrounding particles. Why?

The water is on the stove, which is hot. Why is the stove hot? and why is the water on the stove?

I think you guys see what I'm getting at. It is an unavoidable conclusion that every observation is a question, simply by asking, "why"? So at what point along the infinite line of "why's" do we find a satisfactory answer? When we ask "why" and can't even think of a possible answer. This is when we assume we have found causation.

So, is this true?

In a few words: yes and no. Every point along the infinite "why and how" curve is a valid answer to "why did x happen".

So, now that I've managed to fill your head with an amorphous amalgam of aimless abstraction, here's the *ahem* conclusion of this post-

Science seeks to find the "why" behind natural phenomena; inevitably, this will only lead to an exponential increase in the one area of knowledge we can be sure about- what we don't know.

Colorado mother gives newborn amazing creative name

BOULDER, CO- In a stroke of linguistic brilliance, Boulder mother Tracy Potts decided to name her newborn son Kaieydein, making her the harbinger of the future of American culture.

"At first I thought it was just, Caden, and I was about to write it down, you know, C-A-D-E-N, but then I remembered I'm supposed to ask the mother how she wanted to spell it. So I did," said Jackie Phellps, the attending nurse at Potts' delivery.

Apparently, Potts had other plans. "Well, I don't really remember what really happened to be honest, all that morphine and nitrous. All I do remember is not being sure which way I wanted to spell it. 'Cause there's like C-A-D-E-N, or K-A-I-D-E-N, or K-A-Y-D-E-N, just so many ways."

For privacy purposes, Kaiedein was not photographed.

In her opiate-induced stupor, Potts stumbled across the greatest breakthrough in nomenclature since the mid to late-1800s when people began thinking outside the box and stopped naming their kids the same thing for a few dozen generations before moving on to a different Biblical figure. "Things like this just don't happen every day. As a linguist with a Ph. D. in American nomenclature, you can only dream that something like this can happen within your lifetime.

"This will definitely be a boon for the linguistics department. Nothing has spiked interest in baby names like this since the 80's when women decided all the sudden they wanted to name their baby girls something as androgynous as possible, like Bobby." said Dr. Thomas Miller, head of the University of Pennsylvania Linguistics department. Dr. Miller also stated he is planning on making this a last-minute addition to his upcoming linguistics and naming text, Spelling is for Dweebs- The American Way of Doing Stuff Like Naming Your Kids and Cheating in Scrabble.

Yet not every sociocultural advancement is without its detractors. "That's just dumb," said 22 year-old college junior Trent Blackfoot. "He'll probably just end up getting made fun of his whole life."

"What is important to understand about children who get made fun of, is nine out of ten times, it is out of jealousy," says Psychiatrist George Livingston. "It will certainly be hard growing up around children whose lack of parental genius is made obvious by the conventional spellings of their names, but eventually the children will learn to appreciate and accept Kaieydein as the product of unbridled brilliance without seeing him as a threat."

Potts says she has big plans for Kaieydein, like somehow explaining why his name fails to follow the most basic rules of spelling, but for now she says she's just going to focus on loving him for who he is. "I can't really remember how his name is spelled, but it's written on his wrist band. But I guess I love him anyway or something" •



Tyler McCord is the Editor-in-Chief of A Creatively Titled Blog.

Global Warming and the pride of scientists

This post is not about how global warming exists, or how global warming doesn't exist. This post is about how the issue of global warming has shamelessly displayed the hubris of the scientific community.

Recently we've been hearing with increasing frequency about how global warming is causing climate change, and how it's displacing millions with drought, hurricanes, etc. What the scientific community has entirely ignored is the fact that our planet is alive. Historians, anthropologists, geologists, biologists, and meteorologists all will passionately attest to Earth's dynamic nature. Yet when we actually witness Earth changing, we soil our pants with worry that we've somehow put a dent in the fragile, tender haven of life that is our Earth.

Baloney.

99% of species to ever exist are extinct. Why? Earth is dynamic. It changes every time you blink. Sea levels rise and fall, glaciers melt and freeze, continents drift apart and collide , carbon cycles are altered, and life just goes on its merry way in spite of it. Any scientist worth his BS (pun intended) will wholeheartedly agree to this. Yet at the first sign of a changing ecosystem, all is lost! Mankind has destroyed Mother Earth from whence he came!

Chill out guys. First off, we're not even sure the climate is changing at all. Second, we're not even sure if this only-probably-existent change is our fault. Third, even if this is our fault, we're only speeding up the inevitable change in climate that results from living on a living planet. On a dime Mother Nature has decided to pump out many times the CO2 we could ever hope to emit in the whole Era of Man in an instant- through volcanoes (obligatory dramatic supervolcano pic to the left). She has done it many times. And guess what? The whole planet is flourishing with life.

So now back to my point about the scientific community being excessively prideful. It is only hubris before Science and nature that would lead to such a universal consensus that mankind is soooo powerful as to even be able to dent the world's ecosystem, and that is what's causing so much suffering. Newsflash, guys- catastrophe is the story of life. Catastrophe is life, and it's been that way since the very first bacteria started wiggling around (or since Adam and Eve partook of the Forbidden Fruit, if you're feeling fundamental).

Are we really so prideful that we think we are free from famine, drought, and flood and that we the mighty Homo sapien is the only entity powerful enough to cause such suffering? Are we so arrogant that we think spitting out a few bits of CO2 can stop life from thriving? Yes, it will make ice caps melt, coral reefs become barren, shorelines change, and people become displaced. This is nothing new. We as a species are guilty of supreme hubris in thinking that the dubious effects of our proliferation are anything more than a hiccup in the cycle of life.

I decided to keep it broad this time around for fear of making it too long and boring. If anyone is interested, I could go into the specifics of how life is adapting to the changing environment.

3 large-scale defense mechanisms used by American society

Splitting

Splitting occurs when an individual is incapable of seeing the coexistence of good and evil. When this happens, people/ groups of people are only capable of being seen as purely good, or purely evil.

How we use it:

In politics: "Either you're one of us or one of them."

"Those amoral liberals are hell-bent on running our nation into the ground."

"Those inbred conservatives are intentionally hindering the progress of our nation to serve their own selfish wants."

"All politicians are selfish and corrupt and cannot be trusted."

Projection

Projection occurs when a person subconsciously denies his own thoughts, attributes, emotions, etc. and 'projects' them on to somebody else.

How we use it:

"My boss/teacher hates me and thinks I'm incompetent."

"Islam inherently despises our culture and wants to destroy it."

"I don't want to call X, she doesn't want to talk to me. I can just tell."

Magical Thinking

Magical thinking is best described as superstition, or a skewed sense of causality. This defense mechanism is possibly the most pervasive in America, and the most unsettling to learn about.

How we use it

In science: We love our science. It cures cancer, puts men on the moon, and makes really big asplosions. We love our science because well, it's right! It uses the scientific method, which has no place for superstition or false beliefs. Right? Yes and no.

In school we learn about how everything is made of teeny, tiny bits of electrically chargedsomething called atoms. All atoms are made of the same three 'elements': Neutrons, protons, and electrons. Now, the neutrons and protons somehow magically stick together, and the electrons spin around the clump of protons and neutrons really really fast. And everything is made of these magical, unseen objects.

Right.

Now contrast that with the sooo obviously wrong theory of the four elements: that everything is made of different combinations of earth, fire, wind, and water.

Which one seems more plausible? The magical invisible balls of electricity, or the four elements that are easily observable by anyone with half a brain? Most people blindly accept atomic theory the same way people blindly accepted the four elements theory. Very very few individuals have been able to witness for themselves that atomic theory is accurate; most of us accept it on blind faith in the mystical "scientific method".

In medicine: A little-known North American tribe called the Narcirema engaged in extremely bizzare healing rituals. First, they believed that all diseases were caused by evil spirits that lived all around them that entered their body through the mouth, eyes, etc. First, the Elder Mothers would give a possessed tribe member a mystical drink known as "living waters" because of its effervescent properties and occasionally small bits of a magical tree bark called Livda Nirpsa. When this did not work, the possessed would be taken to a large, inter-tribal temple known as The Latipsoh. There the afflicted would be permitted to enter only if he had a good enough reputation with the money-exchangers. If not, no matter how sick or afflicted, he would not be allowed to enter. Once inside the Latipsoh, the tribe member would be given many intoxicating substances and forced to undergo torturous, sadistic cutting rituals in which 'good spirits' would be placed inside the body by Witch Doctors. Very few would survive the Narcirema healing rituals.

(scroll down)

That being said, I do believe that modern science is valid as a result of my own objective inquiries, but most people believe it the same way Native Americans believed in magical spirits.

5 things I love about BYU-I

Rexburg, Idaho

• It's in Idaho. ಠ_ಠ
• 17,527 residents
• 5.0 square miles
• Average temperature: 35°F
• Average wind speed: 14 knots. Rexburg literally blows.
• 98 % republican. This is a very 'unique' brand of conservatism. Yes that's a euphemism. (A group of schoolchildren brought honor to Rexburg by chanting "Assassinate Obama! Assassinate Obama!" on a school bus)
• 100% boring.

The Spirit of Ricks

Since the transition from a 2-year Junior College named Ricks College into the 4-year University named BYU-Idaho, a prevailing mission of the school was to preserve the 'unique atmosphere' found on campus. "Everybody's so friendly". "I feel like I can ask any question in class without feeling stupid." "My professors are really understanding and cut us a lot of slack." Now, I'm not one to speak above the accreditation agencies, but I question the academic rigor of a university that actively seeks to appear as a Junior College.

"But It's still a good school!!"

The No Shorts rule.

I just can't avert my lustful eyes from sexy knees.

I love High School

"My mom called and told me I got a 50 on my homework, but it was only one day late."

"Well I usually don't accept late work, but I gave you credit just this once."

"What?! Ugh oh my gosh."

"Oh my gosh, my mom signed me up for all the wrong classes!"- 22 year old Junior

"Now I don't mean to brag, but BYU-I has logged over 1200% more tutoring hours than BYU-

Provo, yet they usually say that Provo is better academically. Heheheh."- Professor

My response to the above situations

|

|

|

↲

False religious and political dogma

[learning about Church's stance on personal liberty and property rights] "And nowadays certain individuals who shall remain unnamed are trying to take away our rights to managing our own property by forcing us to get things like healthcare the way they want"

[super-leet science professor is explaining how evolution isn't against the Gospel to an angry Utah-rd] "Are you serious?! If evolution is true than we're no different from monkeys! And God said that mankind is different from all other animals!"

"Well, no, evolution doesn't say we evolved from mon-"

"If we're based off monkeys, we're basically monkeys."

ಠ益ಠ

Added Bonus!

‎"Alright class, time for a quick anthropology lesson. What does the suffix 'ite' mean? Think about Israelite, Nephite, Bethlehemite..."

"Ohh like termite!"

Pull out All the Stops

I stumbled across this website called pulloutallthestops.org. Pull Out All the Stops is a fundraiser trying to gather 2.3 million Euros to restore a historic pipe organ. 2.3 million Euros is a lot of money. A lot. So I asked the question, what's the big deal with this organ anyway?

Upon further investigation, I discovered it is housed in the Royal Festival Hall in the UK. It is a world renowned performance center. It was built in 1951 but the organ housed inside quickly degraded. It is understandable that someone would want to restore such a stunning instrument. I mean come on, it's pretty dang impressive.

But still, 2.3 million Euros is a lot of money. I'll cut straight to my point; this is a prodigious waste of money.

I love music. It expresses emotions that words do not convey. The cultivation of music is one of mankind's great triumphs. This does not justify blowing a couple mil on a dubiously-historic, obsolete musical instrument. A pipe organ does humanity no good. It may make us feel happy for a short while, but that's only the microscopic fraction of us who hear it. And the even smaller fraction who are educated and 'civil' enough to appreciate it. And the even smaller fraction who remember it. What advantage does a pipe organ have over a $500 Yamaha keyboard? It looks prettier and doesn't require an amp. What advantage does a keyboard have over an organ? Portability, accessibility, diverse range of sounds, ease of maintenance, and so on. So why bother preserving the organ? Historical significance? The exceptional music it makes?

I think it is the elitist, snobbish, Ivory Tower mentality that dominated the Western Classical tradition that it's followers are attempting to preserve. Music belongs to all of us. It unites us, brings out the good in us. Music should be no respecter of persons. The pipe organ is arguably the most impractical, high-maintenance, and utterly obsolete instrument on Earth. By design, it is absurdly exclusive, only available to the highly trained and educated. So no, I will keep my money and maybe buy a $10 CD that would do the world a hundred times the good this useless hunk of metal would.

Dichotomies, Paradoxes, and Pessimists

People call me a pessimist because I see the negative. I reject this notion. Here's why.

Take a look at the picture to the left. What is it? Some see a vase, others see two faces looking at each other. Which one is it?

Yes.

Two sides of the same coin. There is no vase without two faces, and there are no faces without the vase. One can not exist without the other. So what I'm saying is, the existence of one object makes us see two objects. In reality, they are one; perfectly unified. Unfortunately, our puny minds are incapable of comprehending such an object, the same way we can never ever see all six sides of a cube. But nonetheless, it is one perfectly unified object. This is a dichotomy.

The same applies to good and bad. We all know that there is no good without evil, and vice versa. "Good" does not exist in a vacuum; it is eternally contrasted against evil, hence the necessity of there being "opposition in all things". Personally, I see the negative.

A perfect understanding of the negative perfectly outlines everything that is positive.

Now, how does this make me different from a pessimist? A pessimist does not see the dichotomy. A pessimest beleives evil exists in a vacuum, so he distorts his perception to see everything that is evil and ignore evil's very real limits. Yes, a pessimist is a negative thinker. Yes, an optimist is a positive thinker. Only looking at one or the other is irrational and distorted.

This is why I am an optimistic pessimist. Some say this is factually impossible. They are wrong. It is a dichotomy that I can see that very few others let themselves see.

The Noble Lioness and the Iron Christmas Tree

There once lived a noble lioness,

Who dwelt in the Westward Forest,

She ruled o'er the land with a gentle hand,

And the trees echoed in harmonyess,

In the far east lived a wicked coniferous,

Whose curious metallurgy were as if ferrous,

He schemed and he sought to destroy the whole lot,

Of the creatures in the Westward Forest,

So hence he went, his wicked address,

To deliver to the inhabitants of the Westward Forest,

"Thy time hast come, now taste my razor alum!

Today I transgress our fragile acquiesce!"

"To battle! To arms! Sound the alarm!

These innocent creatures shalt thou ne'er harm,

Your time has come, thou wicked fiend,

As signaled by my breaking of the rhyme scheme!"

Thus rushéd forth the armies of cress,

To meet their fate at the hands of death,

But Wyrd would not have it, and they suddenly learned,

Trees are not made of metal and lions are not indigenous to temperate coniferous forest habitats.

© 2011 Tyler McCord

The 5 Senses Model is a Load of Crap

Another load of bullcrap they teach us in Elementary School.

Off the top of my head, I can list at least fifteen independent senses not mentioned in the five senses model, not all of which can be voluntarily acted upon. The five senses model completely ignores the body's internal senses.

Vision

Light frequency (color)

Light amplitude (black and white)

These are independent of each other.

Internal

Time

Blood sugar levels

Blood oxygen levels

Muscular lactate levels

Heart rate

Vestibular proprioception (sense of being upright or upside down)

Acceleration perception

Kinesthetic perception (how you perceive your body position in 3D space)

Peepee time sense

Vascoconstriction (amount of blood vessel dilation)

Gag sense (reflex)

Stomach stretchy fullness how-hungry-am-I sense

Touch

Warmth

Coolth (It is a word now)

Pressure

Pain

These too are independent of each other. Factoid: Hot= Warm + Pain. Cold= Cool + Pain. We don't have a 'hot' or 'cold' sense, just warm or cool.

Hearing

Amplitude (loudness)

Frequency/ wavelength (pitch)

It is debated whether or not these two are independent. See Place Theory and Temporal Theory.

Phase (direction of incoming sound signal)

Changes in air pressure

Frosted Mini Wheats has the stupidest commercials on Earth

"Rebecca's Science Fair is on the 8th. She's presenting the solar system."

"Hey I've got just the whole grain fiber to keep her full so she stays focused."

Okay.

So a child of average intelligence can't be expected to remember the solar system on an empty stomach? Plus, it's a science fair, so chances are Rebecca probably has it written down somewhere on her presentation. And since Rebecca is too dim to not write it down somewhere on the presentation or she can't read it, then maybe the Mom should be getting her better help than talking cereal.

Clearly, Mom is displacing her sense of inadequacy as a mother she feels from her failure to get Rebecca the help she needs into some superstitious belief that Rebecca's mediocre academic performance is caused by hypoglycemia. (I bet she sees a chiropractor and doesn't give Rebecca vaccinations). If Mom were a responsible mother, she would confide her doubts about Rebecca's apparent cerebral deficit into someone more credentialed than a clumped collection of complex carbohydrates.

But for the record I flippin' love Frosted Mini Wheats.

Double X-Chromosome Syndrome

I've always been very interested in medicine, and I find genetic disorders are particularly fascinating. I've decided to make a blog post about a surprisingly common genetic mutation known as Double X-Chromosome Syndrome. Statistically, it is extremely likely that one of you, the readers, has this condition. My next blog post will be about the equally prevalent XY Chromosome Syndrome.

Double X-Chromosome Syndrome is a shockingly prevalent but little known gene disorder that is severely inhibiting to the affected individual, both physiologically and psychologically. It is easily detectable pre-natally with 99.9% accuracy.

Physically, Double X is debilitating in its effects on the individual. On average, sufferers are 15 cm (6 in) shorter than the average person. They posses significantly less muscle mass and have extremely low levels of testosterone. Hips develop disproportionately wide and alter the gait (walking stance) of the individual. It is interesting to note that the occipital lobe develops faster and is larger in volume than normal, resulting in enhanced color perception.

Despite enhancement in the occipital lobe, Double X wreaks havoc on the rest of the brain, especially the lymbic system. Subjects suffer from intense hormonal fluctuations which results in extreme emotional dysregulation. The motor and cerebral cortices typically never reach full development. This inhibits spacial reasoning and motor function, and as such, tasks such as driving a car come with great difficulty.

The Double X psyche has been studied since Freud's time, yet it has proved remarkably difficult to understand. To date, no study of the exceptionally unique Double X mind or its motivations has drawn reliable conclusions, because of the uncommonly complex, paradoxical, and unpredictable behavioral patterns associated with the condition.

In spite of the difficulties associated with Double X, an extraordinary amount of sufferers have nonetheless become productive, successful members of society. Notable examples include Susan B. Anthony, civil rights activist and Marie Curie, scientific pioneer.

Next week I will discuss the equally fascinating X/Y Chromosome Syndrome.

Idiots.

The glass is not half full. The glass is not half empty. The glass is 2x too tall. Idiots.

Women are not the fairer sex. There is nothing fair about it being our fault even if it's not our fault. Idiots.

If happiness is relative, then misery is in-law. Perfectly justified. Idiots.

Parents criticize children for watching unintelligent TV shows. Parents who grew up watching Looney Tunes and The Three Stooges. Idiots.

People ask me if I'm depressed because I don't show emotion. People ask me if I'm depressed because I don't need to dump my feelings on others to feel okay. Idiots.

People ask me if I'm gay because I like my job which happens to be 95% female. People ask me if I'm gay because I willingly go into a job surrounded by women. Idiots.

People refuse to build nuclear power plants because of potential radiation hazards. People play it safe by pumping bazillions of tons of toxic gases into the atmosphere every year. Idiots.

People ask me if I'm shy because I'm often alone. People ask me if I'm insecure because I don't need to be bolstered by friends to feel secure when I'm in a large group of unfamiliar people. Idiots.

I was told in school to stop questioning the Scientific Method . Idiots.

4 core requirements you must meet if you want to write for Cracked.com

Cracked.com is a humor website that relies on its readers to supply it with content. That means you, the one reading this, can be published and have your work seen by millions! Here are four tips for the aspiring Cracker to help you along your path to Crackdom.

4. Hate everything.

Every Cracked.com article is based upon the timeless paradigm of objectivity and condescending commentary. Appear as the candid observer, making note of any hypocrisy, shortcoming, or other weakness that is evident in the subject. Any tone of optimism or sympathy should be avoided at all costs, even if it means deflecting from possible holes in your argument with shameless profanity, crudeness, or ad homenim and straw-man attacks. Your goal as a Cracked.com contributor is to instill seething, festering hatred into the minds of your readers. Write with the intent to shock and offend. Slurs, profanity. cruelty, stereotypes, and otherwise pejorative phrases are an essential part of any Cracked.com article.

Images such as this are indispensable because of their extreme,

attention-catching, and offensive nature.

Never ever actively take a stand on a subject; your position should be entirely reactionary. Presenting an argument that is not predicated upon another's wrongness sets you up to be knocked down. Easily hate-able topics include religion, right-wing politics, concerned parents, and traditional morality. These topics are all great starting spots for the aspiring Cracked.com contributor.

3. Think simply.

According to the Cracked.com philosophy, any topic, no matter how complex it may be, is reducible into short, numbered lists. All information must fit into this rigid journalistic format:

Title: Number/ adjective/ subject noun/ nominative/ auxiliary verb /verb

Introduction/ broad generalization

Claim #3

Picture #3

---

Claim #2

Picture #2

---

Claim #1

Picture #1

...(and so on)

Profanity

2. Sound smart.

Portmanteaus, gerunds, allusions, jargon, and big words in general are all benefactors to your soon-to-be Cracked.com article. Aristotle knew what he was talking about when he proclaimed that logos (logic) was an indispensable part of a sound argument. Now, I can sense some of you are worried that you may not be able to gather facts supporting your article when you know that a cornerstone of Crack-dom is misinformation and falsehood. Despair not! The Internet is so full of bad information, crackpot theories, convoluted data and overall garbage that there's sure to be at least a few facts that will support your argument!

"There's got to be some statistics connecting the Bush

Administration and obesity rates in here somewhere."

1. Be ironic.

Remember: the main goal of Cracked.com is to piss people off. This is not satire like The Onion or The Colbert Report. All those are specifically designed to make you laugh, then make you think. Cracked.com is designed to make you laugh, then make you form a lynch mob. Irony is the supreme method of circumventing arguments against your article; your goal as a writer is to piss people off by exposing fallacious arguments, by using fallacious arguments. Poke fun at this blatant conflict throughout the article. Addressing it yourself makes it sound like it's 'case closed', so any time somebody points it out, you can react like a hipster who's asked about Arcade Fire- "Yeah, I know (scowl)." The humor the irony brings to the article will blast it into the stratosphere of funny.

"Yeah, I heard about Arcade Fire winning a Grammy or whatever.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to repair the brakes on my fixie."

Why don't we use nukes to save Japan?

Now that I have your attention, I would like to propose a method of preventing a good deal of damage from tsunami waves. It's called phase cancellation.

Phase what?

The phase of a wave refers to the direction its traveling in. The top illustration shows two waves that are traveling in opposite directions. The bottom shows the two waves traveling in the same direction.

For you mathy people, two waves traveling in opposite directions with the same amplitude and frequency are shifted 180 degrees or pi radians away from each other.

How does it work?

When the ups of one wave line up with the ups of another wave, resonance occurs (bottom picture), which means the resulting wave is twice as large as the two other waves. When the downs of one wave combine with the ups one one wave, they cancel each other out and the wave no longer exists (top picture).

This is the same technology used by Bose in their noise-canceling headphones.

So what about Japan?

In the case of the Tsunami in Japan, given enough advance warning, we could use explosives to set off waves of the same frequency of the tidal wave but headed straight at the epicenter to hopefully cancel out the wave. This may sound reckless and destructive, but it takes massive amounts of energy to stop a massive tidal wave. Nuclear bombs probably would be a bad idea to use because of radioactive fallout (unless we're all itching for nuclear disarmament), so we would probably use more conventional explosives.

Science nerds, read on. Non-Science nerds, read at your own risk.

According to the Law of Entropy, the bombs we set off would have to release more energy than the wave we're stopping, which would result in creating another tidal wave, which could be larger or smaller, depending on the effectiveness of the charges. We would have to find a way to direct all the energy from the blast within 180 degrees (a half circle) instead of in a full circle to do so safely, just like Bose can use a speaker to direct sound energy in only one direction in their noise-canceling headphones.

Since we presumably can't detonate a bomb on top of the epicenter as the earthquake is occurring, the best strategy would be to detonate the charges in near any landmasses that lay in the path of the tsunami. By doing so, we eliminate the possibility of completely cancelling out the wave. However, we would be able to coordinate the charges to create an 'envelope of safety' around a landmass by aligning the nodes of the wave around the landmass in question. Take a gander at the highly technical drawing below.

Useful Crap I Can't Remember and Useless Crap I Can Remember

Useless crap I can remember:

• Ethanol is the antidote for Methanol poisoning.
• Neckties were originally used as napkins of sort, but are now simply decorative (and completely useless).
• The vast majority of bacteria we come in contact with have no virulent effects on humans, yet we see it fit to kill all of them on our hands.
• Ketamine users often report experiencing unaccessible dimensions or rifts in space, known as 'the K-Hole'.
• Schizophrenia is thought to be caused by excess levels of dopamine in the brain.
• Serotonin levels play a direct role in one's perception of social status. Higher levels result from increased caloric intake which result from higher social status. Presumably.
• Facial symmetry is a primary factor when determining attractiveness. Very few people are aware of this.
• Friedrich Wohler, upon isolating Urea from urine, believed he had discovered an ethereal 'life force' due to Urea's faint glow.
• 75% of Neanderthal skeletons discovered have dental hypoplasia, which indicates significant malnutrition.
• The phase of a wave refers to the direction it travels in. Two waves can combine with different phases to produce different harmonics.
• Humans have the slowest growth rate of any known mammal.
• In their early days, electric vehicles were superior to gas-powered vehicles in terms of top speed, acceleration, cost, and reliability. Most likely big oil execs pushed for Americans to favor gasoline just to make money.
• Thomas Edison invented the first practical light bulb. The first lightbulb was invented 80 years prior to Edison's and used a platinum filament.
• Frederick Douglass was a strong advocate of women's rights.
• Neanderthals consumed around 8000 calories a day. Now that's the life.

Useful crap I can't remember

• Where I put my keys
• My class schedule
• Homework due dates
• Reading assignments
• My professors' names
• Hours the pool is open
• How to prepare food
• Today's date, and occasionally the current year
• My street address

Conclusion

I don't really remember what I was trying to get at. But I do know the hippocampus plays a role in memory encoding.

7 Ways Women Are Like Stars

They bring life and happiness to the universe, but must be kept at the right distance.

In the field of exobiology, scientists have determined that every solar system has a so-called Habitable Zone (aka Goldilocks Zone). The habitable zone is the distance a planet can be from the sun where it gets enough heat to support life, but not too much heat that would kill life.

They tend to group together.
Scientists have collected and analyzed data that indicates that as much as 85% of the solar systems in the universe have what is called a binary star system, which is a solar system that actually revolves around two stars that revolve around each other.

Things tend to revolve around them.

Most stars demonstrate a real knack for capturing passer-by's. An innocent comet could be just passing through, but the star's gravitational force captures it and the comet very well could spend the rest of its days orbiting that star.

Hot flashes.

About 5/7th of the way through its life cycle, it begins to heat up and expand, eventually turning into a red giant. When this occurs, it will typically engulf everything revolving around it in a raging sea of flame and destruction. Same with stars, too.

Everyone stops and looks when one of them falls.
Okay, you don't wish upon a falling chick, but you get the point.

They are oft studied and rarely understood.

Until recent times, nobody knew much about what stars were made of, or what governed their movements and actions. The movements of stars were so un-understandable and unpredictable that it took us until the 17th century A.D. to realize that the same laws of attraction apply on earth and in the stars.

The one nearest to you is the most exceptional.

It took astronomers millennia to figure out that the stars in the heavens are the same as our sun. It's not so irrational to think that our sun is different from all the others because its light blocks out all the light from every star in the universe when visible.

3 Reasons D.A.R.E. Sucks

Ah, yes, D.A.R.E., the wholesome, family friendly, drug 'education' program. What could possibly be bad about a program dedicated to preventing drug abuse and violence? Well, for brevity's sake, I'll just hit the main points.

1. D.A.R.E. gives false information about drugs.

After reviewing the information provided on D.A.R.E.'s website, as well as things I remember from when I was in school, most information is either false or contains misleading partial truths. Little or no information is given on different classes of drugs, their effects, or how dangerous different types are. Most D.A.R.E.-educated children don't know the difference between marijuana, meth, or inhalants. All they know is that DRUGS ARE DANGEROUS AND ADDICTING.

Take a look at this article. Marijuana is a for-profit drug? Wicked heathens! I'd much rather take some heroin from the compassionate, loving people at Merck or Astra-Zeneca than feed the money-lusting demons who only sell marijuana for profit! Newsflash, guys: all drugs are made for profit. It's called Capitalism. This is just one example of the slanted misinformation they feed children.

2. D.A.R.E. uses rhetoric and propaganda that doesn't address the actual issue of drug abuse.

Red ribbons. Stickers. Police cars. Coloring books. Flashy Police badges. Instead of simply providing facts about drugs so kids can be informed when they are exposed to drugs, they label drug users as evil, pernicious demons. They condition children to fear and hate drugs by using exaggeratedly graphic depictions of drugs. (I am well aware of the deleterious effects of certain drugs like meth and heroin. Marijuana? Not so much). They utilize a psychological phenomenon known as splitting; they make non-drug users look all good and drug users look all bad. This is also known as the "Us and Them" phenomenon.

This is the same kind of rhetoric used by the Hitler Youth. Before you write me off as being too dramatic, let's actually compare the structure of D.A.R.E. and the Hitler Youth.

• Both use splitting, as previously discussed.
• Both indoctrinate children into unquestioning belief through misinformation and half-truths.
• Both use bold, flashy logos and symbols to solidify support and engender a sense of unity against a common enemy. (Drug users/ ethnic minorities)
• Both use children as informants. (1984, anyone?)
• Both idolize the nation's police force. (Police /SS (It is worth noting that D.A.R.E. wasn't designed to usher children into the military or police (yes this is a parentheses inside a parentheses inside a parentheses- Inception)))

3. D.A.R.E. D.O.E.S. N.O.T. W.O.R.K

Nearly every study that has been conducted concerning D.A.R.E.'s effectiveness at reducing drug use has shown that it either has no effect or a negative effect. Yet somehow, this program is implemented in 75% of public schools nationwide. Taken from Wikipedia:

,

Studies

[edit]1992 - Indiana University

Researchers at Indiana University, commissioned by Indiana school officials in 1992, found that those who completed the D.A.R.E. program subsequently had significantly higher rates of hallucinogenic drug use than those not exposed to the program.^[11]

[edit]1994 - National Institute of Justice

Other researchers found D.A.R.E. to be counterproductive in 1994.^[12] In 1994, the National Institute of Justice published a summary^[13] of a study conducted by the Research Triangle Institute.^[14] The study suggested that D.A.R.E. would benefit from a revised curriculum. This was launched in the fall of 1994.

After the 1994 Research Triangle Institute study,^[13][14] an article in the New Times Los Angeles stated that the “organization spent $41,000 to try to prevent widespread distribution of the RTI report and started legal action aimed at squelching the study.”^[15] The director of publication of the American Journal of Public Health told USA Today that "D.A.R.E. has tried to interfere with the publication of this. They tried to intimidate us."^[16] After reporter Dennis Cauchon published a story questioning the effectiveness of D.A.R.E. in USA Today, he received letters from classrooms around the country, all addressed to "Dear D.A.R.E.-basher," and all using nearly identical language.^[16]

[edit]1995 - California Department of Education

In 1995, a report to the California Department of Education by Joel Brown Ph. D. stated that none of California's drug education programs worked, including D.A.R.E. "California's drug education programs, D.A.R.E. being the largest of them, simply don't work. More than 40 percent of the students told researchers they were 'not at all' influenced by drug educators or programs. Nearly 70 percent reported neutral to negative feelings about those delivering the antidrug (sic) message. While only 10 percent of elementary students responded to drug education negatively or indifferently, this figure grew to 33 percent of middle school students and topped 90 percent at the high school level." ^[17]

[edit]1998 - National Institute of Justice

In 1998, A grant from the National Institute of Justice to the University of Maryland resulted in a report to the NIJ, which among other statements, concluded that "D.A.R.E. does not work to reduce substance use."^[18] D.A.R.E. expanded and modified the social competency development area of its curriculum in response to the report. Research by Dr. Dennis Rosenbaum in 1998,^[19] found that D.A.R.E. graduates were more likely than others to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco and use illegal drugs. Psychologist Dr. William Colson asserted in 1998 that D.A.R.E. increased drug awareness so that "as they get a little older, they (students) become very curious about these drugs they've learned about from police officers."^[20] The scientific research evidence in 1998 indicated that the officers were unsuccessful in preventing the increased awareness and curiosity from being translated into illegal use. The evidence suggested that, by exposing young impressionable children to drugs, the program was, in fact, encouraging and nurturing drug use.^[21] Studies funded by the National Institute of Justice in 1998,^[18][22] and the California Legislative Analyst's Office in 2000^[23] also concluded that the program was ineffective.

[edit]1999 - American Psychological Association

A ten year study was completed by the American Psychological Association in 2006 involving one thousand D.A.R.E. graduates in an attempt to measure the effects of the program. After the ten year period no measurable effects were noted. The researchers compared levels of alcohol, cigarette, marijuana and the use of illegal substances before the D.A.R.E. program (when the students were in sixth grade) with the post D.A.R.E. levels (when they were 20 years old). Although there were some measured effects shortly after the program on the attitudes of the students towards drug use, these effects did not seem to carry on long term.^[24]

[edit]2001 - Surgeon General categorizes D.A.R.E. "Does Not Work"

In 2001, the Surgeon General of the United States, David Satcher M.D. Ph.D., placed the D.A.R.E. program in the category of "Does Not Work."^[6] The U.S. General Accountability Office concluded in 2003 that the program was sometimes counterproductive in some populations, with those who graduate from D.A.R.E. later having higher rates of drug use (a boomerang effect).^[25]

[edit]2007 - Perspectives on Psychological Science Article

In March 2007, the D.A.R.E. program was placed on a list of treatments that have the potential to cause harm in clients in the APS journal, Perspectives on Psychological Science.^[26]

CONCLUSION

This program is dysfunctional. This program is useless. This program blatantly ignores criticism and refuses to change its backwards ways. It preaches falsehoods and labels anyone opposing it an amoral, pernicious malice to society, even, *ahem, people who support abstinence from recreational drugs but reject their asinine propaganda in favor of actual facts. What are they smoking?!