Time is a strange thing. It flows constantly forward and you can't stop it. It's a juggernaut. A beast. A tank. It doesn't listen to anybody or anything.
Time is really annoying because whenever you want it to speed up, like when you're sitting in a bored class, time slows down to a crawl. Every time you check the clock, you feel 10 minutes have gone by, when only 30 seconds have gone by in reality. Or, if there's a huge event like an awesome party or sweet vacation the next day, you'll have trouble waiting for the time to pass.
However, if you are hard-pressed for time, you want time to slow down for you. But then, time starts accelerating to breakneck speeds. When you're taking an atrociously difficult test under extreme time constraints, time starts flying by. As you try and try to solve the problems, an hour goes by and time is called and you have to stop working. Or, if you're playing some awesome, intense video games, but you look up and already an hour has gone by.
Thus, I have discovered the time function: v(n) = k/n, where v is the how fast time is passing, n is how much you need the time, and k is some constant.
I think it's rather true. When you're cramming stuff right before, you wish you had just a few extra minutes, when you had an hour yesterday that you blew off because time was very unimportant at the time.
Actually, I think it has to do with how active your brain is. Your brain uses all of it's processing power to do stuff, and the unused power goes to "processing" time. So when you're very idle, your brain spends tons of resources doing nothing but thinking about time passing. That makes time really slow because you're always thinking about it. Then, when you're fully occupied, there is little to no brainpower going to processing time. So it will fly by because you're not thinking about it. Maybe during everyday mundane tasks, a second feels like a second, and that's the standard second that you feel. This brain idea even takes into account when you're tired or your brain is at suboptimal performance. If you're really sleepy, you don't have any processing power to do anything, so no matter what you're doing, time is flying by because you can't even think about time whether or not you wanted to.
Hence, I have discovered the brain-time function: v(b) = kb/B, where v is how fast you think time is going by, k is some other constant, b is how fast your brain is going, and B is your maximum brain speed at the moment.
So that's the paradox of time. Time is so rebellious and unsympathetic. It "deliberately" goes faster when you want it to slow down. Time antagonizes you for fun. It purposely goes slower when you want it to go faster. Anyway, none of what I just said has any scientific basis (as far as I know), so it's all just for fun! Hooray!
Friday, January 28, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Simplified English
Right now, English is one of the most complicated languages because it is so non-standard. If someone asked you to pronounce a word, you may or may not be able to do it because English pronunciations are so weird. However, if you only took a week of Spanish, you could pronounce every single word in that language. Chinese used to be very complex, too. But they simplified it down from Traditional to Simplified Chinese. Too bad it's still kind of complex, although their pronunciations in pin-yin are very easy to read.
Here's a famous question: How to you pronounce "ghoti"? The answer is the same way you pronounce "fish." As in enough, women, nation. How strange! It's no wonder kids have so much trouble learning spelling and speaking.
I think English should be simplified to be a phonetic language, or as close to one as possible. For starters, the letter "C" should be entirely removed from the alphabet. It only serves one purpose: to make the "CH" sound, which maybe should get it's own character. Or, it can just stay and become one of those rarely-used letters like "j", "q", "x", and "z". Maybe "KH" can be used to substitute for the old "CH" sound.
"G" will lose it's soft sound, which is when it sounds like a "J". The "G" should GO let the "J" do it's own JOB! That way, there will be less confusion.
The vowels can still retain their hard and soft sounds, but they should get an accent, a bar, or some other tone marking to show that it is a hard sound (or soft sound -- which ever occurs less in the English language... I'll have to ask a professional language guy).
Now, the alphabet can also be changed to something I called "Simplified English." All the letters are still the same, but now they look different. All of them can now be drawn in one stroke -- no more lifting the pen to dot your "I"s or cross you "T"s. However, if accents are added, it may present a problem because accents would need another stroke. Since it's so standard now, all characters are drawn from top to bottom (or left to right if the endpoints are at the same height, as in the case of the capital letter "A"). They also take less ink to write. Have a look:
As much as I hate to admit it, there are some faults to this. Since the letters are more minimalist, it can sometimes be harder to distinguish between letters. That means the already-messy handwriting for some will become a total disaster in Simplified English. Of course, there can be some slight alterations, such as the curling of the tails on the "g" and "y", but overall, I'd say the letters can't change much. Also, this system has rather poor compatibility with math because the "B" now looks like "3", the "I" and "l" both look like "1", the "O" looks like a "0", and the "Z" looks like a "2". Also, a system in the English language already exists to make writing faster and supposedly easier: cursive.
However, the biggest problem with this whole idea is that change is difficult. The entire world now basically speaks English -- it's the Earth's planetary language now! If aliens came down and asked what language we all spoke, we'd probably say English. So that means we'd have to effect that massive change on basically everyone. I remember some talk about creating a universal language a while ago, but it didn't go through. Obviously, some people didn't feel the need or desire to learn another new language. Revising the English language is probably more difficult than reforming Chinese because many people are learning English as their second language, which means they have to re-learn a language they are currently learning. On the other hand, everyone in China spoke Chinese, so they all changed their first language, which was probably easier for them. It also was not on a global scale.
Another problem of converting to an entirely phonetic language is that there are a ton of homophones in English. These are words that sound the same, so they are only distinguished by their different spellings. Now, all the homophones will combine into one spelling, making it probably a bit more difficult to figure out what certain text is actually saying. People will need to be more adept readers who can use context clues to figure out what meaning of the word it actually is.
Even though this whole idea is pretty preposterous, you should try writing in Simplified English sometime. After reading this through, try reading the first paragraph in Simplified English (an accent means that it is a hard vowel sound):
Rít now, Inglish is won of thé móst komplex lánguijes békuz it is só non-standerd. If sumwon askd yú tú prónows a werd, yú má or má not bé abl tú dú it békuz Inglish prónowséáshins ar só wérd. Howevr, if yú ónlé tuk a wék of Spanish, yú kud prónows evré singul werd in that lánguij. ...
It was so hard just to translate those few sentences from English to Simplified English -- I didn't even write out the new characters and it was still a massive pain. New "Simplified English Keyboards" might have to be made so that accents are easier to type (the Spaniards would surely love that!). Now that kind of thing would stop people from even trying to learn it. I don't even know if I translated it 100% correct. I probably left out an accent here or there or broke one of the rules.
Even though I think this is a pretty good idea for an idealized world (or a very small population), it has no place in the real world. It's just cool to think about it. What do you think? Would it be a good idea to switch to Simplified English?
Here's a famous question: How to you pronounce "ghoti"? The answer is the same way you pronounce "fish." As in enough, women, nation. How strange! It's no wonder kids have so much trouble learning spelling and speaking.
I think English should be simplified to be a phonetic language, or as close to one as possible. For starters, the letter "C" should be entirely removed from the alphabet. It only serves one purpose: to make the "CH" sound, which maybe should get it's own character. Or, it can just stay and become one of those rarely-used letters like "j", "q", "x", and "z". Maybe "KH" can be used to substitute for the old "CH" sound.
"G" will lose it's soft sound, which is when it sounds like a "J". The "G" should GO let the "J" do it's own JOB! That way, there will be less confusion.
The vowels can still retain their hard and soft sounds, but they should get an accent, a bar, or some other tone marking to show that it is a hard sound (or soft sound -- which ever occurs less in the English language... I'll have to ask a professional language guy).
Now, the alphabet can also be changed to something I called "Simplified English." All the letters are still the same, but now they look different. All of them can now be drawn in one stroke -- no more lifting the pen to dot your "I"s or cross you "T"s. However, if accents are added, it may present a problem because accents would need another stroke. Since it's so standard now, all characters are drawn from top to bottom (or left to right if the endpoints are at the same height, as in the case of the capital letter "A"). They also take less ink to write. Have a look:
As much as I hate to admit it, there are some faults to this. Since the letters are more minimalist, it can sometimes be harder to distinguish between letters. That means the already-messy handwriting for some will become a total disaster in Simplified English. Of course, there can be some slight alterations, such as the curling of the tails on the "g" and "y", but overall, I'd say the letters can't change much. Also, this system has rather poor compatibility with math because the "B" now looks like "3", the "I" and "l" both look like "1", the "O" looks like a "0", and the "Z" looks like a "2". Also, a system in the English language already exists to make writing faster and supposedly easier: cursive.
However, the biggest problem with this whole idea is that change is difficult. The entire world now basically speaks English -- it's the Earth's planetary language now! If aliens came down and asked what language we all spoke, we'd probably say English. So that means we'd have to effect that massive change on basically everyone. I remember some talk about creating a universal language a while ago, but it didn't go through. Obviously, some people didn't feel the need or desire to learn another new language. Revising the English language is probably more difficult than reforming Chinese because many people are learning English as their second language, which means they have to re-learn a language they are currently learning. On the other hand, everyone in China spoke Chinese, so they all changed their first language, which was probably easier for them. It also was not on a global scale.
Another problem of converting to an entirely phonetic language is that there are a ton of homophones in English. These are words that sound the same, so they are only distinguished by their different spellings. Now, all the homophones will combine into one spelling, making it probably a bit more difficult to figure out what certain text is actually saying. People will need to be more adept readers who can use context clues to figure out what meaning of the word it actually is.
Even though this whole idea is pretty preposterous, you should try writing in Simplified English sometime. After reading this through, try reading the first paragraph in Simplified English (an accent means that it is a hard vowel sound):
Rít now, Inglish is won of thé móst komplex lánguijes békuz it is só non-standerd. If sumwon askd yú tú prónows a werd, yú má or má not bé abl tú dú it békuz Inglish prónowséáshins ar só wérd. Howevr, if yú ónlé tuk a wék of Spanish, yú kud prónows evré singul werd in that lánguij. ...
It was so hard just to translate those few sentences from English to Simplified English -- I didn't even write out the new characters and it was still a massive pain. New "Simplified English Keyboards" might have to be made so that accents are easier to type (the Spaniards would surely love that!). Now that kind of thing would stop people from even trying to learn it. I don't even know if I translated it 100% correct. I probably left out an accent here or there or broke one of the rules.
Even though I think this is a pretty good idea for an idealized world (or a very small population), it has no place in the real world. It's just cool to think about it. What do you think? Would it be a good idea to switch to Simplified English?
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
LaTeX
I found out about LaTeX last year (oh wait -- 2009's two years ago now!). It's similar to Word in that it makes typed documents, but it's really not the same.
Microsoft Word is a WYSIWYG (What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get) program, meaning that whatever is currently displayed on the screen is exactly what you're getting. If you hit the print button, it will print out the document for you, as it is shown on the screen.
However, LaTeX is like programming. You type in "code" that tells the program what kind of document to create and what text, pictures, and other stuff to include in it. Then, you "build" your document, similar to compiling code in a programming language like C#. It can output to several different file formats, but I prefer the PDF because it is so universal and widely used.
There are a few advantages of this:
Now that you're totally excited and want to try this out, you probably want to know how to get it on your computer! Luckily, it's really easy.
First, download and install MiKTeX, which includes all the files you'll need to format these documents and build them from the ground up. I recommend going to http://miktex.org/ and downloading the latest version. You can either get the Basic or Complete setup. It's barely worth mentioning due to the obviousness, but the Basic setup will take less time to install than the full thing. NOTE: Remember what folder you installed MiKTeX to because you'll need to reference that folder later!
Now that you have the files that form the backbone, we need some User Interface. TeXnicCenter was created to work with MiKTeX and make your job as easy as possible. Go to http://www.texniccenter.org/resources/downloads to download it, and again, get the latest stable version.
This one should install pretty quickly, so just follow the prompts. When it's done, run the program, and it will give you a wizard to help you set it up. It will ask for the location of the executables, so go to your install folder to MiKTeX, and find the a folder called "miktex". In that folder, there's another folder called "bin". Copy the entire address of this folder and put it into the prompt for the path to the executable files. You can leave everything else blank.
If you screw up, then you can just open up TeXnicCenter and go to "Build" --> "Define Output Profiles..." (or Alt + F7), and click "Wizard..." at the bottom-left corner of the dialog window that pops up. Now you can try again!
After you set it up correctly, it's all yours to play with. First, you should change the dropdown menu to say "LaTeX => PDF" unless you want to build to some other format. I like to rearrange the toolbars so that they only take up 2 rows at the top. Then, I close the "Navigator" on the left side so I can have more screen space. It's all up to you to do what you want to make it as nice as possible. You might want to play with the options in the "Tools" menu.
Now you can create your first document. I recommend that you start with this as a template, since LaTeX needs a few things before you can actually type out your stuff. Here's the code that you can use:
\documentclass[12pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage[margin=2.5cm]{geometry}
\begin{document}
\title{}
\author{}
\maketitle
\end{document}
In the blank line, you can start typing out your document. You can put your title in the brackets after "\title" and your name in the brackets after "\author". If you don't want a cool, fancy header, you can just delete the lines between (but not including) "\begin{document}" and "\end{document}".
Now you have to build an output file. Just go to the "Build" menu and then use the things there. A few nice shortcuts are [Ctrl + Shift + F5] to build and view the output, [F7] to just build the file, and [F5] to just view the output.
That was just a very brief introduction to the world of LaTeX. I'm not a complete pro at this, but I'll probably make a post in the future about how to do the basics.
Have fun making professional-looking PDF documents now!
Microsoft Word is a WYSIWYG (What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get) program, meaning that whatever is currently displayed on the screen is exactly what you're getting. If you hit the print button, it will print out the document for you, as it is shown on the screen.
However, LaTeX is like programming. You type in "code" that tells the program what kind of document to create and what text, pictures, and other stuff to include in it. Then, you "build" your document, similar to compiling code in a programming language like C#. It can output to several different file formats, but I prefer the PDF because it is so universal and widely used.
There are a few advantages of this:
- The document after it is processed appears much more professional, and uses advanced typesetting algorithms and such. For example, if there are two "f" letters in a row, they are supposed to be connected. Of course, Word doesn't do this for you, but LaTeX will.
- Although you can make Word documents into PDFs, it's not automatic whereas PDF files can be opened anywhere. The code can be edited with a simple text editor, such as the feature-empty Notepad that comes with Windows.
- You can even use online compilers, (just Google : "Online LaTeX Compiler"). That means you can do your stuff anywhere you want.
- LaTeX is designed especially for writing professional-looking reports, including scientific ones. As such, processing code for math typesetting (like the fraction bar, nested radicals, and Greek letters).
- You're learning how to use a handy tool that you might have to use when you go to college (or whenever you do professional science work).
Now that you're totally excited and want to try this out, you probably want to know how to get it on your computer! Luckily, it's really easy.
First, download and install MiKTeX, which includes all the files you'll need to format these documents and build them from the ground up. I recommend going to http://miktex.org/ and downloading the latest version. You can either get the Basic or Complete setup. It's barely worth mentioning due to the obviousness, but the Basic setup will take less time to install than the full thing. NOTE: Remember what folder you installed MiKTeX to because you'll need to reference that folder later!
Now that you have the files that form the backbone, we need some User Interface. TeXnicCenter was created to work with MiKTeX and make your job as easy as possible. Go to http://www.texniccenter.org/resources/downloads to download it, and again, get the latest stable version.
This one should install pretty quickly, so just follow the prompts. When it's done, run the program, and it will give you a wizard to help you set it up. It will ask for the location of the executables, so go to your install folder to MiKTeX, and find the a folder called "miktex". In that folder, there's another folder called "bin". Copy the entire address of this folder and put it into the prompt for the path to the executable files. You can leave everything else blank.
If you screw up, then you can just open up TeXnicCenter and go to "Build" --> "Define Output Profiles..." (or Alt + F7), and click "Wizard..." at the bottom-left corner of the dialog window that pops up. Now you can try again!
After you set it up correctly, it's all yours to play with. First, you should change the dropdown menu to say "LaTeX => PDF" unless you want to build to some other format. I like to rearrange the toolbars so that they only take up 2 rows at the top. Then, I close the "Navigator" on the left side so I can have more screen space. It's all up to you to do what you want to make it as nice as possible. You might want to play with the options in the "Tools" menu.
Now you can create your first document. I recommend that you start with this as a template, since LaTeX needs a few things before you can actually type out your stuff. Here's the code that you can use:
\documentclass[12pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage[margin=2.5cm]{geometry}
\begin{document}
\title{}
\author{}
\maketitle
\end{document}
In the blank line, you can start typing out your document. You can put your title in the brackets after "\title" and your name in the brackets after "\author". If you don't want a cool, fancy header, you can just delete the lines between (but not including) "\begin{document}" and "\end{document}".
Now you have to build an output file. Just go to the "Build" menu and then use the things there. A few nice shortcuts are [Ctrl + Shift + F5] to build and view the output, [F7] to just build the file, and [F5] to just view the output.
That was just a very brief introduction to the world of LaTeX. I'm not a complete pro at this, but I'll probably make a post in the future about how to do the basics.
Have fun making professional-looking PDF documents now!
Monday, January 3, 2011
SparkNotes Compiler-Extractor
Ever find yourself in an English class in which the the text you're supposed to read is borderline incomprehensible? Or if you're "that guy" who always needs to read supplement texts AFTER reading the original to make sure you have complete mastery of what you were supposed to read?
Either way, you probably read the SparkNotes. Maybe you want to print them out and bring them to school so you can have a look at them in class. Maybe your teacher is so magnanimous that he/she lets you use your notes on tests and/or quizzes.
If you fall in any of those categories, then you can find use in the SparkNotes Compiler/Extractor. (If you're in middle school, you might not need this, but once you get into high school, SparkNotes will become your good friend, especially if you take higher-level English courses. Or if you're just completely lazy.) This way, you don't have to manually copy-and-paste the text (and waste a lot of time) for every SparkNotes page for every book that you're supposed to be reading.
I'd say that this program is pretty self-explanatory, but I'm the one who wrote it, so I'd think it's easy to use no matter what, right? Here's a quick run-through of how to use the program. You might want to just download and try the program first, and come back and read the rest of this post if you don't get it.
When you download the file ("SparkNotes Compiler-Extractor.zip"), you should extract the ZIP archive to wherever you want. In your unzipped folder, you should have 6 items (in no particular order):
Either way, you probably read the SparkNotes. Maybe you want to print them out and bring them to school so you can have a look at them in class. Maybe your teacher is so magnanimous that he/she lets you use your notes on tests and/or quizzes.
If you fall in any of those categories, then you can find use in the SparkNotes Compiler/Extractor. (If you're in middle school, you might not need this, but once you get into high school, SparkNotes will become your good friend, especially if you take higher-level English courses. Or if you're just completely lazy.) This way, you don't have to manually copy-and-paste the text (and waste a lot of time) for every SparkNotes page for every book that you're supposed to be reading.
I'd say that this program is pretty self-explanatory, but I'm the one who wrote it, so I'd think it's easy to use no matter what, right? Here's a quick run-through of how to use the program. You might want to just download and try the program first, and come back and read the rest of this post if you don't get it.
When you download the file ("SparkNotes Compiler-Extractor.zip"), you should extract the ZIP archive to wherever you want. In your unzipped folder, you should have 6 items (in no particular order):
- SparknotesCompiler.cs -- This is the source code for the program. You can open it, read it, change it, and basically do anything you want with it except sell it!
- c_SparknotesCompiler.bat -- Run this file to compile SparknotesCompiler.cs if you make any changes to the source code.
- SparknotesCompiler.exe -- This is the actual program. Run this program.
- SparkNotes.dotx -- This is a word template I created just for these SparkNotes. You just open the HTM document generated by Sparknotes.exe, copy all the text, and paste it into this template. There's more to it, so read on.
- SparkNotes.bas -- This is a Word macro for fixing up the formatting in your document. You'll find out more about this further down the post.
- styles.css -- This CSS file is needed for the generated HTM files to display correctly. NOTE: The HTM files that are generated must be put in the same folder as the styles.css file!
Now you can compile/extract a SparkNotes! First, run SparknotesCompiler.exe. The first prompt wants you to complete a URL. Let's compile Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, for example. To get SparkNotes's URL for that certain book, just Google it: "SparkNotes Heart of Darkness". Probably the first one will be a link to it. You can either click it or just use the web address that you see: "www.sparknotes.com/lit/heart". All you have to fill out is the end of this URL, so type into the program: "lit/heart" and press [ENTER].
NOTE: If you get a URL like "http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/heart/section1.html", then just take out anything after the book's (probably abbreviated) name in the URL. Also, don't include the forward-slash at the end, like the program tells you in case you didn't read it because you don't like to follow directions.
If you're just a normal user, then I recommend you just leave all the files extracted in the same folder, meaning that you shouldn't move them around and separate them. You can move the entire folder if you want, just not the individual files. That way, it helps keeps styles.css in the same folder as your HTM files.
When the program prompts you for a name, you should just enter the name without a path, such as "Heart of Darkness" or "Heart of Darkness - Conrad" or something like that. Do not include the ".HTM" extension at the end; only put in the name. Any characters not allowed in a normal file name are not allowed here. The program will crash if you try something funny.
Now the program will start listing a whole bunch of URLs that it has finished getting the data from. It'll tell you how long it took. If you want to view the generated file right now, then press [ENTER] when the program is done (and gives you the prompt). Otherwise just close it and maybe look at your SparkNotes later.
If you want a Word document version, then you have to do some work yourself (don't worry, it's pretty easy -- I already did most of it for you!). First, you open up a new document based on SparkNotes.dotx by double-clicking it. Then, you copy and paste in the text from your HTM document. Remember to paste in the good-looking stuff that you normally read, not the HTML source code. I'd fix up the formatting at the top a bit so that the book's title and author's name take up less space, but that's just my personal preference. Next, you should change the name in the header (on the second page) to display the correct book title and author name in the corresponding places.
Here's something you might learn now: Word macros. If you don't know what they are, it's OK because I already made it for you. Because this post is already so long, I won't post the actual code here.
Here are the instructions for Word 2007. If you have a different version of Word, it's probably pretty similar. First, go to "View' on the ribbon and click "Macros" --> "View Macros" on the right. Or, Alt - W - M - V is the Office 2007 shortcut for you. Then, type in the name of the macro we're going to use. For this one, I recommend something like "SparkNotes". Then click the "Create" button. It'll bring up this code screen. But don't be afraid! Click "File" --> "Import File..." and navigate to the folder where this program is. Select "SparkNotes.bas". Save and close the code window and go back to your Word document. Go view your macros again. This time, select "SparkNotes" and click "Run". It will format your document for you. I think that you only have to do this once, because it will save the macro with Word. How useful! You don't have to save this word document with the rest of the HTM files, styles.css, and the other files because Word has it's own independent formatting now. It has no dependencies on other files!
If you're OK with a Word document (which you probably are), then you're fine. If you want to make a PDF out of it, I recommend that you get CutePDF Writer. It's a great, easy-to-install, free tool. You can save/move the PDF files anywhere you want, just like the Word documents. Just remember to keep the 6 downloaded files and the generated HTM files together!
That's all... it was pretty easy, wasn't it? You didn't need those instructions -- you probably think I am insulting your intelligence right now!
If you didn't find the link in that massive bulk of text above, here it is again:
Sunday, January 2, 2011
25-Hour Day
What would happen if the day had 25 hours? Numerically, 25 is a perfect square, and in the decimal system, we really like multiples of 5. However, 24 also has it's merits: it's divisible by many more numbers than 25 is.
I'm not talking about magically increasing the length of the day into 25 hours. I was thinking of decreasing the length of the hour from 60.0 minutes to 57.6 minutes. Then, we could change the minute so that there are still 60 minutes in an hour, thus reducing the minute's length to 57.6 seconds. After that, we can readjust the second, which is a metric unit. Or, we could change it so that there are 50 minutes in an hour, another move towards the decimal system since 50 is much more "decimal" than 60. Maybe we should just leave it as 57.6 minutes in an hour and not readjust all of the other time units because science would be in an uproar if an SI unit got changed. Everything would still be the same dimensionally, but it would all be off numerically.
What would people do with that false "extra" hour? Maybe they feel like that they have more time, even though they don't. Some might sleep in; others might play video games; even others might some find something useful to do.
Would people notice that each hour is shorter? Every hour is shortened by 4% to make time for the extra hour. That's 2.4 minutes chopped off of each normal hour. I think that most people will notice at the beginning, but then they will begin to adjust to the new time.
Would the illusory "extra" hour actually work? There are a few inherent problems with this system. The first is the most obvious. What if only some people adopt the new system? Then it would start another one of those metric-vs.-customary battles. Also, 57.6 minutes in each hour seems kind of odd, and as I mentioned earlier, changing the physical quantity of a second may not be a good idea.
Even if everybody took the new system, it would make everybody's hours seem more rushed since they are actually shorter, making the everybody, who are already going at break-neck speed, even faster (and maybe more efficient). Short activities, such as half-hour exercises or one-hour classes would only be shortened by 1.2 and 2.4 minutes, respectively. That's next to unnoticeable, when you consider all the small things that can cause such a fluctuation. However, when you consider things that take up a significant chunk of time, such as sleeping, school, or work, which all take around 8 hours each, they will all lose 19.2 minutes, which seems small compared to the 8 hours, but it's like getting out of school or work 20 minutes earlier each day. Also, it would make the recommended 8 hour nighttime rest be only 7 hours + 40 minutes. Maybe people would learn to adjust to that, but it might not actually be healthy.
Are there any real benefits? Considering that 20 of the extra minutes in the day come from losing sleep, it means that if you still want your 8-hour beauty-sleep, then you would only get 40 minutes. It's still a significant amount of time for you to kick back and relax or do something you've always wanted to do.
All considered, the only thing that the new 25-hour day would accomplish is make everything go faster, and likely make everyone more stressed out (unless everybody uses the extra hour for relaxation). They'd all learn to be 4.167% more efficient to make their work-time efforts still the same as the normal 8-hour workday. Maybe it's a good idea; maybe it's not. What do you think?
I'm not talking about magically increasing the length of the day into 25 hours. I was thinking of decreasing the length of the hour from 60.0 minutes to 57.6 minutes. Then, we could change the minute so that there are still 60 minutes in an hour, thus reducing the minute's length to 57.6 seconds. After that, we can readjust the second, which is a metric unit. Or, we could change it so that there are 50 minutes in an hour, another move towards the decimal system since 50 is much more "decimal" than 60. Maybe we should just leave it as 57.6 minutes in an hour and not readjust all of the other time units because science would be in an uproar if an SI unit got changed. Everything would still be the same dimensionally, but it would all be off numerically.
What would people do with that false "extra" hour? Maybe they feel like that they have more time, even though they don't. Some might sleep in; others might play video games; even others might some find something useful to do.
Would people notice that each hour is shorter? Every hour is shortened by 4% to make time for the extra hour. That's 2.4 minutes chopped off of each normal hour. I think that most people will notice at the beginning, but then they will begin to adjust to the new time.
Would the illusory "extra" hour actually work? There are a few inherent problems with this system. The first is the most obvious. What if only some people adopt the new system? Then it would start another one of those metric-vs.-customary battles. Also, 57.6 minutes in each hour seems kind of odd, and as I mentioned earlier, changing the physical quantity of a second may not be a good idea.
Even if everybody took the new system, it would make everybody's hours seem more rushed since they are actually shorter, making the everybody, who are already going at break-neck speed, even faster (and maybe more efficient). Short activities, such as half-hour exercises or one-hour classes would only be shortened by 1.2 and 2.4 minutes, respectively. That's next to unnoticeable, when you consider all the small things that can cause such a fluctuation. However, when you consider things that take up a significant chunk of time, such as sleeping, school, or work, which all take around 8 hours each, they will all lose 19.2 minutes, which seems small compared to the 8 hours, but it's like getting out of school or work 20 minutes earlier each day. Also, it would make the recommended 8 hour nighttime rest be only 7 hours + 40 minutes. Maybe people would learn to adjust to that, but it might not actually be healthy.
Are there any real benefits? Considering that 20 of the extra minutes in the day come from losing sleep, it means that if you still want your 8-hour beauty-sleep, then you would only get 40 minutes. It's still a significant amount of time for you to kick back and relax or do something you've always wanted to do.
All considered, the only thing that the new 25-hour day would accomplish is make everything go faster, and likely make everyone more stressed out (unless everybody uses the extra hour for relaxation). They'd all learn to be 4.167% more efficient to make their work-time efforts still the same as the normal 8-hour workday. Maybe it's a good idea; maybe it's not. What do you think?
Saturday, January 1, 2011
New Year's Resolutions
Happy New Year's, everyone! Now that 2011 is here, we all are ready to make our resolutions for the new year. Of course, many of us have huge lists that are possible only through divine intervention. However, I think the best idea is a list of 3 items:
- Something you can do for others, such as:
- Volunteering. Many organizations, such as hospitals and children's camps, are in constant need of volunteers. Even though you may not always feel like you're doing a lot, your time and efforts to help the community can really make a difference in someone else's life.
- Forming a club. You and your friends can all start a club around some common interest, such as music, books, or art.
- Being nice to someone. Maybe you should try being nice to your siblings!
- Helping around the house. Your parents would really appreciate it if you would actually help them with the many things that need to be done around the house.
- Saying "please" and "thank you." Manners are always important, and everyone should learn how to be polite. Building those people skills is just as important as building those academic skills.
- Something you can do for yourself, such as:
- Learning something new. Maybe you want to learn how to play an instrument, how to program, or even how to touch type.
- Getting organized. If you're a messy person, maybe this is the year to change that bad habit. You may also want to consider keeping a calendar (electronic or paper both work) so that you will know when stuff happens.
- Using correct spelling and grammar. It's kind of annoying (and makes you look dumb) if you're past middle school and you don't know "how 2 spel or uzing kurekt gramar."
- Building a good habit. These habits are either your best friends or worst enemies, depending on whether it's a good or bad habit. You might want to remember to turn off your lights this year. Or eat breakfast every day. Or drive safely. Or be on time.
- A long-term project. Do something you've always wanted/needed to do before. You could renovate the house or finish the basement. You could learn to build a computer. You could read a book series. The possibilities are endless!
- "I will follow through on my New Year's Resolutions." Or something similar. Everyone has such great goals for themselves, but it's so sad that a very small percentage of them go through. It's almost a ritual: January - create resolutions, February - stop doing resolutions, March - forget resolutions, April - wait until next year to set new ones. Maybe doing 2 smaller things each year every year is better than having a gargantuan list all to be done in one year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)