The moon landing was a hoax, global warming isn't real, aliens have taken over Area Fifty-One, and the Holocaust never happened. If we keep this up, soon there'll be a conspiracy theory about how 9/11 was actually planned and co-ordinated by George W. Bu--
Oh God.
All the above conspiracy theories are completely and totally rational - as long as you have no prior experience with the irritatingly real real world and don't dig too deep. (Read: Below the first layer of evidence.) If aliens were to actually take over Area Fifty-One, chances are we would have heard about it by now. The truth: yours truly the Government is testing top secret aircraft. As for global warming not being real, ice cores beg to differ. The truth: people want to say it's not happening because doing nothing is easier if you think you're not killing your own race in the future. The moon landing? Well, we have two rovers on MARS, which is that much farther away, constantly sending video to us of what they're doing. I'm sure if we can put so much as a pebble on Mars, we can get a man on the moon. You can take a step if you can leap a mile.
The Holocaust conspiracy: The Jews wanted to benefit at the expense of others. Let's take a look at what I just said, shall we?
The Jews wanted to benefit at the expense of others. To accomplish this, they starved and massacred themselves even though they had absolutely no certainty they would benefit from it. That sounds quite rat-- what the $#!@ are you thinking?!
Two Americans have a conversation about how to rip off Europe.
John: Hey, let's go kill six million Americans so Europe will give us stuff! :D
Joe: Yeah, that sounds like a great idea! :D
Do you really think anyone in America would put up for this? Do you think they would have even managed 6,000 before the whole US army is waiting for them wherever they go? Do you think I'm not going to address the counter-argument of the deaths being faked?
If you said "no, no, and no" then you're absolutely correct. There's no way I would just let two strangers walk up to me, say "Hey, we're going to kill you so Europe will give us stuff :D", and not do my best to defend myself. Multiply that by hundreds of people, and they're both in jail already.
As for it being a total lie and no one actually did die... Note: These cannot be unseen, unless you have no soul.
There's an enormous hole. It's got hundreds of bodies in it.
A mound of bodies in it. The people were so starved you can almost literally see their bones through the skin.
Presumably an 'order' of Jews, killed on schedule, in a gas chamber.
Each one of those people were living, thinking human beings with three-dimensional personalities. Unless you live in a supercity like Beijing, New York, or Los Angeles, chances are your city ranks nowhere near six million people. Everyone in the city you live in would probably have to die more than once to even be within an order of magnitude of six million. A thousand people dying can't even be grasped by the human brain. How much further removed must six million people be?
Oh, and the Pearl Harbor bombing is a conspiracy too. I'm sure the USA just decided "Yeah, okay, we weren't in the war but now we're going to drop a nuclear bomb on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki!"
Do conspiracy theorists just look for the biggest thing in recent history and yell "FAKE!"?
Minecraft II
My last blog post was a disorganized blog post on the subject of Minecraft. (Sorry about that, I didn't use Preview as much as I should have.) I used to play vanilla (unmodded) Minecraft (which I'll call the V), but recently I installed the Technic Pack to add a little something to my worlds.
The V 1.0.0 has three 'planes', of which only two are officially named. The two which are officially named are the Nether and the End. The unnamed plane, on which the player spawns and respawns, is the Unnamed (under which is the Void). I named this plane the World, in keeping with the Trend. I'll start there first.
The World is the first place any save will have, and the place most people will spend their time in. Most mods focus on editing this plane, and this is the only plane which has ores in the V. However, it's also arguably the most dangerous plane the V has to offer, with creepers, skeletons, spiders, and zombies, along with the occasional Enderman. Since this is the only place in the V which offers ores to mine, any players who want to explore the other planes will have to spend extensive time in their mines here. While mining down to find lava to enter the Nether, a player may accidentally find a hole in the Bedrock and find the Void.
The Void isn't an actual plane of Minecraft, more of an accident. It's caused by falling through holes in the Bedrock layer of Minecraft, and will in fact kill the player quite rapidly - destroying any items they drop after they die. The Void lies under the World and is strictly the same plane. If I recall correctly, there is now a solid floor of Bedrock at the bottom layer of the map, regardless of the terrain generator, making it impossible to fall into the Void in the V.
Near the Void is lava, occuring in all naturally-occuring air pockets at the tenth layer of the map and lower. Lava is required to make Obsidian, which is in turn required to make a Nether portal, a rectangular four-by-five doorway-type structure which, when lit on fire, forms a bluish-purple thick layer of liquid-type material. If the player stands in this substance for a period of about three seconds, they enter the Nether, the least dangerous of the three realms (which is ironic, considering its Hellish nature.) The only threats which can be found in the Nether are the Ghasts and the Zombie Pigmen. As the Zombie Pigmen are neutral (passive until attacked), they're no threat - unless you hit one, in which case you should probably RUN.
As for the Ghasts, their gigantic size may intimidate the player at first... but they have truly awful aim and weak firepower. The Ghast fireball can't break through stone, but it can deactivate portals and destroy weaker materials. However, the Ghast is still one of the scarier mobs of Minecraft. Worse, it can go through blocks, meaning walls won't stop it. It can literally drift into your house and start shooting at you.
Possibly the hardest of the three planes to get into is the End, home to the Endermen and the Enderdragon. To get to the End requires around sixteen Ender pearls. Not only does one have to activate an only partially activated Ender portal by placing Ender pearls in the deactivated slots, but one also has to locate a Stronghold with such an Ender portal in it ... a portal which could be potentially miles away. Once one has successfully found and activated this portal, they appear in the End with only a small Obsidian ledge to stand on, and hundreds of Endermen below on a giant floating island of stone. The End is the inverse of the Nether - instead of enormous pockets of air surrounded by stone, the End is filled with enormous pockets of stone surrounded by air.
I have myself been to two of these four areas legitimately - the World and the Nether. As for my plans to enter the Void, I have better things to do in Minecraft than die. The End is on my list of places to visit in Minecraft, although it seems unlikely I'll get there soon. I have much, much more essential things to do in Minecraft than gather sixteen Ender pearls.
There's also an unofficial fourth plane which follows the Trend, called the Aether. I've never installed the Aether mod, so I can't give a description of it. I plan to try it sometime, but I don't know when. As for my worlds, that will have to wait for another post!
The V 1.0.0 has three 'planes', of which only two are officially named. The two which are officially named are the Nether and the End. The unnamed plane, on which the player spawns and respawns, is the Unnamed (under which is the Void). I named this plane the World, in keeping with the Trend. I'll start there first.
The World is the first place any save will have, and the place most people will spend their time in. Most mods focus on editing this plane, and this is the only plane which has ores in the V. However, it's also arguably the most dangerous plane the V has to offer, with creepers, skeletons, spiders, and zombies, along with the occasional Enderman. Since this is the only place in the V which offers ores to mine, any players who want to explore the other planes will have to spend extensive time in their mines here. While mining down to find lava to enter the Nether, a player may accidentally find a hole in the Bedrock and find the Void.
The Void isn't an actual plane of Minecraft, more of an accident. It's caused by falling through holes in the Bedrock layer of Minecraft, and will in fact kill the player quite rapidly - destroying any items they drop after they die. The Void lies under the World and is strictly the same plane. If I recall correctly, there is now a solid floor of Bedrock at the bottom layer of the map, regardless of the terrain generator, making it impossible to fall into the Void in the V.
Near the Void is lava, occuring in all naturally-occuring air pockets at the tenth layer of the map and lower. Lava is required to make Obsidian, which is in turn required to make a Nether portal, a rectangular four-by-five doorway-type structure which, when lit on fire, forms a bluish-purple thick layer of liquid-type material. If the player stands in this substance for a period of about three seconds, they enter the Nether, the least dangerous of the three realms (which is ironic, considering its Hellish nature.) The only threats which can be found in the Nether are the Ghasts and the Zombie Pigmen. As the Zombie Pigmen are neutral (passive until attacked), they're no threat - unless you hit one, in which case you should probably RUN.
As for the Ghasts, their gigantic size may intimidate the player at first... but they have truly awful aim and weak firepower. The Ghast fireball can't break through stone, but it can deactivate portals and destroy weaker materials. However, the Ghast is still one of the scarier mobs of Minecraft. Worse, it can go through blocks, meaning walls won't stop it. It can literally drift into your house and start shooting at you.
Possibly the hardest of the three planes to get into is the End, home to the Endermen and the Enderdragon. To get to the End requires around sixteen Ender pearls. Not only does one have to activate an only partially activated Ender portal by placing Ender pearls in the deactivated slots, but one also has to locate a Stronghold with such an Ender portal in it ... a portal which could be potentially miles away. Once one has successfully found and activated this portal, they appear in the End with only a small Obsidian ledge to stand on, and hundreds of Endermen below on a giant floating island of stone. The End is the inverse of the Nether - instead of enormous pockets of air surrounded by stone, the End is filled with enormous pockets of stone surrounded by air.
I have myself been to two of these four areas legitimately - the World and the Nether. As for my plans to enter the Void, I have better things to do in Minecraft than die. The End is on my list of places to visit in Minecraft, although it seems unlikely I'll get there soon. I have much, much more essential things to do in Minecraft than gather sixteen Ender pearls.
There's also an unofficial fourth plane which follows the Trend, called the Aether. I've never installed the Aether mod, so I can't give a description of it. I plan to try it sometime, but I don't know when. As for my worlds, that will have to wait for another post!
Minecraft I
This is going to be image-heavy, so it may take a while to load!
In short, Minecraft is a sandvivalbox game with the ability to create some truly incredible things. (Some things people have made include: a model Earth, a 125-meter Stargate, an Enterprise-D, and a WORKING 16-bit CPU and ALU.) However, most people don't have the patience or planning skills to make working computer parts, which is okay! Minecraft offers something for them too: Minecraft is all about bending the world to your will. The start of every world is hiding in a quickly-made shelter to avoid the night, but the end of the world is yours to shape. Do you want the world to be scarred for miles and miles from your mining? Will there be vast craters from planned TNT explosions? Will you only build with wood so as not to ruin the underground caves? Will you live underground? On the ground? Above it? Minecraft is your world to shape as you see fit.
Minecraft: Addiction Redefined! |
The iconic Creeper. He'll be seeing you around... ...the crater he just put in your house. |
Minecraft is a computer game in which one places and destroys blocks. It has absolutely no other appeal besides being a sandbox game. There are no zombies, skeletons, spides, or exploding green things called Creepers. It's all an elaborate hoax. In the commercial Minecraft, the goal is survival and creation. (There's also a free creative mode.) Enemy creatures like Creepers and zombies come out at night, which means you need a shelter for your first night. Minecraft day/night cycles are twenty minutes long, which gives you twelve minutes to build a basic shelter for eight minutes of night. To a newcomer, the whole deal is confusing and bewildering. However, to old players, building a basic house in twelve minutes is as easy as walking - but new or old, every player must have a house done by the first night: that's when the nasties come out to play. In the Beta version of Minecraft, there were four basic mobs one would encounter in the real world. The Creepers,
walking green kamikaze bombs which do their best to remove you and your creations from existence; the skeletons, archers who prefer to deal with the pesky Player from a distance; the spiders, who charge in fast and furious but don't do much damage. The fourth mob is the Zombie, which blunders around stupidly and generally gets in the way of the other three.
"I did not think that through." |
In Beta 1.8, a new mob was added - the Enderman. Possibly the most terrifying mob in the whole game barring the Creeper itself; the Enderman teleports, picks up certain blocks, stands looming over the player at three meters tall, and does NOT like being observed. If you place the crosshair directly over it, it turns to stare at you with its mouth gaping open. If you take the crosshair off of it for even a tenth of a second, it charges you
even faster than the spider. It also has the potential to be effectively more destructive than any of the other mobs. It can pick up Redstone, effectively destroying circuits, while leaving the rest of the area untouched. Meanwhile, the Creeper would leave an extremely visible crater in the middle of your Redstone circuitry.
However, nothing can ever, I say again, ever stand up to the Creeper when it comes to the screamer factor. I've jumped in my seat and befouled the air with impolite language many a-time when a Creeper fell onto my head. Creepers have a detonation time of a second and a half, which seems like a very short time.
It is.
Creepers are merciless: whether it's your hard-built house, your newly-found diamond, or just generally your continued life, there's always a creeper around the corner. Creepers are the only mob which both stays aggresive and alive during the daylight, so it poses threat to the Player wherever they are and whenever it is. However, there's two threats even more dangerous than the eternally infamous creeper.
However, the surer and more dangerous threat to the Player is the Player. The first time anyone sets of a block of TNT will also be one of the many self-induced deaths the player can encounter. Other examples can be running into a long-forgotten trap in one's own world, building incredibly tall structures, creating a lava moat, or trying to pass the night by pretending your floor is made of lava.
I have hundreds of deaths, but they can't all make the list of the top five deaths I've ever had. Here's the list based on how hard I laughed at my own stupidity afterwards, from the bottom up.
5. New world. I walk forward one block, fall down a really steep cave, and slap my face into the ground. I respawned, and did it again.
4. I had at one point created a massive trap based around a chest with diamond in it. I didn't remember what world it was on, so when I came across it I opened the chest and was subjected to an incredibly horrifying sensation of remembering the trap just seconds before the sand landed on me.
3. Before the Beta 1.8 update, I had a fairly epic seed: "Luck" without the quotes. Before I had become familiarized with it, I wasn't quite aware that the two overhangs were large enough for mobs to spawn during the day. As a result, I got blown up by a creeper while building my shelter.
2. This is really my only really epic death on a multiplayer server - all the other ones happened too laggily for me to really rate them. I had stopped for the night in a house I had built on the server before; unaware that the hoster had turned mobs on, making my previously safe open patio now a perfect creeper entrance. I walked downstairs and into a skeleton.
1. A creeper somehow got itself into my mine, and snuck up behind me. It exploded, flinging me off a short ledge onto a skeleton and a creeper. The skeleton started shooting at me while the second creeper got ready to blow. BOOM. That's not actually what killed me, I fell thirty feet straight into lava, and suffered a slow, horrible, grisly end.
In short, Minecraft is a sandvivalbox game with the ability to create some truly incredible things. (Some things people have made include: a model Earth, a 125-meter Stargate, an Enterprise-D, and a WORKING 16-bit CPU and ALU.) However, most people don't have the patience or planning skills to make working computer parts, which is okay! Minecraft offers something for them too: Minecraft is all about bending the world to your will. The start of every world is hiding in a quickly-made shelter to avoid the night, but the end of the world is yours to shape. Do you want the world to be scarred for miles and miles from your mining? Will there be vast craters from planned TNT explosions? Will you only build with wood so as not to ruin the underground caves? Will you live underground? On the ground? Above it? Minecraft is your world to shape as you see fit.
TRON: Legacy parallels and analogies
I was writing another blog post, but it felt incredibly slow, clunky, and generally disorganized, so I saved it as a draft and started writing about TRON: Legacy. (It was my mother's idea - be thankful, otherwise you might be reading an incredibly slow, clunky, and generally disorganized blog post right now.)
TRON: Legacy has a lot of parallels and analogies. First, some of the major characters:
Tron - A security program who fights for the users. In Legacy, CLU had corrupted him.
Rinzler - The corrupted alias of Tron.
Kevin Flynn - A User and primary creator of the new Grid. He disappeared in 1989.
Sam Flynn - Kevin Flynn's son who was left in control of Encom, Kevin's company, when Kevin disappeared.
CLU - Codified Likeness Utility. A creation of Kevin's which turned against him.
Quorra - The last ISO after CLU massacred all other ISOs (assuming Castor/Zuse isn't one and/or is dead.)
Kevin, Sam, and Quorra are the main protagonists for purposes of the Grid, whereas CLU, Rinzler and the Black Guard are the main antagonists. The Flynns have a very Biblical analogy around them when on the Grid. Kevin can effectively change the world at will and has programs bowing down and praying to him (I'm not even kidding) as he's leaving the End of Line nightclub, while Sam doesn't fit into the Jesus mold perfectly when he first enters the Grid but grows into it quite nicely as time goes on. Meanwhile the antagonists all have a very fascist Germany feel to them: CLU, the main antagonist, portrays Hitler - he aggresively seeks Grid perfection above any other factors to the point of enacting an ISO genocide. The ISOs even have glowing TRON-style tattoos on their left arms, a hexagon to the left of a rotated T, which is analogous to the Star of David Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust.
Some interesting parallels exist between Sam and Kevin and between Legacy and the original TRON. For example, both Sam and Kevin have an enormous window in their house which looks out upon a tower they own but can't go to. Then there are parallels between the film and its predecessor: when Sam cracks the Encom basement door, he says "Now that is a big door," which mimics Kevin's remark in TRON. As CLU is leaving the End of Line nightclub owned by Castor/Zuse, he says "End of line, man!" which both mocks the name of the club and is a parallel to the main antagonist of TRON (the Master Control Program) who would say "End of line." whenever he ended communication with an outside user.
Before said scene, Kevin had walked into the same nightclub while a heated battle was occuring in the End of Line club in which the antagonists had the upper hand. Kevin touched the floor, changing the music - at which point the protagonists suddenly had the upper hand. As Kevin is leaving, he holds his hands in a Christ-like pose and programs bow down and pray to him (although only one is seen doing so on screen, it's virtually definite there were others doing the same.)
Another interesting analogy is that most programs on CLU's "perfect" Grid will instantly and completely derez at even the slightest injury (they became imperfect and couldn't stay in one piece) whereas when Quorra was injured only the damaged limb derezzed (which REALLY enraged Sam.) It seems ironic that the 'perfect' programs are instantly killed by slicing off their arm, whereas Quorra, an 'imperfect' ISO, wasn't. Indeed, any perfect system will quickly become totally imperfect if even the vaguest amount of imperfection is introduced. (Think about a perfect wind system moving around a perfect sphere. Then, a small object enters the atmosphere. Soon the whole wind system will be completely chaotic.)
TRON: Legacy has a lot of parallels and analogies. First, some of the major characters:
Tron - A security program who fights for the users. In Legacy, CLU had corrupted him.
Rinzler - The corrupted alias of Tron.
Kevin Flynn - A User and primary creator of the new Grid. He disappeared in 1989.
Sam Flynn - Kevin Flynn's son who was left in control of Encom, Kevin's company, when Kevin disappeared.
CLU - Codified Likeness Utility. A creation of Kevin's which turned against him.
Quorra - The last ISO after CLU massacred all other ISOs (assuming Castor/Zuse isn't one and/or is dead.)
Kevin, Sam, and Quorra are the main protagonists for purposes of the Grid, whereas CLU, Rinzler and the Black Guard are the main antagonists. The Flynns have a very Biblical analogy around them when on the Grid. Kevin can effectively change the world at will and has programs bowing down and praying to him (I'm not even kidding) as he's leaving the End of Line nightclub, while Sam doesn't fit into the Jesus mold perfectly when he first enters the Grid but grows into it quite nicely as time goes on. Meanwhile the antagonists all have a very fascist Germany feel to them: CLU, the main antagonist, portrays Hitler - he aggresively seeks Grid perfection above any other factors to the point of enacting an ISO genocide. The ISOs even have glowing TRON-style tattoos on their left arms, a hexagon to the left of a rotated T, which is analogous to the Star of David Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust.
Some interesting parallels exist between Sam and Kevin and between Legacy and the original TRON. For example, both Sam and Kevin have an enormous window in their house which looks out upon a tower they own but can't go to. Then there are parallels between the film and its predecessor: when Sam cracks the Encom basement door, he says "Now that is a big door," which mimics Kevin's remark in TRON. As CLU is leaving the End of Line nightclub owned by Castor/Zuse, he says "End of line, man!" which both mocks the name of the club and is a parallel to the main antagonist of TRON (the Master Control Program) who would say "End of line." whenever he ended communication with an outside user.
Before said scene, Kevin had walked into the same nightclub while a heated battle was occuring in the End of Line club in which the antagonists had the upper hand. Kevin touched the floor, changing the music - at which point the protagonists suddenly had the upper hand. As Kevin is leaving, he holds his hands in a Christ-like pose and programs bow down and pray to him (although only one is seen doing so on screen, it's virtually definite there were others doing the same.)
Another interesting analogy is that most programs on CLU's "perfect" Grid will instantly and completely derez at even the slightest injury (they became imperfect and couldn't stay in one piece) whereas when Quorra was injured only the damaged limb derezzed (which REALLY enraged Sam.) It seems ironic that the 'perfect' programs are instantly killed by slicing off their arm, whereas Quorra, an 'imperfect' ISO, wasn't. Indeed, any perfect system will quickly become totally imperfect if even the vaguest amount of imperfection is introduced. (Think about a perfect wind system moving around a perfect sphere. Then, a small object enters the atmosphere. Soon the whole wind system will be completely chaotic.)
Sarcasm
Sarcasm is a wonderful thing. If we didn't have it, we would anyway. However, sometimes it's hard to notice it. Some people don't get sarcasm regardless of the situation, whereas some just can't see it in text very easily. As for me, sarcasm is obvious regardless of where it appears and I use it the same way as I use the ability to create vibrations in the air - naturally and fluidly as a basic means of conveying information.
In my opinion. sarcasm generally tones down the impact of an insult. If someone drops a box, say "Nice job." is far less hurtful than "YOU $#!@ING KLUTZ!" and is also less self-infuriating. When one is on the verge of becoming enraged, what you say can often either calm you down or fulfill the anger. For example, shouting and cursing at someone who drops a box will get you all worked up, whereas saying a sarcastic comment in a calm tone of voice won't.
As for detecting sarcasm, I don't need a detector for it ... or rather, I already have one. It's a dollop of pinkish meat matter in a shell of white bony matter. How someone can't detect sarcasm is beyond me: sarcasm is really an insult via lying most of the time: if someone drops a box, they didn't do a nice job - quite the contrary, they did a bad job! Can some people genuinely not tell when someone is lying even if it's clear that what that person is saying is contrary to the truth? (Also, the background this text is on is dark red.)
Sarcasm is vital in daily life in modern-day society. For example, if you're talking to someone about something and they say "Really? That's so interesting!", the correct response is "Yeah, I think so too!" or some variant thereof, whereas the correct response to "Really? That's so interesting!" is "Oh, sorry; I didn't mean to bore you." or some variant thereof. Getting these two responses mixed up can lead to disaster:
"Really? That's so interesting!" "Oh, sorry; I didn't mean to bore you."
"Really? That's so interesting!" "Yeah, I think so too!"
In my opinion. sarcasm generally tones down the impact of an insult. If someone drops a box, say "Nice job." is far less hurtful than "YOU $#!@ING KLUTZ!" and is also less self-infuriating. When one is on the verge of becoming enraged, what you say can often either calm you down or fulfill the anger. For example, shouting and cursing at someone who drops a box will get you all worked up, whereas saying a sarcastic comment in a calm tone of voice won't.
As for detecting sarcasm, I don't need a detector for it ... or rather, I already have one. It's a dollop of pinkish meat matter in a shell of white bony matter. How someone can't detect sarcasm is beyond me: sarcasm is really an insult via lying most of the time: if someone drops a box, they didn't do a nice job - quite the contrary, they did a bad job! Can some people genuinely not tell when someone is lying even if it's clear that what that person is saying is contrary to the truth? (Also, the background this text is on is dark red.)
Sarcasm is vital in daily life in modern-day society. For example, if you're talking to someone about something and they say "Really? That's so interesting!", the correct response is "Yeah, I think so too!" or some variant thereof, whereas the correct response to "Really? That's so interesting!" is "Oh, sorry; I didn't mean to bore you." or some variant thereof. Getting these two responses mixed up can lead to disaster:
"Really? That's so interesting!" "Oh, sorry; I didn't mean to bore you."
"Really? That's so interesting!" "Yeah, I think so too!"
"Some advice from a blog saying we shouldn't bother correcting each other's grammar online: ..."
"*You're as in you're making this too easy for me."
I could definitely spend hours on a blog with jokes like that! I agree it's futile to try to get others to change their ways when it comes to grammar and spelling, which is probably why I make a blog post complaining about how people using improper grammar and spelling on my server. I'll concede this is the way new languages form, but I certainly don't like the idea of this... language... being a derivative or form of English.
As for how a trench warfare server holds up to real life trench warfare, the answer is simple: not at all. The trench warfare server I host has several things which quite obviously rip it away from reality: floating buildings, the capability to 'eat' huge amounts of dirt, putting into virtuspace and then just pulling it back out again, and above all respawning. The ability to simply die, respawn, and take revenge sucks all the seriousness out of any form of warfare, trenches or no. However, it does possess some of the same basic strategies: trench warfare is basically hiding in a giant line in the ground, waiting for the enemy to get near you then jumping up and lobbing grenades and shooting guns at the other side.
"Two contrasting viewpoints on how the Internet is affecting language ..."
Guns don't murder people. Guns are tools which merely happen to have a connotation of killing people. The same is true of Twitter: very few properties are inherent of a tool. I could (and for a recent blogpost, did... for demonstrative purposes) use this blog to vomit incoherent, unintelligible Internet text, but I don't. In much the same way, Twitter doesn't force people to use unintelligible text, it just makes it easier to keep your posts under the 140 character limit - especially if you want to link to something!
Again, guns don't murder people. You'll never see a gun actively acting by itself to kill someone. In much the same way, you'll never see Twitter actively acting by itself to make the Internet 'kill' proper English - people use it the same way they use Facebook, Myspace, or my blog: they use it to spread their thoughts, opinions, and ideas. The language they do this in has no relevance with the tool itself. I could make a Twitter post in English, Spanish, French, German, Latin, or Internet. This doesn't mean Twitter is promoting or demoting any of these languages!
However, if Twitter actively blocked any of its users who failed to use properly incorrect English, I would agree it's promoting incorrect English. The thing is, it's not, in the same way no gun has ever whispered "Hey... kill that guy over there with me..." to anyone! Guns can even be used for constructive purposes: one can use them to hunt for meat which can feed a society.
"Here's another one: ..."
This ties into the above comment, so I believe I've already covered it. However, I must say the shortest of words can have far, far more meaning than the longest thereof. For example, a simple "NO." carries far more weight than a technical treatise describing in a thousand words why the answer is no.
"*You're as in you're making this too easy for me."
I could definitely spend hours on a blog with jokes like that! I agree it's futile to try to get others to change their ways when it comes to grammar and spelling, which is probably why I make a blog post complaining about how people using improper grammar and spelling on my server. I'll concede this is the way new languages form, but I certainly don't like the idea of this... language... being a derivative or form of English.
As for how a trench warfare server holds up to real life trench warfare, the answer is simple: not at all. The trench warfare server I host has several things which quite obviously rip it away from reality: floating buildings, the capability to 'eat' huge amounts of dirt, putting into virtuspace and then just pulling it back out again, and above all respawning. The ability to simply die, respawn, and take revenge sucks all the seriousness out of any form of warfare, trenches or no. However, it does possess some of the same basic strategies: trench warfare is basically hiding in a giant line in the ground, waiting for the enemy to get near you then jumping up and lobbing grenades and shooting guns at the other side.
"Two contrasting viewpoints on how the Internet is affecting language ..."
Guns don't murder people. Guns are tools which merely happen to have a connotation of killing people. The same is true of Twitter: very few properties are inherent of a tool. I could (and for a recent blogpost, did... for demonstrative purposes) use this blog to vomit incoherent, unintelligible Internet text, but I don't. In much the same way, Twitter doesn't force people to use unintelligible text, it just makes it easier to keep your posts under the 140 character limit - especially if you want to link to something!
Again, guns don't murder people. You'll never see a gun actively acting by itself to kill someone. In much the same way, you'll never see Twitter actively acting by itself to make the Internet 'kill' proper English - people use it the same way they use Facebook, Myspace, or my blog: they use it to spread their thoughts, opinions, and ideas. The language they do this in has no relevance with the tool itself. I could make a Twitter post in English, Spanish, French, German, Latin, or Internet. This doesn't mean Twitter is promoting or demoting any of these languages!
However, if Twitter actively blocked any of its users who failed to use properly incorrect English, I would agree it's promoting incorrect English. The thing is, it's not, in the same way no gun has ever whispered "Hey... kill that guy over there with me..." to anyone! Guns can even be used for constructive purposes: one can use them to hunt for meat which can feed a society.
"Here's another one: ..."
This ties into the above comment, so I believe I've already covered it. However, I must say the shortest of words can have far, far more meaning than the longest thereof. For example, a simple "NO." carries far more weight than a technical treatise describing in a thousand words why the answer is no.
Soldiers, Armies, Wars, Death, Destruction, Chaos, and General Universal Entropy
What is war?
Well, simply put, it's two enormous organisms, which we call "civilizations" or "nations", having at one another over something which they both want. For now, I'll call them nations Joe and Bob.
Bob wants something Joe has - a box. Now, Bob is a fighting man (an aggressive civilization), so he asks Joe politely for Joe's box one time. Joe refuses, because it just so happens the box is what Joe's economy runs on. (Think of a country which makes its commerce solely on gold.)
This is where the armies come in. In this extended metaphor, armies are fists, feet, and teeth. Bob really wants that box, so he throws a punch at Joe. Joe can either block it with his arm or let it hit his face (the face being the civilians), so he blocks the punch.
Well, what are armies?
Armies are the instruments of war. This time, think of a chess board. Joe is white and Bob is black. The white pieces all start in one inert, enormous mass which plunderously starts moving from Joe's innermost protection (his side of the board is closer to his 'cities') to attack the other side. The same is true of all the black pieces. Then, the two sides approach and finally clash into each other, destroying each other in a massacre of marble pieces which are placed to the side of the board for future use. Okay, so extended metaphors aren't always perfect - or ever perfect, for that matter.
In this case, the king represents the box in the sense of being the goal: when it's captured or taken in chess parlance and destroyed in mine, the war is won.
What are soldiers, then?
From the army's perspective, they're the same as skin cells to a human: they do their job, they do it well, and sometimes one becomes cancerous. They do their job for about two weeks, then they die and are sent away.
From the country's perspective, they're cold, hard, detached people who want to shoot guns at other people.
From their family's perspective, they're living people with three-dimensional personalities who either joined the army or got recruited (and in the latter case, they probably come back drastically changed in an incredibly short period of time, shocking the family who could still remember how they were before they left.)
Soldiers who serve any number of tours in war will undoubtedly experience death, destruction, chaos, and general universal entropy, from greatest to least importance. It's amazing soldiers can even cling on to even the thinnest strand of humanity after having been shot at, bombed on, blasted, maimed, and generally forced to endure death as a daily thing and destruction as a constant of life. (Chaos and general universal entropy happen everywhere on Earth regardless of conditions, so I doubt that's really so horrible. Six point nine billion people seem to have managed to survive them so far.)
What is death?
From a purely definitional standpoint, death is the moment where an organism ceases to be, or, more precisely the instant at which the cells cease to operate in unison. (In laymans terms: death is when all your organs stop agreeing on what to do next.)
However, from a more philosophical standpoint, no one really knows what death is or feels like, because everyone who went through it is dead now. We haven't figure out a way to talk to dead people yet, but I'm sure this will be one of the first questions we ask them when we finally figure out how to do so.
From the eyes of the living, death is usually pretty traumatic. Now, in this context I mean death we know about... thousands of deaths are occuring all over your body as you read this and you don't even care! How cruel a person you must be!
As a general rule of thumb, trauma is a factor of the scale of the death times the inverse of the distance. For example, if your car hits a bird, it's a fairly sad event for most people: You'll say "Oh no!!!", stop, and wish you hadn't hit the bird. However, you won't be a completely different person because of it, and you won't hold a funeral for the corpse of the bird.
Another example is a war on the other side of the planet. There's an incredible amount of death going on, but you're so disconnected from it you may not even know there is a war. If someone tells you about it, you may go "Really? Oh, wow, that's terrible! Why don't they just end the war?" but unless you know personally know someone who's in the war you probably won't lay awake every night tossing and turning about it.
What is destruction?
Destruction is the ending of a structure: fission is destruction of atoms, disassembly is the destruction of assembled parts, and war is the destruction of hopes, dreams, lives, places, and nations. Everything can be thought of as causing the destruction of something else: every time you eat you're destroying solid chunks of food so you can restructure them into something useful to you.
What is chaos?
Chaos is comparable to total randomness. For example, when two atoms collide into each other at near-light speeds, there are an infinite number of almost-identical paths they can take, which can end up leading to very different points over a long period of time, such as one millenium.
An example of chaos could be a twenty-sided die. When you roll it, there's theoretically an equal chance there will be a one or an eighteen. The same is true of chaos. However, another function of chaos is that things will always either converge or diverge as a result of it. Chaos is not stationary.
What is general universal entropy?
General universal entropy (better known as: "entropy") is any action which is easy to do and extremely hard to undo. For example, energy released as heat is a form of entropy because it's incredibly difficult to ever get that work energy back. You can get it back by using a cold object, like ice - but creating the ice will in fact create more entropy than what you harness by using the ice.
An example could be as follows: you have a pot of water and a shaker of salt. You shake salt into the pot of water and let it dissolve, and for your one unit of work you get a pot of slightly salty water.
If you want the salt back, you'll have to boil off all the water in the pot, scrape the solidified salt off the bottom of the pan, and grind it back into table salt. However, in the act of doing so you expend 500 units of work and empty your pot of water.
To get the water back, you could set up an enormous collection net going into the pot, and then chill the room to below zero degrees Celsius. However, the amount of work to do this is in the ten thousands, as you have to keep an enormous area chilled, which requires more work elsewhere. As an end result, you finally get the kitchen back to the way it was, as long as you're willing to ignore the chilliness.
...and on that note, I draw my post about somewhat-connected topics to a close.
Well, simply put, it's two enormous organisms, which we call "civilizations" or "nations", having at one another over something which they both want. For now, I'll call them nations Joe and Bob.
Bob wants something Joe has - a box. Now, Bob is a fighting man (an aggressive civilization), so he asks Joe politely for Joe's box one time. Joe refuses, because it just so happens the box is what Joe's economy runs on. (Think of a country which makes its commerce solely on gold.)
This is where the armies come in. In this extended metaphor, armies are fists, feet, and teeth. Bob really wants that box, so he throws a punch at Joe. Joe can either block it with his arm or let it hit his face (the face being the civilians), so he blocks the punch.
Well, what are armies?
Armies are the instruments of war. This time, think of a chess board. Joe is white and Bob is black. The white pieces all start in one inert, enormous mass which plunderously starts moving from Joe's innermost protection (his side of the board is closer to his 'cities') to attack the other side. The same is true of all the black pieces. Then, the two sides approach and finally clash into each other, destroying each other in a massacre of marble pieces which are placed to the side of the board for future use. Okay, so extended metaphors aren't always perfect - or ever perfect, for that matter.
In this case, the king represents the box in the sense of being the goal: when it's captured or taken in chess parlance and destroyed in mine, the war is won.
What are soldiers, then?
From the army's perspective, they're the same as skin cells to a human: they do their job, they do it well, and sometimes one becomes cancerous. They do their job for about two weeks, then they die and are sent away.
From the country's perspective, they're cold, hard, detached people who want to shoot guns at other people.
From their family's perspective, they're living people with three-dimensional personalities who either joined the army or got recruited (and in the latter case, they probably come back drastically changed in an incredibly short period of time, shocking the family who could still remember how they were before they left.)
Soldiers who serve any number of tours in war will undoubtedly experience death, destruction, chaos, and general universal entropy, from greatest to least importance. It's amazing soldiers can even cling on to even the thinnest strand of humanity after having been shot at, bombed on, blasted, maimed, and generally forced to endure death as a daily thing and destruction as a constant of life. (Chaos and general universal entropy happen everywhere on Earth regardless of conditions, so I doubt that's really so horrible. Six point nine billion people seem to have managed to survive them so far.)
What is death?
From a purely definitional standpoint, death is the moment where an organism ceases to be, or, more precisely the instant at which the cells cease to operate in unison. (In laymans terms: death is when all your organs stop agreeing on what to do next.)
However, from a more philosophical standpoint, no one really knows what death is or feels like, because everyone who went through it is dead now. We haven't figure out a way to talk to dead people yet, but I'm sure this will be one of the first questions we ask them when we finally figure out how to do so.
From the eyes of the living, death is usually pretty traumatic. Now, in this context I mean death we know about... thousands of deaths are occuring all over your body as you read this and you don't even care! How cruel a person you must be!
As a general rule of thumb, trauma is a factor of the scale of the death times the inverse of the distance. For example, if your car hits a bird, it's a fairly sad event for most people: You'll say "Oh no!!!", stop, and wish you hadn't hit the bird. However, you won't be a completely different person because of it, and you won't hold a funeral for the corpse of the bird.
Another example is a war on the other side of the planet. There's an incredible amount of death going on, but you're so disconnected from it you may not even know there is a war. If someone tells you about it, you may go "Really? Oh, wow, that's terrible! Why don't they just end the war?" but unless you know personally know someone who's in the war you probably won't lay awake every night tossing and turning about it.
What is destruction?
Destruction is the ending of a structure: fission is destruction of atoms, disassembly is the destruction of assembled parts, and war is the destruction of hopes, dreams, lives, places, and nations. Everything can be thought of as causing the destruction of something else: every time you eat you're destroying solid chunks of food so you can restructure them into something useful to you.
What is chaos?
Chaos is comparable to total randomness. For example, when two atoms collide into each other at near-light speeds, there are an infinite number of almost-identical paths they can take, which can end up leading to very different points over a long period of time, such as one millenium.
An example of chaos could be a twenty-sided die. When you roll it, there's theoretically an equal chance there will be a one or an eighteen. The same is true of chaos. However, another function of chaos is that things will always either converge or diverge as a result of it. Chaos is not stationary.
What is general universal entropy?
General universal entropy (better known as: "entropy") is any action which is easy to do and extremely hard to undo. For example, energy released as heat is a form of entropy because it's incredibly difficult to ever get that work energy back. You can get it back by using a cold object, like ice - but creating the ice will in fact create more entropy than what you harness by using the ice.
An example could be as follows: you have a pot of water and a shaker of salt. You shake salt into the pot of water and let it dissolve, and for your one unit of work you get a pot of slightly salty water.
If you want the salt back, you'll have to boil off all the water in the pot, scrape the solidified salt off the bottom of the pan, and grind it back into table salt. However, in the act of doing so you expend 500 units of work and empty your pot of water.
To get the water back, you could set up an enormous collection net going into the pot, and then chill the room to below zero degrees Celsius. However, the amount of work to do this is in the ten thousands, as you have to keep an enormous area chilled, which requires more work elsewhere. As an end result, you finally get the kitchen back to the way it was, as long as you're willing to ignore the chilliness.
...and on that note, I draw my post about somewhat-connected topics to a close.
Now For Another Topic Entirely!
Now for a topic which I can really sink my teeth into, because I've had extensive experience doing it: hosting a server. (Please note: For this post, I will use the term "server" in place of "gaming server". There is a difference: not all insects are ants, but all ants are insects.)
Hosting any public gaming server on any even moderately popular game is equatable to Hell on Earth for the hoster. The more popular the server, the worse it is. I should know: I've hosted a server for about two years now.
The only thing I can say to try to convey how absolutely painful hosting a server is "y r u shootign @ me???!!!" Imagine having to read this form of... communication, for lack of a better word...constantly. That's just the start. Not only do you have to read text which looks like it was made by a brain-dead monkey having at the keyboard, but you also have to endure people ordering -- yes, ORDERING you to take administrative action on others for playing the game as it is meant to be played. I have had people tell me to ban people because someone else killed them while they were building. (I host a trench warfare server. You kill others and build cover.) What I don't understand is how this comes to pass. When a player spawns, a large popup with an "OK" button at the bottom appears. One of the items reads "2. Buildkilling is allowed, spawnkilling is not."
That's another thing almost any game server will have unless it has no killing at all: spawnkilling. In my eyes and on my server, spawnkilling is the killing of someone who has neither left the spawn area nor drawn a weapon or other item, such as the trench items used to dig and build dirt. Even though this seems like an incredibly logical definition, some people still yell "SPAWNKILL" when they die thirty yards away from the spawnroom's entrance while trying to kill me.
The solution may seem obvious: Don't host a server with combat on it. Well, the game I host on has two basic forms of server. Combat and non-combat. The non-combat servers are building servers, and are generally called "freebuilds." The problem is, for some reason which I will never quite entirely understand, a lot of the people who join my server seem to think this literally means "do anything building-related you want to, including creating as many of the largest brick as you possibly can." Other people will join my server and say "kan u maek this b a kombat servur" or sometimes "wat hapend 2 ur trench warfar servur??????"
That's another thing I hate. For some reason which is beyond my capacity to understand, some people will replace all c's with a k sound with k's. I've even seen some people (one of whom was me, mocking the fad) do it to c's with an s sound. An example server name is "Mortal Kombat's Kamoflauged Kombat."
I don't even get how that came to be. With "combat" I may be able to pretend I understand, because most Internet words are shortenings of their English counterparts when you look at a keyboard. For example, shortening "to" to "2" only saves time if you're typing. The same is true with "for" and "4", "ate" and "8", "at" and "@", and several others.
Let's rate "combat" and "kombat" based on the number of inches you would need to move your one beak over my keyboard to peck out the words. "combat" comes in at 14.00 inches, whereas "kombat" is only 10.75 inches. For "hunt and peck" typists, this shortening may signifigantly cut down the length of time required to type the word, especially since the human brain would start looking at the keys immediately surrounding the last-pressed key before looking further away.
However, I can't describe hosting a server with words, in much the same way a soldier cannot describe fighting a war with words. I'm not claiming hosting a server is in any way comparable to being shot at, but they both have in common the trait of not truly being explainable to someone who hasn't had those experiences.
4 exampul, if i wus 2 typ dis whol paragraeph in teh way i cunsidr thes pepl 2 typ, my paragraephs wud look sumting liek dis. its hardly a plesunt site 2 luk @ n the only wai 2 red it iz 2 eider sae it out loud r think abot teh fonetiks of da bootchurd text ur reading.
"For example, if I was to type this whole paragraph in the way I consider these people to type, my paragraphs would look something like this. It's hardly a pleasant sight to look at, and the only way to read is it so either say it out loud or (to) think about the phonetics of the butchered text you're reading."
For the record, it took me about a fifth of the time to write the proper English paragraph. Why people would use improper typing techniques when they could save so much time typing properly is beyond me, especially when they complain about the time others are wasting them when they get shot and have to go all the way to whatever they were doing when they probably got shot because they were too busy typing with two fingers. I know how long it takes to type that way, it used to be my method of typing. It's incredibly slow, cumbersome, and prone to mistakes, especially when you want to capitalize a key.
In conclusion: Servers are hellholes for the host. The host has to put up with people who can't type, people who can't play the game, people who can't understand pecking order, people who get a high out of angering others, and people who are just downright dumb. Why, then, do I still host? Here's the answer: there is no logical, emotional, intellectual, or biological reason I continue to host my server. It would be far more constructive if I didn't. I have had several periods of time where I stopped hosting entirely, but for some reason which even I cannot comprehend, I always return and start hosting the server again.
Hosting any public gaming server on any even moderately popular game is equatable to Hell on Earth for the hoster. The more popular the server, the worse it is. I should know: I've hosted a server for about two years now.
The only thing I can say to try to convey how absolutely painful hosting a server is "y r u shootign @ me???!!!" Imagine having to read this form of... communication, for lack of a better word...constantly. That's just the start. Not only do you have to read text which looks like it was made by a brain-dead monkey having at the keyboard, but you also have to endure people ordering -- yes, ORDERING you to take administrative action on others for playing the game as it is meant to be played. I have had people tell me to ban people because someone else killed them while they were building. (I host a trench warfare server. You kill others and build cover.) What I don't understand is how this comes to pass. When a player spawns, a large popup with an "OK" button at the bottom appears. One of the items reads "2. Buildkilling is allowed, spawnkilling is not."
That's another thing almost any game server will have unless it has no killing at all: spawnkilling. In my eyes and on my server, spawnkilling is the killing of someone who has neither left the spawn area nor drawn a weapon or other item, such as the trench items used to dig and build dirt. Even though this seems like an incredibly logical definition, some people still yell "SPAWNKILL" when they die thirty yards away from the spawnroom's entrance while trying to kill me.
The solution may seem obvious: Don't host a server with combat on it. Well, the game I host on has two basic forms of server. Combat and non-combat. The non-combat servers are building servers, and are generally called "freebuilds." The problem is, for some reason which I will never quite entirely understand, a lot of the people who join my server seem to think this literally means "do anything building-related you want to, including creating as many of the largest brick as you possibly can." Other people will join my server and say "kan u maek this b a kombat servur" or sometimes "wat hapend 2 ur trench warfar servur??????"
That's another thing I hate. For some reason which is beyond my capacity to understand, some people will replace all c's with a k sound with k's. I've even seen some people (one of whom was me, mocking the fad) do it to c's with an s sound. An example server name is "Mortal Kombat's Kamoflauged Kombat."
I don't even get how that came to be. With "combat" I may be able to pretend I understand, because most Internet words are shortenings of their English counterparts when you look at a keyboard. For example, shortening "to" to "2" only saves time if you're typing. The same is true with "for" and "4", "ate" and "8", "at" and "@", and several others.
Let's rate "combat" and "kombat" based on the number of inches you would need to move your one beak over my keyboard to peck out the words. "combat" comes in at 14.00 inches, whereas "kombat" is only 10.75 inches. For "hunt and peck" typists, this shortening may signifigantly cut down the length of time required to type the word, especially since the human brain would start looking at the keys immediately surrounding the last-pressed key before looking further away.
However, I can't describe hosting a server with words, in much the same way a soldier cannot describe fighting a war with words. I'm not claiming hosting a server is in any way comparable to being shot at, but they both have in common the trait of not truly being explainable to someone who hasn't had those experiences.
4 exampul, if i wus 2 typ dis whol paragraeph in teh way i cunsidr thes pepl 2 typ, my paragraephs wud look sumting liek dis. its hardly a plesunt site 2 luk @ n the only wai 2 red it iz 2 eider sae it out loud r think abot teh fonetiks of da bootchurd text ur reading.
"For example, if I was to type this whole paragraph in the way I consider these people to type, my paragraphs would look something like this. It's hardly a pleasant sight to look at, and the only way to read is it so either say it out loud or (to) think about the phonetics of the butchered text you're reading."
For the record, it took me about a fifth of the time to write the proper English paragraph. Why people would use improper typing techniques when they could save so much time typing properly is beyond me, especially when they complain about the time others are wasting them when they get shot and have to go all the way to whatever they were doing when they probably got shot because they were too busy typing with two fingers. I know how long it takes to type that way, it used to be my method of typing. It's incredibly slow, cumbersome, and prone to mistakes, especially when you want to capitalize a key.
In conclusion: Servers are hellholes for the host. The host has to put up with people who can't type, people who can't play the game, people who can't understand pecking order, people who get a high out of angering others, and people who are just downright dumb. Why, then, do I still host? Here's the answer: there is no logical, emotional, intellectual, or biological reason I continue to host my server. It would be far more constructive if I didn't. I have had several periods of time where I stopped hosting entirely, but for some reason which even I cannot comprehend, I always return and start hosting the server again.
Google accused Bing of stealing search results
I recently became interested in a debate which happened at the beginning of this year. Google was accusing Bing of stealing their results, and proved it extensively.
It all started with tarsorrhaphy - an eyelid procedure I would never spell correctly without directly copying it. An interesting mispelling, "torsorophy", returned the correct result on Google.
Later, Bing started showing results for "torsorophy" - without the corrected spelling. Hm.
Torsorophy wasn't the only case where Bing seemed to be imitating Google. Google found many cases where Bing had the same top search result as Google as well as cases where they saw what they would think of as quirks of their own system showing up in Bing's results. Hm.
Google decided to run an operation to prove Bing's result-theft: they made certain queries no one would type return certain search results. For example, "hiybbprqag" returned a result about Wiltern seating tickets. A few days later, Bing showed the same result for "hiybbprqag". This effect was mirrored with several other of the 100 seed searches, such as "mbzrxpgjys", "indoswiftjobinproduction", and "delhipublicschool40 chdjob".
Bing was very quick to deny the accusations and in fact accused Google for trying to catch their hand in the metaphorical cookie jar. Bing claims it was using data from optional features to improve its experience, in much the same way a lemonade stand owner could claim he was using data from similar 'optional features' to find out what the recipe of a competitor is and use that in place of his own.
Google removed the code used to seed the searches, stating it had never had the ability to control searches before and had no plans to keep this ability.
As for who I side with, that's pretty much clear. I'm a Google person in a Google family, and even if I wasn't I doubt I would approve of what amounts to stealing the lemonade recipe. Admittedly, Bing isn't stealing the recipe, but it's quite literally stealing the results - it's like stealing lemonade from your competitor and then selling it as your own, even though you know it's not.
Bing quite conveniently now shows a 'spelling suggestions' message for torsorophy, one very similar to Google's. What's worse is that Bing isn't even doing this in a way Google can retaliate against - it's not as though Google can block anyone who uses Bing Toolbar or has Suggested Sites enabled! I don't believe Bing poses a serious threat to Google as of yet, however: Google's stock is currently worth nearly twenty-five times as much as Bing's!
However, I certainly don't approve of theft and this is theft on a level incomparable to any common form of theft. Bing is heisting diamonds from the Google museum and is outright denying it. This practice is not fair or moral and it should stop now. As Google put it: Innovation is fair game, but theft is not innovation.
It all started with tarsorrhaphy - an eyelid procedure I would never spell correctly without directly copying it. An interesting mispelling, "torsorophy", returned the correct result on Google.
Later, Bing started showing results for "torsorophy" - without the corrected spelling. Hm.
Torsorophy wasn't the only case where Bing seemed to be imitating Google. Google found many cases where Bing had the same top search result as Google as well as cases where they saw what they would think of as quirks of their own system showing up in Bing's results. Hm.
Google decided to run an operation to prove Bing's result-theft: they made certain queries no one would type return certain search results. For example, "hiybbprqag" returned a result about Wiltern seating tickets. A few days later, Bing showed the same result for "hiybbprqag". This effect was mirrored with several other of the 100 seed searches, such as "mbzrxpgjys", "indoswiftjobinproduction", and "delhipublicschool40 chdjob".
Bing was very quick to deny the accusations and in fact accused Google for trying to catch their hand in the metaphorical cookie jar. Bing claims it was using data from optional features to improve its experience, in much the same way a lemonade stand owner could claim he was using data from similar 'optional features' to find out what the recipe of a competitor is and use that in place of his own.
Google removed the code used to seed the searches, stating it had never had the ability to control searches before and had no plans to keep this ability.
As for who I side with, that's pretty much clear. I'm a Google person in a Google family, and even if I wasn't I doubt I would approve of what amounts to stealing the lemonade recipe. Admittedly, Bing isn't stealing the recipe, but it's quite literally stealing the results - it's like stealing lemonade from your competitor and then selling it as your own, even though you know it's not.
Bing quite conveniently now shows a 'spelling suggestions' message for torsorophy, one very similar to Google's. What's worse is that Bing isn't even doing this in a way Google can retaliate against - it's not as though Google can block anyone who uses Bing Toolbar or has Suggested Sites enabled! I don't believe Bing poses a serious threat to Google as of yet, however: Google's stock is currently worth nearly twenty-five times as much as Bing's!
However, I certainly don't approve of theft and this is theft on a level incomparable to any common form of theft. Bing is heisting diamonds from the Google museum and is outright denying it. This practice is not fair or moral and it should stop now. As Google put it: Innovation is fair game, but theft is not innovation.
Thoughts on "All Quiet on the Western Front"
Paul, the group, and other men are in a dug-out: what I assume to be a building built in a hole in the ground but not actually under it. Shells are falling; two land directly on the dug-out, but the explosions are light and the dug-out survives. Then the shells begin to fall behind them, and they get out of the dug-out. The advancing enemy front is almost upon them, and the group repeats a process of lobbing grenades and running.
I can't help but notice the newer the recruits the more I can relate to them. I would certainly be claustrophobic in a small semi-underground building with shells landing directly on it, and I certainly wouldn't be in any fit shape to lob grenades, which weigh more or less the same as a bowling ball, sixty feet or even thirty, let alone seventy-five. Of course, I've already died eight or nine times.
Paul comments on how they weren't attacking the enemy as they ran, they were in a more barbaric, more primitive state. Their only goal was to defend themselves from the enemy fire, which they did quite well.
I think if I was in a situation where there was a direct threat to my own life and I had the capability to destroy as much of the threat as possible, I would act on that capability to the best of my abilities in a way similar to what Paul calls defense against annihilation. I don't think I would be capable of killing my own father, but I've never been in a situation where there was a direct threat to my life in the manner the soldiers were dealing with - and had dealt with many times.
I can't help but notice the newer the recruits the more I can relate to them. I would certainly be claustrophobic in a small semi-underground building with shells landing directly on it, and I certainly wouldn't be in any fit shape to lob grenades, which weigh more or less the same as a bowling ball, sixty feet or even thirty, let alone seventy-five. Of course, I've already died eight or nine times.
Paul comments on how they weren't attacking the enemy as they ran, they were in a more barbaric, more primitive state. Their only goal was to defend themselves from the enemy fire, which they did quite well.
I think if I was in a situation where there was a direct threat to my own life and I had the capability to destroy as much of the threat as possible, I would act on that capability to the best of my abilities in a way similar to what Paul calls defense against annihilation. I don't think I would be capable of killing my own father, but I've never been in a situation where there was a direct threat to my life in the manner the soldiers were dealing with - and had dealt with many times.
"The boots are a symbol for something... what do you think?"
I think the boots stand for something you want but don't need anymore - not necessarily due to death, but for other reasons as well. Kemmerich wanted to keep the boots if at all possible, but when he thought he had no hope of survival he said Müller could have them.
"Why do you think the settings are not often described in detail? ..."
Well, when the question is put to me in that form, the answer is clear, obvious, and irrefutable: Paul's immediate survival doesn't depend on what features of the landscape are half a mile away, but it does depend on how many cannon the enemy has.
Furthermore, when I think about it like that, I can eliminate anything I imagine in the scene which would pose an immediate threat to Paul's survival. For example, he would have mentioned the fog: A fog between you and your enemies would make you unable to watch for any advancing infantry or siege weapons from the other side.
I think the boots stand for something you want but don't need anymore - not necessarily due to death, but for other reasons as well. Kemmerich wanted to keep the boots if at all possible, but when he thought he had no hope of survival he said Müller could have them.
"Why do you think the settings are not often described in detail? ..."
Well, when the question is put to me in that form, the answer is clear, obvious, and irrefutable: Paul's immediate survival doesn't depend on what features of the landscape are half a mile away, but it does depend on how many cannon the enemy has.
Furthermore, when I think about it like that, I can eliminate anything I imagine in the scene which would pose an immediate threat to Paul's survival. For example, he would have mentioned the fog: A fog between you and your enemies would make you unable to watch for any advancing infantry or siege weapons from the other side.
A reply to a reply to a reply
"First of all, I can't believe you [sic]'d me. Second of all, ..."
Now you'll have to [sic] me back; let's just not start a [sic] war!
I admit Kimmelstoss could be a symbol to the group for the military organization itself, but I would disagree if the army hadn't had so much practice in closing the loopholes. I believe that each and every individual of the group is intelligent to find and exploit any and all loopholes they can find in the army regulations. The only problem is there are none to find.
Another thing I can't understand is how an employee of McDonald's would see customers as symbols of McDonald's itself. However, I can certainly connect to it far more than soldiers, I've seen McDonald's employees being jerks to their customers with my own eyes.
As for the number of death symbols, I can't even find individual symbols. Virtually everything in the book so far has been intertwined with death to an amazing degree. It seems as though from the first chapter and there onward, every remark has some connection, regardless how faint, to death.
"hole in the ground = grave .... irony of live soldiers hiding in a grave... thoughts?"
Not only were they hiding in a hole in the ground, they were actually hiding inside a grave the hole uncovered. That's not the only point in that particular chapter in which the irony of soldiers hiding in graves is made obvious - some of their company's soldiers died in the graves they were hiding in to stay alive.
Irony isn't really something I'm capable of explaining. It's like sarcasm, satire, or hyperbole - how can you not get it? If I were to write a satirical post regarding a chapter of All Quiet on the Western Front as a happy and joyous book, how can you not realize I'm not serious?
Of course, then again, I live in a household where sarcasm is a constant instead of an unknown.
Sometimes when our cat is purring contentedly on the couch we'll comment on how we torture her or
how we wish she would learn to relax.
Now you'll have to [sic] me back; let's just not start a [sic] war!
I admit Kimmelstoss could be a symbol to the group for the military organization itself, but I would disagree if the army hadn't had so much practice in closing the loopholes. I believe that each and every individual of the group is intelligent to find and exploit any and all loopholes they can find in the army regulations. The only problem is there are none to find.
Another thing I can't understand is how an employee of McDonald's would see customers as symbols of McDonald's itself. However, I can certainly connect to it far more than soldiers, I've seen McDonald's employees being jerks to their customers with my own eyes.
As for the number of death symbols, I can't even find individual symbols. Virtually everything in the book so far has been intertwined with death to an amazing degree. It seems as though from the first chapter and there onward, every remark has some connection, regardless how faint, to death.
"hole in the ground = grave .... irony of live soldiers hiding in a grave... thoughts?"
Not only were they hiding in a hole in the ground, they were actually hiding inside a grave the hole uncovered. That's not the only point in that particular chapter in which the irony of soldiers hiding in graves is made obvious - some of their company's soldiers died in the graves they were hiding in to stay alive.
Irony isn't really something I'm capable of explaining. It's like sarcasm, satire, or hyperbole - how can you not get it? If I were to write a satirical post regarding a chapter of All Quiet on the Western Front as a happy and joyous book, how can you not realize I'm not serious?
Of course, then again, I live in a household where sarcasm is a constant instead of an unknown.
Sometimes when our cat is purring contentedly on the couch we'll comment on how we torture her or
how we wish she would learn to relax.
@Ms. Cox: Commenting doesn't seem to be working correctly for me, so I'll just answer your comments here!
"Why do you think they chose to make a plan to attach [sic] Himmelstoss? ..."
In my opinion, there's no way they're attacking the military as a whole. The way to attack a system of government of any shape or form is not to attack one person, especially one nowhere near the top of the chain of command. They were attacking a person, not a system: the way to destroy a system is to undermine it or use its loopholes. Beating up one man is neither.
As for what led up to the event of the attack: Himmelstoss treated everyone in the group poorly, but Tjaden especially suffered at his merciless hands. I believe the chain of command which placed him over them and made them unable to safely rebel against his treatment helped to establish their hatred for him, but they have no hatred for the chain of command itself.
"What do you think the effect is on the story of having a first-person narrator? ..."
Although it's indeed true that a single person's view is always going to be biased to have him and his friends in the higher moral standing and his enemies in the lower moral standing, the average person won't have a massively slanted bias one way or the other – although I must admit the events thus far seem to be far more slanted than average. So far, I've seen four groups of characters.
1.) Neutral – Bystanders; people Paul never interacts with directly or indirectly.
2.) Friends – These people are obviously 'the good guys' - Paul always shows them in a positive light.
3.) Enemies – Again, these people are obviously 'the bad guys' - they're always complete jerks.
4.) The Other Side – Paul never actually says he hates the opposing army; he just tries to not get
killed by them.
"Why do you think Remarque chose to have these main characters in a hole in the ground, ..."
To me this seems fairly obvious to even the most oblivious of readers. The hole in the ground in inherent in the setting the characters are in – they're in the middle of a warzone in which cannon shells are falling and making craters in the ground, hence hiding in a hole. As for the coffin falling on the character instead of a happy face bowling ball, the coffin creates a grim tone in which even those who already died aren't safe from the ravages of war. War has no respect for anyone within its reach.
...well, it would also be fairly unlikely for a happy face bowling ball to be in the middle of a warzone anyway.
"Why do you think they chose to make a plan to attach [sic] Himmelstoss? ..."
In my opinion, there's no way they're attacking the military as a whole. The way to attack a system of government of any shape or form is not to attack one person, especially one nowhere near the top of the chain of command. They were attacking a person, not a system: the way to destroy a system is to undermine it or use its loopholes. Beating up one man is neither.
As for what led up to the event of the attack: Himmelstoss treated everyone in the group poorly, but Tjaden especially suffered at his merciless hands. I believe the chain of command which placed him over them and made them unable to safely rebel against his treatment helped to establish their hatred for him, but they have no hatred for the chain of command itself.
"What do you think the effect is on the story of having a first-person narrator? ..."
Although it's indeed true that a single person's view is always going to be biased to have him and his friends in the higher moral standing and his enemies in the lower moral standing, the average person won't have a massively slanted bias one way or the other – although I must admit the events thus far seem to be far more slanted than average. So far, I've seen four groups of characters.
1.) Neutral – Bystanders; people Paul never interacts with directly or indirectly.
2.) Friends – These people are obviously 'the good guys' - Paul always shows them in a positive light.
3.) Enemies – Again, these people are obviously 'the bad guys' - they're always complete jerks.
4.) The Other Side – Paul never actually says he hates the opposing army; he just tries to not get
killed by them.
"Why do you think Remarque chose to have these main characters in a hole in the ground, ..."
To me this seems fairly obvious to even the most oblivious of readers. The hole in the ground in inherent in the setting the characters are in – they're in the middle of a warzone in which cannon shells are falling and making craters in the ground, hence hiding in a hole. As for the coffin falling on the character instead of a happy face bowling ball, the coffin creates a grim tone in which even those who already died aren't safe from the ravages of war. War has no respect for anyone within its reach.
...well, it would also be fairly unlikely for a happy face bowling ball to be in the middle of a warzone anyway.
Thoughts on "All Quiet on the Western Front"
The group heads to the front two days earlier than scheduled due to an offensive being made by the Allies, and as they near the front, they see a wall of a hundred coffins stack in a wall two coffins tall. The English have strengthened their front; bringing more cannon to push the offensive.
Meanwhile, in the trenches, the Axis' own cannon are worn out and their shots are often landing in the trenches of their own. Two of the men in the Second Company are wounded by their own side's shells.
During this time, Paul thinks about how much random chance and luck really do rule soldiers' lives. He notes that in a "bomb-proof dug-out" he may be killed by a shell and may survive ten hours of bombardment totally uninjured. In my opinion, a bomb-proof dug-out in which a soldier can be killed by a single shell is not very bomb-proof.
In the trenches there are numerous rats. The rats nibble at the bread of almost all the soldiers until they put a stop to it. They cut out the gnawed bread, throw it in a heap on the floor, and turn out the lights. After the rats have gathered sufficiently, the soldiers turn the lights back on and strike at the pile of rats. They repeat this process repeatedly until the rats stop gathering, and yet in the morning all the gnawed scraps of bread have been carried off. It's the mystery of the rats.
I'm not a soldier or an accountant, but it seems to me like it would be less expensive to replace the Axis cannon than to buy coffins for all those who end up getting killed by their own side's shelling. Not only that, but if the English are pushing an offensive on the Axis front then I would doubly want to be able to hit them instead of my own men to try to push them back.
Random chance truly does rule soldiers' lives, as it does for everyone. However, the difference is that for everyone else random chance might cause one to be stuck in traffic or to meet an old friend. For a soldier random chance might cause one to have a hole in the head or be slightly grazed by splinters.
As for the rats, I certainly don't pretend to have the slightest understanding as to how rats can appear and disappear so easily from practically everywhere. With human soldiers I can make at least some connection even if I've never had those experiences myself, because they're members of the same race as I am.
However, rats aren't even human beings. How they can both not reappear after a massacre of that scale and simultaneously carry off all the bread is beyond me. Rats may not have brains the size of ours, but they certainly have the ability to navigate small hidey-holes quite effectively.
In this, they're not so different from the soldiers: The rats hide in crevices to stay away from the slashing knives of the soldiers, and the soldiers hide in crevices to stay away from the slashing explosions of the Allies.
Meanwhile, in the trenches, the Axis' own cannon are worn out and their shots are often landing in the trenches of their own. Two of the men in the Second Company are wounded by their own side's shells.
During this time, Paul thinks about how much random chance and luck really do rule soldiers' lives. He notes that in a "bomb-proof dug-out" he may be killed by a shell and may survive ten hours of bombardment totally uninjured. In my opinion, a bomb-proof dug-out in which a soldier can be killed by a single shell is not very bomb-proof.
In the trenches there are numerous rats. The rats nibble at the bread of almost all the soldiers until they put a stop to it. They cut out the gnawed bread, throw it in a heap on the floor, and turn out the lights. After the rats have gathered sufficiently, the soldiers turn the lights back on and strike at the pile of rats. They repeat this process repeatedly until the rats stop gathering, and yet in the morning all the gnawed scraps of bread have been carried off. It's the mystery of the rats.
I'm not a soldier or an accountant, but it seems to me like it would be less expensive to replace the Axis cannon than to buy coffins for all those who end up getting killed by their own side's shelling. Not only that, but if the English are pushing an offensive on the Axis front then I would doubly want to be able to hit them instead of my own men to try to push them back.
Random chance truly does rule soldiers' lives, as it does for everyone. However, the difference is that for everyone else random chance might cause one to be stuck in traffic or to meet an old friend. For a soldier random chance might cause one to have a hole in the head or be slightly grazed by splinters.
As for the rats, I certainly don't pretend to have the slightest understanding as to how rats can appear and disappear so easily from practically everywhere. With human soldiers I can make at least some connection even if I've never had those experiences myself, because they're members of the same race as I am.
However, rats aren't even human beings. How they can both not reappear after a massacre of that scale and simultaneously carry off all the bread is beyond me. Rats may not have brains the size of ours, but they certainly have the ability to navigate small hidey-holes quite effectively.
In this, they're not so different from the soldiers: The rats hide in crevices to stay away from the slashing knives of the soldiers, and the soldiers hide in crevices to stay away from the slashing explosions of the Allies.
Thoughts on "All Quiet on the Western Front" - A Summary Thus Far
Chapter One:
Basic character introduction. Little happens here, although the dynamics between Ginger and all the other men of the Second Company are interesting. Ginger's unwillingness to bring his kitchen to the front line doesn't create a positive image of him in the soldiers' or reader's eyes.
Looking back, the want of Kemmerich's boots wasn't an act of inconsideration on Müller's part, but rather one of self-enhancement. Although Müller would have preferred Kemmerich's survival, his death seemed obvious and Müller didn't want the boots to go to someone who neither deserved nor earned them.
Chapter Two:
The second chapter introduces a contrast and a connection between what Paul thinks and what actually happens in the real world. I can only assume that he's actually in the hospital for the entire second chapter but merely spends the first half thinking.
Paul's conversation with Kemmerich as the latter is dying is interesting to say the least, although I wouldn't want someone to tell me I was going to fine while I was clearly dying. Kemmerich's comment to Paul about taking the boots to Müller shows he knew he was going to die.
Chapter Three:
In chapter three, the pecking order of the army is made clear. Those at the top peck first, and those underneath them peck last. However, if one has plenty of cigarettes and cigars handy, one may peck before his superior. My assumption about poison gas was correct, but the question Paul later asked: "Is it air-tight?" is a rather disconcerting one. If I was issued a gas mask I would assume it had already been tested for airtightness, but to the army soldiers are, well, soldiers: worthless pawns.
Later, Paul&Co. are lying in wait for their superior, Kimmelstoss. As he passes by, they grab him, throw a bedsheet over him, and take their not-so-dignified revenge on him. Their having little or no respect for their superior officer shows up again in Chapter Five when Tjaden insults Kimmelstoss to his face. However, Kimmelstoss seems not to know what to do with the group when they show their disrespect in a way that doesn't violate any army regulations, and this probably fuels their disrespect.
Chapter Four:
Chapter four is the first chapter in which the soldiers head to the front. The number of times I would have died (I counted five) is incredible, especially considering how few of the soldiers in the company actually died. Only eight were killed, although thirteen others were wounded. The quick thinking, reaction speed, and general time to full readiness of the soldiers is not only incredible, it's bordering inhuman. However, the horses' screams aggravating the soldiers shows they still have humanity in them, despite what they've seen.
Chapter Five:
The group's disrespect for Kimmelstoss shows up here again, but here they get punished for the less severe insubordination, in contrast with the beating for which they weren't punished at all. If they hadn't used a bedsheet to ensure Kimmelstoss not knowing who his assailants were, this lack of consistency would be amazing.
In the second half of the chapter, Paul and Katczinsky find two geese, successfully capture and kill one (although Paul makes good "friends" with a bulldog in the process), and cook the dead goose. They feast on the goose and take the rest to Kropp and Tjaden.
General Thoughts:
The settings are often not described in extreme detail, leaving much of it to the imagination. In Chapter Four, for example, what I imagine is an enormous flat area with the Allied batteries on a raised hill. A forest surrounds on one side with an ocean on the other, and a trench and road run side-by-side past a graveyard. There are some destroyed houses along the road, and one intact house with no one living in it. I also imagine a fog between the Germans and the Allies, making it hard for the Germans to see their assailants.
Basic character introduction. Little happens here, although the dynamics between Ginger and all the other men of the Second Company are interesting. Ginger's unwillingness to bring his kitchen to the front line doesn't create a positive image of him in the soldiers' or reader's eyes.
Looking back, the want of Kemmerich's boots wasn't an act of inconsideration on Müller's part, but rather one of self-enhancement. Although Müller would have preferred Kemmerich's survival, his death seemed obvious and Müller didn't want the boots to go to someone who neither deserved nor earned them.
Chapter Two:
The second chapter introduces a contrast and a connection between what Paul thinks and what actually happens in the real world. I can only assume that he's actually in the hospital for the entire second chapter but merely spends the first half thinking.
Paul's conversation with Kemmerich as the latter is dying is interesting to say the least, although I wouldn't want someone to tell me I was going to fine while I was clearly dying. Kemmerich's comment to Paul about taking the boots to Müller shows he knew he was going to die.
Chapter Three:
In chapter three, the pecking order of the army is made clear. Those at the top peck first, and those underneath them peck last. However, if one has plenty of cigarettes and cigars handy, one may peck before his superior. My assumption about poison gas was correct, but the question Paul later asked: "Is it air-tight?" is a rather disconcerting one. If I was issued a gas mask I would assume it had already been tested for airtightness, but to the army soldiers are, well, soldiers: worthless pawns.
Later, Paul&Co. are lying in wait for their superior, Kimmelstoss. As he passes by, they grab him, throw a bedsheet over him, and take their not-so-dignified revenge on him. Their having little or no respect for their superior officer shows up again in Chapter Five when Tjaden insults Kimmelstoss to his face. However, Kimmelstoss seems not to know what to do with the group when they show their disrespect in a way that doesn't violate any army regulations, and this probably fuels their disrespect.
Chapter Four:
Chapter four is the first chapter in which the soldiers head to the front. The number of times I would have died (I counted five) is incredible, especially considering how few of the soldiers in the company actually died. Only eight were killed, although thirteen others were wounded. The quick thinking, reaction speed, and general time to full readiness of the soldiers is not only incredible, it's bordering inhuman. However, the horses' screams aggravating the soldiers shows they still have humanity in them, despite what they've seen.
Chapter Five:
The group's disrespect for Kimmelstoss shows up here again, but here they get punished for the less severe insubordination, in contrast with the beating for which they weren't punished at all. If they hadn't used a bedsheet to ensure Kimmelstoss not knowing who his assailants were, this lack of consistency would be amazing.
In the second half of the chapter, Paul and Katczinsky find two geese, successfully capture and kill one (although Paul makes good "friends" with a bulldog in the process), and cook the dead goose. They feast on the goose and take the rest to Kropp and Tjaden.
General Thoughts:
The settings are often not described in extreme detail, leaving much of it to the imagination. In Chapter Four, for example, what I imagine is an enormous flat area with the Allied batteries on a raised hill. A forest surrounds on one side with an ocean on the other, and a trench and road run side-by-side past a graveyard. There are some destroyed houses along the road, and one intact house with no one living in it. I also imagine a fog between the Germans and the Allies, making it hard for the Germans to see their assailants.
Thoughts on "All Quiet on the Western Front"
Himmelstoss returns to the group with reinforcements: he's brought the sergeant-major. However, Tjaden is not in sight and Himmelstoss and the sergeant head off after saying that Tjaden is to report to the Orderly Room in ten minutes.
After the group has played cards for a while, Himmelstoss returns and once again asks where Tjaden is. Kropp asks him if he had ever been there before. Himmelstoss retorts that it was none of his business, and then Kropp points up at the sky and comments on the anti-aircraft and how the new privates ask to 'hop it,' which I assume means to fly an airplane ... directly into a hundred explosions.
In the Orderly Room, a trial takes place in which the events that led up to the insubordination are explained. Himmelstoss gets a long lecture about how the front is not a parade ground, Tjaden gets a sermon and three days' open arrest, and Kropp gets one day's open arrest.
Meanwhile, Paul and Katczinsky go off to find a goose to cook. They find a pair of geese, and Paul tries to capture them but complications occur when one of the geese gets its wind back for a second and a bulldog attacks Paul. Paul shoots a revolver at the dog but misses, and jumps over the wall. While he had been contending with the bulldog, Kat had killed one of the geese. The pair runs off and begin to cook the goose.
After having cooked the goose and eaten some of it, they take the rest to Kropp and Tjaden. Tjaden consumes the lion's share of the rest of the goose and drinks gravy to wash it down.
I find the chain-of-command theory in the army interesting. If a private is insubordinate and his boss doesn't have enough firepower to take him out, the private's boss calls his boss.
Another thing that amazes me is that anyone would willingly ask to essentially steer themselves toward their own deaths. It seems like a violation of one of the most basic of instincts: self-preservation.
The arrest for insubordination and the following immediate theft of a goose seems like a disconnect between action and punishment, and in fact they seem to have a higher opinion of open arrest than they have of being on the front line. Why the entire chain of command doesn't just disintegrate because of this is beyond me.
After the group has played cards for a while, Himmelstoss returns and once again asks where Tjaden is. Kropp asks him if he had ever been there before. Himmelstoss retorts that it was none of his business, and then Kropp points up at the sky and comments on the anti-aircraft and how the new privates ask to 'hop it,' which I assume means to fly an airplane ... directly into a hundred explosions.
In the Orderly Room, a trial takes place in which the events that led up to the insubordination are explained. Himmelstoss gets a long lecture about how the front is not a parade ground, Tjaden gets a sermon and three days' open arrest, and Kropp gets one day's open arrest.
Meanwhile, Paul and Katczinsky go off to find a goose to cook. They find a pair of geese, and Paul tries to capture them but complications occur when one of the geese gets its wind back for a second and a bulldog attacks Paul. Paul shoots a revolver at the dog but misses, and jumps over the wall. While he had been contending with the bulldog, Kat had killed one of the geese. The pair runs off and begin to cook the goose.
After having cooked the goose and eaten some of it, they take the rest to Kropp and Tjaden. Tjaden consumes the lion's share of the rest of the goose and drinks gravy to wash it down.
I find the chain-of-command theory in the army interesting. If a private is insubordinate and his boss doesn't have enough firepower to take him out, the private's boss calls his boss.
Another thing that amazes me is that anyone would willingly ask to essentially steer themselves toward their own deaths. It seems like a violation of one of the most basic of instincts: self-preservation.
The arrest for insubordination and the following immediate theft of a goose seems like a disconnect between action and punishment, and in fact they seem to have a higher opinion of open arrest than they have of being on the front line. Why the entire chain of command doesn't just disintegrate because of this is beyond me.
Thoughts on "All Quiet on the Western Front"
At the beginning of the fifth chapter the group is back at base camp and are killing their lice. All is fairly uneventful, and Müller asks the rest of the group what they would do if it was peace-time. The group gives various different answers: Haie would, if he was a non-com, stay in the army for peace-time until he got his pension, but Kropp would leave the army immediately. Detering wants to go back to his farm and family - they haven't been doing so well.
Himmelstoss comes up to the group and is startled by the group's collective reactions. Tjaden insults him and calls him a dirty hound, and Himmelstoss angrily goes off to fetch the sergeant-major. Haie and Tjaden go off to somewhere where Tjaden won't be found immediately.
When Himmelstoss and Tjaden have gone off, the group suddenly starts asking itself the average school question. Kropp is the ultimate winner with the question "What is the meaning of cohesion?"
The group talks about what will happen after the war, and what they'll do in what we civilians like to call society. Paul comments on how pointless salaries and professions and other norms of our society are, and makes another allusion to death: "We fly from ourselves. From our life. We were eighteen and had begun to love life and the world; and we had to shoot it to pieces." (Pages 87-88, All Quiet on the Western Front)
This is perhaps so far the most revealing chapter in regards to the characters' minds about the war and what will come after. They clearly all have disdain for the educational system and its questions which don't have any actual signifigance in any real-world application and the younger soldiers in the group who don't have wives or children back home are clearly deeply scarred from the war, even if they try not to show it, including Paul.
Himmelstoss comes up to the group and is startled by the group's collective reactions. Tjaden insults him and calls him a dirty hound, and Himmelstoss angrily goes off to fetch the sergeant-major. Haie and Tjaden go off to somewhere where Tjaden won't be found immediately.
When Himmelstoss and Tjaden have gone off, the group suddenly starts asking itself the average school question. Kropp is the ultimate winner with the question "What is the meaning of cohesion?"
The group talks about what will happen after the war, and what they'll do in what we civilians like to call society. Paul comments on how pointless salaries and professions and other norms of our society are, and makes another allusion to death: "We fly from ourselves. From our life. We were eighteen and had begun to love life and the world; and we had to shoot it to pieces." (Pages 87-88, All Quiet on the Western Front)
This is perhaps so far the most revealing chapter in regards to the characters' minds about the war and what will come after. They clearly all have disdain for the educational system and its questions which don't have any actual signifigance in any real-world application and the younger soldiers in the group who don't have wives or children back home are clearly deeply scarred from the war, even if they try not to show it, including Paul.
Thoughts on "All Quiet on the Western Front"
The group is still in the shell's blast crater, and they successfully work the coffin away. The bombardment has stopped so the group gets out of the hole, and Paul sees someone else without a gas mask. He tears his own off and gulps the fresh, unused air.
Some distance away there's a soldier whose leg bone has been completely shattered. It's also stated that if he's been shot in the gut he shouldn't drink anything, but I don't recall it ever actually being said if he had been or not. It was the same soldier who had earlier been terrified by the bombardment. Katczinsky and Paul were considering putting him out of his misery -- a euphemism for "killing him in cold blood" -- but a group of other soldiers had gathered so they didn't have the opportunity and went to get a stretcher.
Later, the group is returning with the eight wounded, who Paul calls "dead," and while everyone is half-asleep en route an explosion is heard. Everyone on the lorry is suddenly wide awake, alert, and ready to jump into the trench on the side of the road.
It's virtually certain by this point that I would have either have been killed by a bombardment or by the gas. Assuming I hadn't, however, I would probably have some severe wound of arguable survivability. If there had been another explosion I would have been too unconscious to hear it, let alone instantly be wide awake and ready to ditch the lorry.
I also would never have the intenstinal fortitude to kill someone even to save them greater suffering later on. I doubt I would even be able to put a firm grip on the gun long enough to aim it in the person's general direction.
I'm really not cut out for being a soldier.
Some distance away there's a soldier whose leg bone has been completely shattered. It's also stated that if he's been shot in the gut he shouldn't drink anything, but I don't recall it ever actually being said if he had been or not. It was the same soldier who had earlier been terrified by the bombardment. Katczinsky and Paul were considering putting him out of his misery -- a euphemism for "killing him in cold blood" -- but a group of other soldiers had gathered so they didn't have the opportunity and went to get a stretcher.
Later, the group is returning with the eight wounded, who Paul calls "dead," and while everyone is half-asleep en route an explosion is heard. Everyone on the lorry is suddenly wide awake, alert, and ready to jump into the trench on the side of the road.
It's virtually certain by this point that I would have either have been killed by a bombardment or by the gas. Assuming I hadn't, however, I would probably have some severe wound of arguable survivability. If there had been another explosion I would have been too unconscious to hear it, let alone instantly be wide awake and ready to ditch the lorry.
I also would never have the intenstinal fortitude to kill someone even to save them greater suffering later on. I doubt I would even be able to put a firm grip on the gun long enough to aim it in the person's general direction.
I'm really not cut out for being a soldier.
Thoughts on "All Quiet on the Western Front"
Chapter Four continues and the group is out of danger for the moment, but the cries of wounded horses can be heard loud and clear from somewhere nearby. Detering, a farmer, can't stand the cries of the dying and panicked horses and wants to put them out of their misery, but Katczinsky won't let him. Detering is angry and comments on the cruelty of using horses in the war.
Some time later, at three o'clock, the group is returning to the base camp. However, a bombardment starts as they're en route to their destination through a graveyard and they have to take cover. Everyone gets to cover in just the nick of time and the shells land near the graveyard. They make their mark and Paul is hit by two splinters: One grazes his arm but doesn't injure him, another hits his helmet without injuring him directly but it does cause him to almost loose consciousness. A crater has opened and Paul dives into it, and a damaged coffin is inside. Katczinsky tells Paul that the air is filled with gas, and Paul puts on his gas mask. Paul, Kat, Kropp, and one other soldier jump into the shell-hole, but soon realize that the gas will collect in it more densely than on the surface. They're about to leave the hole when another bombardment starts, and a coffin lands on the unnamed soldier's arm. He tries to tear his gas mask off but Kropp keeps him from doing so while the other two work away at the coffin.
I commented before that when the first bombardment started I probably would have deserted the army regardless of whether it was logically plausible or not, so I would probably be a corpse incapable of hearing anything even if I wanted to. However, assuming that I didn't desert the group, I still wouldn't even be capable of imagining what a horse screaming would sound like.
The quick reactions of the soldiers, whether incredibly fast unconscious thinking or some primal reflexes, astounds me repeatedly. Even if someone told me to take cover, I probably wouldn't react fast enough to dive behind a gravestone or mound before the shells hit. Probably the thing I can connect to most so far is the soldier whose arm was trapped under the coffin trying to tear the gas mask off. I would probably react the same way if I was wearing the already intolerable gas mask and suddenly had my arm pinned under something. I can't help but think Paul is unlikely to die at this point, if at all - a hundred blank pages in a 150 page book is rather expensive if you're mass-producing copies of a book.
Some time later, at three o'clock, the group is returning to the base camp. However, a bombardment starts as they're en route to their destination through a graveyard and they have to take cover. Everyone gets to cover in just the nick of time and the shells land near the graveyard. They make their mark and Paul is hit by two splinters: One grazes his arm but doesn't injure him, another hits his helmet without injuring him directly but it does cause him to almost loose consciousness. A crater has opened and Paul dives into it, and a damaged coffin is inside. Katczinsky tells Paul that the air is filled with gas, and Paul puts on his gas mask. Paul, Kat, Kropp, and one other soldier jump into the shell-hole, but soon realize that the gas will collect in it more densely than on the surface. They're about to leave the hole when another bombardment starts, and a coffin lands on the unnamed soldier's arm. He tries to tear his gas mask off but Kropp keeps him from doing so while the other two work away at the coffin.
I commented before that when the first bombardment started I probably would have deserted the army regardless of whether it was logically plausible or not, so I would probably be a corpse incapable of hearing anything even if I wanted to. However, assuming that I didn't desert the group, I still wouldn't even be capable of imagining what a horse screaming would sound like.
The quick reactions of the soldiers, whether incredibly fast unconscious thinking or some primal reflexes, astounds me repeatedly. Even if someone told me to take cover, I probably wouldn't react fast enough to dive behind a gravestone or mound before the shells hit. Probably the thing I can connect to most so far is the soldier whose arm was trapped under the coffin trying to tear the gas mask off. I would probably react the same way if I was wearing the already intolerable gas mask and suddenly had my arm pinned under something. I can't help but think Paul is unlikely to die at this point, if at all - a hundred blank pages in a 150 page book is rather expensive if you're mass-producing copies of a book.
Thoughts on "All Quiet on the Western Front"
After the beginning of Chapter Four, Paul thinks about the Earth, and how when a soldier hits the dirt the earth is their only friend and their mother. The company soon reaches their destination, however, and set up an encampment: they drive stakes into the ground and unroll barbed wire around it. The entire group then tries to sleep, but due to various conditions, such as coldness from the sea and being in the middle of a warzone, they don't get much sleep. Then, after Paul wakes up in the middle of the night, a bombardment starts and their encampment starts taking hits. Everyone has to move, and one soldier is terrified by the bombardment. Once the bombardment had let up, he came around and realized he had defecated his pants.
If I was in the middle of a warzone, I probably wouldn't be able to sleep even if I popped a sleeping pill. I would probably desert the army if I had the chance, and I probably would desert the army even if I didn't have the chance during the first bombardment. Of course, I would also probably be unable to make it through military basic training to get into the front line. It seems incredible that anyone could join the army at that age and even remain able to think or care about anyone else. One's greatest escapades happen around that age, and escapades are rather hard to come by when either a superior officer is breathing down your neck or another army threatens to blow your head off of it.
If I was in the middle of a warzone, I probably wouldn't be able to sleep even if I popped a sleeping pill. I would probably desert the army if I had the chance, and I probably would desert the army even if I didn't have the chance during the first bombardment. Of course, I would also probably be unable to make it through military basic training to get into the front line. It seems incredible that anyone could join the army at that age and even remain able to think or care about anyone else. One's greatest escapades happen around that age, and escapades are rather hard to come by when either a superior officer is breathing down your neck or another army threatens to blow your head off of it.
Thoughts on "All Quiet on the Western Front"
The fourth chapter begins with Paul and company heading to the front. As they approach the front, they get more and more alert. Pual narrated that he wouldn't call it tenseness, although I probably would, having no better word to describe it. As they go deeper into the front and closer to their destination, the sounds of war are eminent from all around: shells exploding, guns firing, and the batteries of the Allied powers which started an hour too soon.
Although I'm no expert in warfare, I would only expect the other side to attack sooner than usual if they either expected to be able to take the area successfully, or thought they were going to be overrun soon and wanted to make an impression on the opposing side. Based on earlier comments by the main characters, such as "We're loosing the war because we can salute too well", the latter is probably not the case, meaning they must expect to be able to take the land they're attacking soon.
Although I'm no expert in warfare, I would only expect the other side to attack sooner than usual if they either expected to be able to take the area successfully, or thought they were going to be overrun soon and wanted to make an impression on the opposing side. Based on earlier comments by the main characters, such as "We're loosing the war because we can salute too well", the latter is probably not the case, meaning they must expect to be able to take the land they're attacking soon.
Thoughts on "All Quiet on the Western Front"
At the end of the third chapter, Paul and company are all hiding, waiting to beat up their superior, Himmelstoss, while he was returning from a bar. They had obviously planned it to some degree: They knew the route he would take back from the bar, and the location of a side alley on that route. They also brought a bed sheet so he couldn't see who his attackers were and a pillow so that he couldn't yell out. Each member of the group had their revenge on Himmelstoss in some small way.
It astounds me to believe that there are really people who would have that level of hatred for others for any reason. It also seems hard to believe that the higher-ranking an officer is, the more malicious toward the lower ranks they would be. Furthermore, the fact they knew his habits to that level of degree just to plot revenge is quite astounding and more than a little appalling. I doubt Himmelstoss was expecting any of his trainees to take revenge on him, especially in that manner.
What if there's a gang of miscreants near your house plotting to attack you for some percieved wrong of society? How would you feel about it?
It astounds me to believe that there are really people who would have that level of hatred for others for any reason. It also seems hard to believe that the higher-ranking an officer is, the more malicious toward the lower ranks they would be. Furthermore, the fact they knew his habits to that level of degree just to plot revenge is quite astounding and more than a little appalling. I doubt Himmelstoss was expecting any of his trainees to take revenge on him, especially in that manner.
What if there's a gang of miscreants near your house plotting to attack you for some percieved wrong of society? How would you feel about it?
Thoughts on "All Quiet on the Western Front"
At the beginning of the third chapter, new privates join the Second Company. The interactions between Katczinsky and the new privates say a lot about the ground rules of 'society' in the army. For example, when he dumps food on the one private's mess tin, he says to in future come with a cigarette in the other hand. Cigarettes form the basic currency for the army society, and the hierarchy is experience-based, at least in the bottom levels. When Paul and company first saw the privates, they were being handed gas masks, implying poison gas is a serious threat.
Thoughts on "All Quiet on the Western Front"
I've been reading All Quiet on the Western Front for class, and decided I would blog my thoughts about the book. It's a story told in the first person from the point of view of the main character, Paul Bäumer.
Thoughts
Although the first and second chapters of a book are generally the chapters where little happens aside from character development, this book has some strong character development within the first few pages. For example, when the Second Company entered the mess hall to eat and Ginger wanted to wait until all150 80 men had arrived, Katczinsky immediately responded that the other 70 men were either "in the dressing room or pushing up daisies." While Ginger was complaining, Lieutenant Bertinek arrived and ordered him to serve all of the rations.
Near the end of the first chapter, Franz Kemmerich was shot in the leg. The leg had to be amputated, but it seemed obvious that Kemmerich was going to die. Müller was eager to take Kemmerich's boots and didn't want an orderly to get them first. To me, it seems beyond inconsiderate to even think about talking about the possible death of someone you know excitedly, but I've never been served in a war or even served in the army at all.
At the start of the second chapter, Paul reminisces about various things that occured in the past – the poems he used to work on and how he no longer felt he had any connection to that, and how he had nothing to connect him to the life before the war; how Müller was sympathetic for Kemmerich's plight but just wanted the boots because they would better fit his needs than they would Kemmerich; and the class' ten week's boot camp training. The other half of the chapter takes place in the hospital where Paul watches Kemmerich slowly succumb to Death and converses with him in the final hours before his death. The chapter ends with Kemmerich's death and Paul's taking the boots to Müller, whereupon Paul notes "they fit well."
Another thing I find worth noting is that the story is told from Paul Bäumer's point of view. That in itself isn't unique, but the story is as much about his thoughts as the events occuring, if not more.
Thoughts
Although the first and second chapters of a book are generally the chapters where little happens aside from character development, this book has some strong character development within the first few pages. For example, when the Second Company entered the mess hall to eat and Ginger wanted to wait until all
Near the end of the first chapter, Franz Kemmerich was shot in the leg. The leg had to be amputated, but it seemed obvious that Kemmerich was going to die. Müller was eager to take Kemmerich's boots and didn't want an orderly to get them first. To me, it seems beyond inconsiderate to even think about talking about the possible death of someone you know excitedly, but I've never been served in a war or even served in the army at all.
At the start of the second chapter, Paul reminisces about various things that occured in the past – the poems he used to work on and how he no longer felt he had any connection to that, and how he had nothing to connect him to the life before the war; how Müller was sympathetic for Kemmerich's plight but just wanted the boots because they would better fit his needs than they would Kemmerich; and the class' ten week's boot camp training. The other half of the chapter takes place in the hospital where Paul watches Kemmerich slowly succumb to Death and converses with him in the final hours before his death. The chapter ends with Kemmerich's death and Paul's taking the boots to Müller, whereupon Paul notes "they fit well."
Another thing I find worth noting is that the story is told from Paul Bäumer's point of view. That in itself isn't unique, but the story is as much about his thoughts as the events occuring, if not more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)