[[ I recommend viewing this at Polymath Central. Facebook and livejournal are fond of messing with the posts. ]]

The problem with humans would seem to be rooted in their intelligence. They are more intelligent and sapient than any other terrestrial species has managed, and it’s been fighting with their evolution since they first thought, ‘Let’s plant stuff and live here forever and save people dying from stupidity.’

Example: humans initially evolved as, more or less, roving hunter-gatherers. Now we’re stagnant shoppers, but we haven’t had a chance to adapt to it yet. So our diets suck for our lifestyles, (in some countries at least) and we keep saving lives such that we’ll never evolve it out of our collective system.

Complicated philosophical issue that has no ethical or practical solution, DISCUSS!

[[ I recommend viewing this at Polymath Central. Facebook and livejournal are fond of messing with the posts. ]]

this mp3 is the powerup sound from Super Mario Bros. I slowed it way down and discovered that it’s really fairly musical.

I’d be very interested in learning more about this if anyone has any resources. (The GoogleFu is weak with me, I’m unable to find anything)

[[ I recommend viewing this at Polymath Central. Facebook and livejournal are fond of messing with the posts. ]]

There are some rules that I’ve spoken of before that I try to live by, and I think they make me a better person than I could be. (But I could stand to be better) Honesty is the best policy, be yourself, (these are all going to sound cheesy, yes) dare to be stupid, etc.

Be yourself could probably be shortened to ‘be,’ I suppose if you’re going to pretend to be something you’re not, that’s probably just who you are, you liar.

I’ve recently turned my attentions outward, onto my surroundings. I’m not as concerned with myself now days, I seem pretty fine, but I lack the time management skills to make this mess go away. I have so many things I have to do, moreso now that I have a job. Like all people, I wasted the time I had.

Maybe I’ll do some housework over Christmas and the new year.

Speaking of that. Do you realize that I am about two weeks from being 20 years old? Holy crap. Depending on who you ask, I am wildly immature and inexperienced for my age. (If you ask someone who is me, they will say different, but only insofar as inexperience goes. I am so very immature.)

Fun/sadish fact: I have never been on a real date or actually kissed someone. It’s not that sad, but most people have by this time, so it seems odd to people when they find out. (Most people also drive by now though, so.)

Well, I finished one of three resolutions from this last year: I got a job. I demand fanfare!

The two remaining resolutions that I remember were learn to drive, and take better care of my teeth. (I’m updating ‘teeth’ to ‘body in general.’) I made significant progress toward the driver’s license, and I know how to drive at this point, I’ve just never done it. (So I have the theory but no practice) I just need to be less lazy.

Here’s a new resolution, which I’m adding to last year because this coming year is too late: I’m going to stop being a baby around some person you probably don’t know about. Details to never come, you’ll never hear about this again.

(You can always ask, and I’ll tell you all about it in private, whoever you are. Honesty, sir.)

[[ I recommend viewing this at Polymath Central. Facebook and livejournal are fond of messing with the posts. ]]

I occasionally wish that I was capable of holding your attention. Not you, specifically, but attention in general. I suppose I’m interesting enough to people who pay attention to what I say, but that’s a tautology.

Problem is, I’m a largely normal person with no discernible story-telling skills. I’ve been people run personal blogs and keep dozens of people raptly attentive.

It’s not that I crave attention so much as it is that I envy the skill. I think about all sorts of things that are interesting as heck to me, but I am unable to communicate them in an effective and eye-catching way.

There are three parts to it I suspect: I repeat myself, I repeat myself, and I tend to go off on tangents. (I was just thinking of mentioning, for example, that I got a new notebook ’cause I lost my old one a while ago, which would have led back to the original discussion by way of the contents of said notebook.)

If I were to start talking right now about how perceptions might differ, (You and I both see the color orange, and know it’s orange, but we might see it differently. You might see it the way I see blue) you might find it curious initially but I’d kill it.

Oh well.

[[ I recommend viewing this at Polymath Central. Facebook and livejournal are fond of messing with the posts. ]]

I sometimes think of all the things I could accomplish if I actually set out to do them.

More accurately, I think of all the things I could accomplish if those things were easy. The things I do already aren’t that easy but they’re easy for me, and if I set out to do them I guess I could be better.

I am not an expert at anything, but something that I don’t like to admit is that I am good at some things nonetheless. It’s just really hard for me to accept that some people can’t do something that I can do. The things I’m aware of are playing random notes on a piano, typing random code for an interpreter or compiler and retyping it until it works how I want it to, and doing menial, boring things. (Everyone can do menial boring things, so I don’t know if that counts, but I’m good at it!)

Some things I like to think I’m good at are acting, and singing.

Some things I am not good at are being organized, managing my time, and not being afraid of relationships.

Anyway, going back to the things I’m good at. Some of you know that I’ve been doing some light maintenance and not-as-light rethinking of OMP’s website. (By rethinking I mean recoding, not redesigning)

I never seem to have the time I think I do for it, but I’ll have more time soon I hope.

Now web design falls under the ‘typing randomly until it works’ category, and it is something I hesitate to admit being good at. Make no mistake, I’m a beginner, but I guess I am an advanced beginner.

Related: I applied for Google’s Chrome OS Pilot Program. I fully intend to help test it, if I’m chosen, and provide the necessary feedback and stuff. I really want to see if I can make it work for my purposes, which are — for a laptop — OMP’s website, and the Gates Hall website.

I’m sure it will for Gates Hall, that’s mostly content, but OMP’s will be a nice test. I use The GIMP and Notepad++ for most web development I do, but I wouldn’t mind trying something new.

Nobody reads this blog who isn’t a friend or family member, but if I am picked I’ll post my feedback here too I guess.

[[ I recommend viewing this at Polymath Central. Facebook and livejournal are fond of messing with the posts. ]]

Indeed, it’s been ages. Too many things have happened, I’m afraid I’ll have to tell you none of them at all.

Anyway, I’ve taken on the website for one of many theatre companies I roll with. (That’s what you do with theatre groups, right? Roll with ‘em.)

Right now I’m just updating it. Eventually I want to fix it. It’s just not a very friendly website for people who want to update it. (Speaking of which, I should get back to it.. I’m not done, and I started three days ago)

The reason I mention it is that this is my freaking personal blog, get over it. The other reason I mention it is that I’m trying to figure out two things: how to structure its backend, and how to make the ‘behind the scenes’ changes invisible to users.

For example: right now each show has its own page, and every single page is thrown together in a mishmash in the main directory. I’m going to change that, to make it easier to navigate for updating, but users still need to be able to access the existing pages by their existing link.

The obvious answer (obvious to me and no one else who is reading this) is .htaccess, but I suck at that, so I’m going to screw with it on my server here. Good ol’ zalethon.com. vanity URL finally has a user.

[[ I recommend viewing this at Polymath Central. Facebook and livejournal are fond of messing with the posts. ]]

Let’s discuss CSS for a while. Or a few paragraphs anyway.

The box model is giving me problems. Specifically, I’ve been trying to get two columns that extend all the way down the page. But tricksy CSS specifications mean that height:100%; doesn’t quite work the way I want it to.

Here is what I have for the HTML:

<div id='wrapper'>
<div id='content'>
content
</div>
</div>

And the CSS:

#wrapper {
min-height:100%;
}

#content {
height:100%;
}


The problem is the way height works with percentages.

Specifies a percentage height. The percentage is calculated with respect to the height of the generated box’s containing block. If the height of the containing block is not specified explicitly (i.e., it depends on content height), and this element is not absolutely positioned, the value computes to ‘auto’. A percentage height on the root element is relative to the initial containing block.

What this means is that unless HTML, BODY, and the outer block all have specified heights, (’100%’ works for that much) your percentage will be interpreted (by a compliant browser) as ‘AUTO’ no matter what you do. That’s no problem really. But if the height of the containing block isn’t specified explicitly (if it’s ‘auto’ or not specified at all) and the element itself isn’t absolutely positioned, the value will be seen as ‘auto’ anyway.

BUT then if I position the element absolutely, it’s technically removed from the flow of the document! So it isn’t considered to exist, as far as rendering everything else goes.

I have been unable to find a working solution.

Originally posted at zalethon.com. It's probably best to read it there, otherwise you might lose some content. (Strikethroughs for example)

Let’s discuss CSS for a while. Or a few paragraphs anyway.

The box model is giving me problems. Specifically, I’ve been trying to get two columns that extend all the way down the page. But tricksy CSS specifications mean that height:100%; doesn’t quite work the way I want it to.

Here is what I have for the HTML:

<div id='wrapper'>
<div id='content'>
content
</div>
</div>

And the CSS:


#wrapper {
min-height:100%;
}

#content {
height:100%;
}


The problem is the way height works with percentages.

Specifies a percentage height. The percentage is calculated with respect to the height of the generated box’s containing block. If the height of the containing block is not specified explicitly (i.e., it depends on content height), and this element is not absolutely positioned, the value computes to ‘auto’. A percentage height on the root element is relative to the initial containing block.

What this means is that unless HTML, BODY, and the outer block all have specified heights, (’100%’ works for that much) your percentage will be interpreted (by a compliant browser) as ‘AUTO’ no matter what you do. That’s no problem really. But if the height of the containing block isn’t specified explicitly (if it’s ‘auto’ or not specified at all) and the element itself isn’t absolutely positioned, the value will be seen as ‘auto’ anyway.

BUT then if I position the element absolutely, it’s technically removed from the flow of the document! So it isn’t considered to exist, as far as rendering everything else goes.

I have been unable to find a working solution.

Originally posted at zalethon.com. It's probably best to read it there, otherwise you might lose some content. (Strikethroughs for example)

The title/permalink has nothing to do with this post, but I’m just saying. That crayon seriously ticks me off.

I am a long-winded person, so I just deleted my entire post and I will try to hit the points in a brief and interesting way.

You don’t need to take a philosophy course to philosophize.

One should not speak from ignorance, even though everyone does.

Hypocrisy is annoying, but not invalidating: if I say one thing and do another, it does not invalidate what I said. For example, I am firmly against speaking from ignorance, but I speak from ignorance all the time. QED.

Described here is the “airplane on the goddamn treadmill” problem, which is roughly analogous to every argument that has ever taken place.

Both sides think they’re right, and in their own mind they make sense and the other party is a slobbering idiot. There’s more than one side, and the two main sides are rarely right on their own. Also, there are always many, many fallacies used.

It bothers me that people I should agree with seem to only parrot things they’ve heard that seem to back their position up, and don’t bother to think things through, or question anything.

I have been unable to determine how many people are actually like this, how many people only seem like this, (I am a youth after all) and how many people aren’t like this at all. I like to think that most people are not.

I told someone once that they need people to play the ‘devil’s advocate,’ and they need to listen to those people, or they’ll end up sounding stupid. (I didn’t use those words) They said that it seems like everyone is playing devil’s advocate. One should always question one’s self; others shouldn’t have to.

For example, if I say, ‘I believe that the sky is blue,’ I should actually bother to think about it instead of having someone else tell me, ‘What about during twilight?’

I don’t like to be the Twilight– Sunset Guy, (CURSE YOU, Meyer, you ruined the name Twilight Guy for me) but most people don’t bother to think about it. Also, I actually DO like to be Sunset Guy, but I feel like it usually doesn’t accomplish anything but the burning of social bridges. (I don’t know how stupid and piddly that sunset argument is. Maybe Sunset Guy is more likely to say, ‘Is the sky blue, or is that light refracting through the atmosphere?’* He’s kind of a prick.)

I read a study that said that most people don’t register with a specific party because of their beliefs, but because of social and peer pressure. This is something I believe absolutely. I also believe that this is the reason that most people don’t think about their beliefs before they go spilling them all over the place.

My evidence for this is purely anecdotal: most people (rebellious youths aside) seem to think and believe the same things as their parents and other peers. I could be reversing cause and effect here, birds of a feather and all, or perhaps genetics play a great role in determining political and philosophical being. (Then you would think that fewer people would register for the ‘wrong’ party though?)

I’m getting long-winded again, so I should post this before I write five-hundred-and-fifty-NINE words.**

* The sky is blue, usually. Semantics are annoying, but honestly. When we use a the name of a colour to describe something, we ARE describing the way light reflects and refracts off and through it and hits our eyes. Also, if we want to get stupid-technical, we can start questioning the very nature of reality with a question like that.

** Now I have 624.

Originally posted at zalethon.com. It's probably best to read it there, otherwise you might lose some content. (Strikethroughs for example)

Today I learned two things: what a hoyden is, (basically: tom boy) and what ‘square the press’ means. (To bribe the press)