You might be thinking of Kanye West's song, but my version of the good life doesn't entail "poppin champagne on a plane". I had an epiphany about 2 months ago. It's pretty simple: Nothing in life is worth stressing over. It sucks when you feel as though you are living life with the fast forward button pressed down. It makes me think that life is far too short, and it is simply pointless to waste time stressing about anything. Our actions have consequences that we should be aware of, but obsessing/stressing over the potential consequences will not do us any good. It just makes us miserable. I don't want to spend life being miserable. Do you?
Got an exam coming up? Study, prepare, do your best and let it fly. I know, I know. Doing "your best" is a loser's mentality. Losers do their best and winners bring home the bacon. But in the end who cares if we win or lose? We're all going to end up 10 feet under either way! The more I think about it, the more I'd rather be stress-free than successful but constantly worrying about my responsibilities. I'm not saying we should completely shirk our responsibilities, but I won't let them dominate my life and cause stress! I think what I'm saying is success accompanied with stress is not worth it for me.
If I'm running late for work, I call my boss and let them know. I don't worry about getting fired. I don't rush. I might speed, but only because I enjoy speeding: not because I feel pressured to get to work quickly. Why worry? Yes, it would suck to get fired, but I refuse to stress over the possibility!
I often find myself torn between two forces. You might be thinking of the two clique forces: good and evil. While I do acknowledge this inner struggle, I don't find it interesting to talk about. I'm torn apart by two far more powerful forces: laziness and boredom! This blog is a perfect example. I started it about 3 weeks ago when I was immensely bored. At that point, my boredom outweighed my laziness. Earlier in the summer, however, I spent a lot of time sitting around doing nothing. Was I bored? Yes. But my boredom paled in comparison to my laziness. I contend that at all times these forces are battling one another for a portion of our "pie of apathy." We only have so much of "I don't give a shit" in us. And I think two of the major components of this pie can be characterized by our boredom and our laziness. The next time someone asks you how you are today, you may as well say, "I'm 37% lazy and 63% bored." At least with those percentages you will probably be motivated to do SOMETHING! Conversely, if you are more lazy than bored, you will tend to sit on your ass and do nothing.
During my college days after a crazy night of drinking I would find myself in a conundrum. I'd wake up, hung-over, and sit on my bed (too lazy to get up). I would be bored, but at that point my laziness level would be very high. I would stare at the ceiling and do absolutely nothing. (Just like Peter Gibbons from Office space. Damn it feels good to be a gangster…) My former roommate Pat can attest to this. After maybe an hour or two my boredom would increase to the point where it overpowered my laziness, enabling me to muster the strength to get my lazy ass up.
Now that I reflect on this post, it's become apparent that our "pie of apathy" will vary depending on how much spare time we have. The more spare time, the larger the pie.
You say lazy. I say "selectively active". (I stole this but like to think that it is my own) Lazy has too much of a negative connotation if you ask me.
Have you ever taken a long look at a dart board? It's pretty poorly designed if you ask me. This is how I was taught to play: The bullseye (center of the board) is worth 25 points. The inner bullseye is worth 50 points. Darts that fall in the outer ring are worth double the point value of the zone. (poorly worded, I know). For example, a dart falling in the outer ring of the 18 point zone will be worth 36 points. Finally, darts that fall in the middle ring are worth triple the point value of the zone. A dart falling in the inner ring of the 18 point zone is worth 54 points. Also, you get three shots per round!
My issue with the dart board? You can get more points for hitting a number of the inner ring areas than the bullseye. That's crap! Isn't the point of darts hitting as close to the center as possible? Not with the way THIS board is drawn up.
Hypothetically, you could luckily hit an inner ring zone worth 54 points and miss your next two shots. Next round you could hit three darts on the board closer to the bullseye (but not in it) and score less than your first round! That's horrendous. What's the point of this game again???
This is what I propose. Each round your score should be calculated based on the total of your darts distances from the center of the board. For example, if you hit a bullseye, miss by 10 inches and miss by 8 inches. Your round for the score is 18 inches of error. Suppose next round you miss by 2 inches, 8 inches and 4 inches. Your score for the round would be 16 inches of error, meaning your round two score is better. This system would not only reward the player with the best accuracy, but the player who can be consistently accurate!
A few months back I was watching The Bucket List, and the movie posed an interesting question. I'm not referring to the question that was the central theme of the movie: what would you do if you know you had X days left to live? There is another question that I find even more intriguing. If you could peer into the future and learn the exact time and date you are going to die, would you chose to know it? According to a scene in the movie, a survey was conducted and 94% of respondents said that they wouldn't want to know. The remaining 6% responded that they would like to know.
I'm really on the fence on this question. There are major advantages to knowing when your life will come to an end. You'd be able to say goodbye to those you care about and you'd get the opportunity to experience things before you passed away. (Although this whole idea is far too fatalistic for me) If you knew the exact date which you were going to die, then prior to this date you'd be able to do outrageous things that put your life in danger with the knowledge that you would survive!
Fatalistic thoughts aside, knowing your end-date would enable you to adequately plan and budget your remaining days. For example, if you discovered that you had a month left to live you'd be able to cram as much enjoyment into your remaining days as possible! However, if you found that you had 50 years left, you wouldn't be in such a rush.
The obvious drawback to knowing when you will die is the possibility that you will dread dying as the date comes closer and closer. I personally do not fear death, but since it is an unknown and I like living, it could present a....downgrade? It's probably easy for me to say this since I am 22 years old. Perhaps as I get older, I will feel differently. Anyhow, I'm not going to get into my views of the afterlife. That requires its own blog post! But I will say that we have a legitimate reason to fear death since it is a big question mark, and this could make our final days anxious ones.
Not knowing our end date would present us with the inverse advantages and disadvantages. It is possible that we won't have the opportunity for closure with friends and family and it is possible that we won't experience everything we wished to do. On the other hand, we wouldn't have to dread our end-date.
As of right now, if I had to pick a side, consider me part of the 6%.
Let me rephrase that: What makes milk so special other than calcium. We all love that element on the period table, CA. All those "got milk?" campaigns drilled into our heads how important it is. When you're growing up and you see your favorite athlete drinking milk in a commercial, aren't you going to go home and drink a half gallon? I did! I must have consumed about 3 gallons a week as a youngster. If you don't know where I'm going with this, then you probably think like a normal person.
Milk is a great drink because it gives us options. We can pick between skim, 1%, 2%, and whole milk. If there are any other types of milk, I apologize to the milk connoisseurs. I've always been a fan of 2%, but I enjoy 1% on occasion. Skim tastes way too watery to me, and whole is far too thick. But the point is we have options and choices to pick from. Your taste buds are different than mine. So who am I to tell you that 2% is the best? It's a personal choice, all up to you, my friend.
My question is why don't other drinks offer the same type of flexibility? For example, why doesn't 1% or 2% Coca Cola or Pepsi exist? They have regular (immensely sugary) drinks and diet (too watery) drinks. When I drink a Pepsi, I feel like I am on drugs! I will bounce around with a ridiculous surplus of energy for about an hour. Then, like the 5 hour energy commercials states, I suffer a "debilitating crash". That soda is not so much fun anymore, is it?! Drinking the diet Pepsi is not fun either. It just doesn't taste very good. However, I find myself more frequently drinking the diet Pepsi to avoid the negative consequences of the regular one.
Back at Bentley when I was at the school cafeteria, I would create my own drink: 50% regular Coke: 50% diet Coke. It was the best of both worlds for me. I'm surprised that this product is not available. What is stopping Coke and Pepsi from releasing a half and half type of drink? Don't tell me I missed the memo and this already exists because that would render this entire post useless! Stay thirsty my friends (Dos Equis guy voice, I LOVE those commercials)
Every once in a while I find myself in a public place with nothing to do. Today, for example, I was at South Station in Boston waiting for the commuter rail. After spending a few minutes perusing through books at the mini bookstore, I resorted to walking around the station and "people watching." No, I don't think this is sketchy. I was just walking around and making observations about people.
Sometimes I will see a random stranger who rubs me the wrong way. Since I don't know the stranger at all, I have nothing against him/her. There is absolutely no reason I should dislike the stranger. However, something about the manner in which this person walks, talks, interacts, and acts in general I can't stand. Gotta love nonverbal communications
I'm not sure if these thoughts are reasonable, but I sometimes think to myself "That guy looks like an asshole!" Why do I form opinions on people I don't know at all? Am I being judgmental? I'd say so. But damn, that guy looked like a douche bag.
I've always been a fan of things that are interactive.
Interactive presentations: Get the audience engaged! They won't fall asleep. Back at Bentley I thought it was fun to present things in an interactive manner when possible. Those types of presentations are typically more creative and the audience will like them better too!
Interactive books: Choose your own destiny. Remember the RL Stine Goosebumps series? He also came out with some choose your own destiny Goosebumps books which I found to be very entertaining. It was fun to try to pick a path in the book that would lead to your survival! (Or I should say the book's protagonist's survival.)
Interactive television shows: There may be other examples of interactive television shows, but the show that comes to mind for me is Beyond Belief Fact or Fiction. This show aired from 1997-2000 on Fox. During each show there are five short stories, and each story is difficult to believe. The catch is some of the stories are based on factual events and some of the stories are completely fictitious. The writers of the show may also change some of the minor details in the factually based stories. At the end of the show they reveal which stories are factually based and which are totally made up. I really enjoyed Beyond Belief because it is fun to evaluate the stories and try to discern whether or not they are fictitious! It would be fun to watch with a friend as well and try to compete with them to see who can figure out more of the stories! Or it would even be fun to keep track of how good you are at predicting whether or not the stories are factually grounded - a Beyond Belief Fact or Fiction Win-Loss record.
I found the show online. You can watch it for free at the URL below if you are curious:
There is an expression that I hear tossed around frequently that bothers me. "You can do anything you put your mind to." Really? If I try very hard, I can play defensive tackle for an NFL team? No chance in hell! Most defensive tackles weigh over 300 pounds, not to mention they are immensely athletic. It's pretty obvious that my 6 foot 165 pound frame would have absolutely no chance at making it in the NFL. We need to accept that due to genetics, some things are out of our reach.
So why do we want to believe that we are capable of anything? Everyone has limitations. We all have a unique set of strengths and weaknesses that should be utilized accordingly. It's a simple concept: we should use our strengths to our advantage and minimize the impact of our weaknesses. For example, if you are good at math but are not artistic, become an actuary. Don't try to become an artist. And odds are we will enjoy doing what we are naturally good at because, let’s face it, everyone likes to WIN and everyone likes to be successful. In other words, we will usually gravitate toward what we are good at to begin with.
While I think the notion that we can "Do anything we set our minds to" is a silly one, I also believe it is well intentioned. It's all about working hard and putting your best foot forward. Hard work is important; it will generally pay off. And if the hard work doesn't pay off then it most likely increased your odds of success, which I consider to be a moral victory in and of itself. There are a lot of scenarios in life where there is a winner and loser. It is always worthwhile to work hard and maximize our odds of success, regardless of whether or not our efforts are fruitful.
Global warming is one of those divisive topics that gets everyone heated up (pun intended). I find it very interesting how it has become a partisan issue: Democrats tending to buy into it and Republicans tending to denounce it. Personally, I don't believe in the phenomenon, but I'm not here to argue that point. I want to look at global warming in a different light. Support or oppose! Many of you may not know this, but I am Pro Global Warming. It is simply too cold in Massachusetts in the winter. Yes, we'll have to make some sacrifices. Those ski trips to New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont would be a little less exciting, but think of the possible benefits! We could have barbecues and cookouts in February. We could play traditionally "seasonal sports" all year long.
What's that you say? We'd be dooming our children's futures and our children's children's futures? Who said I was planning on having kids?! No kids, no issue! Perhaps you should do the same. And if you do have kids, then that's your problem! You better hop on the "I oppose global warming" bandwagon while there is still room.
For those of you who are with me, please support our cause by polluting whenever possible. This will help us achieve our goal of better Massachusetts winters!
Now that I'm 22, I've been driving the roads of Massachusetts for about six years. Luckily, my hometown is fairly small, meaning we don't have much traffic on the roads. However, eastern Massachusetts (as a whole) is a dangerous area to drive around! From poorly constructed roadways to hot-headed drivers, it can be a struggle to do what should be simple: get from point A to point B. One aspect of roadways that has stood out to me as being particularly dangerous is rotaries (aka roundabouts).
Yes, you heard me! You know those circular things on the roadways? (where EVERYONE seems to think that THEY have the right of way) It's ridiculous! Last summer I drove through Norfolk, Massachusetts on a daily basis on the way to work. There is a small rotary in Norfolk, which almost ended my life! The correct way to approach a rotary is to yield or stop before entering the rotary, depending on how the rotary is designed. Those who are already in the rotary own the coveted "right of way". Apparently, one of the following is the case: 1) Many drivers know the rules of the road and disregard them! 2) Many drivers have no bleeping idea how to drive! 3) A combination of 1) and 2)
On a number of occasions I observed Massholes driving directly through the rotary in Norfolk without hesitation! I want to know how these people are still alive. I almost hit one of them, but luckily had the driving awareness necessary to stop short in the middle of the rotary. Since I was already in the rotary I should have had the right of way, but honestly, who cares about those silly things called laws?
To be fair, I have to admit to breaking some driving laws, but I follow the important ones. You know, the ones that could easily mean the difference between life and death!
Not to mention the extremely dangerous, multiple lane rotaries a la Revere and Everett. That last "sentence" was a fragment. The grammar police are on patrol tonight! (I'm sure there are others multiple lane rotaries too; I just haven't seen them yet) I should feel lucky to be alive!
Now I'm trying to figure "Do I have a point?" I think the point is rotaries are dangerous, and you should approach these circles of doom with caution!
Yesterday I was chatting with my friend Devon about Twitter and its use as a tool for celebrity self-promotion. Devon mentioned that she wouldn't want to be famous and that got me thinking. Is being famous worth it? There are some obvious advantages associated with fame/wealth (which generally go hand-in-hand). Financial stability comes to mind. But when you really think about it, there are as many negative aspects to being famous as positive ones. This leads to an obvious question: Do the pros outweigh the cons?
First, we need to define what famous is. There are different "degrees of fame". Some might consider Lou Merloni famous. Others might be wondering, "Who is Lou Merloni?" He's a former Red Sox player who is moderately famous. For sake of argument, I want to define famous as "Albert Pujols Famous." Many non-baseball fans will know who Pujols is. He's famous to the point where he could walk through a city and "get noticed".
Possible benefits of fame:
1) A legacy/being remembered
2) The ability to influence what others think (whether right or wrong!) 3) Financial stability
Possible disadvantages of fame: 1) Being under the public spotlight 2) Determining who your friends are 3) Higher probability of stalkers/assassinations
I’m sure there are other pros and cons of fame, but the items listed above are things which I consider to be most important.
I’ve thought about this for a while, weighing the pros and cons against one another, and I ultimately reasoned that being famous is not worth giving up anonymity.
First I thought about the positives: The aspect of fame which I find most appealing is having a legacy after death. It would be great to be remembered once we are gone! I’d love this: “Ooooh remember Jason Pennini, that crazy bastard!”
If you think about the other benefits of being famous, they are less important. Consider financial stability; it can be achieved without fame, making it inherently less valuable. One might argue that along with fame comes not only financial stability but affluence as well. This is a legitimate point, but if you ask me money only goes so far. I won’t argue that money matters to a point, but if your net worth is $10,000,000, for example, is another $1,000,000 going to significantly improve your standard of living?
Also, I am intrigued that fame (sometimes) enables us to influence one another. Why should we care who a celebrity is voting for in an upcoming election? And more importantly, why should we base our vote on what that celebrity believes?! Oprah’s endorsement of President Obama comes to mind. It is stunning to me that a celebrity can have that degree of influence on public opinion. However, few celebrities have this much “pull”, which is why I am discounting its value to fame.
Then I thought about the negatives: It would be a huge hassle to be in the public spotlight, having paparazzi monitoring your every move and the media criticizing what you say and do. On top of that, fame would hinder our ability to determine who is a real friend and who is befriending us due to our celebrity status. For me this ambiguity would present a huge obstacle in making new friends.
Lastly, being famous would increase our odds of being the target of a stalker/assassin. I don’t see a need to elaborate on this!
All thing being equal, I have no problem with remaining anonymous.
Living in the age of the computer, all of us are bound to fill out registration form after registration form to sign up for various on-line memberships. One thing that I have noticed in filling out these forms is the advent of the "password strength evaluator". And I don't like it! There are some parts of the "password strength evaluator" that I can buy into. For example, if you make your password 3 characters long, it will be easier to crack than if it is 8 characters long. None of us need to be math majors to figure this out.
What pisses me off is that most "password strength evaluators" require us to use alpha-numeric passwords. For my passwords I create fake words. Some of my old passwords have been "blerfers" and "protten". Honestly, who is going to figure that out?! Yet I type it into box and the "password strength evaluator" automatically spits out at me: Password Strength is Weak. Don't judge me! Who asked for your opinion? Can someone who designs these things create a new version that checks for random letters that are thrown together? I'm sure it can't be that difficult!
http://www.securitystats.com/tools/password.php
I'd like to say I consider much of this website to be bullshit! Do we really need passwords that meet the following requirements: 1.) Alpha-Numeric 2.) Capitalized Letters 3.) Includes Symbols
We all understand that creating secure passwords is important, but this is paranoia to the Nth degree!
