Friends And Romantic Companions

Girl: I think the worse mistake a guy might commit is to suggest love to a female friend of his!
Me: Why?!
Girl: Many people confuse getting used to someone with loving them. Its normal that if you spend a long period of time with someone you start feeling close to them: This closeness is not love...
Me: So you are suggesting that if a guy and girl are casual friends they should never become romantic companions?!
Girl: Pretty much! Those who do so usually confuse closeness with love!
Me: I disagree... As opposed to what you suggest I guess relationships advance and morph through time! I think its almost impossible for a healthy relationship to jump right away to the love phase before a relaxed friendship phase...
Girl: That's a mess you will never want to go throught!! Friendship and romance are better not be mixed up!

As has been suggested before I am pro open relationships! Not many people understand the true meaning of being an open relationist... Generally, open relationists have a blur line between different types of relationships: That's to say open relationists don't make formal differentiation between: A friend, a romantic companion, a one-nighter, a fuck buddy, a soul-mate, a spouse, or whatever of the numerous categorizations other people make; Rather they view all those as interpersonal relationships and being such its really hard to draw any lines (not all open relationists submit to this description - but personally, I do agree to some extent)!!
Having such blur lines and with my unconventional view of relationships, I have been at times challenged with similar views as above that thrive on the distinctions between friendship and romantic companionship....

Redefining A Planet

Some of you might have heard the news, our solar system has been formally diminished by one planet!! Its no longer a 9-planet system, but an 8-planet one... Pluto was omitted from the planets' definition! This incidence reminds us of the utmost importance of definitions as the slightest change in the wording of a definition might include or exclude stuff from the set of things that a word describes!! It can be easily noted that imprecise definition cause most of the disagreements and misunderstandings...

I always like to provide the "prime numbers" definition example: Is 1 a prime number? Short answer: NO! But why? The answer to this question comes from the definition of a prime number: A prime number is a positive integer that is divisible (integer division without remainder) by exactly two different positive integers: 1 and itself only!! Considering one, one is divisible by one and also divisible by itself... The problem is one and itself are not "different"!!

Numerous other examples can be given so let's remember: Definitions make the difference between hell and heaven!! Definitions are the ultimate references for any concrete argument... Enough said!!

Back to the planets issue: Apparently scientists made few discoveries about bodies that goes around the sun; Bodies which are comparable to Pluto in terms of size and orbit, led to a situation where either the minor bodies would be added the list of officially recognized planets, or older ones would need to be removed, in order to ensure consistency of definition. The definition for planet is now officially "a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit." Pluto fails to satisfy condition (c) and therefore here we are now: One less planet we have!

Sources: wikipedia, neowin.net

Blogger Infrastructural Changes

Google's Blogger service is in a transition state: A new beta blog manager is being rolled out incrementally to users of blogger into the beta program that uses Google Accounts!! To read more about the beta check here!

It is important to note that, currently Blogger and its beta are being managed as separate services which means that a beta user cannot comment on a non-beta blog as a registered account and vice versa (but obviously they still can comment anonymously)...

I have already moved into the beta program, and so the blog is in a transition state (in terms of design)... Obvious side effects include: Non-beta Blogger users need to temporarily use the commenting option for non-registered users. Another obvious side effect is the ugly template... The template used will be in flux until i can fix it back to the way it was - or better!! For technical issues, due to the fact that I am using a beta some parts may not function well: Google is promising that most technical issues will be amended in less than a couple of weeks; If Google keeps its promises then everything should be fixed in less than a couple of weeks!!

In addition, one of the best new features included with this beta are the "Labels" (or some people call them "tags")... Old posts didnt have labels and I am in a continuous process of assigning Labels to those older posts: It might take a month or two to fully assign all posts to their respective Labels!

Edit: Stroke out inaccurate information

Staind's Best Three

Staind in "Outside":

But I'm on the outside
I'm looking in
I can see through you
See your true colors
'Cause inside you're ugly
You're ugly like me
I can see through you
See to the real you (Full lyrics)

Staind in "Fray":

You wouldn't listen even if i told you
Who the fuck am i to say?
You're too busy with the lies they sold you
Another cure to fix your day
Open wide for all the shit they feed you
While the TV defecates
And blindly walk wherever they will lead you
While the edges slowly fray (Full lyrics)

Staind in "Right Here":

But you always find a way to
keep me right here waiting
You always find the words to say to
keep me right here waiting
And if you chose to walk away
I'd still be right here waiting
Searching for the things to say to
keep you right here waiting (Full lyrics)

Lebanese Civilians: The Greatest Loss Of All

Me: What's the fuss about Hizbolla having won over Israel? Is there any substantial grounds for such claims? Am I missing something here?
Dad: See Zaid, You are an A-student... What happens when you get a B? You feel underachieving... But what happens when an F-student gets a D? They celebrate their overachievement, because achievement is directly related to the expected result... Most Arabs view themselves as totally helpless, below zero you may say... So no matter how much they lose, they only see it as an overachievement!!
Me: So one can say that those who see victory are the ones who believe that they are incapable?
Dad: Well.... I guess you can! See: Hizbolla captured two Israeli soldiers and Israel has failed to retrieve them... Hizbolla takes that as a victory although the cost was thousands of Lebanese civilians: This only shows that to them those two soldiers are way more valuable than thousands of Lebanese civilians... That's the real plague!!

Uh... Finally cease fire! And the cost? Thousands of Lebanese lives.... Has Hizbolla won? Maybe, only time can tell!! Has Israel won? Considering that the 'claimed' goal of the attack was to retrieve the two soldiers, I guess they failed in that respect... I cannot tell about other goals of the attack, whether any of which was satisfied or not!!

But don't you see? We are talking Hizbolla VS Israel? But where is Lebanon? Lebanon was the battle ground... The battle ground for Hizbolla and Israel to get even!! This war has brought nothing but destruction and loss to Lebanon! Can a legitimate political party use a country as a battle ground for its operations? The way I see it, Hizbolla has put their own political agenda prior to any considerations for the country that is hosting them... Could a legitimate political party lead a country to a war without the accordance of its government and more importantly its people? Could a legitimate political party lead a country to a war that it couldn't shield against?! Hizbolla has lead Lebanon to a war that neither Lebanon nor Hizbolla have been able to shield against!!

Hizbolla might have satisfied one goal, but the best interest of Lebanon evidently has no place on Hizbolla's agenda... Hizbolla - as a political party - might have achieved something, but Lebanon had lost the most thing that matters: The lives of its own people!!

Logical Demonstration: Tautology

What is the logical value of the following statement:

If [1+1=3] Then ["m" is the first alphabetic letter]

This little mind teaser should be no challenge to anyone in the computer industry or mathmaticians, or generally anyone who has minimal knowledge in logic...

The statement is a Tautology (ie. always true). A formal proof goes like this:

Say, p: 1+1=3 , q: "m" is the first alphabetic letter
p => q
= ~p + q ; since p is a contradiction, so always ~p
= TRUE ; since always ~p

For the ones not familiar with logic operators, here is a friendly demonstration (as simple as I can put it):

Since, ( If X Then Y ) is equivalent to ( Y OR NOT X ) [see below]*
If [1+1=3] Then ["m" is the first alphabetic letter]
= ["m" is the first alphabetic letter] OR NOT [1+1 is Equal to 3]
= ["m" is the first alphabetic letter] OR [1+1 is Not Equal to 3]
= ["m" is the first alphabetic letter] OR TRUE
= TRUE [see below]**

* Consider this statement: If [You Study] Then [You Pass]... This statement holds in three conditions: 1- You Study AND Pass, OR 2- You dont Study AND Fail, OR 3- You dont Study AND Pass.... So from {1,3} the statement holds when you Pass (whether you study or not), OR from {2,3} it holds when you dont study (wether you pass or not)! So the statement is equivalent to: [You Pass] OR [You don't Study]! So ( If X Then Y ) is equivalent to ( Y OR NOT X ) as required!!

** Consider this statement: [Your Pen's Color is Blue] OR [Sunday follows Saturday]... The second part of the statement (ie. Sunday follows Saturday) is always true, so the statement is always true regardless wether the Pen's Color is Blue or not... So, ( [Any Statement] OR [True Statement] ) is necessarily True!!

So, any conclusion based on an always false condition is necessarily true!! So when someone tells you: "If now I had a million dollars, I will unrelectantly give them all to you!!" dare not call him a liar, cuz no matter how cynical this statement might seem - This person is no liar, he is speaking an undeniable truth!!

Could Error Be The Rightest Option?

Merovingian: I have told you before, there's no escaping the nature of the universe. It is that nature that has again brought you to me. Where some see coincidence, I see consequence. Where others see chance, I see cost. (source)

I simply dont believe in chance: I believe in premeditation! Even the most -seemingly- random events are caused by a reason, and the reason for a new cause!! Similarly, I dont believe in error either (ie. error yielding correct results)...

Could we justifiably call a premeditated error an error? Is the question even consistent? Does this question even make sense?... You might be wondering why I am talking of such absurdities, here is the thing: I had quite a disagreement with my Electronics teacher, functionally speaking (and actually on every account I took into consideration): I was right... I had the correct answer and nobody can even argue about that!! Nonetheless the teacher decided (mystically) to give a zero mark for that part of the question... The issue was that during an intermediate step, i commited a small inconsistency... An error if you want to call it - The only problem was: It has been a premeditated error... I actually committed two errors, but magically (magically from the teacher's point of view, NOT mine) the two errors cancelled out to give the correct result...

The thing is, I knew where i committed the error, and I planned my correction scheme, and this was PROVED by the correct final answer!

If you were a teacher, do you think such (unconventional) method of solution should get Full credit? Partial credit? Or a Zero?! What do you think?!

The Right To Marriage

How would you feel if you had to ask 260 million people for the right to marry? - Check this small video....

PS: Alternative link here

Hint: The video addresses same-sex marriages