I've added a couple new 2012 videos to my 2012 site. For those of you not familiar with 2012, here's a summary.
It all starts with the Mayan Calendar, which began on August 13, 3114 B.C. and ends on December 21, 2012. At that point the Mayans say we will enter a new age, possibly leading to catastrophic earth changes and the destruction of civilization as we know it. The Mayans were excellent astronomers and tracked bodies in the heavens with unparalleled accuracy for their time.
The Mayan's weren't the only ones that predicted major changes in and around 2012. The solar system is in the process of aligning with the galatic center and this could lead to catastrophic earth changes. NASA scientists and others have said that in 2012 we will see major solar activity like we have never seen. Nostradamus' prophecies point to events that are playing out right now as we aproach 2012. Edgar Cayce predicted a time of change that will begin around 1998, which coincides with when the solar system began to align with the galactic center.
Terence McKenna, John Majaor Jenkins, and many others have also said 2012 is a pivotal year for the planet. Their research and evidence is beyond the scope of this blog, but much of it is (or will be) covered on my 2012 site, which you can get to by clicking on the links in this post or in the sidebar.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Multitasking may be harmful? ABSURD!!
Link to the CNN Article
As someone who can multitask quite well, I take offense at the logic in this article. Here are a few of the absurdities found within.
"Heavy multitaskers are more easily distracted by irrelevant information than those who aren't constantly in a multimedia frenzy." This statement is too subjective. The relevance of the information is determined by the individual, not by someone else.
"One reason may be because the multitaskers tend to retain the distracting information in their short-term memory, which affects their ability to focus." Again, too subjective. To a multitasker, the information is not distracting. This additional information actually allows a multitasker to focus better. As a matter of fact, multitaskers can focus on multiple tasks at once, hence the term multitasker.
"Its consequences can be quite severe in situations like driving." So you're driving down the road and texting at the same time, then you drop your phone and reach down to pick it up...yeah. That's bad. But the study didn't test physical multitasking such as this. It only tested mental multitasking, which is no way (at least in my multitasking mind) disadvantageous. The information processing ability of multitaskers actually helps in driving situations. They are more aware of what is happening around them and are able to respond quicker.
"You're being flooded with too much information and you can't selectively filter out quickly which is important and which is not important." Maybe you can't Dr. Goodman, but I can.
"Multitasking may 'lower the threshold of distractibility,' possibly harming the ability to do tasks that require intense sustained focus, such as art, science, and writing." Um, lets see. I'm an IT professional, a graphic designer, software developer, a perpetual student of science, spirituality, and philosophy, and a blogger, too. Sort of throws that hypothesis right out the window, doesn't it?
"If it's not very reversible...we don't yet know how reversible and flexible these things might be." Anything you can do I can do better. Why in the hell would I want to reverse that? They make it sound like multitasking is a disease or a not-yet curable condition.
"There hasn't been a huge amount of work in this area up to this point." Then why in the hell did you publish the result of the study? And why in the hell did CNN write an article about it?
"may be...can be...could be...may be...may lower...possibly harming...possibly frightening...we don't yet know...might be...it's unclear...it's not clear..." Yes, these are straight from the article. They expect the reader to take this study seriously with all this uncertainty?
The article essentially says multitasking is bad because you can't do only one thing at a time. That's like saying red apples are bad because they're not green.
As someone who can multitask quite well, I take offense at the logic in this article. Here are a few of the absurdities found within.
"Heavy multitaskers are more easily distracted by irrelevant information than those who aren't constantly in a multimedia frenzy." This statement is too subjective. The relevance of the information is determined by the individual, not by someone else.
"One reason may be because the multitaskers tend to retain the distracting information in their short-term memory, which affects their ability to focus." Again, too subjective. To a multitasker, the information is not distracting. This additional information actually allows a multitasker to focus better. As a matter of fact, multitaskers can focus on multiple tasks at once, hence the term multitasker.
"Its consequences can be quite severe in situations like driving." So you're driving down the road and texting at the same time, then you drop your phone and reach down to pick it up...yeah. That's bad. But the study didn't test physical multitasking such as this. It only tested mental multitasking, which is no way (at least in my multitasking mind) disadvantageous. The information processing ability of multitaskers actually helps in driving situations. They are more aware of what is happening around them and are able to respond quicker.
"You're being flooded with too much information and you can't selectively filter out quickly which is important and which is not important." Maybe you can't Dr. Goodman, but I can.
"Multitasking may 'lower the threshold of distractibility,' possibly harming the ability to do tasks that require intense sustained focus, such as art, science, and writing." Um, lets see. I'm an IT professional, a graphic designer, software developer, a perpetual student of science, spirituality, and philosophy, and a blogger, too. Sort of throws that hypothesis right out the window, doesn't it?
"If it's not very reversible...we don't yet know how reversible and flexible these things might be." Anything you can do I can do better. Why in the hell would I want to reverse that? They make it sound like multitasking is a disease or a not-yet curable condition.
"There hasn't been a huge amount of work in this area up to this point." Then why in the hell did you publish the result of the study? And why in the hell did CNN write an article about it?
"may be...can be...could be...may be...may lower...possibly harming...possibly frightening...we don't yet know...might be...it's unclear...it's not clear..." Yes, these are straight from the article. They expect the reader to take this study seriously with all this uncertainty?
The article essentially says multitasking is bad because you can't do only one thing at a time. That's like saying red apples are bad because they're not green.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Global Warming Sparked By Ancient Farmers - REDICULOUS!
Link to the CNN Article
I just read this article and am truly disgusted at the lack of science involved. The author of this ridiculous study, William Ruddiman, is making too many unsubstantiated assumptions about the farming practices of ancient man. We are still learning things about civilizations from 3000 years ago, let alone 5, 6, or 7,000 years ago, which is when he says these farmers slashed and burned their way through the forests causing global warming.
Did he just conveniently forget that only a few HUNDRED years ago we had the Little Ice Age? How in the world could the slash and burn tactics of ancient man have anything to do with our current climate change in light of that? It has nothing to do with it, and it’s too long ago to have any real impact now.
Even if they did slash and burn that much, there was more vegetation on the planet at that time and the plant life would have sucked up most of the CO2 before it became a problem.
This article serves no real purpose other than to feed into the global warming lie. The author of the study is grasping at straws trying to prove that global warming is real and is conveniently leaving out fact to support his opinion. Shame on him for being an idiot. Shame on CNN for even publishing the story.
I just read this article and am truly disgusted at the lack of science involved. The author of this ridiculous study, William Ruddiman, is making too many unsubstantiated assumptions about the farming practices of ancient man. We are still learning things about civilizations from 3000 years ago, let alone 5, 6, or 7,000 years ago, which is when he says these farmers slashed and burned their way through the forests causing global warming.
Did he just conveniently forget that only a few HUNDRED years ago we had the Little Ice Age? How in the world could the slash and burn tactics of ancient man have anything to do with our current climate change in light of that? It has nothing to do with it, and it’s too long ago to have any real impact now.
Even if they did slash and burn that much, there was more vegetation on the planet at that time and the plant life would have sucked up most of the CO2 before it became a problem.
This article serves no real purpose other than to feed into the global warming lie. The author of the study is grasping at straws trying to prove that global warming is real and is conveniently leaving out fact to support his opinion. Shame on him for being an idiot. Shame on CNN for even publishing the story.
This is pretty cool
So it looks like I can email posts directly to Blogger. That’s awesome. Maybe now I’ll blog more.
This is STILL here?
Oh hell. I forgot I had this blog. See what happens when you don't have anything to write about? A year and a half goes by and once again the only thing I have to blog about is that I have nothing to blog about!
Not that it matters anyway. No one reads this. And I mean NO ONE. I have Google Ads here and my account reports NO impressions. Oh well. I have other sites that bring in the big cents. I'm rollin' in coin on those!
OUCH! I got a nickle in my rib...
Not that it matters anyway. No one reads this. And I mean NO ONE. I have Google Ads here and my account reports NO impressions. Oh well. I have other sites that bring in the big cents. I'm rollin' in coin on those!
OUCH! I got a nickle in my rib...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
