Thursday, November 20, 2014

Artificial Sex

How much of our sexual desire is a result of our natural tendencies and how much is a result of society selling it to us.  If we were able to discern on a chemical level each one of our sexual inclinations, would we be able to see a  difference between desires that stem from our natural sexual disposition and desires that stem from the incessant attempts society uses sex as a stimulus.  If we were able to reach this point of finite chemical differences, could we build upon this to achieve a mental state where we would be able to control ourselves so well to be able to look at a ways society uses sex to sell that previously worked on us and say, "Fake.  Not interested."  Would our sexual activity be 100% based on the biological need from which it stems?  Are various sexual preferences that we think are real like tit size, ass size, kinky level etc. all fake?  Are all just a result of our conscious mind being fucked with by society since our birth?  If we were able to turn off our conscious sexual desires and we acted only on true to the bone natural ones, would humans reach a sexual state similar to other animals with mating seasons, seasons of mass ovulating etc?  Just a little something to chew on.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

There is less disease amongst populations that live in colder environments

Cold prohibits growth
Hot promotes growth.

Bacteria cause disease and need heat to live
Viruses cause disease and viruses spread the same rate in cold conditions as warm?

Ok, some viruses have evolved for colder temps and some for warmer, but the ways the ones for colder temperatures evolved was to form a icey coat around it so it can survive longer in the cold temperature, then once it makes itself into someone's body, the coat melts from the heat and it does its job. (check here for more details)

This shows that both need a warm environment to grow.  because they grow from hijacking the DNA of something that does need warm temps to grow.  They cannot be anything more than a slightly better or worse version of whoever they hijack.

That is some crazy sci-fi shit right there!!

Sunday, November 16, 2014

First time I felt good being bad.

I saw two men carrying a bed spring.  It appeared they were carrying it for a long distance as I caught them crouching down as they took a rest. (Well don't pitch your tent there lads, because you are in the middle of the road!!!)

Although they were clearly struggling, I did not react to my desire to help them, and I kept walking.  Normally this is when I start to feel bad for not helping my fellow man, but then I thought, "With a man on each end, what would I do?  Awkwardly touch the middle left or middle right side of the bed as I NOT help these two men carry a big stiff LIGHT bed spring"

Finally my logic defeats my laziness.

How I define "DJ"

I define being a DJ as effectively plagiarizing other people's works and releasing it right at that the point where people are getting bored of the original but would still enjoy a plagiarized one, and then trying to show these people that you also have original work.

Possible correlations with STWO's remix  of 'Wifey' and Next's original:

  • More people sharing the STWO's remix than people sharing Next's original work.

  • The accumulated amount of views of videos depicting STWO's remix may be more than those of Next's original.

Possible explanations for these correlations:

  • Popularity may be determined more by how many people share your work than by how many clicks you get.  The Click market may be too saturated.
Possible correlations to this correlation:

  • Is a DJ's popularity correlated with the number of Remixes he or she has done?
  • Is there a correlation between the number of Remixes a DJ has done with this DJ's popularity?
  • If there is a negative correlation, is there a correlation between the number of times a DJ changes his name with the time it takes him to gain popularity?