Musings of a Teenagerhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/en-EUhourly82000-01-01T12:00+00:00Musings of a Teenagerhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/http://data5.blog.de/design/preview/1e/97f3c2448537bbb00ba987bd196784_160x200.jpgEmpire of Sports - Reviewhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2008/01/27/empire_of_sports_review~3639925/2008-01-27T17:00:38+01:00 <p><a href="http://www.empireofsports.com/">Empire of Sports Website</a><br> So, here it is, my first ever review. It's of a game that's yet to come out, but still... It's called Empire of Sports and it advertises itself as the world's first true multi-sports MMORPG.<br> After getting beta access the first thing I had to do was download the client. All of it. Even on my speed of around 2400 kbps, it still took almost half an hour.<br> When you actually get to play the game it's not that bad. The graphics are brilliant and the sports mechanisms are simple and engrossing. It relies quite heavily on reactions so this could lead to severe differences at the start, and you also need fast, accurate touch typing for some activities. But, with practise, it is really fun. There is great variety, but with similar systems making it simple to pick up. A lot of the missions (their name for quests), tutorials, guides, etc. Still need programming but what there is at the moment looks highly promising. There is skiing, bobsleigh, tennis, shooting, dancing, track and field and gym available at the moment with football and basketball coming soon. With tennis you need someone to play against which can be a bit of a problem, I haven't played yet! You only earn money for skiing, but you need it so much that this can also be problematic.<br> Bug wise I have only found one, but I have reported it and it wasn't too big anyway. The problems I listed earlier are all going to be sorted out before launch, or so I believe, so rest assured that you will be able to go to the medical centre, visit other cities and shop!<br> To conclude, this could be a brilliant game which I feel has been launched to beta too early. I like the theme of 2028, but would prefer it to be set in todays society and there to be more sports. I am giving it 8/10 at the moment but expect it to reach 10/10 upon launch.</p> <p>Next week - Runescape! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2008/01/27/empire_of_sports_review~3639925/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>Empire of Sports Website
So, here it is, my first ever review. It's of a game that's yet to come out, but still... It's called Empire of Sports and it advertises itself as the world's first true multi-sports MMORPG.
After getting beta access the first thing I had to do was download the client. All of it. Even on my speed of around 2400 kbps, it still took almost half an hour.
When you actually get to play the game it's not that bad. The graphics are brilliant and the sports mechanisms are simple and engrossing. It relies quite heavily on reactions so this could lead to severe differences at the start, and you also need fast, accurate touch typing for some activities. But, with practise, it is really fun. There is great variety, but with similar systems making it simple to pick up. A lot of the missions (their name for quests), tutorials, guides, etc. Still need programming but what there is at the moment looks highly promising. There is skiing, bobsleigh, tennis, shooting, dancing, track and field and gym available at the moment with football and basketball coming soon. With tennis you need someone to play against which can be a bit of a problem, I haven't played yet! You only earn money for skiing, but you need it so much that this can also be problematic.
Bug wise I have only found one, but I have reported it and it wasn't too big anyway. The problems I listed earlier are all going to be sorted out before launch, or so I believe, so rest assured that you will be able to go to the medical centre, visit other cities and shop!
To conclude, this could be a brilliant game which I feel has been launched to beta too early. I like the theme of 2028, but would prefer it to be set in todays society and there to be more sports. I am giving it 8/10 at the moment but expect it to reach 10/10 upon launch.

Next week - Runescape!

Comments

]]>On this Day - January 27thhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2008/01/27/on_this_day_january_27th~3639805/2008-01-27T16:36:39+01:00 <p>A simple list of what I consider to be the most interesting events, births and deaths on this day in history. If you feel I have missed out anything spectactularly important please tell me in a comment on this post.</p> <p>Events:<br> 98 - Trajan becomes Roman emperor.<br> 1343 - Pope Clement VI issues the Bull Unigenitus.<br> 1606 - The trial of Guy Fawkes and the other surviving Gunpowder plotters begins.<br> 1785 - The first public university in the United States, the University of Georgia, is founded.<br> 1939 - The first flight of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.<br> 1944 - The two year siege of Leningrad is lifted.<br> 1945 - The first troops from the Red Army arrive at the infamous Auschwitz concentration camp - Today is International Holocaust Rememberance Day.<br> 1967 - Spacecraft Apollo 1 catches fire during pre-launch tests. The three astronauts, Virgil 'Gus' Grisson, Edward White and Roger Chaffee are all killed before they can open the command module hatch.<br> 1967 - Over 60 nations sign the Outer Space Treaty, which bans the use of nuclear weapons in space.<br> 1973 - The Vietnam War officially ends and the last recorded American casualty of that war, Colonel William Nolde, dies.</p> <p>Births:<br> 1756 - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - composer.<br> 1832 - Lewis Carroll - writer.<br> 1850 - Edward Smith - Captain of the Titanic upon sinking. He shares his name with another Edward Smith who was the youngest VC recipient of WWI. He also got the DCM during that conflict and died in action (possibly friendly fire) in 1940.<br> 1859 - Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany - Kaiser who led Germany during the First World War.<br> 1933 - Mohammd Al-Fayed - Businessman, whose son died in the infamous car crash with Diana, Princess of Wales in Paris, 1997.<br> 1980 - Marat Safin - tennis player.</p> <p>Deaths:<br> 1901 - Giuseppi Verdi - composer.<br> 1967 - Gus Grissom, Edward White and Roger Chaffee - astronauts (see above).<br> 1973 - William Nolde - last American casualty of Vietnam War (see above).</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2008/01/27/on_this_day_january_27th~3639805/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>A simple list of what I consider to be the most interesting events, births and deaths on this day in history. If you feel I have missed out anything spectactularly important please tell me in a comment on this post.

Events:
98 - Trajan becomes Roman emperor.
1343 - Pope Clement VI issues the Bull Unigenitus.
1606 - The trial of Guy Fawkes and the other surviving Gunpowder plotters begins.
1785 - The first public university in the United States, the University of Georgia, is founded.
1939 - The first flight of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.
1944 - The two year siege of Leningrad is lifted.
1945 - The first troops from the Red Army arrive at the infamous Auschwitz concentration camp - Today is International Holocaust Rememberance Day.
1967 - Spacecraft Apollo 1 catches fire during pre-launch tests. The three astronauts, Virgil 'Gus' Grisson, Edward White and Roger Chaffee are all killed before they can open the command module hatch.
1967 - Over 60 nations sign the Outer Space Treaty, which bans the use of nuclear weapons in space.
1973 - The Vietnam War officially ends and the last recorded American casualty of that war, Colonel William Nolde, dies.

Births:
1756 - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - composer.
1832 - Lewis Carroll - writer.
1850 - Edward Smith - Captain of the Titanic upon sinking. He shares his name with another Edward Smith who was the youngest VC recipient of WWI. He also got the DCM during that conflict and died in action (possibly friendly fire) in 1940.
1859 - Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany - Kaiser who led Germany during the First World War.
1933 - Mohammd Al-Fayed - Businessman, whose son died in the infamous car crash with Diana, Princess of Wales in Paris, 1997.
1980 - Marat Safin - tennis player.

Deaths:
1901 - Giuseppi Verdi - composer.
1967 - Gus Grissom, Edward White and Roger Chaffee - astronauts (see above).
1973 - William Nolde - last American casualty of Vietnam War (see above).

Comments

]]>What's so Funny?http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2008/01/13/what_s_so_funny~3571697/2008-01-13T20:09:13+01:00 <p>It's a question we've all been asked. Sometimes it's just continuing in the humour in a self-deprecating manner. At others it is honest, an expression of confusion. But what really is funny? Why do we laugh?<br> I'll start at the very beginning, a very good place to start. This week in my French class the teacher asked me what book I was reading. Quite honestly, I answered a book about the role of a branch of the British Secret Service dealing with Prisoners of War, Escapers and Evaders during World War Two. A slight ripple of laughter went round the class. Then, one person said 'I've read that too, it's a good book'. I hadn't even said the title and everyone knew it was taking the mick out of me, but everyone laughed. I, obviously, did not find it funny, but neither did it annoy me too much. The teacher, however, asked for who had said it. When they owned up, he gave us a five minute, highly enjoyable lecture about why it is not 'funny' to laugh at another persons expense, sentiments which I had held long before the incident. How can it be funny to laugh at someone? What is funny about racism, or sexism, yet this makes the backbone of many modern jokes. It is never acceptable to be racist say many people, so why tell jokes about Jews, or the French, or whoever. Because it is cheap and easy humour? That's pretty pathetic. If the only way you can attract girls is by making them laugh and the only way you can do that is by being racist, then you're not clever or witty, you're racist. I draw the line between racist jokes and innuendo. Strong innuendo is, again, stupid I feel. But mild innuendo is okay. But being racist is not. Why, oh why, do so many shows these days deal only in that sort of humour. I also see the difference between the extreme (and pretty pointless) violence of the Young Ones and Bottom and racist jokes. But, then again, if the only way you can make the audience laugh is by sticking an axe through someones head, what does that say about humanity?<br> So, to conclude, why does modern humour have to revolve around slacking someone off? Can people just grow up and write some decent comedy. You may say I just want Morecambe and Wise, Dad's Army, The Goodies and the Muppets back and you'd almost certainly be right. Well, are you all going to learn and mature, or will I have to learn to write for myself? </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2008/01/13/what_s_so_funny~3571697/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>It's a question we've all been asked. Sometimes it's just continuing in the humour in a self-deprecating manner. At others it is honest, an expression of confusion. But what really is funny? Why do we laugh?
I'll start at the very beginning, a very good place to start. This week in my French class the teacher asked me what book I was reading. Quite honestly, I answered a book about the role of a branch of the British Secret Service dealing with Prisoners of War, Escapers and Evaders during World War Two. A slight ripple of laughter went round the class. Then, one person said 'I've read that too, it's a good book'. I hadn't even said the title and everyone knew it was taking the mick out of me, but everyone laughed. I, obviously, did not find it funny, but neither did it annoy me too much. The teacher, however, asked for who had said it. When they owned up, he gave us a five minute, highly enjoyable lecture about why it is not 'funny' to laugh at another persons expense, sentiments which I had held long before the incident. How can it be funny to laugh at someone? What is funny about racism, or sexism, yet this makes the backbone of many modern jokes. It is never acceptable to be racist say many people, so why tell jokes about Jews, or the French, or whoever. Because it is cheap and easy humour? That's pretty pathetic. If the only way you can attract girls is by making them laugh and the only way you can do that is by being racist, then you're not clever or witty, you're racist. I draw the line between racist jokes and innuendo. Strong innuendo is, again, stupid I feel. But mild innuendo is okay. But being racist is not. Why, oh why, do so many shows these days deal only in that sort of humour. I also see the difference between the extreme (and pretty pointless) violence of the Young Ones and Bottom and racist jokes. But, then again, if the only way you can make the audience laugh is by sticking an axe through someones head, what does that say about humanity?
So, to conclude, why does modern humour have to revolve around slacking someone off? Can people just grow up and write some decent comedy. You may say I just want Morecambe and Wise, Dad's Army, The Goodies and the Muppets back and you'd almost certainly be right. Well, are you all going to learn and mature, or will I have to learn to write for myself?

Comments

]]>WGP - Web Game Programminghttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2008/01/05/wgp_web_game_programming~3531746/2008-01-05T13:30:47+01:00 <p>Here it is, another year, and another project for me. What am I doing this time? Programming a game. Online. Multiple users. Ah. That sounds like a lot of hard work. And if there's one thing I hate it's hard work. On the other side of the spoon the one thing I love is work, so it's not all bad. But, I am not going to reveal the intricacies of the game yet. I'm not giving you lot all my ideas. No way. Instead I am going to discuss the technologies I am using to make it. In particular, a specific set I am using, which I am calling WGP.<br> <strong>WGP:</strong><br> It stands for Web Game Programming. And it refers to a simple, quick and easy way to create online, multi-user games, using standard technologies that most website coders know already. It is a combination of XHTML, JavaScript, CSS and PHP. I will explain each technology in turn and how it is used in the game.<br> <strong>XHTML:</strong><br> eXtensible Hyper-Text Markkup Language is the newest version of the standard HTML language which has been used for years to code web pages. It is simply HTML, written in XML (eXtensible Markup Language) which is becoming the new standard. But as XML isn't fully supported yet, I will use the older technolgy. This is simply to produce the pages and to markup the text.<br> <strong>JavaScript:</strong><br> This is used to produce the functionality and the interactivity. It is how we go from room to room (yes, they won't be seperate XHTML pages, they will be individual divides within an overall XHTML page). This will also control interacting with NPCs (Non Player Characters) and objects, quests, etc.<br> <strong>CSS:</strong><br> Cascading Style Sheets will be used to style the pages, and in a more innovative way. It will be used in conjunction with JavaScript. The code I am using creates a toggleDisplay function, but without a certain bit of CSS, all the content would be displayed at the start. We need a 'display: none;' line in the CSS for certain 'div' elements to get around this problem.<br> <strong>PHP</strong><br> PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor is the final technology used. It is utilised to store user data and statistics for their characters. This means that there is less time spent communicating with an external computer, thus speeding the game up.</p> <p>Useful Links:<br> I am going to be writing my own introduction to each language in due course, in the meantime these links will be of use:<br> XHTML: <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/">http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/</a> ¦ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML</a> ¦ <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/">http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/</a><br> JavaScript: <a href="http://www.javascript.com">www.javascript.com</a> ¦ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript</a> ¦ <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/js/">http://www.w3schools.com/js/</a><br> CSS: <a href="http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/">http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/</a> ¦ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets</a> ¦ <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/css/">http://www.w3schools.com/css/</a><br> PHP: <a href="http://www.php.net">http://www.php.net</a> ¦ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP</a> ¦ <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/php/">http://www.w3schools.com/php/</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.hotscripts.com/">http://www.hotscripts.com/</a> - good general programming site.<br> <a href="http://www.csszengarden.com/">http://www.csszengarden.com/</a> - another good css website.</p> <p>Note: I am not responsible for the content of external sites, or any damage they might do to your computer. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2008/01/05/wgp_web_game_programming~3531746/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>Here it is, another year, and another project for me. What am I doing this time? Programming a game. Online. Multiple users. Ah. That sounds like a lot of hard work. And if there's one thing I hate it's hard work. On the other side of the spoon the one thing I love is work, so it's not all bad. But, I am not going to reveal the intricacies of the game yet. I'm not giving you lot all my ideas. No way. Instead I am going to discuss the technologies I am using to make it. In particular, a specific set I am using, which I am calling WGP.
WGP:
It stands for Web Game Programming. And it refers to a simple, quick and easy way to create online, multi-user games, using standard technologies that most website coders know already. It is a combination of XHTML, JavaScript, CSS and PHP. I will explain each technology in turn and how it is used in the game.
XHTML:
eXtensible Hyper-Text Markkup Language is the newest version of the standard HTML language which has been used for years to code web pages. It is simply HTML, written in XML (eXtensible Markup Language) which is becoming the new standard. But as XML isn't fully supported yet, I will use the older technolgy. This is simply to produce the pages and to markup the text.
JavaScript:
This is used to produce the functionality and the interactivity. It is how we go from room to room (yes, they won't be seperate XHTML pages, they will be individual divides within an overall XHTML page). This will also control interacting with NPCs (Non Player Characters) and objects, quests, etc.
CSS:
Cascading Style Sheets will be used to style the pages, and in a more innovative way. It will be used in conjunction with JavaScript. The code I am using creates a toggleDisplay function, but without a certain bit of CSS, all the content would be displayed at the start. We need a 'display: none;' line in the CSS for certain 'div' elements to get around this problem.
PHP
PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor is the final technology used. It is utilised to store user data and statistics for their characters. This means that there is less time spent communicating with an external computer, thus speeding the game up.

Useful Links:
I am going to be writing my own introduction to each language in due course, in the meantime these links will be of use:
XHTML: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ ¦ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML ¦ http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/
JavaScript: www.javascript.com ¦ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript ¦ http://www.w3schools.com/js/
CSS: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/ ¦ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets ¦ http://www.w3schools.com/css/
PHP: http://www.php.net ¦ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP ¦ http://www.w3schools.com/php/

http://www.hotscripts.com/ - good general programming site.
http://www.csszengarden.com/ - another good css website.

Note: I am not responsible for the content of external sites, or any damage they might do to your computer.

Comments

]]>Happy New Year!http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2008/01/01/happy_new_year~3514620/2008-01-01T15:50:28+01:00 <p>Okay, so I will start the new year with an apology (great, already!). I have not been very active blog wise recently and I am sorry. My RS lessons turned into tests so my main material source dried up and homework stepped up a gear in the new GCSE year, so I haven't had much time. That and grandparents deaths, etc, have made me become very lapse. This will, hopefully change.<br> This year I am not going to cover RS and philosophy every week, but once every four. The other weeks will be taken up by reviews, history and my life and times respectively, hopefully this will give me more material and mean that you get more to read!<br> So, sorry again and a happy new year, I look forward to sharing it with you all. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2008/01/01/happy_new_year~3514620/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>Okay, so I will start the new year with an apology (great, already!). I have not been very active blog wise recently and I am sorry. My RS lessons turned into tests so my main material source dried up and homework stepped up a gear in the new GCSE year, so I haven't had much time. That and grandparents deaths, etc, have made me become very lapse. This will, hopefully change.
This year I am not going to cover RS and philosophy every week, but once every four. The other weeks will be taken up by reviews, history and my life and times respectively, hopefully this will give me more material and mean that you get more to read!
So, sorry again and a happy new year, I look forward to sharing it with you all.

Comments

]]>Famehttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/11/18/fame~3314774/2007-11-18T14:48:32+01:00 <p>We all want it. Some of us have got it. But what is it? What drives us towards it? What does it actually mean?<br> OK, so I admit it, this is based on the assemblies given at school this week by my form tutor. Well, some of my own ideas, and definately my own words, so more... inspired, I think. Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent.<br> 'I want to live forever... People will see me and cry "Fame!"'<br> That's how the song goes. I don't like it. I've got several bad memories of singing it in my primary school's choir. It seems just a set of lyrics. Or is it? 'I want to live forever'. Isn't that what we all want. I for one remember dreams, of not too long ago, where I lived forever. Everyone else died, just me, I saw what happened. Everyone wants to see what will happen in the future I think. Everyone wants to see how they are remembered. It would be 'fun'to read your own obituary, wouldn't it? To see what people think of you? But then you realise that you don't want it. If everyone else died you would know noone. You would be a stranger, and outcast. If you were talking to your great-great-great grandchildren, who themselves were now grandparents, could you cope? I don't think so. We need change, but not too much. We need to inhabit our own space and time and then leave. I think this is where the idea of an afterlife was born. we all knew it was best that we died. But we didn't want it to be the end. So is that what fame is about. The quest for an afterlife? To be remembered after you are long dead. By that reckoning Caeser is one of the most famous people ever. But is he? How do you define fame? The Chambers dictionary definition runs thus: public report or rumour, renown or celebrity, chiefly in a good sense - to report. I feel I should have chosen a more up to date dictionary. Does that satisfy me? No. It feels in part like a thesaurus, in part like they didn't know how to define it themselves. Let me have a go: to be known, to be recognised outside your immediate consequences. Okay, I don't think that Oxford will be employing that any time soon, I've used the word 'you' for goodness' sake! But it is good enough for me.<br> So, after all that, what actually is fame? Is it your face on the cover of all the tabloids and a women's magazine once a week, or is it a lasting contribution to society. Most people would say that Paris Hilton is famous. No she isn't. She's a celebrity. She hasn't done anything. Does this need to be added to my definition? To be remembered for a contribution, positive or negative, to society outside one's immediate social circles. See, I've even changed 'you' to 'one'. That's a bit long winded though isn't it? Surely something more short, sweet and succint is required. But I have diverged again. Back to Paris. I would say that if you wanted someone who was truly famous then you turned to Einstein or Hawkings. But, surely the original meaning of fame was to be widely recognised. So Paris, Channelle and all that lot truly are famous. But I don't agree. They haven't done anything. We have been changing and manipulating the definition, but so has society. The thing it is describing now comes in two forms as well. So is fame just an upshot of our modern, consumer-based society? No, I think it has always been around. But we now have so many ways to do it. With so many academic subjects it's easy to find your niche. The web is such an evolving medium that for a moment you can be held up in the limelight and clamed as famous for making a certain site that is forgotten completely five years later. 'Reality TV' allows anyone with absolutely no talent at all to get their 15 minutes. We plaster ourselves across profile pages. We add anyone and everyone to MSN and MySpace. I, for one, have a MySpace, Facebook and Bebo accounts, not that I use them much. I have created several websites, most of which have collapsed in a heap. I am on several forums. I'm on MSN. I'm on Yahoo. And goodness knows how many other sites. I keep a blog. That is fine for me. That is enough. The fame given by this. By knowing that someone, somewhere, outside my normal social circles may just have drawn an ounce of pleasure from reading my ramblings at some time or other. If this url is given to just one person I am famous. If just one person thinks about, or discusses what is here then I have got my fame. And I'm human. So I would love to be told! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/11/18/fame~3314774/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>We all want it. Some of us have got it. But what is it? What drives us towards it? What does it actually mean?
OK, so I admit it, this is based on the assemblies given at school this week by my form tutor. Well, some of my own ideas, and definately my own words, so more... inspired, I think. Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent.
'I want to live forever... People will see me and cry "Fame!"'
That's how the song goes. I don't like it. I've got several bad memories of singing it in my primary school's choir. It seems just a set of lyrics. Or is it? 'I want to live forever'. Isn't that what we all want. I for one remember dreams, of not too long ago, where I lived forever. Everyone else died, just me, I saw what happened. Everyone wants to see what will happen in the future I think. Everyone wants to see how they are remembered. It would be 'fun'to read your own obituary, wouldn't it? To see what people think of you? But then you realise that you don't want it. If everyone else died you would know noone. You would be a stranger, and outcast. If you were talking to your great-great-great grandchildren, who themselves were now grandparents, could you cope? I don't think so. We need change, but not too much. We need to inhabit our own space and time and then leave. I think this is where the idea of an afterlife was born. we all knew it was best that we died. But we didn't want it to be the end. So is that what fame is about. The quest for an afterlife? To be remembered after you are long dead. By that reckoning Caeser is one of the most famous people ever. But is he? How do you define fame? The Chambers dictionary definition runs thus: public report or rumour, renown or celebrity, chiefly in a good sense - to report. I feel I should have chosen a more up to date dictionary. Does that satisfy me? No. It feels in part like a thesaurus, in part like they didn't know how to define it themselves. Let me have a go: to be known, to be recognised outside your immediate consequences. Okay, I don't think that Oxford will be employing that any time soon, I've used the word 'you' for goodness' sake! But it is good enough for me.
So, after all that, what actually is fame? Is it your face on the cover of all the tabloids and a women's magazine once a week, or is it a lasting contribution to society. Most people would say that Paris Hilton is famous. No she isn't. She's a celebrity. She hasn't done anything. Does this need to be added to my definition? To be remembered for a contribution, positive or negative, to society outside one's immediate social circles. See, I've even changed 'you' to 'one'. That's a bit long winded though isn't it? Surely something more short, sweet and succint is required. But I have diverged again. Back to Paris. I would say that if you wanted someone who was truly famous then you turned to Einstein or Hawkings. But, surely the original meaning of fame was to be widely recognised. So Paris, Channelle and all that lot truly are famous. But I don't agree. They haven't done anything. We have been changing and manipulating the definition, but so has society. The thing it is describing now comes in two forms as well. So is fame just an upshot of our modern, consumer-based society? No, I think it has always been around. But we now have so many ways to do it. With so many academic subjects it's easy to find your niche. The web is such an evolving medium that for a moment you can be held up in the limelight and clamed as famous for making a certain site that is forgotten completely five years later. 'Reality TV' allows anyone with absolutely no talent at all to get their 15 minutes. We plaster ourselves across profile pages. We add anyone and everyone to MSN and MySpace. I, for one, have a MySpace, Facebook and Bebo accounts, not that I use them much. I have created several websites, most of which have collapsed in a heap. I am on several forums. I'm on MSN. I'm on Yahoo. And goodness knows how many other sites. I keep a blog. That is fine for me. That is enough. The fame given by this. By knowing that someone, somewhere, outside my normal social circles may just have drawn an ounce of pleasure from reading my ramblings at some time or other. If this url is given to just one person I am famous. If just one person thinks about, or discusses what is here then I have got my fame. And I'm human. So I would love to be told!

Comments

]]>The News - Jean Charles de Menezes Casehttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/11/11/the_news_jean_charles_de_menezes_case~3281480/2007-11-11T21:01:49+01:00 <p>The Jean Charles de Menezes Shooting<br> On the 21st of July 2005, there was a bomb scare in Central London. Coming as it did, a fortnight after 4 devices had been detonated to major damage and several deaths, the police mounted a response on a massive scale and London was placed on high alert. The next day, however, this was to go tragically wrong. An inocent Brazilian man was mistaken for one of the suspected suicide bombers and shot dead at Stockwell Tube Station.<br> Then, just last week, the Metropolitan Police was found guilty of gross negligence, or something. Anyway, that doesn't matter. What does matter is who is getting the blame. The Chief Commisioner, Sir Ian Blair. Why, oh why, oh why? He was not connected to the case. Yes, he put the city on highest alert, but with blooming good reason. He didn't give the intelligence that it might be one of the bombers. He didn't give the order ot detain that man. He didn't pull the trigger. So why should he get the blame? And why has an inquiry into the shooting only just started? It is two years after it happened. Witnesses can vanish or die. Memories can fade, change or even be changed. People can talk to other people. Things can be said. Why don't they do it immediately? Why has an inquest into Diana's death only just started. For that matter, why is it happening at all? They almost certainly had some alcohol in their bloodsteams. They almost certainly were speeding. They almost certainly were being chased. And the one person wearing his seatbelt survived. It could have been a campaign to get people to wear safety belts. It could have been a campaign against driving immediately after drinking. But instead it turns into this. Great! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/11/11/the_news_jean_charles_de_menezes_case~3281480/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>The Jean Charles de Menezes Shooting
On the 21st of July 2005, there was a bomb scare in Central London. Coming as it did, a fortnight after 4 devices had been detonated to major damage and several deaths, the police mounted a response on a massive scale and London was placed on high alert. The next day, however, this was to go tragically wrong. An inocent Brazilian man was mistaken for one of the suspected suicide bombers and shot dead at Stockwell Tube Station.
Then, just last week, the Metropolitan Police was found guilty of gross negligence, or something. Anyway, that doesn't matter. What does matter is who is getting the blame. The Chief Commisioner, Sir Ian Blair. Why, oh why, oh why? He was not connected to the case. Yes, he put the city on highest alert, but with blooming good reason. He didn't give the intelligence that it might be one of the bombers. He didn't give the order ot detain that man. He didn't pull the trigger. So why should he get the blame? And why has an inquiry into the shooting only just started? It is two years after it happened. Witnesses can vanish or die. Memories can fade, change or even be changed. People can talk to other people. Things can be said. Why don't they do it immediately? Why has an inquest into Diana's death only just started. For that matter, why is it happening at all? They almost certainly had some alcohol in their bloodsteams. They almost certainly were speeding. They almost certainly were being chased. And the one person wearing his seatbelt survived. It could have been a campaign to get people to wear safety belts. It could have been a campaign against driving immediately after drinking. But instead it turns into this. Great!

Comments

]]>One must consider the Psycology of the Individualhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/11/06/one_must_consider_the_psycology_of_the_i~3252846/2007-11-06T09:18:49+01:00 <p>That, as you may or may not know, is a quote from Terry Pratchett's brilliant and highly successful series of Discworld books. But when, you ask, might that come into play in real life? I actually have done this twice in recent weeks. One time I created the mischief, another time it was someone convincing themselves of something that was not true. I describe them both below.</p> <p>'Where's he gone?'</p> <p>I was in the beautiful town of Chester during the Octobe Half Term holiday. It was gorgeous, the sun was shining, the birds were singing and we were going back to a car park. My dad and brother were some way in front and my mum, my gran and I were walking along talking. The conversation had got onto some topic, I can't recall what, but it didn't really include me. So I decided to try something. I dropped behind, as if to let them talk easier. Once or twice they turned around to say things to me and I mumbled a reply. Then I dropped even further behind, and even further. And they didn't seem to notice or do anything. Then, I crossed the road. It was quite and the car park was on the other side. And they still didn't notice anything! So you can melt into the background. You can be put entirely out of memory. They only noticed me, after all, when a couple of minutes later they too came to cross. They turned to face the road and, as traffic was coming along at that moment, said that I must have seen it was clear and crossed all by myself, how clever and sensible I was. I kept my trickery to myself although I am guessing a smile did flash across my lips. It had worked!</p> <p>The Missing 10</p> <p>My second observation comes about a week later. We had been doing some work in French that the teacher wanted to mark, so he took our books in. He had already explained the mark scheme. The next day we got our books back. I had got 26. One of the people in our class came up and said '26 out of 30, that's good, well done'. I thought this strange immediately. It was out of 40! I told him this and he replied 'No, it's out of 30, no-ones got higher than 30.' I wanted to leave it there. But this was obviously wrong, he had convinced himself of something based purely on what he had seen. And it was completely wrong. I explained the maths to him. There were 13 questions, 3 marks for each make 39. He then said he'd give all of us a bonus mark. It's out of 40. He still kept on that it was out of 30. I left it there. But it is interesting, isn't it. The way that someone puts the memories out of their mind. They don't think. They just look and assume. Well, I found it interesting anyway. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/11/06/one_must_consider_the_psycology_of_the_i~3252846/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>That, as you may or may not know, is a quote from Terry Pratchett's brilliant and highly successful series of Discworld books. But when, you ask, might that come into play in real life? I actually have done this twice in recent weeks. One time I created the mischief, another time it was someone convincing themselves of something that was not true. I describe them both below.

'Where's he gone?'

I was in the beautiful town of Chester during the Octobe Half Term holiday. It was gorgeous, the sun was shining, the birds were singing and we were going back to a car park. My dad and brother were some way in front and my mum, my gran and I were walking along talking. The conversation had got onto some topic, I can't recall what, but it didn't really include me. So I decided to try something. I dropped behind, as if to let them talk easier. Once or twice they turned around to say things to me and I mumbled a reply. Then I dropped even further behind, and even further. And they didn't seem to notice or do anything. Then, I crossed the road. It was quite and the car park was on the other side. And they still didn't notice anything! So you can melt into the background. You can be put entirely out of memory. They only noticed me, after all, when a couple of minutes later they too came to cross. They turned to face the road and, as traffic was coming along at that moment, said that I must have seen it was clear and crossed all by myself, how clever and sensible I was. I kept my trickery to myself although I am guessing a smile did flash across my lips. It had worked!

The Missing 10

My second observation comes about a week later. We had been doing some work in French that the teacher wanted to mark, so he took our books in. He had already explained the mark scheme. The next day we got our books back. I had got 26. One of the people in our class came up and said '26 out of 30, that's good, well done'. I thought this strange immediately. It was out of 40! I told him this and he replied 'No, it's out of 30, no-ones got higher than 30.' I wanted to leave it there. But this was obviously wrong, he had convinced himself of something based purely on what he had seen. And it was completely wrong. I explained the maths to him. There were 13 questions, 3 marks for each make 39. He then said he'd give all of us a bonus mark. It's out of 40. He still kept on that it was out of 30. I left it there. But it is interesting, isn't it. The way that someone puts the memories out of their mind. They don't think. They just look and assume. Well, I found it interesting anyway.

Comments

]]>IVFhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/10/31/ivf~3225608/2007-10-31T18:43:55+01:00 <p>First, an apology, I wrote this last week but completely failed to upload it to this blog. Sorry again, anyway, here it is:</p> <p>Once again I have lived up to my reputation for picking highly contentious issues to deal with in this blog. I had better explain that by fertility treatment I am refering to various methods of allowing infertile couples to have a baby using scientific method. Certain methods involve a third, or even fourth and fifth parties in the pregnancy.<br> For ease I have only dealt with In-Vitro Fertilisation or IVF. This is because the arguments from method to method vary so wildly.<br> In the below I have stayed well away from religious reasons for and against fertility treatment. You could, for example, claim that God is the creator and by using fertility treatment we are playing God which is wrong. These sort of arguments lead to large and complex debates so I have stayed with scientific and moral principles only.</p> <p>Fertility Treatment is RIGHT:<br> 1. Everyone should be able to have a child (if they want).<br> Infertility is a highly distressing experience for those that it involves. For many people one of their most heartfelt ambitions is to have a child so being unable to concieve naturally can be highly upsetting. It also means that for those who have their reproductive organs removed (for cancer, etc) they can still have the chance to a child.<br> 2. Screening for possible illnesses.<br> This is particularly useful for families where there is a history of life threatening diseases. When eggs are produced outside the womb they are much easier to screen to see whether or not they ahve a chance of developing a particular condition.<br> 3. The ability to save one child by having another.<br> Sometimes a child can be born with certain conditions that can only be rectified by having a blood transfusion or similar operation. Unfortunately, the immunological match has to be so similar that only a sibling will do. Screening prior to implantation in the womb can lead to a second child which has the ability to act as a cure for the first.</p> <p>Fertility Treatment is WRONG:<br> 1. It can lead to dangerous multiple pregnancies.<br> In IVF it is against common sense to implant only one embryo as the chance of each embryo taking hold and developing is so slight. This means that normally multiple embryos are implanted into the womb. This is fine if only one starts growing. But if several start growing various factors come into play. The more babies a woman carries the more chance there is of complications for her and her children possibly leading to certain disabilities, conditions and even death.<br> 2. What if multiple embryos develop?<br> This is a stage further back from the above. With IVF you take several eggs from the woman and sperm from the man and mix them before implanting some of the resulting embryos into the womb. But what do you do with the spare embryos? Do you throw them away? This is hard because certain philosophies believe that from conception onwards that is a 'life' and it shouldn't be taken away. Do you implant them all? That, as stated above, can lead to increased risks for mother and child(ren). This is an intricate moral dilemna, and one which is hard to resolve.<br> 3. The childs sense of self.<br> What will the child think about himself. If one of the parents is infertile you might involve the eggs or sperm of a person outside the partnership. Under current English law the child would not have the right to find out who their biological father or mother was. This could lead to identity problems later on, confusing the child and making them depressed.</p> <p>My Opinion:<br> So, what do I think? I am personally all in favour of fertility treatment. A lot of the arguments against it are religious and don't really impact on my overall view much. The remaining 'pros' then far outweigh the remaining 'cons'. I feel that people should be able to have a child if they want one and that the ability to prevent or cure diseases is a remarkable and highly comendable one. I think the child's sense of self is the strongest argument against but normally does not come into play through IVF. This is why I am in favour of IVF but not so sure of my position towards, for example, AID or Surrogate Motherhood. As for the dangers of multiple pregnancies? They exist in any pregnancy and the chances are relatively slim so I would be happy to take the risk. As for getting rid of embryos I wouldn't feel much guilt as I don't believe it is a 'person' yet. But that is for next time... </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/10/31/ivf~3225608/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>First, an apology, I wrote this last week but completely failed to upload it to this blog. Sorry again, anyway, here it is:

Once again I have lived up to my reputation for picking highly contentious issues to deal with in this blog. I had better explain that by fertility treatment I am refering to various methods of allowing infertile couples to have a baby using scientific method. Certain methods involve a third, or even fourth and fifth parties in the pregnancy.
For ease I have only dealt with In-Vitro Fertilisation or IVF. This is because the arguments from method to method vary so wildly.
In the below I have stayed well away from religious reasons for and against fertility treatment. You could, for example, claim that God is the creator and by using fertility treatment we are playing God which is wrong. These sort of arguments lead to large and complex debates so I have stayed with scientific and moral principles only.

Fertility Treatment is RIGHT:
1. Everyone should be able to have a child (if they want).
Infertility is a highly distressing experience for those that it involves. For many people one of their most heartfelt ambitions is to have a child so being unable to concieve naturally can be highly upsetting. It also means that for those who have their reproductive organs removed (for cancer, etc) they can still have the chance to a child.
2. Screening for possible illnesses.
This is particularly useful for families where there is a history of life threatening diseases. When eggs are produced outside the womb they are much easier to screen to see whether or not they ahve a chance of developing a particular condition.
3. The ability to save one child by having another.
Sometimes a child can be born with certain conditions that can only be rectified by having a blood transfusion or similar operation. Unfortunately, the immunological match has to be so similar that only a sibling will do. Screening prior to implantation in the womb can lead to a second child which has the ability to act as a cure for the first.

Fertility Treatment is WRONG:
1. It can lead to dangerous multiple pregnancies.
In IVF it is against common sense to implant only one embryo as the chance of each embryo taking hold and developing is so slight. This means that normally multiple embryos are implanted into the womb. This is fine if only one starts growing. But if several start growing various factors come into play. The more babies a woman carries the more chance there is of complications for her and her children possibly leading to certain disabilities, conditions and even death.
2. What if multiple embryos develop?
This is a stage further back from the above. With IVF you take several eggs from the woman and sperm from the man and mix them before implanting some of the resulting embryos into the womb. But what do you do with the spare embryos? Do you throw them away? This is hard because certain philosophies believe that from conception onwards that is a 'life' and it shouldn't be taken away. Do you implant them all? That, as stated above, can lead to increased risks for mother and child(ren). This is an intricate moral dilemna, and one which is hard to resolve.
3. The childs sense of self.
What will the child think about himself. If one of the parents is infertile you might involve the eggs or sperm of a person outside the partnership. Under current English law the child would not have the right to find out who their biological father or mother was. This could lead to identity problems later on, confusing the child and making them depressed.

My Opinion:
So, what do I think? I am personally all in favour of fertility treatment. A lot of the arguments against it are religious and don't really impact on my overall view much. The remaining 'pros' then far outweigh the remaining 'cons'. I feel that people should be able to have a child if they want one and that the ability to prevent or cure diseases is a remarkable and highly comendable one. I think the child's sense of self is the strongest argument against but normally does not come into play through IVF. This is why I am in favour of IVF but not so sure of my position towards, for example, AID or Surrogate Motherhood. As for the dangers of multiple pregnancies? They exist in any pregnancy and the chances are relatively slim so I would be happy to take the risk. As for getting rid of embryos I wouldn't feel much guilt as I don't believe it is a 'person' yet. But that is for next time...

Comments

]]>All About Me!http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/10/21/all_about_me~3170875/2007-10-21T12:57:52+02:00 <p>So, I've been writing this blog, properly, for over a month now and I feel that it is surely time that I told you all a little about myself.<br> I'm Robert, I'm 14 and I love in the West Midlands. I go a grammar school and am in Year 10. I am in maths and quiz teams at school. I help out in the library and am taking part in a young co-operatives scheme. Outside of school I enjoy tennis, table-tennis and badminton as well as walking. I like reading, my favourite author being Terry Pratchett. I lead an active online life running multiple, unsuccessful, websites and have a good knowledge of HTML, CSS, etc. I have too many projects on the go at the moment to name. These include, lovely thing irony, game making, computer programming, a Discworld fan fiction and the family tree.</p> <p>Religious Views:<br> I was born a Christian to a Catholic father and Protestant mother. I was baptised a Catholic. Neither of them are very religious and neither am I. Following a discussion on this blog into my views I became an atheist. For further information read my series 'The Existence of God'.</p> <p>Political Leanings:<br> I am a left-winger. More than that I am not sure. I was a communist for a time and felt that in pratice it could work. I now have mellowed a bit in opinion. I approve more of Labour but disagree with the war in Iraq, etc, being a pacifist. I currently lean towards the Lib Dems but feel that they have lost their way slightly. Besides, they are a bit too central. I am definitely against Tories. I found it highly interesting that as soon as there were rumours in the press of a general election they came out with all their policies. Brilliant! And yes, I admit that I am one of those who picked upon Cameron cycling to work. He still had several cars trailing him and a helicopter overhead but he cycled to work! Rubbish. To save my own neck I am not going to talk about the BNP and Monster Raving Loony Parties.</p> <p>So that is a brief, and badly written, introduction to me.</p> <p>What can one expect on this blog in the future?<br> - Religious and Psycological debate<br> - Recreational mathematics<br> - Historical discussion<br> - Political analysis </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/10/21/all_about_me~3170875/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>So, I've been writing this blog, properly, for over a month now and I feel that it is surely time that I told you all a little about myself.
I'm Robert, I'm 14 and I love in the West Midlands. I go a grammar school and am in Year 10. I am in maths and quiz teams at school. I help out in the library and am taking part in a young co-operatives scheme. Outside of school I enjoy tennis, table-tennis and badminton as well as walking. I like reading, my favourite author being Terry Pratchett. I lead an active online life running multiple, unsuccessful, websites and have a good knowledge of HTML, CSS, etc. I have too many projects on the go at the moment to name. These include, lovely thing irony, game making, computer programming, a Discworld fan fiction and the family tree.

Religious Views:
I was born a Christian to a Catholic father and Protestant mother. I was baptised a Catholic. Neither of them are very religious and neither am I. Following a discussion on this blog into my views I became an atheist. For further information read my series 'The Existence of God'.

Political Leanings:
I am a left-winger. More than that I am not sure. I was a communist for a time and felt that in pratice it could work. I now have mellowed a bit in opinion. I approve more of Labour but disagree with the war in Iraq, etc, being a pacifist. I currently lean towards the Lib Dems but feel that they have lost their way slightly. Besides, they are a bit too central. I am definitely against Tories. I found it highly interesting that as soon as there were rumours in the press of a general election they came out with all their policies. Brilliant! And yes, I admit that I am one of those who picked upon Cameron cycling to work. He still had several cars trailing him and a helicopter overhead but he cycled to work! Rubbish. To save my own neck I am not going to talk about the BNP and Monster Raving Loony Parties.

So that is a brief, and badly written, introduction to me.

What can one expect on this blog in the future?
- Religious and Psycological debate
- Recreational mathematics
- Historical discussion
- Political analysis

Comments

]]>Grammar Schoolshttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/10/14/grammar_schools~3135127/2007-10-14T17:57:25+02:00 <p>So, should they exist? It's a topic of little deabate in British politics at the moment. It's a political minefield. As your schooling affects the rest of your life, it is understandable that politicians don't want to make the wrong decision.<br> Let me get straight to the point. Your viewpoint on this subject varies according to your own education. If you went to a grammar school then you are in favour of them. If you went to a comprehensive, when perhaps, you should have gone to a grammar school, then you are against them. Because you are only 11 when you chose your school you are normally not fully mature enough to make your own decision. You greatly rely on your parents. If your parents have one view on a subject so greatly influencing your life at that point, then you will pick it up too.<br> So, what do I believe? I believe they are a good thing. And guess what, I go to one. They offer those of above average intelligence a chance to excel. The opportunity that they need to get the best out of themselves. They attract the best teachers, have the longest histories and get, for the most part, the best exam results. I don't think that the 11+ works however. People can be easily tutored through. If you are ill on the day of an exam then that could mean the whole of your life is completely different. I don't agree with exams. I also don't agree with private schools. Why should people be educated differently, just because they had rich parents. Why should they then go on to disagree with grammar schools? 'I had a brilliant education, but if you don't have money then you can't either, regardless of your ability.' It just doesn't make sense. It feels almost hypocritical and highly selfish.<br> So, I've now used that word three times, what do I believe should become of the education system. I think that areas that have grammar schools should get no more, and those that don't have them, should get them. This way everyone has equal opportunities. They should not rely on one test, but on a few. And on teacher assessments, etc. Some for of National Apptitude Tests or something. You can also use these for applications to NAGTY. The system for this doesn't make sense at the moment. The top 5% of one school could all be in the top 10% in the country. But in another school they might only be in the top 25%. You shouldn't have the cream of the crop of each school. But the cream of the crop of the whole country. Surely that makes more sense!<br> I know this is a ramble, and I apologise for it, but I want to get over two key points. Grammar schools are good. The system for NAGTY applications is not. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/10/14/grammar_schools~3135127/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>So, should they exist? It's a topic of little deabate in British politics at the moment. It's a political minefield. As your schooling affects the rest of your life, it is understandable that politicians don't want to make the wrong decision.
Let me get straight to the point. Your viewpoint on this subject varies according to your own education. If you went to a grammar school then you are in favour of them. If you went to a comprehensive, when perhaps, you should have gone to a grammar school, then you are against them. Because you are only 11 when you chose your school you are normally not fully mature enough to make your own decision. You greatly rely on your parents. If your parents have one view on a subject so greatly influencing your life at that point, then you will pick it up too.
So, what do I believe? I believe they are a good thing. And guess what, I go to one. They offer those of above average intelligence a chance to excel. The opportunity that they need to get the best out of themselves. They attract the best teachers, have the longest histories and get, for the most part, the best exam results. I don't think that the 11+ works however. People can be easily tutored through. If you are ill on the day of an exam then that could mean the whole of your life is completely different. I don't agree with exams. I also don't agree with private schools. Why should people be educated differently, just because they had rich parents. Why should they then go on to disagree with grammar schools? 'I had a brilliant education, but if you don't have money then you can't either, regardless of your ability.' It just doesn't make sense. It feels almost hypocritical and highly selfish.
So, I've now used that word three times, what do I believe should become of the education system. I think that areas that have grammar schools should get no more, and those that don't have them, should get them. This way everyone has equal opportunities. They should not rely on one test, but on a few. And on teacher assessments, etc. Some for of National Apptitude Tests or something. You can also use these for applications to NAGTY. The system for this doesn't make sense at the moment. The top 5% of one school could all be in the top 10% in the country. But in another school they might only be in the top 25%. You shouldn't have the cream of the crop of each school. But the cream of the crop of the whole country. Surely that makes more sense!
I know this is a ramble, and I apologise for it, but I want to get over two key points. Grammar schools are good. The system for NAGTY applications is not.

Comments

]]>Warhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/10/06/war~3093996/2007-10-06T15:28:09+02:00 <p> War. It is a slightly, he says, controversial topic. Possibly it would be better to phrase as 'highly controversial'. It is also topical. And, as you can imagine, it came up on the journey to Swinnerton Army Training Camp where my school's Combined Cadet Force (CCF) were going to undertake a day of ground training. The person sitting next to me on the coach could not understand my stance on war. I, you see, am a pacifist. I am not religious, as you will see in my previous blog entries, but I still have strong moral standpoints. The problem on the journey was that the person I was speaking to was highly patriotic. He is a fervent monarchist, he strongly believes in British values. Anyway, I diverge, I was talking about being a pacifist. I stood by this when the person in question asked me about hypothetical cases involving dictators threating the world. Would I answer the call to arms? I stood by my beliefs when he talked about a theoretical invasion of British soil. Would I answer the call to arms? The answer, as I told him, is no. I would not answer the call to arms.<br> Being so strongly patriotic he could not understand this. It made no sense to him. You can see why. I had joined the CCF. Surely this meant I wasn't a pacifist. The answer, you see, is no. A couple of years ago the scout troop I was in folded and I didn't feel like I fitted into the new group created after several troops merged. I wanted to use CCf as an occasion to take up similar opportunities, to learn similar skills. But my main reason was flying. In the RAF section, of which I am a member, we get to fly. So, the first time I had ever flown was when I was 13. I went up in a two-seater Tutor airplane with a pilot with over 1000 hours experience. And I got to take control of the plane. I have been gliding twice since that first powered flight, and both times I have been given control. It is a marvelous feeling. Now you see why I joined the CCF.<br> So, why am I a pacifist? My answer is fairly straightforward; I could never kill. I could never bring myself to pull that trigger. I could never end a persons life. The guilt would be horrible. That person would have a mother who would mourn his passing greatly. He would have a past, and most upsettingly, a future. I could never take that away. Not even if my country was threatened. War is never right. It is never right to kill some mother's child. It is never right to kill full stop. Murder was deserving of capital punishment, so why in war does it become permissible. It is all because of dealings at the top. People get scared by other people, shuffle figures around, and people die. It is not right. I hate it. This is why I could never become a politician. I can speak in public. I now how to structure an argument. I can debate like anyone. There are several reminiscings I could permit myself at this point but I shall restrain. But I could never become a politician. Just because of this. I may well yet become one, but we shall see. On that matter it makes you think doesn't it. The people who are happy to lead are the ones who are happy to send people to their deaths. There's a thought for the day.<br> To conclude. I am a pacifist. I could never kill. War is never justifiable. And I will stand by that belief until the end of time. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/10/06/war~3093996/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p> War. It is a slightly, he says, controversial topic. Possibly it would be better to phrase as 'highly controversial'. It is also topical. And, as you can imagine, it came up on the journey to Swinnerton Army Training Camp where my school's Combined Cadet Force (CCF) were going to undertake a day of ground training. The person sitting next to me on the coach could not understand my stance on war. I, you see, am a pacifist. I am not religious, as you will see in my previous blog entries, but I still have strong moral standpoints. The problem on the journey was that the person I was speaking to was highly patriotic. He is a fervent monarchist, he strongly believes in British values. Anyway, I diverge, I was talking about being a pacifist. I stood by this when the person in question asked me about hypothetical cases involving dictators threating the world. Would I answer the call to arms? I stood by my beliefs when he talked about a theoretical invasion of British soil. Would I answer the call to arms? The answer, as I told him, is no. I would not answer the call to arms.
Being so strongly patriotic he could not understand this. It made no sense to him. You can see why. I had joined the CCF. Surely this meant I wasn't a pacifist. The answer, you see, is no. A couple of years ago the scout troop I was in folded and I didn't feel like I fitted into the new group created after several troops merged. I wanted to use CCf as an occasion to take up similar opportunities, to learn similar skills. But my main reason was flying. In the RAF section, of which I am a member, we get to fly. So, the first time I had ever flown was when I was 13. I went up in a two-seater Tutor airplane with a pilot with over 1000 hours experience. And I got to take control of the plane. I have been gliding twice since that first powered flight, and both times I have been given control. It is a marvelous feeling. Now you see why I joined the CCF.
So, why am I a pacifist? My answer is fairly straightforward; I could never kill. I could never bring myself to pull that trigger. I could never end a persons life. The guilt would be horrible. That person would have a mother who would mourn his passing greatly. He would have a past, and most upsettingly, a future. I could never take that away. Not even if my country was threatened. War is never right. It is never right to kill some mother's child. It is never right to kill full stop. Murder was deserving of capital punishment, so why in war does it become permissible. It is all because of dealings at the top. People get scared by other people, shuffle figures around, and people die. It is not right. I hate it. This is why I could never become a politician. I can speak in public. I now how to structure an argument. I can debate like anyone. There are several reminiscings I could permit myself at this point but I shall restrain. But I could never become a politician. Just because of this. I may well yet become one, but we shall see. On that matter it makes you think doesn't it. The people who are happy to lead are the ones who are happy to send people to their deaths. There's a thought for the day.
To conclude. I am a pacifist. I could never kill. War is never justifiable. And I will stand by that belief until the end of time.

Comments

]]>The Donkey and the Daughter - Part Twohttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/09/30/the_donkey_and_the_daughter_part_two~3063594/2007-09-30T18:40:13+02:00 <p>So, what did you decide? Most people in my class said that it was the same. That dropping the daughter off was just as bad as dropping the donkey off. This is actually highly odd. The 'Christian Union' has recently seen a resurgence in our school. I admit that some people truly believe but, being a skeptic, I add that it involves one friendship group, free chocolate and an opportunity to meet people from the girl's school. Great! Anyway, all the Christian Union members said that it was the same. But, in the Bible, it says that humans were made in 'the image of God'. This means that we are on a par with him. It also applies that humans are greater than the animal kingdom. We were created on a different day to them. In Corinthians it says that we are temples of God. Surely this puts us above the animal kingdom. What a load of drivel! But it promotes my atheist point of view so who cares?<br> So, what do I think? I think it is different. But not, I think and hope, because I believe humans are in any way above animals. The story involves and old, decrepid donkey. What quality of life would it have? It might be a mercy to kill it. Whilst the daughter is young. It has the whole of it's life ahead of it. Also, it has relatives who would be upset by its passing. Do donkey's have family connections in this way at that age? Do they mourn? Do they understand. This obviously raises two interesting questions. Is it ever right to kill, or aid death? What concepts do animals understand, how do they perceive the world? But those are for another time. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/09/30/the_donkey_and_the_daughter_part_two~3063594/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>So, what did you decide? Most people in my class said that it was the same. That dropping the daughter off was just as bad as dropping the donkey off. This is actually highly odd. The 'Christian Union' has recently seen a resurgence in our school. I admit that some people truly believe but, being a skeptic, I add that it involves one friendship group, free chocolate and an opportunity to meet people from the girl's school. Great! Anyway, all the Christian Union members said that it was the same. But, in the Bible, it says that humans were made in 'the image of God'. This means that we are on a par with him. It also applies that humans are greater than the animal kingdom. We were created on a different day to them. In Corinthians it says that we are temples of God. Surely this puts us above the animal kingdom. What a load of drivel! But it promotes my atheist point of view so who cares?
So, what do I think? I think it is different. But not, I think and hope, because I believe humans are in any way above animals. The story involves and old, decrepid donkey. What quality of life would it have? It might be a mercy to kill it. Whilst the daughter is young. It has the whole of it's life ahead of it. Also, it has relatives who would be upset by its passing. Do donkey's have family connections in this way at that age? Do they mourn? Do they understand. This obviously raises two interesting questions. Is it ever right to kill, or aid death? What concepts do animals understand, how do they perceive the world? But those are for another time.

Comments

]]>The Donkey and the Daughter - Part Onehttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/09/22/the_donkey_and_the_daughter~3022613/2007-09-22T15:34:45+02:00 <p>I suppose I had better start with an explanation. I walked into the first Religious Studies of this term with some trepidation. I was only taking short course for GCSE and didn't know quite what to expect. I had heard from those taking long course that they were studying only one religion. I felt this would take the enjoyment out of the subject for me. Then the teacher told us the name of the course. 'Christian Perspectives on Personal, Social and World Issues'. I sat back and started to enjoy the lesson. So over the next two years expect a lot of philosophy!<br> He began the lesson proper with a story. His wife is French and so, every year, in the six weeks holiday, they go to her farm in the south of France and stay with her parents. Whilst they were there this year some friends of the family came round to dinner one night. There was the woman, her husband and their daughter. Over the meal the conversation gradually moved to bullfighting and then spanish traditions in general. One that was brought up was a tradition from one small village. Every year, they would take an old, decrepid donkey up to the top of a tower and through it off. The woman made her feelings quite clear on the issue. She felt it was totally immoral and it was the same as throughing her own daughter off. What, asked the teacher, would you do? Is it the same to through the daughter off as to through the donkey off? I'll let you discuss it for a bit and then I'll say what the class eventually agreed upon. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/09/22/the_donkey_and_the_daughter~3022613/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>I suppose I had better start with an explanation. I walked into the first Religious Studies of this term with some trepidation. I was only taking short course for GCSE and didn't know quite what to expect. I had heard from those taking long course that they were studying only one religion. I felt this would take the enjoyment out of the subject for me. Then the teacher told us the name of the course. 'Christian Perspectives on Personal, Social and World Issues'. I sat back and started to enjoy the lesson. So over the next two years expect a lot of philosophy!
He began the lesson proper with a story. His wife is French and so, every year, in the six weeks holiday, they go to her farm in the south of France and stay with her parents. Whilst they were there this year some friends of the family came round to dinner one night. There was the woman, her husband and their daughter. Over the meal the conversation gradually moved to bullfighting and then spanish traditions in general. One that was brought up was a tradition from one small village. Every year, they would take an old, decrepid donkey up to the top of a tower and through it off. The woman made her feelings quite clear on the issue. She felt it was totally immoral and it was the same as throughing her own daughter off. What, asked the teacher, would you do? Is it the same to through the daughter off as to through the donkey off? I'll let you discuss it for a bit and then I'll say what the class eventually agreed upon.

Comments

]]>The (Non-)Existence of God #3: Notes and Addendumhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/the_non_existence_of_god_3_notes_and_add~2888236/2007-08-29T09:32:16+02:00 <p>So, finally, we have the final part of this series:</p> <p>Pascal's Wager<br> This is an 'argument' (if you can call it that) by Blaise Pascal, hte famous French mathematician. It states that it is a better bet to believe that God exists than to believe he doesn't. This is because if God doesn't exist it doesn't matter. If he does, however, and you believe in him, then you will go to heaven. If you don't believe in him, you will go to hell. There you are, for believing in him you have +1 and for not -1. Simple. But we are assuming that heaven is better than hell. Do all people think that way? And, that believing in him automatically gets you past St Peter but if you don't you're out on your ear. Is this correct. I thought it was more 'Have you been naughty or nice?'. This is a nice idea, one of my favourites but it doesn't change my viewpoint.</p> <p>So, Do I believe in God?<br> No. This is because I, as I have said before, 'know' in science. I feel that science explains everything better. I think that religion was early sceince. A way to explain things that we couldn't. This is seen in the Creation story and the Tower of Babel. Explaining the creation of the universe and language respectively. Then you have people or events in the public memory who were slightly special but who's stories grew in the telling. For this I would cite Noah's Flood and the prophets. I know some people believe in God. This is fine. I would be the first person to stand up for you. But, for me, it just isn't right. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/the_non_existence_of_god_3_notes_and_add~2888236/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>So, finally, we have the final part of this series:

Pascal's Wager
This is an 'argument' (if you can call it that) by Blaise Pascal, hte famous French mathematician. It states that it is a better bet to believe that God exists than to believe he doesn't. This is because if God doesn't exist it doesn't matter. If he does, however, and you believe in him, then you will go to heaven. If you don't believe in him, you will go to hell. There you are, for believing in him you have +1 and for not -1. Simple. But we are assuming that heaven is better than hell. Do all people think that way? And, that believing in him automatically gets you past St Peter but if you don't you're out on your ear. Is this correct. I thought it was more 'Have you been naughty or nice?'. This is a nice idea, one of my favourites but it doesn't change my viewpoint.

So, Do I believe in God?
No. This is because I, as I have said before, 'know' in science. I feel that science explains everything better. I think that religion was early sceince. A way to explain things that we couldn't. This is seen in the Creation story and the Tower of Babel. Explaining the creation of the universe and language respectively. Then you have people or events in the public memory who were slightly special but who's stories grew in the telling. For this I would cite Noah's Flood and the prophets. I know some people believe in God. This is fine. I would be the first person to stand up for you. But, for me, it just isn't right.

Comments

]]>Blogshareshttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/08/25/blogshares~2867233/2007-08-25T10:54:12+02:00 <p>We are now on the highly successful bloghares.com site. The site is a fantasy stockmarket where you buy and sell shares using fictional money in blogs!</p> <p><a href="http://blogshares.com/blogs.php?blog=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teenagemusings.blog.co.uk%2F&user=55470"><img src="http://blogshares.com/images/blogshares.jpg" alt="Listed on BlogShares" width="117" height="23"></a> </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/08/25/blogshares~2867233/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>We are now on the highly successful bloghares.com site. The site is a fantasy stockmarket where you buy and sell shares using fictional money in blogs!

Listed on BlogShares

Comments

]]>The (Non-)Existence of God #2: Douglas Adams, Paradoxes and Shades of Grey.http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/08/25/the_non_existence_of_god_2_douglas_adams~2867195/2007-08-25T10:43:13+02:00 <p>The following is the second part of my ramble into the existence (or non-existence) of God. This was inspired by reading the book: The Science of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. A book which I firmly recommend. It is very easy reading and a brilliant introduction to various key topics in science and religion today.<br> As I have said this is inspired by H2G2 and so I am going to start with a quote from the same:<br> "Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."<br> The above is a statement by God during a discussion with man about his existence. It revolves around a creature called the babel fish which, when inserted into the ear canal, can help you understand anything said to you in any language. It is used by man to prove that God can't exist, God then promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.<br> If you read my article (The (Non-)Existence of God #1: 3 Simple Proofs) you will have read some classic 'proofs' of the existence of God. Therefore, by Adams logic, God cannot exist. Simple. Except that this is a paradox. He does not exist because we can prove he exists. This is obviously what Adams was hoping the reader would notice and not take any further. So I shall. We have made several assumptions with the above paradox. #1: Proof denies faith: If we remove this for a moment we can proof he exists and therefore he exists. But not everything proves he exists, we have 'proofs' to the contrary. If we assume for the moment that the proofs are correct then we 'know' he exists. But this is religion, not science. You only 'know' in science, you 'believe' in religion. If this were to be reversed, or changed in some other form, then the world would collapse and we would be back to square one. #2: We have proof. This is simple, if we don't have proof he either exists, or doesn't. #3: An argument = a proof. This is slightly more profound. We only, so far, have arguments, or logic to prove he exists, no measurements or 'proper proof'. This is once again blurring the boundaries of science and religion but bare with me. If an argument does not equal a proof then God is once again in a state of fluctuation. He could wither exist or not as in #2. However, If an argument = a proof we are back to the paradox. This has proved that an argument does not equal a proof. So once again God is in limbo.<br> Above I mentioned about knowledge and believing and how I believe one is for science and the other religion. This might seem to some like the difference between truth and lies, black and white. But it is more likely shades of grey. As Adams' original statement shows, they are not the same. But can they be compared? Can they be used in the same context? Science and religion have a weird relationship. If religion is true then a lot of science isn't but if science is true then religion may or may not be. Can we use the same terminology for each? This is where I was coming from when I said last time that 'I know in science'. How would the logic change if we had an argument instead of a proof or we didn't mix proof and faith? I for one have had enough of philosophy for one day and so am not going to discuss it.<br> Chance. The original argument in H2G2 is about chance. The babel fish is proof of your existence. As such, we should probably have used the complexity of the universe in our analogy but nevermind. This is of course assuming the universe cannot have evolved by chance. Again, I think we are mixing things here. The abstract concept of God's existence with the physical object that is the universe. Is this possible. Only if he exists is one possible argument, again producing a paradox. Back to chance. Some scientists may state quantum mechanics or chaos theory for the complexity of the universe, and I would agree. But is it as complex as it seems? It may be that it is governed by a few simple laws. If not of physics, then of maths and logic. To quote Einstein 'Make physics as simple as possible, but not simpler.' This is a very interesting subject and one which I will go into more detail about at a later date.</p> <p>This Wed: The (Non-)Existence of God #3: Notes and Addendum. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/08/25/the_non_existence_of_god_2_douglas_adams~2867195/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>The following is the second part of my ramble into the existence (or non-existence) of God. This was inspired by reading the book: The Science of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. A book which I firmly recommend. It is very easy reading and a brilliant introduction to various key topics in science and religion today.
As I have said this is inspired by H2G2 and so I am going to start with a quote from the same:
"Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
The above is a statement by God during a discussion with man about his existence. It revolves around a creature called the babel fish which, when inserted into the ear canal, can help you understand anything said to you in any language. It is used by man to prove that God can't exist, God then promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
If you read my article (The (Non-)Existence of God #1: 3 Simple Proofs) you will have read some classic 'proofs' of the existence of God. Therefore, by Adams logic, God cannot exist. Simple. Except that this is a paradox. He does not exist because we can prove he exists. This is obviously what Adams was hoping the reader would notice and not take any further. So I shall. We have made several assumptions with the above paradox. #1: Proof denies faith: If we remove this for a moment we can proof he exists and therefore he exists. But not everything proves he exists, we have 'proofs' to the contrary. If we assume for the moment that the proofs are correct then we 'know' he exists. But this is religion, not science. You only 'know' in science, you 'believe' in religion. If this were to be reversed, or changed in some other form, then the world would collapse and we would be back to square one. #2: We have proof. This is simple, if we don't have proof he either exists, or doesn't. #3: An argument = a proof. This is slightly more profound. We only, so far, have arguments, or logic to prove he exists, no measurements or 'proper proof'. This is once again blurring the boundaries of science and religion but bare with me. If an argument does not equal a proof then God is once again in a state of fluctuation. He could wither exist or not as in #2. However, If an argument = a proof we are back to the paradox. This has proved that an argument does not equal a proof. So once again God is in limbo.
Above I mentioned about knowledge and believing and how I believe one is for science and the other religion. This might seem to some like the difference between truth and lies, black and white. But it is more likely shades of grey. As Adams' original statement shows, they are not the same. But can they be compared? Can they be used in the same context? Science and religion have a weird relationship. If religion is true then a lot of science isn't but if science is true then religion may or may not be. Can we use the same terminology for each? This is where I was coming from when I said last time that 'I know in science'. How would the logic change if we had an argument instead of a proof or we didn't mix proof and faith? I for one have had enough of philosophy for one day and so am not going to discuss it.
Chance. The original argument in H2G2 is about chance. The babel fish is proof of your existence. As such, we should probably have used the complexity of the universe in our analogy but nevermind. This is of course assuming the universe cannot have evolved by chance. Again, I think we are mixing things here. The abstract concept of God's existence with the physical object that is the universe. Is this possible. Only if he exists is one possible argument, again producing a paradox. Back to chance. Some scientists may state quantum mechanics or chaos theory for the complexity of the universe, and I would agree. But is it as complex as it seems? It may be that it is governed by a few simple laws. If not of physics, then of maths and logic. To quote Einstein 'Make physics as simple as possible, but not simpler.' This is a very interesting subject and one which I will go into more detail about at a later date.

This Wed: The (Non-)Existence of God #3: Notes and Addendum.

Comments

]]>Discworld FanFic Ideahttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/08/22/discworld_fanfic_idea~2849680/2007-08-22T10:28:41+02:00 <p>In Klatchian Fields</p> <p>People join the Klatchian Foreign Legion to forget. To all intents and purposes it is very good at its job.<br> But, when you have forgotten your mission and are under seige from your own reinforcements, Death, is your only friend. Unfortunately, he is otherwise engaged.</p> <p>Features: Death, Susan, the Auditors, the Hogfather, the Tooth Fairy, plus a wide selection of new and exciting characters. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/08/22/discworld_fanfic_idea~2849680/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>In Klatchian Fields

People join the Klatchian Foreign Legion to forget. To all intents and purposes it is very good at its job.
But, when you have forgotten your mission and are under seige from your own reinforcements, Death, is your only friend. Unfortunately, he is otherwise engaged.

Features: Death, Susan, the Auditors, the Hogfather, the Tooth Fairy, plus a wide selection of new and exciting characters.

Comments

]]>The (Non-)Existence of God #1: 3 Simple Proofs:http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/08/22/the_non_existence_of_god_1_3_simple_proo~2849656/2007-08-22T10:25:11+02:00 <p>Against God:<br> 1. Everything would prove the existence of God (I'll come back to this next time)<br> 2. All religions would be the same, and have the same number of Gods, etc. This could be explained by different interpretations and changes over time but I'm not so sure.<br> 3. Transcendental numbers, why would God make everything else so perfect and yet these numbers so, strange?<br> These above three I have created for this article. By this I do not claim to be their inventor. Someone else may have postulated them before or I may have read something similar.</p> <p>For:<br> 1. The Universe is so complicated that it cannot have developed just by chance (again, I'll come back to this in the future.<br> 2. Cause and Effect. Every effect must have a cause. Eg, This blog is caused by me. I am caused by my parents. They were caused by their parents, etc. Something must be there to start this chain going as it cannot go back to infinity. There must therefore be a first cause: God. (but who caused God?)<br> 3. I exist. I can imagine God. I am imperfect. Imperfect beings cannot invent the idea of God. Therefore God must exist.<br> The second idea was postulated by a monk named St Thomas Aquinas whilst the third, and least successful, by French Philosopher Rene Descartes. There is a story behind the first which goes. A man was walking over the hills one day and found a pocket watch. When he looked inside at it he saw how complicated it was and 'knew' it had to be made. Then he realised this could be used to prove the existence of god.</p> <p>I don't think I can believe in God. This is because I 'know' in science. I will come back to this difference next time in: The (Non-)Existence of God #2: Douglas Adams, Paradoxes and Shades of Grey. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/08/22/the_non_existence_of_god_1_3_simple_proo~2849656/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>Against God:
1. Everything would prove the existence of God (I'll come back to this next time)
2. All religions would be the same, and have the same number of Gods, etc. This could be explained by different interpretations and changes over time but I'm not so sure.
3. Transcendental numbers, why would God make everything else so perfect and yet these numbers so, strange?
These above three I have created for this article. By this I do not claim to be their inventor. Someone else may have postulated them before or I may have read something similar.

For:
1. The Universe is so complicated that it cannot have developed just by chance (again, I'll come back to this in the future.
2. Cause and Effect. Every effect must have a cause. Eg, This blog is caused by me. I am caused by my parents. They were caused by their parents, etc. Something must be there to start this chain going as it cannot go back to infinity. There must therefore be a first cause: God. (but who caused God?)
3. I exist. I can imagine God. I am imperfect. Imperfect beings cannot invent the idea of God. Therefore God must exist.
The second idea was postulated by a monk named St Thomas Aquinas whilst the third, and least successful, by French Philosopher Rene Descartes. There is a story behind the first which goes. A man was walking over the hills one day and found a pocket watch. When he looked inside at it he saw how complicated it was and 'knew' it had to be made. Then he realised this could be used to prove the existence of god.

I don't think I can believe in God. This is because I 'know' in science. I will come back to this difference next time in: The (Non-)Existence of God #2: Douglas Adams, Paradoxes and Shades of Grey.

Comments

]]>Vision for the Future of the Worldhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/07/07/vision_for_the_future_of_the_world~2589545/2007-07-07T10:53:20+02:00 <p>This is an essay I did for RE this morning. Thought you might like to read it...</p> <p>If you could revisit the earth in 200 years time, what would you want to find?<br> What can you do in your life to help make this vision a reality?</p> <p> What would I want to find? It's a difficult question. And it produces some surprising answers. I would want to find birdsong to show that birds have survived and humans have cared for them. I would want to find animals, so that we haven't killed them off. I want to see all those creatures facing extinction by humans saved, and living where they should be living. I want to see wildernesses, large areas, worldwide, that humans haven't touched and aren't going to touch. I want to see trees in great, big forests, improving the planet. I want to find gardens, so that all of us have a small ecosystem outside our house, not a paved wasteland. I want to find a decent standard of healthcare, globally. I want to find an eradication of poverty if such a move is possible. I want to find people and animals co-existing. I want to find governments that care for their people. I want to find new scientific advances. I want to find an end to global warming. I want to find a thriving human race. I want to find thriving plant life. I want to find thriving wildlife. I want to find everyone living the life they want to lead, not the life society thrusts on them. I want to find culture, not globalisation. I want to find peace. I want to find sense. I want to find a better world.<br> So what can I do? I can put out bird feeders and support the RSPB further to save birds. I can donate to the RSPCA to save our British pets. I can donate to the World Wildlife Foundation and save wildlife worldwide. I can donate money to other charities that are working to preserve wildernesses. I can donate to the Woodland trust and plant my own trees. I can make sure that I always have gardens on every property I own and never concrete jungles. I can donate to the many healthcare charities to improve global living standards. I can donate to Third World charities to eradicate poverty. I can help charities raise awareness of the needs of wildlife. I can support all the political charities whose aims I believe in to encourage democracy. I can support scientific research. I can cut down on my own carbon emissions to do my bit to combating global warming. But will I really do this? I hope I will but there is only so much money one can spare to donate to charity. There is only so much time I can donate to making gardens, planting trees and volunteer work. But I should make the effort. I want to make the effort. And, hopefully, I shall make the effort. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/07/07/vision_for_the_future_of_the_world~2589545/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>This is an essay I did for RE this morning. Thought you might like to read it...

If you could revisit the earth in 200 years time, what would you want to find?
What can you do in your life to help make this vision a reality?

What would I want to find? It's a difficult question. And it produces some surprising answers. I would want to find birdsong to show that birds have survived and humans have cared for them. I would want to find animals, so that we haven't killed them off. I want to see all those creatures facing extinction by humans saved, and living where they should be living. I want to see wildernesses, large areas, worldwide, that humans haven't touched and aren't going to touch. I want to see trees in great, big forests, improving the planet. I want to find gardens, so that all of us have a small ecosystem outside our house, not a paved wasteland. I want to find a decent standard of healthcare, globally. I want to find an eradication of poverty if such a move is possible. I want to find people and animals co-existing. I want to find governments that care for their people. I want to find new scientific advances. I want to find an end to global warming. I want to find a thriving human race. I want to find thriving plant life. I want to find thriving wildlife. I want to find everyone living the life they want to lead, not the life society thrusts on them. I want to find culture, not globalisation. I want to find peace. I want to find sense. I want to find a better world.
So what can I do? I can put out bird feeders and support the RSPB further to save birds. I can donate to the RSPCA to save our British pets. I can donate to the World Wildlife Foundation and save wildlife worldwide. I can donate money to other charities that are working to preserve wildernesses. I can donate to the Woodland trust and plant my own trees. I can make sure that I always have gardens on every property I own and never concrete jungles. I can donate to the many healthcare charities to improve global living standards. I can donate to Third World charities to eradicate poverty. I can help charities raise awareness of the needs of wildlife. I can support all the political charities whose aims I believe in to encourage democracy. I can support scientific research. I can cut down on my own carbon emissions to do my bit to combating global warming. But will I really do this? I hope I will but there is only so much money one can spare to donate to charity. There is only so much time I can donate to making gardens, planting trees and volunteer work. But I should make the effort. I want to make the effort. And, hopefully, I shall make the effort.

Comments

]]>Game Makerhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/06/17/game_maker~2468918/2007-06-17T15:52:33+02:00 <p><a href="http://www.yoyogames.com">www.yoyogames.com</a><br> Download Game Maker Version 7<br> It rocks.<br> It's for making games with - it's a really easy system.<br> Join the forum - gmc.yoyogames.com - and PM me<br> If you want any game ideas then PM me on the forum as well.</p> <p>My Current Projects:<br> Pokémon Adventures (working title)<br> It's a mix between Lego Star Wars and Pokémon featuring:<br> Red and Gold Pokéballs (like bricks in Lego II)!<br> Ash, Misty, Brock, Proffesor Oak, Gary, Jesse, James, Giovanni + loads of trainers!<br> All original 150 pokémon!<br> Special bonus missions!<br> Battle arena!<br> Extras - Invincibility, etc!<br> Coins - three types!<br> Panels, levers, etc - like Lego!<br> It is going to be amazing, and only my second game!<br> Watch this space for updates, in a few months time... </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/06/17/game_maker~2468918/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>www.yoyogames.com
Download Game Maker Version 7
It rocks.
It's for making games with - it's a really easy system.
Join the forum - gmc.yoyogames.com - and PM me
If you want any game ideas then PM me on the forum as well.

My Current Projects:
Pokémon Adventures (working title)
It's a mix between Lego Star Wars and Pokémon featuring:
Red and Gold Pokéballs (like bricks in Lego II)!
Ash, Misty, Brock, Proffesor Oak, Gary, Jesse, James, Giovanni + loads of trainers!
All original 150 pokémon!
Special bonus missions!
Battle arena!
Extras - Invincibility, etc!
Coins - three types!
Panels, levers, etc - like Lego!
It is going to be amazing, and only my second game!
Watch this space for updates, in a few months time...

Comments

]]>History Societyhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/06/17/history_society~2468886/2007-06-17T15:47:07+02:00 <p>My school has a history society of which I am a member, after each meeting I will post details of it for all those who are interested. I was meant to be doing a talk tomorrow but I'm not which is good because I went gliding today with my CCF! I got to take control of the plane on only my second flight! I took control on my first as well, but... Anyway I was going to do it on the battle of St Nazaire a daring World War II commando raid.</p> <p>Here's some previous meetings:<br> The Battle of Kadesh, An Interactive Presentation (by me!)<br> The Hittite Empire (by me!)<br> The Crimean War (by the teacher)<br> Over the Top (watching the Blackadder episode)</p> <p>As you can see we have many varied subjects!</p> <p>Tommorow it's the Normans by a year Seven kid. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/06/17/history_society~2468886/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>My school has a history society of which I am a member, after each meeting I will post details of it for all those who are interested. I was meant to be doing a talk tomorrow but I'm not which is good because I went gliding today with my CCF! I got to take control of the plane on only my second flight! I took control on my first as well, but... Anyway I was going to do it on the battle of St Nazaire a daring World War II commando raid.

Here's some previous meetings:
The Battle of Kadesh, An Interactive Presentation (by me!)
The Hittite Empire (by me!)
The Crimean War (by the teacher)
Over the Top (watching the Blackadder episode)

As you can see we have many varied subjects!

Tommorow it's the Normans by a year Seven kid.

Comments

]]>Sorryhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/05/24/sorry~2328109/2007-05-24T19:45:11+02:00 <p>Sorry I haven't posted in a while. My parents have decided to give me three hours a week for TV, games and Internet and I'm going away on holiday in two days! So, more when I get back. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/05/24/sorry~2328109/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>Sorry I haven't posted in a while. My parents have decided to give me three hours a week for TV, games and Internet and I'm going away on holiday in two days! So, more when I get back.

Comments

]]>Personal - All about Mehttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/05/13/personal_all_about_me~2263534/2007-05-13T19:13:28+02:00 <p>So, what's gone on in the world of Me this week? Well, I've had exams. I've done barely any revision. I've got a list of books to read. That reminds me. During the week I had to tell someone who Jeffrey Archer was. How do you do that? I looked in the dictionary and it was censored. Anyway here's my brief account: He was a politician who hooked up with a person of dubious affections. A newspaper printed the story. He went to court over it a got a mate to lie on his behalf. He got sent to jail and made a bomb of money!<br> Also, a new system is being introduced at school whereby we do Rugby for one term then Hockey for another in games lessons. Now I don't like Rugby so:<br> I have a dream that one day, we shall be able to go to school without fear of becoming quadreplegic.<br> Let freedom ring from the changing rooms.<br> We will fight you on the field.<br> Ask not what rugby can do for your life expectancy.<br> etc.etc.etc. I'm bored. Can't be bothered to type any more. See ya! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/05/13/personal_all_about_me~2263534/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>So, what's gone on in the world of Me this week? Well, I've had exams. I've done barely any revision. I've got a list of books to read. That reminds me. During the week I had to tell someone who Jeffrey Archer was. How do you do that? I looked in the dictionary and it was censored. Anyway here's my brief account: He was a politician who hooked up with a person of dubious affections. A newspaper printed the story. He went to court over it a got a mate to lie on his behalf. He got sent to jail and made a bomb of money!
Also, a new system is being introduced at school whereby we do Rugby for one term then Hockey for another in games lessons. Now I don't like Rugby so:
I have a dream that one day, we shall be able to go to school without fear of becoming quadreplegic.
Let freedom ring from the changing rooms.
We will fight you on the field.
Ask not what rugby can do for your life expectancy.
etc.etc.etc. I'm bored. Can't be bothered to type any more. See ya!

Comments

]]>News - Once upon a weekhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/05/06/news_once_upon_a_week~2220411/2007-05-06T15:16:33+02:00 <p>So what's happened this week. Not much. An election where scots won in Scotland, someone won in England and I couldn't be bothered to read the results. I did read the Technology Guardian though (and yes, I am a very weird teenager, not an OAP). I was interested by a story on Microsoft because, well, I hate them. Sorry, 6 major updates the day after the release of your latest operating system, that's ridiculous! Anyway it was saying that you should blame the hardware manufactures that their stuff doesn't work with Vista, don't blame Microsoft. Of course, I saw that as a challenge and so here I go, everyone listen up, well maybe not you Mr Gates, you'd probably better leave in a hurry. 'I have a dream, that one down, even down in Silicon Valley, that Apple computers and Microsoft computers can work together..', sorry, wrong speech, ah, here we are:<br> It's all Microsoft's fault. You made drivers for XP, the hardware manufactures made the neccesary changes and everything was happy-ish. Then, one day, you decide to change those drivers, why? It worked, after a fashion, why change it? Oh, and don't go crying to that reporter, you should have sent out the new drivers so that the companies could work them in, but did you, no, of course not! Why?<br> Then, another story grabbed my atention, 'School doesn't have playtime' Why not. It's an oasis of calm. Instead of going straight to torture (Music) you have 25 minutes to worry about it! It's the point of school. Yes we're a super-school so we need more pupils. Lets make sure we don't get them shall we?<br> And an advertisement:<br> My First Tory: Comes with two phrases 'Call me Dave' and 'Ner, nicky ner ner, I smoked cannabis', and 'Down with Blair, down with Blair'<br> Also in the range - My First Tony. Oh wait, we're almost out of stock. Two months later: still almost out of stock, two months later: It will definately go in the next 8 weeks.<br> Goodbye! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/05/06/news_once_upon_a_week~2220411/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>So what's happened this week. Not much. An election where scots won in Scotland, someone won in England and I couldn't be bothered to read the results. I did read the Technology Guardian though (and yes, I am a very weird teenager, not an OAP). I was interested by a story on Microsoft because, well, I hate them. Sorry, 6 major updates the day after the release of your latest operating system, that's ridiculous! Anyway it was saying that you should blame the hardware manufactures that their stuff doesn't work with Vista, don't blame Microsoft. Of course, I saw that as a challenge and so here I go, everyone listen up, well maybe not you Mr Gates, you'd probably better leave in a hurry. 'I have a dream, that one down, even down in Silicon Valley, that Apple computers and Microsoft computers can work together..', sorry, wrong speech, ah, here we are:
It's all Microsoft's fault. You made drivers for XP, the hardware manufactures made the neccesary changes and everything was happy-ish. Then, one day, you decide to change those drivers, why? It worked, after a fashion, why change it? Oh, and don't go crying to that reporter, you should have sent out the new drivers so that the companies could work them in, but did you, no, of course not! Why?
Then, another story grabbed my atention, 'School doesn't have playtime' Why not. It's an oasis of calm. Instead of going straight to torture (Music) you have 25 minutes to worry about it! It's the point of school. Yes we're a super-school so we need more pupils. Lets make sure we don't get them shall we?
And an advertisement:
My First Tory: Comes with two phrases 'Call me Dave' and 'Ner, nicky ner ner, I smoked cannabis', and 'Down with Blair, down with Blair'
Also in the range - My First Tony. Oh wait, we're almost out of stock. Two months later: still almost out of stock, two months later: It will definately go in the next 8 weeks.
Goodbye!

Comments

]]>Satire - The Frenchhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/04/28/satire_the_french~2176322/2007-04-28T17:04:13+02:00 <p>Yes, this week the French will find out who is leading them to glory, climate change and baguettes for the next few years. Its been interesting reading. Of course, 4 candidates flourished from the start. Sarkozy and Bayrou are all well and good but it's the other two I'm interested in. Yes, if Segoline Royale won it would be their first woman president, 30 years after us. If they hadn't knocked out Le Pen (and good riddance), it would have been a facist president, again, 30 years after us Brits! Go Maggie Thatcher jokes! If only Mr Bean had got caught up in it. Well, we can only dream. Actually, there's a thought, he bears a strong resemblance to someone I know... that's it, Tony Blair ... Just me, okay.<br> Anyway, politics, and voting, is a bit of a sore spot with me. I mean, why do working class people vote Conservative. They don't like you! Even with David 'Call me Dave' Cameron, I can't think of any reason! Then there are coloured people who vote BNP. Well, I've nothing against that if you want to be chucked out the country, but sorry! Then there is the Monster Raving Loony Party. Politics is enough of a joke as it is without them coming along with there red-painted grey squirrels and 99p coins. By the way, have you thought of how much damage a 99p coin would actually do? What happens is, the shops give you the 1p change so you collect coppers and donate them to worthwhile charities (like Tescos, Selfridges and the window cleaner). Then they give you an extra 1p change which you can give to another worthwhile charity (Morrisons, Waterstones or the hairdressers). It makes sense!<br> To finish my quotes of the week:<br> Tony Blair: 'What's up George?'<br> Lord Levy: 'Be very, very quiet. I'm hunting peerages!'<br> Thank you very much! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/04/28/satire_the_french~2176322/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>Yes, this week the French will find out who is leading them to glory, climate change and baguettes for the next few years. Its been interesting reading. Of course, 4 candidates flourished from the start. Sarkozy and Bayrou are all well and good but it's the other two I'm interested in. Yes, if Segoline Royale won it would be their first woman president, 30 years after us. If they hadn't knocked out Le Pen (and good riddance), it would have been a facist president, again, 30 years after us Brits! Go Maggie Thatcher jokes! If only Mr Bean had got caught up in it. Well, we can only dream. Actually, there's a thought, he bears a strong resemblance to someone I know... that's it, Tony Blair ... Just me, okay.
Anyway, politics, and voting, is a bit of a sore spot with me. I mean, why do working class people vote Conservative. They don't like you! Even with David 'Call me Dave' Cameron, I can't think of any reason! Then there are coloured people who vote BNP. Well, I've nothing against that if you want to be chucked out the country, but sorry! Then there is the Monster Raving Loony Party. Politics is enough of a joke as it is without them coming along with there red-painted grey squirrels and 99p coins. By the way, have you thought of how much damage a 99p coin would actually do? What happens is, the shops give you the 1p change so you collect coppers and donate them to worthwhile charities (like Tescos, Selfridges and the window cleaner). Then they give you an extra 1p change which you can give to another worthwhile charity (Morrisons, Waterstones or the hairdressers). It makes sense!
To finish my quotes of the week:
Tony Blair: 'What's up George?'
Lord Levy: 'Be very, very quiet. I'm hunting peerages!'
Thank you very much!

Comments

]]>Comedy - The Now Showhttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/04/15/comedy_the_now_show~2095623/2007-04-15T14:30:09+02:00 <p>Fridays, 6:30, Radio 4. It's a great comedy show with Steve Punt and Hugh Dennis. Last week they had various very good jokes including:<br> Celebrity Sat Nav Voices:<br> Dalek: Turn Left! Turn left in 300 yards! Exterminate! Then turn right!<br> Yoda: Left turn will you make. Left leads to Slough, Slough leads to Swindon, Swindon leads to suffering. (That's what they said, no offence intender). Your teacher I am. No funny videos of me on Youtube will you put.</p> <p>Audience Question:<br> Best reason for taking a day off work?<br> The Gravitational force exerted by my duvet prevented me from getting out of bed.<br> I didn't want to be held responsible for dropping a piano.<br> I ahd an accident and woke up in 1973.</p> <p>And finally:<br> Go to Google maps. Search 'chicago to london'. Scroll down to instruction 20. Have a good laugh. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/04/15/comedy_the_now_show~2095623/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>Fridays, 6:30, Radio 4. It's a great comedy show with Steve Punt and Hugh Dennis. Last week they had various very good jokes including:
Celebrity Sat Nav Voices:
Dalek: Turn Left! Turn left in 300 yards! Exterminate! Then turn right!
Yoda: Left turn will you make. Left leads to Slough, Slough leads to Swindon, Swindon leads to suffering. (That's what they said, no offence intender). Your teacher I am. No funny videos of me on Youtube will you put.

Audience Question:
Best reason for taking a day off work?
The Gravitational force exerted by my duvet prevented me from getting out of bed.
I didn't want to be held responsible for dropping a piano.
I ahd an accident and woke up in 1973.

And finally:
Go to Google maps. Search 'chicago to london'. Scroll down to instruction 20. Have a good laugh.

Comments

]]>Magic - New Trickshttp://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/04/10/magic_new_tricks~2064614/2007-04-10T12:54:28+02:00 <p>Hey, My first real post. First, an admission, I can't perform magic. I'm rubbish. That's not to say I don't like it. Anyway, I have recently invented a series of about 10 illusions and I was wondering what to do with them. Any advice? As for what they are: a few vanishes, a levitation. One involves vanishing a double decker bus while another is a variation on the walking through a wall theme. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/04/10/magic_new_tricks~2064614/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>Hey, My first real post. First, an admission, I can't perform magic. I'm rubbish. That's not to say I don't like it. Anyway, I have recently invented a series of about 10 illusions and I was wondering what to do with them. Any advice? As for what they are: a few vanishes, a levitation. One involves vanishing a double decker bus while another is a variation on the walking through a wall theme.

Comments

]]>Hello!http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/03/24/hello~1965956/2007-03-24T13:14:16+01:00 <p>Hello and welcome to my blog.<br> Here I'm going to blog about a whole load of stuff so bear with me as I list them:<br> 1. Current Affairs<br> 2. Computers and Computer Programming<br> 3. Maths<br> 4. Comedy and Doctor Who<br> 5. Anything else I can think of<br> Hope you enjoy it, so without further ado, lets get this show on the road! </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://teenagemusings.blog.co.uk/2007/03/24/hello~1965956/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>Hello and welcome to my blog.
Here I'm going to blog about a whole load of stuff so bear with me as I list them:
1. Current Affairs
2. Computers and Computer Programming
3. Maths
4. Comedy and Doctor Who
5. Anything else I can think of
Hope you enjoy it, so without further ado, lets get this show on the road!

Comments

]]>