'Cause you said, said he was the one
Baby yes you said, said you were in love












Back to basics: Step 1
Arthur
JJC
Outgrowing 17
Dreamer
Poet
Lover
Atheist
Left-Handed Saggitarian

My passions: Step 2
Food
Company
Writing
Movies
Music
Debates


What i am: Step 3
Strengths:
Confident
Sensitive
Eloquent


Weaknesses:
Paranoid
Unorganized
Careless

Dreams of a globetrotter wannabe: Step 4
Paris
Shanghai
London
Gold Coast
Japan(Tokyo)
Rome
Taiwan
Hong Kong
New York
San Francisco
South Korea

Wishlist
My own domain
Scholarship
To publish a book

Want to know more about me?

Read my blog and you would start discovering fragments of me

P.S. All the works here posted belong to me unless stated otherwise. If you want to post them elsewhere, please seek prior permission from me before doing so. Thanks.

Layout: vehemency
Icon: reruntherace

June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 November 2008 December 2008

Card magic by David Copperfield
Sunday, August 31, 2008, 3:30 PM

A magic performance for free. :). By none other than David Copperfield. Got this off from an email. It will leave you pondering over the trick. If you have seen this already and still don't know how it works, scroll to the end of this post to understand how it works. If you haven't seen this yet, check out the trick first and see if you can figure out how this works












Scroll down...















The mystery behind this wasn't included in the email. I figured it out so i decided to share with everybody in case you can't figure out and thought that it was really magic. Haa. The first thing you needed to do was to think of one card. If you followed the instructions, like any other rational human who wants to see the "magic", most if not all your thoughts would be directed towards that card. The number and the shape, be it clubs,spades,hearts or diamonds.

All the subsequent instructions that followed such as not touching it and not clicking it jsut served as a source of dsitraction away from all the other cards that were available for you to choose from. This includes that of telling you that he dosen't know you etc etc. blah blah blah. Even if you "cheated" and memorised two or three cards, you would notice they would all disappear. Why?! How did it happen?!

There are several levels to this trick.

Firstly, the cards have two elements, namely the number and the shape. Typically you would have to try a little harder than usual to remember the card you chose as compared to just memorising a number(that's a lot easier).

Secondly, when you focus on a particular card, you would most likely ignore all the other cards. Even if you looked at them, they wouldn't leave much of an impression in you, unless you have a photographic memory, which I highly doubt so.

Thirdly, it's the very nature of this "game" in itself. Your objective is to look for the card you chose. Naturally, you would forget all about the other cards you came across previously and would be focused on looking for the card you chose, only to find it missing. If you looked carefully enough or didn't fall for the trick or if you tried the trick for all the cards one at a time or otherwise, you would notice that none of the cards were there when the cards were shown to you again subsequently. You wouldn't notice that unless you paid really close attention to the cards.

Interesting play of a trick on the human mind. How easily we believe what we read or see... Or rather in order to obtain or get something, we would do what's necessary without really thinking much about it or doubting it. Such is the nature of trust. Unless, your a very skeptical person of course. Then maybe you wouldn't follow the instructions and tried something funny.




Malaysian ID Card(Funny joke)
Friday, August 29, 2008, 7:08 PM

This is about the Malaysian Future ID Card. I got this in an email from a friend. I'm not sure if there's really such a thing coming up in Malaysia though.Read this and you will know. It's quite funny. No harm or offense intended. Just for laughs. :).













































Labels: , ,




Bring your own bag day? A failure?
Thursday, August 28, 2008, 4:42 PM

Does "Bring your own bag day" work? I really think more needs to be done. The campaign itself is insufficient. In fact, I think the campaign's objectives would not be achieved and it's a failure. Can we really bring about a revolution to change the impending global meltdown or perhaps our fate is sealed.

I was out yesterday in town at Borders and I was asked if i needed a bag by the staff over the counter when i was making my purchase. I was charged $0.10 for the bag. I was happy, somewhat. It was heartening to discover that companies are doing more to help in climate change, although whether the driving force is to maximize their profits (by cutting down their cost on plastic bags by getting consumers to pay for them) or whether it's truly for a greener environment is debatable. But, it dosen't matter, does it?

Why does NTUC restrict it's campaign only to Wednesdays? I feel NTUC should just implement it every single day. Perhaps, now it's the right time to make this change as people are getting increasingly used to the idea of bringing your own bag. Anyway, I was at NTUC a couple of weeks ago and while I was queueing up, I saw the counter staff giving the customers the plastic bag without even asking if they need a bag. I am not sure if she got the customer to donate $0.10 for the bag though. But, this can't be the attitude that the staff have to adopt. I think it's important for them to ask if people need the bag and not just issue the customers with the bag and charge them for it. Ultimately, the purpose is not to charge the consumers but to inform them of it and try to deter them from using the plastic bags. Even though this campaign has been implemented for quite a while already, staff should still continue to ask that question. "Do you need a bag?" It's to keep that thought in the people's mind, bugging them, keeping them constantly reminded about the bags. Then, it would make an impact. If the campaign comes to a point where people are so used to this sort of a lifestyle, I say, the campaign failed.

Why? If it's part and parcel of their life already, people are unlikely to change. Think about it. The ultimate goal behind this camapign is to get consumers to change their lifestyle and not to charge them. It's simply just that. When people get used to this, they wouldn't change their consumption pattern and go on shopping and use the bags indiscriminately, the only difference being that they pay $0.10 more. On that note, did you notice something? The can that NTUC places at the counter askes for you to donate $0.10 for the bags you take and not pay for it. I suspect it's a marketing strategy to avoid an overwhelming response from consumers. But, again, what's the point if you don't put your point across strongly just like the cashier who dosen't make the effort to remind the consumers? It wouldn't work well. The use of diction has to be changed. Stronger words have to be used to drive the point across. The use of the word, donate, particularly disturbs me. It seems the least bit impactful and the fact that those funds are donated to sustain environmental causes irks me even more. It quenches the guilt in people. They know they have used a bag and paid for it and they wouldn't feel that guilty because they know they are helping to offset their carbon footprint by contributing to a fund as compared to if they were really just paying for a bag. If you were really just paying for a bag, I think it does more in terms of trying to get you to think about the issue at hand and to get you to change your lifestyle.

If we don't do something about the campaign or throw in some other campaigns, I think our efforts are futile. Perhaps what the doomsayers are talking about might just become a permanent reality.

Labels: , , , , , ,




Flavour your milk with your straws!
Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 10:14 PM

Here's how to get your milk flavoured hassle free. No Cocoa powder. No flavoured milk. All you have to do is to use a straw! =P

There's this new product out in the market called Sipahh... My mom sorta got it for free when she bought some milk and ya, that's how I got to know about it. It's basically an easy and fuss-free way to get ur milk flavoured without having to add in cocoa powder, buying flavoured milk etc etc. U get the idea.

So what's the product? It's basically a straw filled with flavoured beads. It comes in five different kinds of flavour namely Chocolate, Chocolate Mint, Banana, Strawberry and Cookies and Cream. It's pretty simple to use. Just insert the straw into the glass of milk, either way will do, and suck the straw! =P. You can vary the intensity of the flavour depending on how hard you suck the straw. It's quite simple. Oh ya, the beads disappear magically. I suppose they dissolve in the milk or something? Anyway, it goes for about 4+(I think...) per packet (10 straws per packet)

A rather interesting product. :D. I love innovation. Some pics. =P







Labels: , , ,




Tube-meat
Tuesday, August 26, 2008, 5:15 PM

Fresh meat from the butcher? Frozen meat from the supermarket? How about Tube-meat from the laboratory? Test-tube grown meat seems like it would become a reality in the future to come. But would anyone want to eat it?

I was browsing through the blogs that I provide links to as usual, keeping myself updated with my friends and one of them talked about growing meat in the laboratory. It isn't a very new breakthrough but still relatively recent, given that the first report on it was released in 2005.

Apparently, meat can be grown in the test tube just like how we culture stem cells. Cells are extracted from the meat of animals and grown in test tube to allow them to divide and eventually grown into meat. It all started when NASA researched into growing fish meat in test tubes to save space since storage has always been a problem in spaceships. It subsequently led researcher Matheny and a team of scientists to propose several techniques for growing meat in test tubes. This would however require different tissues such as muscles and fat so that it really is the meat that we are familair with. One huge challenge faced has been trying to get the texture right since research in this area is geared towards mass production for human consumption. Nobody would want to eat it if it tastes awfully different from the conventional meat we know.

Nonetheless, this still yields substantial benefits because we would be able to reduce our impact on animals. We wouldn't be eating poultry filled with so much growth hormones. I don't know if they can even be called poultry or animals, as a matter of fact. Sounds more like a hormone tank. This would probably put an end to the pressure we have been putting on the animals in order to sustain food production. With the world population growing still, the pressure we put on animals could pose a problem if we don't adopt a solution, i.e. growing meat in test tubes.

Just this year, the animal rights group Peta is putting up a million dollar reward for anyone who by 2012 can grow in-vitro meat that looks and tastes like the real thing. Money does wonders. This provides impetus for researchers to research into this area more extensively and more intensively than ever because not only would they be able to get the reward but would most likely be able to secure patent rights for such production and produce these meat for commercial purposes, reaping in millions and probably billions of dollars.

Most importantly, a team of 10 Peta jurors will taste the entries to make sure they match the texture and flavour of chicken, and they must score at least 80 out of 100 points to win the prize. There goes the worries about the texture and flavour of the chicken. However, even with this in place, can we convince ourselves to eat it? If we were to look at Sinapore's NEWater, it seems to have yet to achieve this. We have created an alternative source of water but it isn't accepted by everybody. I know of friends and relatives who refuse to drink NEWater. The thought of it being recycled from sewage water is repulsive enough to keep one from opening the cap and taking a gulp out of the treated water. Not to forget, the difference in the taste of NEWater as compared to the water we usually drink due to a lack of minerals is also one of the factors contributing to why people don't want to consume NEWater. The same might just happen to meat grown in test tube. Rejection from the public, that is.(Edited)

The meat produced from test tubes might have the same texture and taste, but would we eat it? Can we, creatures of habit, switch to consuming meat produced in the test tube? Will the thought of the meat being produced in a laboratory pose as a psychological barrier to the commercial success of such meat? All these, we don't know. But I'm sure we would find out soon enough.

Perhaps, we need to look at how morally wrong it is for us to OVERCONSUME meat. It has turned from a need for growth, development and survival to an addiction. A habit. A consumption pattern. We need to rethink the pressure we put on other animals. But, the question remains, how many people would truly switch to meat which do not put such pressure on animals for the sake of animals? My guess would be that very few would do so. Draw a parallel to global warming. It's been rightly described as a moral imperative by Al Gore and we are facing the problems of global warming. How much effort have we really put into solving global warming? Seriously. Would reducing plastic bags help to SOLVE the problem of global warming? No doubt, it reduces the impact but it's foolish to think global warming would go away one day just because we all decided to turn to using recyclable plastic bags. Would we really turn to consuming meat in test tube for the sake of animals? Cognitive dissonance, I say. Our voracious appetite for worldly possessions seems to suggest so too.

We would switch to such forms of meat. Yes. In the future. When animals are in the face of extinction, that is. Just like how we are turning to alternative sources of fuels when fossil fuels run low and oil prices jump. I can envision in the many light years to come, that is if we still thrive, how people would reflect on our consumption habits in disgust just like how we condemn slavery and authoritarianism.

Meat in the slaughterhouse and butchery. Frozen and packaged meat in the supermarket. Tubed-meat(as i would like to call it) in the laboratory. The question, "What nutrients would you like in your meat?", dosen't seem very far fetched now. Does it?

Labels: , , , , , , , ,




More Political Freedom in Singapore?
Sunday, August 24, 2008, 11:29 AM

This talks about the increasing political freedom in Singapore. Do we really have more political freedom? Should we already had been entitled to this long ago? Should we have more? Can we take it? Is PAP trying to maintain dominance through these legislations? Hmm... I question

PM Lee has announced that we will be having more political freedom in Singapore. Yay. Let's clap.

Now, before we all get too happy, let's think about this in greater depth.

Podcast, videocast and election materials will be permitted, finally. Probably because of the increasing pressure from the people to liberalise the political scene here. These materials have to be factual though. The reason given for banning these materials in the past was because the government felt that visual materials would interfere in our decision making process and influence our decision making process as compared to cold hard words where we are supposedly able to make a more informed and better choice. Really? Should we all then stop visiting the theatres and youtube videos and turn to the thick volumes of books that had been collecting dust in the library for our facts? Really, the minimum age limit set there for electorates isn't just for show. Given that the electorates are of a certain age and know the seriousness of the matter, they would make an informed decision and I personally don't think they would be so easily swayed just by visual images because afterall, it's not some mindless decision making process. People do think through their decisions even after watching the images. That's of course assuming that our people are concerned about politics in Singapore.

If these people aren't really concerned about politics, I think they would just vote for anyone and most likely PAP because of the fact that they are already the ruling party and because they have been running the country pretty well in terms of economic growth and development. These visual materials wouldn't make much of a difference to them, I feel. The convenience of convention. Sigh. Besides, that sort of a rule would only put the ruling government in a position of advantage, regardless of which party it is because the spotlight would be on the ruling government most of the time and people would know them best as compared to the opposition parties which tend to be rather alien if you don't really bother to read much about them.

Political apathy in Singapore? Right on. It's a vicious cycle. Most people are apathetic, I feel, because of the lack of the need to care because the ruling government is doing a good job and the opposition isn't given much room to advertise itself . We don't have the chance to look through the profiles of all the parties. When we go shopping, we look at all the products and we make a decision. But you most likely wouldn't go to some isolated area and check out the prices of their products too. In fact, you most likely don't know much about them and have a distorted impression of them. I think the same goes for politics. We shop for the best party to bring us the most benefit and serve us well in the future to come. There isn't much to care about when you aren't really engaged in the process of selecting a political party because you don't really have a lot to choose from, particularly if you are someone who dosen't bother to read up about the opposition or find out more about them which is made worst by the fact that we are very comfortable with the way of governance of PAP in many ways more than one. There's nothing much to get you to think and thus the apathy. But if you were presented with a myriad of information, you would have to process the information and look through them and leaves little room for apathy to operate. So elections after elections, we would go in circles and circles until one day we get more chances to participate ACTIVELY in the election process. Now that the government has loosened up a little on this already, hopefully this would come to an end.

Now, we allow more free speech but only at Hong Lim Speaker's corner... Who really goes there? I personally haven't been there and I don't think many people have been there. That's speaking in my own capacity of course. Personally, I don't know much about the Speaker's corner. Apathy? Perhaps.

On a whole, these "additional" liberties that we would be entitled to, note the use of the word additional, are a good thing and it's an improvement from the past. Whether it's sufficient, I leave it to you. Perhaps, we would get even more liberalised in this scene. If PAP is truly worthy of being elected as the government, then it should not have to worry about losing to the opposition and should liberalise our political scene to a greater extent, that's of course assuming that they are doing some things to secure their position in the government which I have no concrete evidence to prove nor strongly believe in for these actions taken by them do seem to root from the need for greater good.

If PAP is truly worthy, we would elect for PAP no matter what kind of videos or podcasts the opposition will try to shove right in our faces. Ultimately, my point is that I think there is not much need for trying to somewhat "suppress" the political scene here because I think it's not necessary. I still think that the restriction on the fact that the speech should not be about language, religion and race is still something that needs to be in place. With such restrictions in place, we already have bloggers that go around making derogatory remarks about the other races or religions. Think about what would happen if we lift such restrictions. That would be sinking ourselves waist down into quicksand. More should be done for the political scene but let us still be thankful for what has been done.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,




China at fault for deceiving audiences at Olympics?
Saturday, August 16, 2008, 1:49 PM

Is China really at fault for deceiving audiences at Olympics? Or are they really just doing what they are supposed to do? I think it's the latter of the two.

I'm sure everybody has heard about some of the unhappiness about the Olympics. The lip-synching for the opening ceremony and how the fireworks that were shown on the screen were actually pre-recorded. This has taken the world by storm as we all feel outraged and cheated. I'm sure some of us feel that way, if not all and i can fully empathize with these people. Is China really over-doing it or is it just doing it's best to ensure that things don't go wrong?

Personally, I think they aren't exactly at fault. The scale at which Olympics is held is extremely huge and there can be no room for mistakes. Under such pressure, one would succumb to what I'd like to call cheating which is exactly what China did. China cannot risk smearing it's reputation in one of the most important moments in sports history. The best way would to be to cheat which I think is not something new when it comes to conducting large scale events. There would always be back-ups or ways of sorta indirectly deceiving the audience. Just like when you go for an open house, you can't take the things there at face value. The environment is just so contrived and artificial. But people aren't ever outraged. People only get outraged over these things if it's exposed in an explicit manner. Allow me to draw a parallel. You enter a school carnival and the school is known for it's caring students etc and you see students providing assistance to the elderly and less-abled and on your way home, you see students from that school ignoring the existence of a physically-challenged person who clearly needs help. I think you and I would both feel outraged and cheated in a manner.

The same goes for China. Perhaps the organising committee should not have had admitted to all those things that they did. But again, it would be a matter of integrity.

Human psychology is just weird, I feel. Even though we know we are being cheated, we allow ourselves to be cheated willingly.