May this be the most fantabulous, spectastic, spectabulous, fantacular, 2011 you have ever had!

As taken from NASA. (2007). What Wavelength Goes With a Color? Retrieved December 31, 2010, from Atmospheric Science Data Center: http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html#red

“The visible red light has a wavelength of about 650 nm. At sunrise and sunset, red or orange colors are present because the wavelengths associated with these colors are less efficiently scattered by the atmosphere than the shorter wavelength colors (e.g., blue and purple). A large amount of blue and violet light has been removed as a result of scattering and the longwave colors, such as red and orange, are more readily seen.”

Red is what we consider when we see an apple. Red is what we consider when we look at a cherry. Red is the color of blood. Red is the color of a rose. Red.

However, red is simply an electromagnetic wavelength carried by photons. The human mind perceives this via the eye as a color. In the English language we have named this color “Red.” However, is this color “Red” the same for all people? Do I perceive the same red as the next person, or is it that the wavelength I have named “Red” is named “Red” by another, but perceived as what I consider to be “Blue?”

My mind has formatted the world around me so that I can better comprehend and make sense of what it is I am experiencing. However, if even the simple matter of the perception of colors can be brought into question then how is it that the human race can share experiences with one another at all? My sense of touch may come across as what another perceives to be sound, and vice versa.

We correlate our experiences to one another, this is how we communicate and relate to one another. We each say, “hey, this wavelength that my eye perceives will be considered red, do we all agree? Yes, good.” Not another thought is said about this. We may argue over the peculiarities, is this crimson, or ruby; is this green a pine green or a snot green? In any case it is green.

If we each have to agree with one another on our very senses then what is it to say that something is “true.” Is truth only a matter of agreement on what is not true for any given aspect, and then our absolute belief that this “truth” is true whether we are alone or in a group of people? I look down at my desk and see a book, this is a book because I have accepted the categorical statement that all people agree it is a book, whether I am alone or in a crowd of people, we all agree this is a book. But if I chose to disagree, to say, “NO this is not a book, it is a xylanthiparticulomus!” Would that in turn change the nature of the book? No, the book would still exist as it has since it became a book, it would simply have a new categorical name.

So while my mind is made up of the accepted agreed upon categories that I have been brought up to believe are true, my disbelief in these categories does not in turn change the material aspect of the categories themselves. However, my disbelief may change their aspects.

When I moved to Australia I was forced to accept a new monetary system as a basis for placing value to an object. This required my subsequent denouncement of the American Dollar as a value system for monetary gain. This change has relegated the American dollar to nothing more then a piece of paper and some round metal shiny bits. Yes I still recognize these items as having value in the USA. Nevertheless, they have no value here in Australia, and therefore, are of no monetary consideration to myself.

So I can now name the US Dollar “flaptubels” and know that flaptubels are long pieces of paper with deceased American presidents pictured upon them. These flaptubels are only of value in the United States, where they magically become “Dollars” I might add, and are the cause of both joy and strife. However, for me, flaptubels make nice kindling and can wipe up spills, although poorly.

Red.

I did an eight hour run of philosophy yesterday…eight hours…oh god…

But I am caught up with my school work, and my notes are probably the best they have been for this class. I am learning so much through this course that I constantly stop and think to myself “how did I not know that?!” I wish that a philosophy class were required study for American high-school students…who am I kidding, I wouldn’t have had the patients nor understanding to pass a philosophy course back in high-school ><;;;

WE GOT A Wii! Been playing the heck out of Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario Wii, Mario Kart, Super Mario All Stars…noticing a trend here? Also got guitar hero, FINALLY! Love it, all those hours sitting in Dan’s apartment playing guitar hero are paying off now

Anywho, hope everyone is enjoying themselves, and did not get too *insert choice of intoxicant/food/substance here*

On to New Years! go go go.

AND A MERRY HOLIDAYS!

-Vangrat

while(living){

userGetInput=input;

value=input;

CategoricalImperative(value(universal)){

If(universal==true){

MiddlePath(value(moral)){

                              If(moral==true){

                                             do;

                              }else{

                                             return;

                              }//end ifelse moral

}//end MiddlePath

                              }else{

                                             return;

                              }//end ifelse universal

}//end CategoricalImperative

}//dead

In Australia, there is debate over whether to install an R 18+ classification to video games. My point of view is this is required in order to protect children and to encourage free speech. R 18+ does not mean that the government should allow for more extreme violent games and behaviors based upon these games to commence. In fact it means the opposite. Currently games like Grand Theft Auto are given M ratings (15+) which allow for undeveloped minds to take advantage of these forms of adult entertainment. If an R 18+ rating were implemented, these games would be reclassified to such and shop owners would be forced to deny purchase of these games to minors. R 18+ would also open up the doors to games from outside the country that are marked as R 18+ elsewhere. This allows for free speech to have a larger hold upon the entertainment industry. These games would be out of reach for minors, but available for those who have the mental capacity to truly understand what it is they are seeing.

An example of this is Dead or Alive. It was recently refused classification in Australia due to its graphic nature. This nature as horrid as it seems, is something that requires the choice of the purchaser to make, not the governing body of the country to make for them. Without an R 18+ rating, this game could not and should not be allowed in Australia. But, with an R 18+ it would be restricted to adult entertainment, and out of reach of impressionable young minds.

I must admit that I myself am a gamer, which is both part of my bias and the origin of my point of view. I have played games since I was a young child. I have played violent bloody games, and peaceful enlightening games. When I was younger I admit that I truly did not understand what it was I was playing. Mortal Kombat for instance requires the utter obliteration of your opponent in a bloody carnage. As a younger child I saw this as mere entertainment, not comprehending the catastrophe of actually killing someone. My parents did not bother explaining this to me either, and as such, some of my artistic impressions from that time are gruesome and grotesque. It was not until years later did I begin to understand what it was that was happening, and the reasons for right and wrong. The United States has since that time implemented an R 18+ rating that would have blocked me from purchasing this game as a minor. This same protection needs to be afforded to the children of Australia as well. As an adult, I do not mind playing these games as I understand them to be just that, games. But I would not, and could not, allow children of my own to play them until they fully understood the meaning behind chopping someone’s head off.

Other people claim that by having no R 18+ rating we block altogether violent video games from entering into Australia, this is in fact a fallacy, Grand Theft Auto, Dead or Alive, Call of Duty, and any other assortment of first person shooters are brought here for any minor to purchase. An M +15 rating does not block a store owner from selling a game to a minor; it merely states that a minor should have adult supervision if not over the age of 15. Whereas, a R 18+ rating blocks the purchase outright to anyone not over the age of 18. The only thing that an M rating does is force the entertainment industry to remove blood from a screen, and overly excessive violence (e.g. instead of a head being blown off, it falls off…still graphic non-the-less).

In the end, if R 18+ is granted, these games will be reclassified, and purchase will be blocked. Unknowing parents will be given a hand when their child asks, “mom/dad, can I have Bloody Carnage of Death and Destruction 2 for Christmas?” Yes it is obvious that the game is bad, but a child may instead say, “mom/dad can I have this really cool game that all my friends are playing and say is cool too, it’s called BCDD 2? Just ask the store for it they will know which one it is.” This does happen, as another one of my biases is that I myself used to work in a game store, and this did happen, ALL THE TIME. I was nice enough to inform parents, however, the true title of such games, and the impact they would have on a child’s mind if they so chose to play without parental supervision.

            The consequences of such a rating are more games would be allowed into the country, but their purchase would be restricted to adult entertainment. Increasing free trade, but at the same time protecting impressionable minds. Games currently under-classified would be reclassified and purchase blocked to underage children. Free speech would be given another step. The gaming industry would be considered a true adult entertainment business, rather than relegated to something your child would do.

No I am not some wierdo new person that has magically appeared on your friends list….okay maybe I am, but I was already there in the first place. It is the blogger formerly known as persy. Henceforth I am known as Vangrat.

This is directed at those people who believe the charges behind Julian. Also, that the information released by Wikileaks is the equivalent of personal information:

Good on you for sticking up for your personal confidential information. The problem here is this is not personal information. This is governmental information, which is information that should be transparent in the first place. Information that would help people make decisions on whether they want to keep their government in play.

As for the rape charges, if you follow the news from the time the charges were made to now, you will see that the information currently being fed to the public is twisted from the original facts of the case. Both women have agreed that the intercourse was consensual, as such, there is no case. These charges are mocked up in order for a super power to get their hands on Julian. They are trying to defeat his credibility by smearing his name.

Wikileaks is a group organization. Do you truly believe that the people behind the site would not list their own founder as a rapist if he was such? Julian is a figure head for the site. Someone for people to say “Hey, this guy is wikileaks!” But the truth is, the site is run by multiple different parties, all of which are separate from Julian. Yes Julian has a say in the site, but if he were a rapist, and worse, the people running the site would soon back down and refuse to do anymore. Furthermore, they may even denounce the site and work towards creating a new one without Julian’s name attached to it.

Governmental information should not be protected. A government is put in place by its people for its people. More so for the United States as it is a country founded by the people for the people, written into their very constitution. A people should have the fear of their government, not the other way around.

Information pertaining to one’s government should be transparent in so much as it does not get someone killed. Those pundits claiming this information will get someone killed, have not read the leaks, and obviously have something to hide themselves, as this information has not harmed nor killed anyone.

Consequently, the news agencies around the world should focus less on what Julian is being charged with, and more on what he has released into the wild. This information is the point of the matter. Julian being trumped up on false charges is side tracking from the true meaning behind all of this.