Truman Chan - 51% Serious

As I declared in class, my keyword shall be the word “war”. War is defined as a conflict large enough to authorize the usage of armed forces. It is a concept that has been with humans from the beginning of civilization and I can give you a lengthy history of war or I can just link you to the Wikipedia page. What I will discuss in this post is how this keyword is used in current times. Of course, the very mention of war brings thought to the War on Terror. Today, we can see banners and posters displaying “Say no to war” and the like. Immediately, “war” is referenced to the one we are currently in rather than the poster meaning say no to war in general. I find it particularly interesting that these pacifistic activists only stand up during times of war, and go about their daily lives during peacetime. Hardly do I ever see groups of people with banners and posters saying “preserve the peace” and such when we're not at war. Actually, I'm pretty sure some people do carry peace signs with them everywhere but those people are hippies and I've mentally blocked them from my vision. The point is that word “war” has the power to draw great attention and activity amongst normally civilized people.

Despite all the negative connotations that war is associated with, it is still a very attractive concept to the American audience. Films like 300 and the three Rambo movies which revolve around war are widely successful. By the way, I stress that there are only three Rambo movies ever made and anyone who says otherwise is wrong and should be shot. Look at that, even my everyday use of words seem to suggest military violence. Even war based video games are praised by how realistic they are compared to real war. What makes war so damn bloody appealing? One such reason might be because the media always portrays the military to be a symbol of masculinity and strength. Another reason might be because we feel that war brings on a sense of patriotism and defending our beliefs. Or maybe the human race is just a violent race to begin with. That might be a very cynical perspective of our society but I dare over half of you all to honestly say that you haven't shouted out “This is Sparta!” once in your life.

Biological war is another usage of the word that was prophesied to be the format of the next war. Obviously, our current war is still being fought with bullets, bombs, and sons. I suppose we haven't reached the level of full biological warfare, yet the horrifying image of life-form based weapons still exists. I find biological warfare particularly terrifying because all our war based games will then be like Trauma Center and Dr. Mario. Putting how the concept will affect the entertainment industry aside, its interesting how we can so easily empower the fear of war with imagery such as biological weapons. We fear that war will bring all sorts of different kinds of horrifying deaths as technology advances such as disease or nuclear apocalypse. Perhaps terror and fear is where the power of this keyword comes from.

So now, we have this War on Terror. When I looked up war in a dictionary, one of the first definitions was a conflict between nations or parties within nations. However, what we have here is actually a war on an abstract idea. By the way, I should give mention to those honorable and brave soldiers in Iraq somewhere in my post... and that's done. Anyway, wars against objects other than nations have been in existence for quite awhile. I've declared war against Macs ever since they came out with the ugly and equally useless iMac G3 series. The word “war” is often tossed around in place of “competition” or “conflict” when used in phrases such as gas price wars or mafia wars. Placing the word “war” in those terms makes them more dramatic and powerful. Be it affecting people, concepts, or even phrases, the power of the word “war” seems to stand on its own level.

Oh, and war is also a card game. Yes it is.

Paperless Serious-less Writing

One day, I check out the MyUCDavis tab for an upcoming UWP 101 summer course to see if there was any announcements I needed to read before the class started only to be linked to this. After reading about this concept of a paperless writing class, I couldn't help but think that this class was going to be a waste of time. “Great,” I thought to myself. “Some prick is trying to be 'hip' with his students by making us blog for six weeks. I wonder if he even knows what he's doing.” With those doubts, I spent the week before the first summer session pondering about the ridiculousness of this class with my friends, usually as a way of steering the conversation away from my weight problem.

As I entered the classroom for the first time, my suspicions of this contemporary teacher grew. Here was this guy who seemed a bit too skeptic of this paperless idea himself, and furthermore, seemed to not hold much authority around the classroom. Is this paperless writing idea really going to improve my university level writing? It didn't seem like it to me, so I responded to the whole blog writing concept with very little seriousness. As I wrote my first few posts, I decided to add a grain of humor into my writing for fun. After all, the class didn't give a very formal feel to it, so I might as well be a bit liberal with what I write.

The class went on, and I found myself actually enjoying writing on my blog. Writing without the constraint of absolute seriousness allowed me to find a new perspective on formal writing. Before I knew it, I was putting quite a bit of effort in each post, trying to find a balance between formality and obscenity. I was enjoying this writing class. The discussions during class time were always interesting; the students were quite bold with controversial topics, yet showing an appropriate amount of conservation so nothing got out of hand. It was nice to see other students openly state their opinions, some more than others... Danielle more than others. After class ended I would look forward to writing my post with enthusiasm.

Okay, that was a bit of bullshit. After class I would look forward to eating lunch and watching anime. But I wasn't lying when I said I enjoy this class. The posts are lively and unique, the students are supportive and provide very constructive criticism, the teacher works hard to keep this class interesting, and the textbook doubles as a nice paperweight... which isn't really useful now that I think about it because this is a paperless class.

When I wrote papers for other classes, I was always so strict in my writing. This class is different, I still put a lot of effort and thinking in my posts as I would for any other essay, but not the same amount of seriousness. Perhaps it's because of the blogging concept acting as a medium between my thoughts and what gets written, but when I write for this class I lose the seriousness and I start to have fun. Because I'm having fun when I write, I put that much more heart into it. In a way, I have never written so seriously as I have for this class. Of course, this class is not over as there is one final post after this one. Because my next post is technically the class's final, it should encompass everything that I've done in this course. Thus, in my final post, it would only be appropriate if I did away with seriousness completely.

By the way, serious-less isn't really a word.

Seriously?

Continuing the discussion about segways from Calvin's post, I find the image he provides in his post to be particularly interesting. I have clearly stated my dislike for the segway in my previous post, but this I find utterly ridiculous. Calvin has already stated in his post some reasons why the segway might prove inefficient for military use, and I definitely agree with him. I find the concept to be absolutely absurd, and will list some reasons why I just can't take military soldiers on segways seriously.

In the article that Calvin provides, the Chinese military claims that the segway will allow soldiers to mobilize while holding their weapons with both hands to improve their stability when they shoot. This requires soldiers to train and familiarize themselves in maneuvering with the segway. Of course, this training will take time and money which could be spent... say, training soldiers how to shoot while walking? No, let's take more time and more money to ensure that these soldiers can perform their duties on segways instead of giving them practical combat training. Furthermore, if the soldiers become too dependent on segways and are caught in combat without one, there goes the ability to shoot accurately while moving.

Let's take a second look at that same picture. Honestly, who can take this group of officers seriously when they all look like they've been holding in their piss for hours? It doesn't help that every officer is in the upright standing position, not exactly the greatest position when exchanging fire with armed hostiles. Are these officers expected to unmount from their segways in order to get to crouching or prone firing positions? The extra time it takes step off the segway might cost an officer his life. I can't help but see the segway as a highly inefficient method of mobility in a dangerous environment. Let's not forget that segways are extremely expensive. If the Chinese military is going to invest in a device that lets their officers die more easily in combat, then clown suits might have been cheaper and more entertaining.

But let's all assume for a second that segways truly gave an advantage to military soldiers and officers. Let's imagine that the segways exceeded every expectation the military had and revolutionized infantry mobilization. With the ability to fire accurately while moving constantly at 12.5 mph, infantry units would only be stopped by technology's greatest obstacle: stairs. Oh shit, what the hell do the officers do now? Drag that two-wheeled useless piece of crap up flights of stairs while their target escapes using those inferior and obsolete devices call legs? I cannot take the concept of equipping soldiers with segways seriously. It is far too ridiculous an investment for a far too comedic sight.

The True Media is the Photographer

Let me take a moment to describe this picture, which was taken roughly one year ago. This is a paintball field and the person in front would be me. The one in the back would be my friend, who was providing cover fire for me at the time while I charged forwards to gain an advantageous position. The one taking this photo is another friend of mine who was dangerously close to the playing field. Though what this image displays is simply two friends playing paintball on a sunny day, what the photo really captures is the teamwork, strategy, and even a bit of courage.

However, the main point I want to focus on is how close my friend was to the playing field. She was practically standing on the field's boundaries, and was definitely in danger of getting hit by a stray paintball shot. Though I exaggerate the seriousness of the situation (the most a hit from a paintball would do would leave a small bruise), this reminds me of the war photographers that do put their lives in true danger for the sake of recording the moments of wartime. It seems stupid doesn't it, to put one's life in constant danger just to take photographs of people shooting each other? But taking a second look at war photographs, I realize how powerful these images can be. War photographs differ from other photographs because they display the true expressions of people who have been pushed to extremes. These photographs do not only capture feelings of bravery, fear, and patriotism, but also the dedication of the photographer to mediate these feelings to the world.

Of course, the paintball picture is not nearly as epic as war photographs. Even so, I'm glad that my friend did her best to capture our paintball games as closely as possible despite the risk of getting hit. This photograph has clearly captured the spirit of that day, preserving the variety of feelings I had when running through the barrage of paintballs. Even though the mask hides our facial expressions, the intensity of the photo is still there thanks to the proximity of a dedicated photographer.

I Don't Want It

Arisa gets special thanks from me for having a post about the iPhone, which in turn allows me to give my two cents about this product in the formal post for the week. Being an advocate of technology, it may be surprising to know that I would like to give the iPhone an extensive salute with my middle finger. Putting my hate for Macs aside, I have perfectly valid reasons to hate this monstrosity of a phone. After all, I sell myself as a reasonable consumer rather than a spiteful one in my previous posts.

In Arisa's post, she discusses than an iPhone is a necessity to her access to communication, making it a “need” rather than a “want”. The iPhone features a QWERTY touch screen keyboard, making quick and easy communication possible for her. For those who do not share the same needs as Arisa, the iPhone becomes something that they “want”. There is nothing wrong with buying things that you want and not need, but why anyone would want an iPhone is beyond me. One of the main selling points of the iPhone is its many features, so let's take a look at them. The iPhone offers Internet browsing and access to youtube on the go. The iPhone being a phone, which suggests outdoor use, expects people to be surfing the web or watching youtube clips while walking down the street? People usually have a destination or reason to go outside such as hanging out with friends or going to work. Checking E-mail or watching the streamed videos doesn't seem like one of those reasons.

The iPhone also plays video files, audio files, and can be used as a camera, which are features that I welcome with open yawns. Mp3 playing camera phones have been in the market for a long time. I also don't like the idea of squinting my eyes while holding the iPhone six inches away from my face just so I can watch episodes of Death Note on the bus. There are many arguments against what I've just written, but those probably all come from people who've already bought the iPhone and have convinced themselves that they haven't wasted hundreds of dollars on a smudge board.

The biggest qualm I have with the iPhone franchise is that it doesn't even give the consumer the pleasure of owning the latest piece of technology. If I had bought the iPhone one year ago for the sake of being technologically trendy, I would've just been slapped in the face last week with the new iPhone3G. Imagine that you've just spent $600 on the coolest toy that all the other kids have only to be told one year later that what you hold in your hands is now only worth its weight in plastic. I can't help but feel a twitch in my middle finger every time I see another iPhone3G advertisement. No. I refuse to even consider buying this over-sized paperweight. The iPhone has done nothing to perk my interests and has done everything it can to make me not want one, much less need one.

Pocket Rockets

What we have here is the best hand in the popular variation of poker, Texas Hold'em. These aces have a few names associated with them: pocket aces, pocket rockets, the rockets, and even American Airlines. During pre-flop, this is the most favorable hand to have and when played correctly, it can result in very large winnings. In a sense, these pocket aces can represent opportunity. Although they are merely two pieces of coated cardboard with ink printing, they can certainly also be seen as poker chips or money.

Just as these aces can represent opportunity and wealth, they can easily represent misfortune or despair. Its not as if this hand is unbeatable after all, yet everyone still gives a gasp of disbelief every time pocket rockets lose. Putting wealth and material aside, the picture above also expresses many forms of emotion and raises many questions. Surely, there is an air of anxiety, something that every player feels when they uncover pocket aces. Is the hand in the picture trembling due to this feeling or is the player skilled enough to suppress and hide his emotions? Perhaps the player has a low chip count, and the aces appear as a sign of hope. Or perhaps the flop is already shown and displays unfavorable cards for this player, who can now only tightly grip his aces with hesitation and doubt. There are countless situations that anyone can encounter with these cards, each creating a different view of what the aces might bring.

Being an avid player (or addict might be a better word) of Texas Hold'em, I can understand that the aces are merely a pair, albeit the highest pair one can have. To me, pocket aces represent a warning and reminder that poker is played not only through statistics and chance but also by skill and judgment. These aces tell me to not act too hastily and to not overestimate the value of these cards. Just with any other hand, the outcome of each play can be determined by how the players bet and act. As mentioned before, these aces can represent the road to victory, or the pit of defeat.

Not Really A Step Forward

For those who cannot recognize what's in the picture, that's a Segway. This device provides personal mobility without having to strain leg muscles. Indeed, once you own a Segway, walking becomes an obsolete hassle. This vehicle only requires a slight shift in weight in order to move, and can reach speeds up to 12.5 mph. Truly, technology has reached a point in which mechanical transportation has surpassed biological mobility in almost every form.

This reminds me of the Wall-E scenario in which all humanity loses the capability to perform basic movements due to their dependence on machines. The Segway seems to be a step towards that direction; even its sleek design seems to exude a futuristic aura. What else does the Segway provide, if it isn't just an alternative to walking for lazy people? Surely it does not exist to serve the disabled, as the wheelchair is the answer to that. It is by no means a form of speedy transportation, as its top speed cannot compare to that of motor vehicles. At the same time, the pair of wheels on the Segway seem large enough to cover the feet of the user, perhaps acting as replacement legs. The handlebar connected on the top seem to suggest that its a superior alternative to biking. Everything about the Segway just screams for a future full of lazy people, unable to mobilize without the use of technology.

Furthermore, each Segway sells for roughly $5000 each. Apparently, the Segway vision is one where not only is everyone too lazy to walk, but have massive amounts of disposable income as well. Or perhaps, it envisions a future world where the wealthy dominates society through technology. The following picture might have a more accurate description of what Segways are.

Rather than provide people with personal mobility, the Segway is more of a statement of upward mobility. As shown in the picture, the Segway provides a convenient lift above the floor, creating the image that those on Segways are “walking” taller than everyone else. The picture of a Segway might only display a personal mobile unit, but the image it holds is something else entirely.

Summing Up Differences

Ever since elementary school, our teachers and parents and any other adult figure would tell us that we are all unique and special in our own way. What they've never told us was how we were unique or different than everyone else. A few years after the infancy stages, we are then taught that everyone is equal. This, by no means, contradicts the statement that we are all unique. We have merely created a notion that everyone is different but equal. However, can such a notion truly exist?

Being brought up in a multi-cultural part of the nation, San Francisco, seeing people of various ethnicity, size, traits, and sexual preference was fairly common. It was obvious to see that everyone around me was unique in their own way, but were they equal? Homosexuals were not allowed to marry until recently in California, and even so, it is considered somewhat controversial. Schools had a clear difference in ethnic ratios, and circles of friendship were generally racially based. People may have the same rights as given through the constitution, but that hardly makes them equal. As mentioned in class, Caucasians do not have the same freedom to create a “White pride” that will have the same effect as “Black pride” or “Asian pride”. Similarly, African Americans carry many negative stereotypes that people would like to pretend are not there. Even the term “African American” must be forced in attempt to not offend black people with the word “black”. Yet using that term reminds everyone that the derogatory meaning of the word “black” still exists.

Of course, differences are not limited to race or ethnicity. To describe myself and how I might be different from the person next to me, I can be considered an Asian, overweight, nerdy, otaku, heterosexual, black haired, classical music loving, shortsighted, Mac hating, etc etc male. Everyone else probably has just as extensive a list to differentiate themselves from everyone else. With so many differences, equality seems to be an unnatural impossibility.

Fiction for Thought

I've not seen the movie Wall-E yet, but I've heard that it is an enjoyable science-fiction comedy. Wall-E takes place in a future where humans have robots and technology do everything for them. This results in a future world where everyone is obese to the point where they don't even know how to walk due to their dependence on such technology. Apparently, this movie has offended many people, obese or not, with its portrayal of the future world. The movie also creates a setting of an inhabitable Earth. Earth had become a wasteland due to over-pollution from the technological advances of humans. Many people had interpreted this idea as a liberal-fascist extreme view of technology. Wall-E is a G-rated film for all audiences, and is intended to be a fun movie using the themes of selflessness and determination. People all too often take fictional stories in a radical way, assuming underlying messages that may or may not be really there.

Another example of this is the great controversy of the mystery suspense novel, The Da Vinci Code. For those who have not read the book nor watched the movie, I will not spoil any of the storyline for you. The novel makes extraordinary religious claims based on its own fictional proof. Because such claims are made, many religious factions label the mystery novel as a dangerous or even sinful book. However, it is still a work of fiction, and a brilliantly written piece at that.

Perhaps these works of fiction do have hidden agendas, or are meant to hold political and religious statements. Also, those who state their opposition to those works are merely expressing their thoughts through freedom of speech. However, the act of banning works such as The Da Vinci Code or even the children's novel Harry Potter, or the act of trying to prevent people from reading such works is going a bit too far. I would like to believe that people are independent enough to develop their own opinions and interpretations of fictional stories. To deny these people from such opinions is wrong. After all, these are merely works of fiction, what's the worst that can happen if people get too into them?

Reason for Reason

Game theory is a theory that is completely based on logic and reason. It creates a solution to find an optimal situation for an individual within a community assuming that everyone in that community is a reasonable and logical person. For example, imagine the following scenario:

-There is a community of three equally starving people.
-There are four pies, one of which is significantly larger than the rest.
-Each person can only choose one pie without letting any others know their choice.
-No one gets any pies if two or more people choose the larger pie.

In this scenario, game theory states that all three people should forfeit the larger pie choose one of the smaller pies. This is because it would be unreasonable for someone to want the larger pie due to the risk of not getting any pies. The reasonable act will always be the one that most benefits the community, and thus creates the most benefits for the individual.

Unfortunately, game theory rarely applies to real life situations. There is no perfect community full of people with reason. There will always be people who discard reason for greed or emotional influence. As our textbook states as the “crisis of reason”, irrational feelings cannot be justified without an argument using reason. Furthermore, it would be futile to explain the importance of reason to an irrational person for the same reason that it is futile to explain anything to them. In the end, it is up to those who are logical and reasonable to carry through correct decisions so that their community can survive.

This view may seem incredibly cynical against those who are unable to think rationally. However, it is not as if I mean to say that they shouldn't be allowed to exist. It is only realistic that people would want the larger pie. People who follow greed or emotions over reason can still contribute to their community. However, a community would be that much more efficient if it fully consisted of reasonable people. Game theory may not be perfect, but imagine a community full of individuals who think of nothing but the greater benefit of their own community. It would be reasonably nice wouldn't it?

I Want It

“The things you own end up owning you.” -Tyler Durden

This quote from the movie, Fight Club, holds true for many people. Consumers all over America often measure their own worth based on the materials they own. Because of capitalism, it is in the mindset of Americans that a larger home or a fancier car will lead to a greater fulfillment. Even simpler goods such as a new game console or a new pair of summer shorts can hold high priority in one's list of desires. This has come to the point in which the “pursuit of happiness” might as well be called a trip to Wal-Mart. Even though consumerism has reached the point where people obsess over materialistic needs, there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting more.

Consumerism is indeed another way to express a freedom to pursue happiness. Our nation allows for us to express and follow our desires whatever they may be, as long as they do not conflict with other laws. A great majority of Americans are materialistic people who can only satisfy their desires through buying things. This is not to say that a poor man cannot be happy, nor is it to say that other values such as having a loving family cannot measure up to materialistic goods. Indeed, there are some desires that money can't satisfy. However, it is not correct to say that being a typical consumer cannot provide happiness as well. For example, many people find great fulfillment in building collections such as historical artworks or artifacts. These collections serve no practical purpose as they can just as easily be enjoyed in a museum. Even so, the possession of these items can bring a sense of satisfaction that cannot be found anywhere else.

One can make the argument of consumerism leading to greed and eventually a downfall of capitalism, and it would be a fair statement. However, the same can be said about someone who's ambition for love is too great, and ends up heartbroken. There are negative extremes to everything, consumerism and other abstract ideals included. Many people are aware of the dangers of over-consumption, and do put limits on their desires. In a sense, the things they own do end up owning them, but there's nothing wrong with that. Just as how people are controlled by their feelings of love or ambition, consumption is just another path to follow in our country.

I Have a Hypotenuse

Okay, I mean to title this post as “I have a hypothesis” but I figured that a random non-sensible title would attract more attention.

I am an avid user of common phrases and often do not take the time to think about what the individual words that make up the phrases truly mean. “I have a theory” is one such phrase that I would use when there is something I wish to test. The focus of this phrase is the word “theory”, and when given some thought, the word doesn't make much sense when used in this manner.

Our textbook, New Keywords, defines a theory as an hypothesis that has been confirmed by experiment. It also describes a theory to hold some sort of conformed acceptance and technical authority. During class, we've discussed that a criteria for being a theory is having an opposing side of skepticism. When the phrase “I have a theory” is used, the word “theory” often doesn't hold any confirmation, authority, nor the existence of an opposing resistance. A more accurate way of stating the phrase would be “I have a hypothesis”.

This lead me to think about common phrases I use on a regular basis. One thing I commonly say is “can you open the lights?” with the intention of asking someone to turn the lights on. The grammatical misuse of the word “open” is obvious here, though the intended meaning is still easily understood. As an experiment, I tried to go through Thursday without misusing any words in my casual speech. This experiment was short lived after I stubbed my toe on my friend's bed after waking up. “Son of a bitch that hurt!” I exclaimed, and the misuse of several words followed immediately after. Though grammatically incorrect, the statement I made is generally understood to express the extent of my pain through colorful vocabulary.

After extensive pondering on this topic, I've come to the conclusion that these words are not misused as long as the public accepts and understands the meaning of them when used in such a manner. It seems almost unnecessary to force every word to follow its Oxford dictionary definition strictly. Perhaps words can be even be defined through their common use. As long as a certain use of a word in a phrase is accepted by society, then it should be grammatically allowed. That's my theory anyways.

The Links Don't Mean Anything

So I am to write a blog about a few random words that might work well together in a sentence. I don't believe that anyone can do a word's definition justice by just grouping it with other words under a giant theme without the use of examples. Thus, I will select a few words that we've discussed in class today and run through them with an overlaying topic in mind.

MEDIA is a plural form of the word “medium”, and the general sense of the word here is the broadcasting of information and ideas. The modern example of the word that comes to mind is the digital media known as the Internet. Indeed, the Internet is the greatest media that anyone has to offer with the ability to allocate information and ideas to anywhere around the world almost instantly unless you're still on dial-up. Even now, this blog is acting as a digital media, transferring my thoughts to your eyes in the form of text through the Internet. Almost anything including audio and other visuals can just as easily be mediated through the Internet short of tasting and touching. But hey, at least there's always music, porn, and World of Warcraft.

NETWORK is very similar to the word “media” in the sense that it also relates to connections between people and that it shares the second letter “e”. Whereas the world wide web would also act as a decent example for a network, I find that a more precise definition of a network might come from Facebook or MySpace. Both sites act as a social network that connects people through Internet as a media based on friendship, interests, location, or any other topic aside from being Amish. However, Facebook seems to be more of a system of transactions than a network, seeing as how people are allowed to send digital plants, eggs, or even gifts to others in their network. I wouldn't be surprised if people would be able to send STDs through Facebook one day. Because these sites use the Internet as a media, they are extremely open networks and are hardly limited to anyone. This is a problem that MySpace typically encounters as people are often networked to others that they don't want any connection to. However, those who evaluate their own worth via the number of networked people on their MySpace probably have bigger problems than having an on-line stalker.

TECHNOLOGY is the genesis of the Internet, and thus accelerates the availability of media and networking. In the current day, the word “technology” is used to describe a technical advancement; thus, I can think of no better example than mankind's ultimate technological achievement: the Rockstar energy drink. Let's face it, any creation that allows me to type up a 584 word post at 2 o'clock in the morning must be the greatest form of technology in the world. Technology is an ever changing creature, affecting the forms of media and networking as it evolves. Technological advancements are always appearing, such as the invention of Cable Internet or Sugar Free Rockstar. Unfortunately, along with those advancements come technological falters, such as the creation of nuclear arms and Rockstar Cola. Nevertheless, as technology advances, even the definitions of “media” and “network” can be affected. Who knows what would happen if technology advances to the point where we can combine Rockstar Cola with Facebook and World of Warcraft? Perhaps the head of every computer nerd would explode, and it would taste awful.

A Morning Before Coffee

The process of obtaining the textbook for UWP 101 began 8:30 in the morning for me. As I woke up, my eyes barely open and my body still wrapped in the comfort of my blanket, I opened myself to two options. The first option was to get out of bed, go through my morning routine, and head to the bookstore to purchase the textbook before class. My second option was to sleep for another thirty minutes.

When given a choice between any number of options, humans pride themselves in being able to put logic before instinct to determine the best decision. Being raised an American capitalist, I then determined the pros and cons of each option to find which would yield the most benefits with the least costs. The first option, getting the book before class, required that I leave the comfort of my bed and leave my apartment without the company of my roommate, who is also in the same morning class but was still sleeping at the time. The benefits of that option was that I reduce the risk of the bookstore being out of textbooks before I purchase one. The second option of sleeping in offered me a tempting lure of the happiness that is my futon, and the elongation of the momentary bliss that is sleeping until the last minute. The difference between the two options was simply a trade between abstract benefits and physical materials. Now, all that remained was the simple task of weighing out the benefits and costs of each option. Materials and services always outweigh abstract ideas in a capitalistic viewpoint, so the first option was simply the optimal one.

Simple things become complicated very easily. It was the risk of not obtaining the textbook that I was trading for the comfort of sleep rather than the book itself. Now, the amount of risk must be considered before I can make my decision. This includes estimating the number of classmates who would buy the book before class and the decision should depend accordingly to that. Game theory states that the optimum situation would be one where everyone in the class decides to sleep in and buy the book after class; this is the situation that I should follow. However, this only applies if everyone in the class was in the same circumstances as myself and understood the benefits of game theory. Assuming a normal distribution, elementary statistics state that only half of the class would buy the book before class, meaning that there should be books remaining in the bookstore for me if I went there right after class. Sun Tzu states in The Art of War "Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy's unpreparedness...". So I should choose option one after all?

Sunlight hit my eyes, and I suddenly realized how warm I was in my blanket. The calculations, the theory, and the textbook can wait. I closed my eyes and succumbed to my morning drowsiness. Sun Tzu can be evaluated when I'm not sleeping.