Never make a Decision, and Never make a Promise

Never make a decision when you’re angry, and never make a promise when you’re happy.
by Keyyth G. of whataboutkeyyth

Photo from Grand Canyon NPS’s flickr

I find anger and happiness are the two emotions that are simultaneously polar opposites and identically the same. On the one hand anger is spawned in the pit of upset, and it feeds off of negativity. While happiness emerges from a joyous place and grows from positivity. Yet on the other hand they both share the quality to induce reactions instantly be it good or bad; also they both have the nerve striking ability to make us cry, but I’m sure that I’m not telling you anything you haven’t heard before. I ran across a little word of good advice and felt the need to share it. “Never make a decision when you are angry and never make a promise when you are happy.”

Now how can those two emotions be the worst in assisting you in a decision or making a promise?

It’s simple in those moments we are at our weakest as people. Be it with anger; we are mentally weak and sometimes unable to clearly think things through. When angry we may make rushed decisions and that rushed decision could have lasting consequences.

Or take happiness, in our happiest moments we are so full of such a glad soul, that we are almost willing to give away everything we own, or make a promise to someone; say that you’ll work on your snappiness or your patience with very little intent of actually doing such a thing. Doing so gives someone hope only to have it taken away.

Address them differently, but do address them. With anger step away and give yourself time to clearly think it though before you are able to do something you may regret. With happiness; simply enjoy the moment don’t go looking for a cherry topper for your happiness, that way you avoid a disappointing counterpart.

What decisions did you make based on emotions?

I’m a 22 year old college student currently pursuing my associates degree in computer science. I’m an artist, well I am whenever I get a chance to be which is far and in between here lately.

Walk Away from Traffic

The true causes Traffic jam?

Photo from geo.sunysb.edu

It isn’t the density of people, but the density of cars. As shown in the photo above, a bunch of people occupied the whole street when they rode with their personal cars. Head-striking traffic is eradicated when people use economical mediums such as a bus or environmental such as bicycle.

December of last year sold 1,145,079 vehicles in United States. With roughly a million cars sold each month, no wonder why our roads are intersected with traffic.

People blame different factors to traffic. Main in the list was the disturbances, like accident or construction constricting the road. And of course, rush hour, the most used excuse.

Japan Airlines CEO Haruka Nishimatsu rides the public bus to work; while every person is prided with his or her own vehicle in the United States.

If you’ll just go to the book store a block away, walking won’t be bad. Cycling is a nice time to think and feel the rush of air while all those time burning hundreds of calories. Technology can help us live better, but not to the point of laziness. There’s no technology for clearing away traffic magically nor technology to permanently keep an inactive body healthy.

If people use their feet to pace a proximity, or be smart to ride with other people than seclude themselves on their personal cars all the time, there will be less traffic.

So, can you walk?

Sources:
December Auto Sales Primed For Year’s High; Auto Observer
Japan Airlines’ CEO pays himself less than the pilots, takes the bus to work; boingboing

What If.. The Internet had an “Off” Switch

More and more people around the world are allowing the forever-developing World Wide Web to make their lives that little bit easier.

Photo from modernmilkblog.blogspot.com

Business, social networking and communication are being advanced in what can only be described as the technological age that we are currently living in.

What would you do, however, if the internet as we know it was completely switched off via a single switch without any warning?

Fortunately, Sir Tim Berners-Lee has stated that there is no such thing as a single “Off” Switch because the world is decentralised and split up into hundreds of countries, there is no central “Off Switch”.

The only way it could be switched off is if the governments of the world come together and agree to change it from a decentralised system to a centralised one.

But what if everything were to revert to the way it was prior to 1990?

Photo from viralblog.com

A number of businesses relying entirely or partially on the internet would be severely damaged.

Also all people who make a living through pod-casting, hyperlocal news and those selling products on the internet would all consequently lose their jobs.

Photo from turbo.fortytwotimes.com

With nearly one billion users connecting with friends and family nearby or abroad, the death of Facebook would probably result in the majority of people just not trying to stay in touch any more.

If the internet has made people lazy enough to stay at home to communicate with friends rather than meet in person; will people really put in the extra effort?

Photo from mamamia.com.au

Yep, you would probably regain a large portion of your brain capacity to resolve difficult problems; which would previously have been looked up on the internet.

People would have to rely on books again and reading more has frequently been linked with increased intelligence.

Photo from thedrum.com

The newspaper industry has been taking a nosedive in sales ever since the introduction of the internet. With no more “instant” news through websites and social media such as Twitter; the flow of information will travel much slower.

Does this mean more people would revert to reading newspapers for information? As well as more traditional methods of news gathering? More than likely.

Photo from net-security.org

Without the internet, corporations and government will find it much more difficult to publish information to the public – therefore encouraging the emergence of more Quangos.

Quangos are not affiliated to the government, yet rely on government funding and have been heavily criticised for a true lack or transparency.

Photo from richardtimothy.com

As opposed to working from home or teleworking. More and more companies have turned to outsourcing, resulting in a lot of money being saved – but without the internet this could prove difficult.

This will result in many people hopping into their cars and driving to work before…

Photo from greenasathistle.com

Although GPS systems would still operate, but this would prove difficult without a constant flow of internet-based updates.

The loss of Google Maps and other map based technology on the internet would result in people being unable to print off a direct list of instructions and ultimately getting lost. And finally…

Photo from topdrawersoccer.com

And you wouldn’t be reading this post. Nor would you be reading any of my other posts or the posts of thousands of other bloggers across the globe.

Just a concept I know, our lives in many respects would probably benefit socially and personally but at the same time be ridden with economic decline in a world without internet.

Would the world be better without internet?

Daniel Mayes is a recent Journalism graduate with an upper-second. He has experience working at BBC World Service, Sky News Online and has worked on projects in Europe and Africa.

Pay the school + Pay the child

Educating a child is more expensive than once thought.

Photo from photoXpress

You pay the tuition, you pay his clothes, and you pay for his food. To get more benefit out of school, you should also pay your child for going to school.

Ambitious study of Harvard economist Roland Fryer Jr. paid $6.3 million to 18,000 students to testify his lead towards the education policy, classified as “one of the more rigorous studies ever”.

Students who are paid to merely attend school, like a day job, significantly fared better in their academics as measured by standardized tests. Money as an incentive is a pliable motivator. For these children, money is sweets, is games, is shoes, is cool stuff.

I’d want that. I wish I was also paid to go to school. If all parents did, all students will be rich! Of course it will make students work for it, especially those that are in their teenage years as money is independence. This may also mean training them for the harsh real world, that you hardly see “free work”, that work is done in exchange of money.

Medley of questions in my head challenged the results, even if I accepted the verity of the study. Couldn’t we see any other motivator other than money? If this was implemented, would they really like to learn, which is a never-dying process; or will they stop trying to learn when there’s no one paying them anymore? And are standardized tests the only measure of intelligence, forcing them to like science and math and disregarding arts or athletics?

Would you pay your child to go to school?

Source:
Should Kids Be Bribed to Do Well in School?; Time

 

Yes to Euthanasia?

If we all strive for more freedom in our lives, if we have the right choose our own jobs, our own way of living, may we not decide whether we want to live or not?

Photo from dailyrecord.co.uk

Euthanasia has been the cause of many debates worldwide. When we kill animals we do it fast to stop them from experiencing unnecessary pain. Do those animals want to die? Maybe so, their living conditions aren’t very good when humans put them in small cages. Animals can’t communicate with us, they can’t tell us if they agree. Would we let them live if they’d disagree? Maybe, if they could communicate, we might consider them equal to us, and we wouldn’t kill them. How can we be sure animals experience any pain at all? It is impossible, but we expect them to, it would be rather strange if they didn’t.

Tony Nicklinson was no animal. He was paralysed in 2005, and could only communicate with his eyes. Did he suffer from pain? Yes, he said his life had become a ‘nightmare’. Did he want to die? Yes, he lost many cases fighting for his right-to-die. Could he communicate, could he tell us he didn’t want to live anymore? Yes, he could and he did. Did we kill him, did we let him die without experiencing unnecessary pain? No.

Why didn’t we? Becauce the law says so? Is that a valid reason when someone has to live 7 years, paralysed? A healthy person who wants to die has many ways to do this. Tony didn’t, you can hardly kill yourself with your eyes. Doctors couldn’t because they would be murderers. His living conditions were worse than the animals we kill for food, living in small cages. If his living conditions are inhumane, does the law still apply to him?

After Tony lost a case in the High Court, he stopped eating, which was his death’s cause. It was his only option left. How could he enjoy living a life he didn’t want? How can you enjoy living if you’re forced to?

What is your opinion on the subject?