Astronomy is boring

I'm taking the Science-focused Human Event course, mostly because it was the only one that fit into my schedule. It's pretty lame. For the first month of the course, we basically argued about the nature of space. This is one of those questions where debate will get you to a certain point, but beyond this point, further discussion is basically smashing your head against a wall. I think we reached that point about two weeks in. Anyways, now we're learning about the development of heliocentrism. And it is BORING. Not to mention rather odd in its argumentative form. A quote from Kepler's Epitome of Copernican Astronomy:

The Philosophy of Copernicus reckons up the principal parts of the world by dividing the world into regions. For in the sphere, which is the image of God the Creator and the Archetype of the world—as was proved in Book 1—there are three regions, symbols of the three persons of the Holy Trinity—the centre, a symbol of the Father; the surface, of the Son; and the intermediate space, of the Holy Ghost. So too, just as many principal parts of the world have been made—the different parts in the different regions of the sphere: the sun in the centre, the sphere of the fixed stars on the surface, and lastly the planetary system in the region intermediate between the sun and the fixed stars.

But wait! Shouldn't the Sun represent the Son? After all, there's only a one letter difference between them. That's about the level of metaphysical argument Kepler makes, though his geometric arguments are more rigorous (and more boring).
Anyways, it's pretty dry stuff. I'd much rather be reading Kant in the Humanities-focused course.

On Complexity

I'm a sucker for esoterica. If something seems difficult, convoluted, or obscure, I'm all over it. This is one reason I like economics, computers, music theory, and things like them. After all, what could be cooler than talking about Hicksian demand curves, or C pointers, or augmented sixth chords? It's not just that I like knowledge—it's also that I have a somewhat juvenile approach to intelligence: "I know something you don't know..." I want to know things that others don't.

In fact, one reason I decided to major in economics was to have a linchpin in any economic debate—I could simply say "I have a degree in economics, therefore I'm right and you're wrong." Economics is one of the only subjects that one can objectively use in political debates, and I want to exploit it for all it's worth. Which is really a mercenary approach to education: "I learn to prove I'm right," not "I learn to find what's right."

I guess I don't really have a point here. Whatever.

WebWork is dumb

I'm doing my Diff Eq homework, okay? We're solving the equations representing damped oscillation of a spring-mass system. And it wants me to translate the answer from the form Asin(kt)+Bcos(kt) to Ccos(ωt-α). A pretty natural thing to do, since sums of trig functions are a pain to deal with. Once I get my answer it wants me to enter my values for C, ω, and α. My C—fine. My ω—fine. But apparently my α is totally wrong. Which is odd, because I got α from the same system of equations I got C from. So if one is right, the other should be right. I bashed myself against the WebWork forever, double and triple checking my work, but no. I was right. I called my dad in to make sure I wasn't making any dumb mistakes, which made me explain everything. There was nothing wrong with my work. So on a whim I decided to add 2π to the correct value, since this would be equivalent. And of course, it was correct. Apparently they don't like negative values of α. Stupid.

So I go on, and do a problem where I'm supposed to use variation of parameters which is really complicated but happens to work out well. I put in my answer, which includes a logarithm. This answer, the system informs me, is WRONG. It can't take the natural logarithm of a negative number. So I put an absolute value inside the log. WebWork tells me two things: 1) this answer is equivalent to the one I just submitted, and 2) this answer is correct. Stupid.

Queen Vashti as a protofeminist

In institute we were discussing the story of Esther and my teacher divided us into groups to find examples of admirable traits in three characters in the story: Mordecai, Esther, and...Queen Vashti? The queen who basically got demoted? Yes. Apparently my teacher wanted to make the point that she had refused to appear before the king and his friends. Therefore, she was courageous and not letting herself be seen as an object, but as a human being. Mmhmm. I really doubt Queen Vashti was a protofeminist.

Personally I much prefer the VeggieTales interpretation: Queen Vashti said "The king can make his own dang sandwich" at three in the morning.

(Note: As I went on Wikipedia to verify that fact, I found that NBC had edited VeggieTales episodes to remove religious references. WHAT? How on EARTH do you do that?)

GAH!

Before today, I had never knowingly bombed a test. At 9 this morning, I went to take a Mathematical Structures test. I was fairly confident in my ability to do the test, and nothing was incredibly frustrating. Except for one thing.

Part of the class deals with symbolically representing statements. For example, "If I don't water the plant, then it will die," is of the form if p, then q, symbolically represented p-->q. No problem there. But there are about 8 other ways to say the same thing. I can say "If the plant lives, then I watered it." I can say "Either I watered the plant or it died." I can say "I know I didn't water the plant only if it died." Or I can say (and here's the big one) "The plant will die unless I water it."

Two out of seven problems used the "unless" wording. And sadly, while "p unless q" translates to (not p)-->q, I translated it to p-->(not q), which is the opposite. Somehow I even got it in my head that the teacher had written something vague in one of the problems, and I castigated her for using "unless" vaguely. Except it wasn't really vague, and my interpretation of the vagueness was based on my incorrect interpretation of the word "unless." So I probably got about a 60% on that test, which is 20% of my semester grade. Gah.

I'd like to blame a lot of things, and I'm sure they had a lot of impact on my performance—I'm just getting over being sick, I didn't get enough sleep, I was in a weird environment, the teacher made too much of the test depend on "unless" clauses, but they're pretty wimpy excuses. I made a dumb mistake. A really big dumb mistake. Gah.

From the fertile grounds of my iPod notes

When these are thoughts rather than quotes, they're mostly inspired by things I've heard in church or institute.

• Well, we'd have to be sober anyway.
  Well, we wouldn't have to be sober. But I'd rather be sober. [As I left Math Structures on Tuesday, I overheard two girls saying this.]


• You'd rather share the gospel than receive it? The world will try to take everything we have? [from Institute]


• Talk on wresting the scriptures
  Exegesis
  D&C 20:1
  Good Samaritan story = plan of salvation
  Don't read things that are not there
  Malachi -- fathers vs. Father
  Pilate--Behold the man
  Alma 40something atonement physically heals us?
  D&C 130 a law versus that law. I'm not sure what the interpretation is supposed to be
  KJV rather insufficient as a blackletter text
  Consider alternative interpretations.


• I'm not sure of the efficacy of this didactic method. No one wants to be compared to Laman and Lemuel. [My Institute teacher asked us if we were being like Laman and Lemuel.]


• Is signaling reality rather than an indication of reality? Is there only revealed preference? Do our preferences change as we signal them? Is love defined by our actions rather than signaled by them? A pattern of action rather than an objective reality? [Occasioned by my Institute teacher saying that if you want to love someone, you go do something for them.]


• Are we getting back to the McConkie Catholic Church=evil?
  Seriously, the dichotomy between the Church of God and the great and abominable church indicates that the borders just aren't that simple [Institute BoM class, discussing Nephi's vision]


• I'm not sure what the point of talking about the gates of hell being powerless is if that doesn't mean you won't be tempted


• Parallels between lot casting and random scripture search


• That doesn't even matter. You guys aren't gonna marry the Laurels, you're gonna marry the 14-year-olds. [Elizabeth Hutzler's boyfriend said this to the Priests quorum.]


• The whole gay/lesbian thing. [Elizabeth Hutzler said this while teaching YSA Sunday School.]


• Mills != meals
  sell != sale [Utah pronunciation...]


• I have a stupor of thought early in the morning at mission prep. How do we distinguish between the scriptural stupor and the normal kind?
  It's impossible to misinterpret the Book of Mormon? [I was in mission prep, okay?]


• Generally it's supposed to go somewhere, right?
  I think they're all important. [from Symphonic Chorale. Dr. Gentry asked one of the tenors what we should do musically during a phrase. This was his response.]


• Femininity != homosexuality [Bishop said, in response to a question about whether people were born gay, that some people naturally had more femininity than others. But that no one was born gay.]


• Color coordinated gum [Just an idea I had. Based on me seeing someone chewing gum.]

I'm installing Gentoo.

I don't know why.

Gentoo is an ultra-geeky distribution of Linux that basically gets compiled from scratch when you install it. And a lot of it you do by hand. I don't know why I'm installing it. I'm not even installing it on a real computer. I'm installing it in a virtual computer that is installed on my laptop. So I'm making a completely customized installation of Linux for a computer that doesn't even exist.

I don't know why I'm installing it. Someone help.