Diary Entry 24/05/02

11:00AM wake up

11:10AM get out of bed

11:12AM attempt to shower. No hot water. Try again tommorow.

11:15AM get dressed.

11:17AM drink some water.

11:20AM eat some toast. Is past its best before but I can't see any mould.

11:25AM stare out of the window. Its raining.

11:35AM drink some more water. tastes foul but is strangely refreshing.

11:37AM wash a frying pan and 2 saucepans. Something is stuck to the pan. Can't get it off. Leave it soaking.

11:45AM try to throw a beer can in the bin but I miss. Promise myself I won't quit till I get it in. Is quite fun.

12:20PM Victory!

12:30PM eat cold pizza from the fridge. Five days old takeaway and it tastes like it.

12:45PM boot up the PC

12:55PM windows is ready

1:02PM browse Adequacy to find out how the world is doing.

1:30PM finish reading Adequacy. Thirsty again so drink some water.

1:40PM stare out of the window. The house across the road has really long grass.

1:50PM lay on the bed but can't get to sleep.

2:00PM feel a bit ill. Maybe it was the pizza.

2:02PM Go to the PC again.

2:05PM play WinMine. I nearly complete expert but I mess up on the last mine.

2:40PM read Adequacy again. Nothing much changed. Maybe i will post tonight.

3:00PM Go to the window and sit down.

3:05PM Three kids hanging around on the street near a chained up bike. Looks suspicious - should probably watch them.

3:10PM A dark blue car pulls up 5 houses down. Maybe its the feds.

3:11PM It isn't

3:14PM Get bored of watching the stupid kids. Don't care if they smash anything up anyway.

3:16PM sit back at computer.

3:17PM Consider doing some work.

3:18PM consideration ends.

3:19PM Really beginning to feel sick now. Wish I hadn't had that pizza.

3:25PM lay in bed wishing for sleep.

3:40PM give up and get up. Browse Adequacy again.

3:42PM consider writing a contraversial post about AOL but it would only get deleted.

3:43PM really bored.

3:44PM have a quick wank

3:46PM really really bored now

3:47PM walk into the kitchen and look out of the window. Those kids have gone. So has the bike.

3:48PM walk over the telephone. Think about calling a random number. nah would achieve nothing.

3:50PM walk back to PC. Got a blue screen. Press Escape and Enter. No result.

3:51PM Decide to keep the blue screen there. It's kind of pretty.

4:20PM Get bored of the blue screen and turn off the PC.

4:21PM Sit on the bed.

4:22PM Switch on the PC again

4:27PM Windows loads up

4:28PM Browse Adequacy. Interesting stuff and some useless stuff.

4:45PM Fanasise about cyborgs taking over the world.

5:20PM Do a search for "cyborg" on Adequacy. Two results - one promoting drugs and another about perverts.

5:30PM Walk down the coridoor pretending im a cyborg.

5:50PM Its dark now. Realise people outside can see my cyborg walk through the window.

5:51PM Decide to stop being a cyborg and close the curtains.

6:00PM Sit in my room. No lights. No music.

6:30PM Browse Adequacy again.

6:42PM Lay down in bed. Feel tired.

8:15PM Wake up...didn't realise I fell asleep.

8:18PM Take a shit.

8:24PM Have another wank as well - saves time.

8:26PM Quake time. I play.

1:15AM Enough Quake for tonight.

1:17AM go to kitchen for some water and bread.

1:20AM time for workout.

2:20AM Finish workout. Feel tired a bit. Shrug off the bad feeling.

2:30AM Log onto Adequacy. Read site. Must post again soon.

3:10AM Decide to post todays diary entry.

	Very disturbing, indeed. (4.00 / 1) (#1)
	by mfk on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 08:54:30 PM PST

	I counted no less than six times in which you have visited Adequacy.org. I suggest you turn off the Internet, and go outside and get some fresh air. It is evident that you are obsessing over your computer, instead of doing more more important things I also detected a grammatical error in your diary's title. There is no month 24; the Gregorian calendar only has 12 months. Perhaps you have been deluded into thinking that other formats are the correct way to write the date. In the future, please write the date the correct American way.

	agreed (none / 0) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 11:25:56 PM PST

	Very disturbing Indy0_0

	Terror's march backwards, part one. (none / 0) (#6)
	by because it isnt on Fri May 24th, 2002 at 02:43:48 AM PST

	9/11: THE ATTACKS CHANGE FOR EVER THE BRITISH CONVENTION FOR PLACING THE DAY BEFORE THE MONTH IN DATES. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Very funny (none / 0) (#7)
	by PotatoError on Fri May 24th, 2002 at 03:13:14 AM PST

	Haha Chris Morris is funny. Been looking for some good WTC satire for a while. "Operation Infinite Enemy is not a war again Islam, its a war against muslims" - George Bush HAHAHAHAA ROTFL "Hosting the film Baftas, Stepehn Fry delivers an unpeakably trite stack of toss urging film makers to 'keep telling stories' in the face of world events - as if films make any fucking difference to anything, least of all the advancement of peace, as if in fact they don't more often promote, through piss like Black Hawk Down, the very surfeit of self-regarding superiority that makes the American West so unpopular in the first place" HAHAHAHA this stuff is gold!!! Im getting this newspaper for sure!!! http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2002/03/19/morris3.pdf Read the rest!! its soo funny. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Awesome link... (none / 0) (#9)
	by dmg on Fri May 24th, 2002 at 04:32:54 AM PST

	And he will do this in the strong intellectual conviction that there is intrinsic value in abhorrent, appalling jokes, if they make people think, and that, as long as you have rigorously analysed the purpose of saying something, there is nothing that cannot be said. Chris Morris I could not agree more. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	But (none / 0) (#8)
	by budlite on Fri May 24th, 2002 at 04:05:46 AM PST

	What if you're not American? I'm I wouldn't change the way I write a date, or anything else the Americans do wrong, to please anyone.

	You are expected to be polite (5.00 / 1) (#19)
	by John Milton on Fri May 24th, 2002 at 01:13:33 PM PST

	Even though you are a guest in a strange country, you are at least expected to pick up those customs that make communication least confusing. As a foreign guest on the internet, you are being quite rude by forcing your obsolete metric system of dating on us. -John Milton

	Internet, borders, date formats (none / 0) (#20)
	by The Mad Scientist on Fri May 24th, 2002 at 02:02:33 PM PST

	Internet isn't American. TCP/IP maybe is, but HTTP and HTML were developed in CERN. Obsolete concepts like nationality and borders don't belong to the Net, despite of the attempts of lawyer and politician scums to pull them in. Besides, month/day/year date format is illogical abomination. The two other versions - day/month/year and year/month/day are logically sorting the variables in ascending or descending order. The second version - year first - is what I consider prefered because of sorting. If you want to be unambiguous, write year as 4-digit number and month as either full name, or its three-letter acronym. Then it is both clear for a human user and parseable for a machine.

	Metric? (none / 0) (#21)
	by budlite on Fri May 24th, 2002 at 03:09:51 PM PST

	I still don't know why the US has a problem with the metric system - it makes sense! Plus, the British date-writing convention makes more sense - day/month/year is more linear then month/day/year.

	Makes sense? (5.00 / 4) (#22)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri May 24th, 2002 at 11:05:42 PM PST

	The imperial system makes far more sense: A foot is the length of a man's foot. A yard is the distance between the king's nose and his outstretched finger. A pound in weight is equivalent to the quantity of silver required to provide the value of one pound sterling in currency. Is that so hard? On the other hand, the metric system is unreasonably arcane. A meter is the length of a certain number of wavelengths of some sort of radiation produced by some hideously exacting experimental conditions which no one can be expected to reproduce when all they want to know is how whether or not a bookshelf will fit along their study wall. A second is defined through some incredibly contrived series of subatomic particle emissions. Having gone to this much trouble to determine the length of a second, it must have come as quite a shock to discover that the metric second was exactly as long as the imperial second. No doubt this is why the metric clock mirrors the imperial clock exactly, having 24 hours, 60 minutes and 60 seconds on its dial, rather than 10 hours, equalling 100 minutes and 1000 seconds. Of course, these quantities would be renamed in honor of some famous time-scientist. Kilobakers, Centibakers and Millibakers, perhaps. Worst of all metric quantities is the kilogram, which the French have defined as being equal to the weight of some hunk of metal which only they have access to. The great lie of the metric world is that their quantities are easily determined, worldwide. In fact, only the French know how much the kilogram weighs, and they have no doubt been using this information to manipulate the markets in precious metals for their own benefit.

	What you fail to realise (none / 0) (#25)
	by budlite on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 07:48:56 AM PST

	is that the metric and imperial systems are simply different ways of representing the same thing - mass. Mass remains constant. What varies as an object moves around in a gravitational field is the weight, measured in Newtons, which is mass (in kilograms, which could be converted to pounds and/or ounces if you really wanted to) multiplied by the gravitational field strength where the object is. You should also note that the metric system is now an international scientific standard - surely you've heard of the SI (Système International) unit system, in which the unit of mass is ALWAYS, without fail, the kilogram, the unit of length is the metre and the unit of temperature is the Kelvin (the unit size being the same as the celcius, except that the zero point is absolute zero rather than the melting/freezng point of water).

	No no its a lot easier using imperial (none / 0) (#26)
	by PotatoError on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 08:43:45 AM PST

	Im not talking about mass - im talking about WEIGHT. How can you weigh a brick on the ground and its 2Kilos but 100000 feet up its like 1 Kilo??? Thats just stupid. At least pounds are consistant. ALso metric is really difficult for arithmetic. Calculators nad computers use binary while metric is decimal. This means that computers cant represent exact metric ammounts. THats really dumb when you are trying to launch a space rocket and need everything to be accurate. And why have a temperature system that starts at absolute zero? When the hell would you encounter such a temperature. Much better to use a sensible system that starts at a sensible common threshhold such as the freezing point of water. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Oh, get a clue (none / 0) (#30)
	by budlite on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 09:36:53 AM PST

	Or at least a book on basic physics. Pounds and kilograms are both units of MASS, not weight. Mass remains constant. Therefore, a brick weighing two kilograms will still weigh two kilograms in space. In fact, the word "weigh" is very ambiguous. It's often used to mean "measure an object's mass" rather than "measure its weight". Here, I use the word "weigh" in the first context. Like I said, weight (measured in Newtons) changes depending on location. Mass doesn't.

	HAHA j00 sux0rs! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
	by nathan on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 10:10:23 AM PST

	From this link: While there is a unit of mass called the pound-mass (lbm), the unit referred to here is really weight, a variant of force, and is more precisely called the pound-force (lbf.) As a matter of fact, the pound used in 'everyday measurements' really is a unit of weight, not of mass. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Yes, it makes sense (none / 0) (#23)
	by budlite on Sat May 25th, 2002 at 05:02:52 AM PST

	Because if your explanation of the Imperial system is accurate then it's based on variables rather than constants. The Metric system is based on something that DOESN'T change. True, the experiments that yielded the metre were probably rather arcane and the fact that the French keep the kilogram under wraps is a bugger, but all the same I think it's more well-defined and usable.

	No the metric system is flawed (none / 0) (#24)
	by PotatoError on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 06:48:57 AM PST

	How on earth do you expect they fitted 1000 metres in a kilonmeter? Its blatently obvious it wouldnt fit naturally so they either squashed the size of a meter or lengthened the size of the kilometer. This causes all sorts of problems - notably that the last hundred meters of a kilometer are considerably larger than the first hundred. And why have 100 meters in a centmeter when you could just say 0.32 miles? Is decimal arithmetic that difficult? Don't even get me started on weight - i mean in space a kilogram weighs less than on earth. Doesn't that smack you of stupidity? Why make a system of weights which changes with altitude? Its moronic. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	hmmm (none / 0) (#37)
	by PotatoError on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 12:39:11 PM PST

	But that isn't really relevant to the problems with metric weight. The site you have given seems to also be heavily pro-metric so I doubt it gives an unbiased view. I'll admit that weighing things at high altitudes isn't necessary most of the time but still, it is a flaw with the metric system and can't simply be brushed off as a by product of something called mass. Isn't Mass just weight multiplied by 10 anyway? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Nope (none / 0) (#39)
	by budlite on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 01:04:10 PM PST

	Other way round. Weight is mass multiplied by Earth's gravitational field strength at that location. This, at and close to Earth's surface is 9.8 [whatever unit it is]. The value 10 is often used in physics or classical mechanics examinations because it's a time saver and still gives a close approximation of the correct value. If you were to calculate the weight of an object in geosynchronous orbit at, say, 300 kilometres above Earth, the weight would be different because Earth's gravitational field is lower further away from Earth. But the mass would remain the same. As I said, kilograms are a mass unit, like pounds. That's why converting between them is as simple as it is. The mass of an object remains constant whatever its location.

	so.... (none / 0) (#40)
	by PotatoError on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 01:14:57 PM PST

	what happens to my weight if I were underground? Say in the middle of the earth? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	That depends... (none / 0) (#42)
	by tkatchev on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 01:21:03 PM PST

	...on whether you're willing to take into consideration the graviational pull of the sun and the moon. :) -- Peace and much love...

	True (none / 0) (#43)
	by budlite on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 01:29:00 PM PST

	But his chances of survival would be infintesimal whether you do or not, so why bother? :)

	Apologies for duplicate post (n/t) (none / 0) (#45)
	by budlite on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 01:54:51 PM PST

	Just dont do it again [nt] (none / 0) (#46)
	by PotatoError on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 02:06:42 PM PST

	. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	True (none / 0) (#44)
	by budlite on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 01:29:51 PM PST

	But his chances of survival would be infinitesimal whether you do or not, so why bother? :)

	Gravity (none / 0) (#48)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 02:18:42 PM PST

	Each particle that has mass is attracting other ones; the force is directly proportional to the sum of the masses of both the particles in question, and indirectly proportional to their distance. The resulting vector that we perceive is the sum of all the vectors to all the particles around. We are commonly used to operate with objects as if all their weight would be located in their center of gravity. For most practical purposes it is enough. But for your example of being inside the object it stops working well. Imagine the Earth as a ball made from little rock. Each the rock attracts the other ones. (We could go further, to the level of the particles, but then it would be harder to imagine.) The perceived gravity vector is sum of all the vectors caused by the individual rocks. This explains ie. the nonhomogenities in Earth's gravity field. At the geometrical center of an ideal, homogenous ball with no other objects around the ball you would be in weightless state. In the center of real Earth you would feel a bit pressed and a bit hot, and would feel slight gravity force in the direction of some really big mountains, or some geological formation of heavy rock. Plus the vectors caused by the Sun and the Moon, as Tkatchev suggested.

	Pounds aren't mass measurements (none / 0) (#47)
	by John Milton on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 02:06:49 PM PST

	In the metric system, kilograms represent mass while Newtons measure force exerted by mass. In the English scientific system, the unit of mass is a slug. The pound is a force unit just like Newtons. In Earths gravity, a slug of matter will weigh approximately 62 pounds. -John Milton

	izzat so? (none / 0) (#27)
	by nathan on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 09:02:45 AM PST

	What's the British unit of mass, then, smart guy? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	It's kilograms, nathan. (none / 0) (#28)
	by because it isnt on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 09:17:44 AM PST

	Anyone who says otherwise is a criminal. If you buy half a pound of bananas, the terrorists have already won. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Half-pound of bananas? (none / 0) (#29)
	by tkatchev on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 09:36:10 AM PST

	What, you're too cheap to buy a full banana? -- Peace and much love...

	MIsunderstanding. (none / 0) (#31)
	by because it isnt on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 09:41:20 AM PST

	Half a pound of bananas is a perfectly weighty amount. To help your Russian mind convert, it's about 3 potatoes. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Oh get off it. (none / 0) (#33)
	by tkatchev on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 10:31:13 AM PST

	3 potatoes is a full kilogram -- read, a whole two pounds. One of us is severely confused. -- Peace and much love...

	P.S. (none / 0) (#34)
	by tkatchev on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 10:34:57 AM PST

	Note that I'm talking about those normal hefty potatoes, not whatever passes for genetically-modified superfood over in Technotopia. -- Peace and much love...

	Russian jJoke (none / 0) (#35)
	by because it isnt on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 10:47:52 AM PST

	What do they call potato cakes in Russia? Cakes. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Pardon my ignorance... (none / 0) (#41)
	by tkatchev on Sun May 26th, 2002 at 01:18:06 PM PST

	...but what in hell is a "potato cake"? Do you really eat crap like that wherever you live? Be serious now. (Well, actually, you can make a sort of "vegetarian hamburger" out of potatoes; is that what you meant?) -- Peace and much love...