Immaturity Instability

Some television shows have plenty of promise for an interesting season (or series).  Over the summer when I had heard about a CBS show that would leave a group of kids in the desert to form a city, I had become very exited.  Even though I was completely aware that the kids in this show (Kid Nation) would never be in any true danger (not that they were situated in initial danger, but the danger coming from the mistakes and choices that the kids might face), as a major network would make completely sure that there was no possibility for negative publicity with a faulty show design featuring children.  

Watching how age would affect the building of a society seemed like something that would be very interesting to watch.  Now I thought that I was going to be able to see how much maturity was necessary to run a small community.  Perhaps this would prove to be incredibly successful (both the immature community and the show as a result).  There is a mix of levels of age and maturity in the world now.  Each phase has different levels of ability that can be accomplished and because of that there are different levels of responsibilities that are associated and expected from the different age groups.  In actual society (and not CBS Kid Nation society) there is a mix of every existing age groups (although the youngest and oldest are not active parts of society).  Maybe with only young examples for Kid Nation the age conflicts would not exist anymore and the immaturity instability would not establish itself. 

I was completely wrong.  

Evolution Explaination

The past three iPod evolutionary posts are all meant to be read and seen. That may seem surprising as the first two are identical and both share the same obvious and almost inexcusable grammatical mistakes. The reason for keeping (and wanting) those two posts on here is that it is the way that they were created that makes them important. If you read the posts (I like you a little bit more than others), you'll know that the posts were made after the acquisition of the new uber-ipod (in my opinion), the iPod Touch. One of the most incredible points of the Touch is its web capabilities; they are truly exceptional. This brings thoughts of how the same product can be achieved in many different capacities. The product for this example is the internet, and the achievement capacities are mobile web devices, including the Touch. For most people who use the internet, it is experienced through a computer, the internet was designed to be compatible with computers, exclusively. Because of this, the internet has become dependant on a certain amount of visual space to accommodate its content. Web design has a very large demand just because of the possibilities of visual content and web page aesthetic. With most computer screens ranging in size from 12 to 17 inches, when a web page designed for a screen that large is translated to one that is only an inch or so in size, there have to be modifications to how content is organized, displayed, and accessed. This is a great example of how particles in an established system can be forced to establish themselves in a new environment. The force that causes the movement and modulation does not have to be more that something (anything, internal or outside) wanting the change to happen. Of course with this change in available viewing size, the format of mobile internet had to undergo many redesigns. For some mobile internet capable devices (mostly phones), the same content available to any internet user was available to them, however the aesthetic presentation was different, often unrecognizable to the computer oriented versions. This is a forced particle removable and adaptation.

Another large problem for mobile web devices is the lack of one major and vital piece of computer hardware; a mouse. The internet is built with the idea that whatever you want to do is available for you to find out and explore. That means that a large amount of selecting is going to have to happen to end up in the right place on the web. With a mouse, a user is allowed to click on and view exactly what they want (want meaning simply what they wanted to click on, not necessarily the exact information that they wanted) without having to explore all of the possible options from their current page. It still seems that there is going to be two different versions of the internet though, one for standard computer users, and another for mobile users. Lots of companies and webmasters are realizing this, and are constructing mobile versions of their websites. Watching Bravo, many commercials can be seen directing mobile internet users to their wap.bravotv.com web address, instead of the alternative (and "standard") www.bravotv.com web address. While using the iPod Touch and iPhone, any webpage that someone has gone to on a computer will have the exact same appearance on these mobile devices, no website needs a mobile version (even though it would still be helpful). This is not simply because Apple has developed an interface that no other mobile company was able to figure out, but because the reason for the initial difference in web surfing was again modified. The screens of the iPod Touch and iPhone are the most impressive part of their (physical) construction. The screens are large enough for a web page to be compressed (and still recognizable and usable) without any modification from the standard web coding for full size machines. Instead of having particles introduced to a new system that required change, we have particle rearrangement to form the same formation that they had before there was a need for it, particle placement prediction. The need for a mouse is gone as well, just as the mouse is used to select only the links that user wants, your finger can now select only the information and links that you want as well.

Imagine if these particles (the shapes, colors, text, and images that compose web pages) could be seen in motion while rearranging through the different possible applications and formats with actual physical representation, what that would look like? A visual display of color and texture that has a potentially totally abstract formation and no predictable path. That would create some of the most astounding visuals imaginable. Imagine everything with a possibility for visual representation in some form

Although it is very easy to browse the internet through the iPod Touch and iPhone, there still are some difficulties (for me) with trying to do some activities. One of these activities is typing, it is not that it is not possible, but not accurate at all (for me, since the interface is still extremely new to me). You know this, as the first two incomplete evolution posts were done on the iPod Touch. They are examples of an initial switch in how particles can operate similarly yet now completely accurately in a new behavioral system

Disturbing Evolution (Previous Applicator)

This post is made after purchasing a new iPod after Friday's event. Shortly after I had purchased my second iPod over the summer, Apple introduced a new family of iPods. Included in this new generation was the obvious next mutation for the iPod, this is the familiar body that consists of the click wheel, but another addition to the iPod family line was the iPod Touch. The iPod Touch is based on the iPhone body and interface and really provides the user with a completely new way to experience the iPod. The iPod really has an extremely amazing structural evolution now. All of the pre-Touch evolutions seem totally uninspired after experiencing what the Touch is like. Despite being so far way from previous iPod generations, the Touch does not have such an incredible design when viewed solo. The glory of the Touch comes from knowing where the iPod started and the safeness of the previous designs. Before now, steps to improve the iPod were all minor, rearrange the buttons or click wheel, ad a color screen , add video capacity, etc. Maybe the available technology (or at least technology that could be mass produced) did not allow for changes other than small ones? It is possible to look at the Touch and not be as impressed by the interface and development as much as I am, though. When compared with the device that previewed the touch interface and body design before the iPod Touch, the iPhone, this amount of praise for the Touch seems almost ridiculous. Praise and impressions are always based on what has occurred previously. Even when something is new and does not have any item that preceded it in a directly comparable way, the lack of immediate direct comparison creates the impression strength or weakness. You can view the Touch in two ways, from the point of the latest generation iPod, it is completely incredible, but as a way to make an iPhone — without a phone — and create a new product for the iPod line, the touch is almost laughable — in concept.

Without context, every item and thought cannot strike anyone, it cannot leave any type of impression. Perhaps if I had owned, or used an iPhone (for more than minutes at an Apple store), then I would not be so impressed with the iPod Touch interface and design.

Disturbing Evolution (New Applicator)

this post is made after purchasing a new ipodiPod after friday'sFriday's event. Shortly after I had purchased my second ipodiPod over the summer, Apple introduced a new family of ipodsiPods. Included in this new generation was tgethe obvious next mutation for the ipodiPod, this is the familiar body that consists of the click wheel, but another addition to the ipodiPod family line was the ipodiPod touch. The ipodiPod touch is based on the iphone body and interface and really provides the user with a completely new way to experience the ipodiPod. The ipodiPod really has an extremely amazing structural evolution now. All of the preore-touch evolutions seem totally uninspired after experiencing what the touch is like. Despite being so far way from previous ipodiPod generations, the does not have such an incredible design when viewed solo. The glory odof the touch comes frmgem knowing where the iipod had started and the safeness of the previous designs. Before now, steps to improve the ipodiPod where all minor, rearrange the buttons or click wheel, ad a color screen , add video capacity, etc. Maybe technology (or at east technology that could be mass produced) was available to allow for changes other than small ones? It is possible to look at the touch and not be impressed by the interface and development asa much as When compared with the device that previewed the touch's iInterface and body design befi

Generation Evolution (New Applicator Accidental Attempt)

this post is made after purchasing a new ipodiPod after friday'sFriday's event. Shortly after I had purchased my second ipodiPod over the summer, Apple introduced a new family of ipodsiPods. Included in this new generation was tgethe obvious next mutation for the ipodiPod, this is the familiar body that consists of the click wheel, but another addition to the ipodiPod family line was the ipodiPod touch. The ipodiPod touch is based on the iphone body and interface and really provides the user with a completely new way to experience the ipodiPod. The ipodiPod really has an extremely amazing structural evolution now. All of the preore-touch evolutions seem totally uninspired after experiencing what the touch is like. Despite being so far way from previous ipodiPod generations, the does not have such an incredible design when viewed solo. The glory odof the touch comes frmgem knowing where the iipod had started and the safeness of the previous designs. Before now, steps to improve the ipodiPod where all minor, rearrange the buttons or click wheel, ad a color screen , add video capacity, etc. Maybe technology (or at east technology that could be mass produced) was available to allow for changes other than small ones? It is possible to look at the touch and not be impressed by the interface and development asa much as I am though. When compared with the device that previewed the touch's iInterface and body design befi

Losing Balance

Predicting is a task that everybody does, constantly. However, the range that the different predictions can account for is just as large as the number of people that make predictions. People predict to compare which actions are possible to the actions they want to do, they predict the possible outcomes from various actions and then they decide which action that they want to do based on the predicted results. These predictions generally happen very quickly, and most of the extreme predictions are disregarded so quickly that their existence is not even recognized. With predicting scenarios, there are actions and situations that are considered undesirable and categorized as bad, and there are scenarios that are desirable and categorized as good. Of course there is no universally good or bad definition, but there are always good and bad possibilities for everyone, and there are always choices.

The choices that some people make are always going to receive criticism from different people, and generally I am accepting to the different choices that people make. However, at times, there are some actions and decisions that I cannot understand at all. The most questioned decision (conceived and carried out by someone else) that has directly involved me happened yesterday. While walking outside of my school after class had ended, I looked behind me and saw that three black (race is important for this happening) males were right behind me. I then felt one of them grab me from behind in a manner so that all I could do was kick my legs. I only recognized one of the people there. The person that I did recognize was someone that had enjoyed having a physical presence around me (although not a frequent one), and liked to "pretend" to beat me up at times. When I was grabbed by his "friend", I though that this was some type of playful (yet overly physical) joke. Very quickly the joke had finished being partially entertaining and became very annoying. I was waiting for the person holding me to let me go and the two other people to leave me alone; that did not happen. The person that was holding me forced me to ground and began smashing my head down into the ground (the smashing was not through constantly striking my head, but with a constant, very strong, very forceful, uncomfortable, and painful pressure). I could not see anything and had no idea what was happening, it honestly was one of the most frightening experiences (if not the most frightening) that has ever happened to me. The frightening aspect of what happened was that I had no idea how far they would go to do or get what they wanted, one of them might of had a weapon, they might have used more and more force until I was unconscious, they could have done anything, and I had no idea what. I could not breathe as my head was forced into the ground, all I felt was the increasingly painful force on the side of my head, all saw was the dark color of the person's parka, and all I heard were the two other people yelling "run his pockets, grab it, get it, run". Soon the person got off of me, then after forcing the iPod I was grasping in my hand free, began to run into a nearby soccer field, and disappeared.

The predictions that these three people had made obviously was one that was appealing to them and seemed like the best option at the time. How could that happen? How could someone decide to carry out that type of action and seem to enjoy doing it? Over the next could of weeks (or however long it takes), I will be coming up with possible reasons and discussing any related thoughts and ideas on how some actions (especially absolutely ridiculous ones such as the one described above), could happen.

Real Life Relationships

The amount of times that a pattern is encountered in real life is astonishing; it is constant. This is important for a pattern, no, it is important for every idea that exist primarily as a theory. Mentally, any idea is stable — if there is desire for it — yet that stability does not have the same guarantee outside of the mind. There can be restrictions mentally though, however, those restrictions are only in place do to the acknowledgement of the restrictions that the mind has been exposed to from real life experiences. Modifications are often (nearly always) needed to meet the restrictions that are posed from the world outside of your head. People tend to always imagine ideas to the best quality that they can imagine them, rarely will people imagine something and have it not work in a perfect (to them) fashion. The reason for that is that in the mind, there are no restrictions as well as consequences. Consequence is the source of fear and the reason that people take caution. Consequence can be the source of such a broad reaction (fear), as consequence itself is just as broad. All consequence is, is a reaction; anything that happens as a result of an action is a consequence. But consequence is not generally used to describe a good reaction, consequence is used to describe a reaction that has an unfavorable outcome. Consequence is omitted in daydreams and fantasies, why would the lack of restriction lead someone towards one of the main reasons that people create self established restrictions?

Aside form the consequences, the possibilities for what can actually be created are very limited. Real world science is incredibly far from what people can imagine, the medical imagination has created a huge gap between itself and the medical reality. It is not just the medical imagination that has escaped from its reality counterpart, though the area that has the least sized gap between its imaginary sector and the reality sector is art. But the reason for the smaller sized gap is not a random reason, but it is because with art, there is the least consequence. In fact, with all of the traditional art forms, the only physical consequences that could happen would happen do to a misuse from the person using the materials. The reason for the lack of consequence as well as the reason for the smaller imaginary gap is not random; the reason for the lack of physical consequence is that art has not been designed or conceived to have a physical reaction from the viewer. Medicine is created to stimulate and create reactions from the users, medicines entire purpose is to create (positive) reactions from the user. Food is similar to medicine in that it can create an (unavoidable) reaction, but the purpose is not to create a reaction, it is simply to satisfy. If someone is to ingest something that is not compatible with what the body can process, then there will be consequence. Both medicine and sustenance are under many restrictions, but the restrictions come from different areas. Medical restrictions come from technology. There is a (large) gap between what is desired and imagined for medicine, and what medical technology (currently) can accomplish. However, the sustenance restriction is not one of a mis-matching between imagination and possibility, but simply an incompatibility issue. Some applications simply cannot tolerate certain stimuli, the human body is an incredibly sensitive structure, and there are many stimuli that produce consequences from the body. There are not just consequences with bodily stimulation though, there are also plenty of positive reactions that can happen with the body as well. This stimulation tolerance is not a constantly moving item like technology. The body does not make structural changes quickly at all, and there are periods where the body will sustain a constant version for thousands of years. The time frame in which the body does modify itself is extremely slow (when compared to how quickly technology changes and is acquired and accessible to the population.)

The smaller gap between the imagination and the actual reality of art occurs because art does not effect the body in the same ways that other activities do (and can). The only reaction that (traditional) art forms can have on a person is a reaction that they create and is most likely unique to themselves. Other areas (like medicine and food) have reactions that are incredibly (if not exactly) the same no matter which person they are experienced on. Reactions to art are totally dependent on the person which they are experienced. This is only when art is experienced and created through qualities that are exclusive to art. That means that when the qualities used to create art are qualities that are unique to only art (or any respective areas), there are no universal reactions and there cannot be any universal reactions from people. Art, food, medicine, anything, sports, are not exclusive to themselves. Anything can be combined as the application and execution of anything is controlled by the person doing them. The only way that the reactions from something can change is if they are mixed with another area. Mix art with sports, and food with medicine and create hybrid actions and activities that result in hybrid reactions. With a combination of sports and art, now the reactions that were associated with sports will now be associated with art as well. This is an area (hybrid activity) where a very valid argument involving how the definition of both art and sports is purely subjective. The combination of the two subjects is not in the definition, but in the process that they created with.

Someone can always disagree with any type of establishment, with that type of mentality, absolutely nothing would ever be accomplished as anyone could dispute method and be completely accurate.