THOUGHT

Das nicht greifbare - das, was der menschliche Verstand einfach nicht begreifen kann. Was ist das denn ueberhaupt?

Das ist nicht das, was passiert, wenn man einen 200-seitigen Textwall errichtet, sondern da, wo man als Mensch einfach nicht mehr wirklich mitkommt: Andere Farben, außer denen, die wir sehen koennen? “Ne, das ist doch ganz unmoeglich!” Allerdings koennen wir nur ein bestimmtes Spektrum wahrnehmen - nicht das ganze, schließlich koennen wir weder Ultraviolett wahrnehmen, noch Infrarot.

Die Wahrnehmung des Menschen ist leider sehr beschraenkt - und deshalb wollen wir einfach nicht Dinge akzeptieren, die in der Natur so sind und nicht so sind, wie unsere Logik sie will. In der Quantenwelt herrschen Zufaelle - wenn ich Pech haette, koennten meine Quanten in diesem Moment einfach mal alle den Spin veraendern und irgendwas komisches mit mir machen. Da die Chance dafuer aber so unglaublich gering ist, wird es wohl nicht in meiner Lebenszeit passieren. Die menschliche Logik will fuer alles einen Grund, einen Sinn: Sinn und Grund bei Zufall? Gibt’s nicht. Dafuer gibt’s Verstaendlichkeit und Unverstaendlichkeit in einer Superposition.

Um aber nicht vom Thema abzuweichen: Unverstaendlichkeit schraenkt auch unsere Entscheidungsfaehigkeit ein - Einstein wollte schließlich auch nicht einfach die Quantenmechanik akzeptieren, da es noch gleich zweihunderttausend Schritte weiter gegen die menschliche Logik geht, als die Relativitaet. Er verstand wohl nie wirklich, was Zufaelle in der Physik zu tun haben - oder, warum zur Hoelle etwas gleichzeitig mehrere Zustaende der gleichen Art, etwa heiß und kalt, haben sollten.
Beim Beispiel Einstein sieht man auch gut, dass kein Mensch sicher vor Unverstaendlichkeit ist. Es ist einfach unmoeglich, dass irgendjemand manche Dinge wirklich versteht. Dafuer ist das menschliche Gehirn einfach nicht geschaffen.

[stream-of-thought, zero times proof-read, destroyed draft 3 times because I didn’t comprehend what I had written]

This time, I’ll use energy-rich gamma rays to point out things, but immediately after pointing them out, they’ll be as black as a black hole. Why? Because this time it’s all about censorship!

First, what the hell is censorship? It’s the act of removing some things from publications that are publicly available. It happens mainly because the publication breaks certain laws, e.g. includes hate speech. Sometimes, it is done because the legislator didn’t like it as it may reveal some bad details about him/her. The second version is alarmingly becoming more common; take America, for example. If you’re anti-war, pro-environment, libertian or any other thing that the current administration doesn’t like, chances are high that you’ll be under surveillance. If you’re getting more annoying, then it’s likely that you’ll be abducted to something like Guantanamo Bay, a gulag. If the government fears that they’ll be heavily criticized, then, once you publish anything, they censor it so that it looks like a text breaking certain laws. (Search for a logical fallacy called “straw man”; that sort of censorship extends that one extremely.)

Because of this, once any government receives the ability to censor things, it takes a nice chunk of freedom away. Censorship isn’t good in any way; and for those “But the children!”-screamers, parents are responsible for them, not the government. If they care for their children in the age of the internet, they should take courses about blocking IPs from pages with sexual (or any other, which the parent doesn’t deem right) content. The government has no right to play a parent and never shall have. (Currently, it sadly does.)

Some jerks that dress like politicians are trying to make a grown-up person in Germany not able to buy the so-called “Killerspiele”. That is extreme censorship, protecting as much people as there are in the core of the sun. In this case, the government plays the role of a parent. See what happens?
Another example: Finland. A page which documents the censoring of so-called “pages containing child pornography” (or something like that; I forgot, for I have insufficient memory) is put on the blocking-list for ISPs, thus censoring it. Why? Because the government plays the role of overzealous parents that won’t believe that a lot of pages which are blocked aren’t endangering their children. The actual reason for that isn’t that one. It happens because governments want to censor anything that doesn’t fit their views and as long as the censoring can be kept in a legal grey area. Whether censoring, abducting and other things are actually acceptable in respect to human rights is a good question; but the government doesn’t care, as it naturally seeks to eliminate freedom and human rights.

So long.

[stream-of-thought, several Human Memory Leaks (TM), proof-read once, thus having an extremely high chance of likely and unlikely errors, including superpositions]

Basically, there are two methods of writing something on the computer to print it out: Using a word processor (Word, OpenOffice, KWord et cetera) or a text editor. One may diversify the second into using just a text editor without having fancy output for whatever reason and using it with a document markup language like LaTeX. (I pronounce it “lah-tech”, if anyone should be interested. Including Schaeuble.)

Now, first to word processors: As probably everyone has individual needs which such programmes just can’t fulfil, these are somehow doomed to not be used by academic people; as I’ve already illustrated in some other posts, I regard today’s society as mostly idiots, thus I assume they just try and try and try until it fits them. Also, word processors are “What You See Is What You (Might) Get”-thingies (WYSIWY(M)G). This means that you look at the screen and see what is most likely to get printed; such things intimidate one, as one isn’t sure if that part of the text should be 11pt or 12pt. It reduces productivity and one always has to click on those damn symbols. I hate and despise these. Graphical User Interfaces slow down the process of typing, forcing the writer to use the mouse to format text, instead of typing something like \emph{text}.
One can conclude from these facts that using word processors is only good for quick-and-dirty writing in which one doesn’t use complex formatting and such things.

Let’s take a look at text editors: Generally, they can have a GUI. There are some with it, some without it. First, I’ll use a sharp pencil to point out some good and bad things about using them to only write text (read: pick out eyes). They display what you’ll get without annoying you with damned fonts or other word processor wrongs. That one is good. On the other hand, you can’t format your text well with them, except for markup languages. (I’ll get to that right now.) Thus, simple editing with them is for writing plain text files as communication over the internet (uploading it so the other one may read it; it’s a rather safe way) or extreme quick-and-dirty writing without formatting.

Well, let’s get to these document markup languages: They are a subset of markup languages, which are used for structuring a text. For example, HTML is another markup language; by structuring, I mean things as the italics or bold text, because these allow one to accentuate the text, not blinking marquees that cause eye cancer.
That should be enough for markup languages in general, now on to LaTeX: As I’ve already said, academics need a lot of freedom to write their text. LaTeX gives it to them for the price of exact structure, which academics bring with them anyway. Although the constant use of braces is like juggling balls to me, it’s a Nice Thing (TM): One concentrates on the text, gets used to the oblivious formatting like \texttt (I suggest this one for embedding code in text; for source code, use \listing (moreverb package) or \verbatim.) and one can even place nice (but complex) mathematic equations in one’s text without struggling with some shitty plugin for hours. I highly recommend learning LaTeX to anyone that wants to be an academic (or at least productive writer) later in life; it helps one to be more productive and forces one to structure text, thus subtly increasing the quality of text.

[stream-of-thought, minimal research, not even looked at it a second time, mistakes will be rewarded with -111101010 cent]