Re: A Defeatist Throw Down

Pick up the slack, eh? Well, that was a over a week ago and I am now blogging again.

Whaddya know, when you're busy you don't give as much time to hobbies as when you're not. I blog today after a test last night and a quiz shortly preceding that, and I'm still working full time. Getting a test done is like a weight off my shoulders every time. I hate the tension going in and LOVE the relaxation coming out - provided I was happy with the performance, of course. Last night's was harder than the rest and I definitely sullied my 100 average for the course, but I found it more satisfying. There were a couple questions I simply did not know know until I sat there and stared at a blank page for about ten minutes, started the problem incorrectly, suddenly realized something, then started over. The "click" is what it's all about. It's like a drug. I want more.

Aak and I got into a fight the other night about politics. I was arguing from a position of how I don't know and I probably can't know anything, and he was saying that I can and do know more than I think I know. Maybe. I acknowledge that the convo. got extremely unfocused on my part because I didn't have a defensible argument. I did get downright enraged at one point because of how he was making a particular point. He was making the point that a person in a position of influence has to make decisions based on partial information. The conversation went something like:

A: Did you see An Inconvenient Truth?
H: Yes.
A: Did you see that graph that he showed?
H: Yes.
A: What if you were president and someone were to bring that info. to you and ask you to make a decision on [given issue] based on that information?
H: Well, I'd ask for clarification or further...
A: ...pick one...
H: ...uh, well, I don't remember that chart off hand, but I remember it being ridiculously cherry picked and biased...
A: ...pick one...
H: (getting annoyed) ...Aak, I would need further expla...
A: ...pick one...
H: ...look, you realize that I would need to ask knowledgable advisors who I trust and would respond to ques...
A: ...pick one...
H: ...You're really starting to piss me off...
A: ...pick one...
H: ...Dude, what's your pro...
A: ...pick one...
H: ...AAK! YOU'RE BEING A [very disagreeable individual]!!!...[Further yells, screams, and expletives]...

The conversation is getting me in a tizzy as I think about it now.

Subject change.

Why do some lighters have two chambers in them? Is it because when It gets low, there's less room in the wick-feeding chamber to spread out at the bottom, so it's pushed upwards along the wick and you get a little more life out of it? If so, then why two equal-sized chambers? Why not one chamber about the width of the wick and one frickin' 'uge chamber to contain the reservoir? Perhaps another explanation: is it so that the divider can take up more space and they can fill the lighter to the same level with less fluid and you have to buy a new one sooner? Planned obsolescence? Unfortunately for this boggler I don't smoke, so I don't have an extensive sample set of lighters to keep this inquiry open over time.