Tae Kim's Guide to Japanese Forum

THIS FORUM IS NOW CLOSED TO NEW REGISTRATIONS BUT LEFT FOR PROSPERITY!

You are not logged in.

#51 2007-04-27 15:48:02

pink~hime
Member

Re: Mumble

Dont you have any sticky rice at home...


うまい書くことは、思いつけない。まぁ、変なことはいっぱいあるけど・・

Offline

#52 2007-04-27 15:55:35

Faumdano
Moderator

Re: Mumble

Didn't you know?! White people don't have "sticky rice"! What are you crazy? tongue Actually any of the meals my Mom made when I was younger that had rice were always with long grain rice... and no, I don't have any sticky rice in my cupboards atm, kind of wish I did though.


蒔かぬ種は生えぬ

Offline

#53 2007-04-27 15:57:23

pink~hime
Member

Re: Mumble

Lol, all i eat is japanese rice topped with korean and some other sort of meat, and i have since before i liked japan.

Yuu see there are countries every 5 year old knows:

The one their born in
America
China
And the one of there heritage

At the time, i though japan was china ><

Last edited by pink~hime (2007-04-27 16:59:38)


うまい書くことは、思いつけない。まぁ、変なことはいっぱいあるけど・・

Offline

#54 2007-04-27 15:59:15

我流チン
Member

Re: Mumble

Sticky rice, oh for the days when sticky rice was to be had in any grocers you could care to name.


・・・・・・・・・・
If the going is slow, you have time to admire the flowers.
よろしければ、日本語の間違いを直していただけますか?
[color=blue]「幸せとお弁当なのよ」[/color]

Offline

#55 2007-04-27 16:05:50

pink~hime
Member

Re: Mumble

uhhh....it still is isnt it....


うまい書くことは、思いつけない。まぁ、変なことはいっぱいあるけど・・

Offline

#56 2007-04-27 16:09:01

SeanS
Member

Re: Mumble

pink~hime wrote:

all i eat is japanese rice topped with korean

人食い! 何のおかずかなぁ、コリアン

Offline

#57 2007-04-27 16:57:36

pink~hime
Member

Re: Mumble

SeanS wrote:
pink~hime wrote:

all i eat is japanese rice topped with korean

人食い! 何のおかずかなぁ、コリアン

Ooops i meant to say korean style meat (you know like yakiniku)

Last edited by pink~hime (2007-04-27 16:59:22)


うまい書くことは、思いつけない。まぁ、変なことはいっぱいあるけど・・

Offline

#58 2007-04-27 18:13:33

taniwha
Member

Re: Mumble

Metric is great for general engineering and science. But human scale measures are better in feet, inches, pounds etc. The average male foot is, surprisingly enough, 1 foot long. The width of an adult male thumb is about an inch. Certainly, there's variations, but those measures came about because we're walking rulers. Thus they're good for human scale measures (probably part of why housing construction is still in inches (and feet) in Canada (Alberta, anyway)). However, as soon as you start getting into domains where the scale can vary wildly, metric is better as all you need to do is shift the decimal point (change the prefix: mm, km, Mm). However, go to extremes and you're back to non-metric: astromical units, lightyears, parsecs, etc. Metric doesn't sit well with the human mind because it's not based on anything in every day experience. The metre being 1/10000 of the distance from the equator to the north pole? huh? (yes, it's been refined since, but that's even worse), though a kg is sane: 1 litre of water, but that's based on the insane metre. Miles vs km? Well, I suck with time and thus distance so they're equally meaningless (1 mile was the distance between home and a certain park, 1km between home and another certain park), but with a conversion factor of 1.6 and me being a programmer, no problem.

Overall, neither metric nor imperial/standard/whatever is superior to the other: use the right tool for the job and know how to convert when you need to.


Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
There is no can't. -- Duun

Offline

#59 2007-04-27 18:30:56

Re: Mumble

I only have an extremely nebulous understanding of what NetHack and I can count the number of times I have heard it mentioned on one hand (or I was able to).

Okays, well, I am going to test the waters of the mumble thread and share my random gripes:

1. This day is boring as hell.

2. Swian (someone who I am not) is - in his mind, mind you - trying to grow Papaver Somniferum, but he doesn't have enough room in his backyard because he moved recently to a condo (situated in his mind).  He's going to have to be satisfied with a smaller crop produced in pots, which just isn't enough.  I really feel bad for him because he wants a not negligible yield ever so badly and because what he is doing is unethical and I am going to have to turn him in to the proper authorities (in my mind).  Oh, how sad.

wink

Last edited by ReceptviCanatvr (2007-04-27 18:33:27)

Offline

#60 2007-04-27 18:34:27

Faumdano
Moderator

Re: Mumble

Opium eh... pretty hard stuff. While were on the topic, I'm generally against the "war on drugs", most of the stuff should be legalized IMHO. (not a user by any means, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal).


蒔かぬ種は生えぬ

Offline

#61 2007-04-27 18:37:32

pink~hime
Member

Re: Mumble

*cough cough*

everybody is trying to look "gangster" these days *eye roll*


うまい書くことは、思いつけない。まぁ、変なことはいっぱいあるけど・・

Offline

#62 2007-04-27 18:41:01

Faumdano
Moderator

Re: Mumble

What was that in relation to? ReceptviCanatvr’s wannabe Afghan farmer? I find that type of persona pretty repellant... just the thing to strive for! Violence, Drugs, Ignorance~

Last edited by Faumdano (2007-04-27 18:42:49)


蒔かぬ種は生えぬ

Offline

#63 2007-04-27 18:50:32

pink~hime
Member

Re: Mumble

No it was about your opium thing ><
At school all the boys act like that, and then you tell on them and they start crying. big_smile


うまい書くことは、思いつけない。まぁ、変なことはいっぱいあるけど・・

Offline

#64 2007-04-27 18:51:35

Faumdano
Moderator

Re: Mumble

I meant hard as in, you will get addicted and it will f*ck you up bad. Not hard as in... well the "gansta" meaning.


蒔かぬ種は生えぬ

Offline

#65 2007-04-27 18:57:39

pink~hime
Member

Re: Mumble

I dont get it 0.0


うまい書くことは、思いつけない。まぁ、変なことはいっぱいあるけど・・

Offline

#66 2007-04-27 19:05:42

Faumdano
Moderator

Re: Mumble

There are in general two common categories of drugs, hard, and soft. Opium is a member of the former. That's all I was trying to say.


蒔かぬ種は生えぬ

Offline

#67 2007-04-27 19:08:45

Re: Mumble

I am getting a distinct, yet vague impression of having been insulted and pilloried.

The truth is, Pink, that I am the exact opposite of a 'Ganster' type.  I am just a normal person who has a friend that wishes to grow a plant for both its beauty and for its effects on the mind - a friend whom I am going to turn in, should he ever actually go through with it.

This friend though is a normal, kind, responsible, person whose nature is diametrically antithetical to that of a drug-dealer or criminal.  Also, this friend does not hold the fact that he wants to grow this plant as an index of his mettle and "coolness" by any means.  He simply wants to grow something that he would want to grow anyways, even if it were legal (which it should be, since anti-drug laws constitute a violation of basic human rights and freedoms and of the constitution, no less.)

Grow up, Pink.

Last edited by ReceptviCanatvr (2007-04-27 19:12:48)

Offline

#68 2007-04-27 19:14:17

Faumdano
Moderator

Re: Mumble

ReceptviCanatvr wrote:

I am getting a distinct, yet vague impression of having been insulted and pilloried.

The truth is, Pink, that I am the exact opposite of a 'Ganster' type.  I am just a normal person who has a friend that wishes to grow a plant for both its beauty and for its effects on the mind - a friend whom I am going to turn in, should he ever actually go through with it.

This friend though is a normal, kind, responsible, person whose nature is diametrically antithetical to that of a drug-dealer or criminal.  Also, this friend does not hold the fact that he wants to grow this plant as an index of his mettle and "coolness" by any means.  He simply wants to grow something that he would want to grow anyways, even if it were legal (which it should be, since anti-drug laws constitute a violation of basic human rights and freedoms and of the constitution, no less.)

Grow up, Pink.

I'm pretty sure she said she was attacking my comment not yours tongue The above reminds me of a friend who wants to start a 'shroom farm in his closet...


蒔かぬ種は生えぬ

Offline

#69 2007-04-27 21:35:56

Re: Mumble

Koryo wrote:

Besides, kilograms shouldn't be used for weight technically since it's a measure of mass.  kgf ((kg·m/s²)/(9.81m/s²)) would be okay, I suppose

Yes. Right. But when people are talking about 'weight' they mean mass, for which kg is the correct unit. For example, talking about your body weight makes little sense because it will be different on the equator and on the poles. The invariant quantity to measure (when talking about body weight) is mass, and the correct units for that are kilograms.

Offline

#70 2007-04-27 21:47:05

Re: Mumble

pink~hime wrote:

Since im home today, instead of at school, it means i have to clean the house and make my mom lunch. And white rice is a real bitch to make without 炊飯器、So here is instructions, cuz i know alot of us dont have rice cookers:


1.First, wash the rice with water,  and then draining-- some older cookbooks will tell you to rinse thoroughly, but most modern rice says on the package"no talc," (that's what they use to polish it), so all you are doing is washing off the surface dust.

2. Put the rice and measured water into a medium flat-bottomed pot with a tight-fitting lid.

3. Ideally, you will soak the rice for 15 minutes to 3 hours before starting to cook it, but if you are pressed for time, you can add an extra tablespoon of water and skip the soak.

4. Cover the pot, turn the heat on high, and bring the rice to a boil (about 4 minutes): you will know it is boiling because you will hear it bubbling and"dancing" inside the pot.

5. Do not remove the lid.

6. Turn the heat to low (if you have an electric stove you may need to switch to another burner) and simmer (about 15 minutes): you will hear the rice burbling a bit.

7. Do not remove the lid.

8. When the water is all absorbed, the sound will change to a low hiss.

9. When you hear the hissing sound, turn the heat up to high again for just 20-30 seconds to help"dry off" the bottom of the rice.

10. Do not remove the lid.

11. Turn off the heat completely (especially if you have an electric stove, remove the pot from the heat altogether) and let the rice stand covered (do not remove the lid!) and steam itself for another 10-20 minutes.

12. Dampen a wooden spoon or wooden rice paddle.

13. Now remove the lid!

14. Toss the rice lightly with the spoon or paddle so that it is fluffed a bit but still clumps enough to be picked up with chopsticks.

15. If you need to keep the rice hot a while longer, hold a kitchen towel to the lid of the pot to absorb the moisture, then put the lid back on the pot.

It's not that difficult! I haven't had a 炊飯器 for years, and actually the rice tastes better prepared in a pot on the stove.

1. Rinse the rice until the water you rinse it with gets clear. Whatever your recipe says about talc is rubbish. Anyways' it's some of the starch you want to get rid off.

2. You don't soak the rice! After rinsing, you let it dry for half an hour or so. Use a transparent lid so you can see when there's no more water.

3. Rice + water (1 to 1) into pot, high heat 5 min, lower heat 5 min, low heat 5 min. Remove from heat, take lid off, cover immediately with wet cloth, put lid back on, wait for at least 20 min. Toss the rice with wooden paddle. 出来上がりです。

Offline

#71 2007-04-28 01:20:22

pink~hime
Member

Re: Mumble

ReceptviCanatvr wrote:

Grow up, Pink.

Never! How could you even mention that!


うまい書くことは、思いつけない。まぁ、変なことはいっぱいあるけど・・

Offline

#72 2007-04-28 02:12:07

我流チン
Member

Re: Mumble

Whether anti-drug laws violate basic human rights would depend on what a basic human right really is or should be.
To me, THE basic human right is the opportunity to proceed about one's lawful business without suffering unwarranted threat, intimidation, or violence to person or property. And drug use, legal or no, does interfere with that right - as road statistics and crime stats tend to indicate.


・・・・・・・・・・
If the going is slow, you have time to admire the flowers.
よろしければ、日本語の間違いを直していただけますか?
[color=blue]「幸せとお弁当なのよ」[/color]

Offline

#73 2007-04-28 13:15:04

pink~hime
Member

Re: Mumble

I bet the canucks would lose and they won =.=' 

Like, wtf, Anaheim usually pounds them into the ground.....


うまい書くことは、思いつけない。まぁ、変なことはいっぱいあるけど・・

Offline

#74 2007-04-28 18:27:01

Re: Mumble

Garyuchin wrote:

Whether anti-drug laws violate basic human rights would depend on what a basic human right really is or should be.
To me, THE basic human right is the opportunity to proceed about one's lawful business without suffering unwarranted threat, intimidation, or violence to person or property. And drug use, legal or no, does interfere with that right - as road statistics and crime stats tend to indicate.

You're forgetting all the risks associated with the illegalization of drugs.

A person has a right to do whatever he wishes with himself insomuch as he doesn't intend to interfere or isn't unintentionally interfering (relatively strongly) with rights of others to do with themselves what they please.

For all of the following reasons, the 'War on Drug is an incredibly bad idea'.  The only reason why it makes sense is that it maybe, kinda, sorta abates the rate of traffic accidents.  Whether or not completely stopping people from using drugs would lower the number of accidents per year profoundly is an impertinent and moot question, when it's the case that no anti-drug measures will ever keep people from doing drugs.  At any rate, alcohol, a legal drug, is behind the majority of drug-related accidents anyways;  so, being that the purpose of anti-drugs laws is being contravened by allowing alcohol to continue to possess its current legal status, you must believe that some kind of reform of anti-drug laws is necessary, right?

The so-called "War on Drugs," a phrase devised by the Bush Administration as a political tool to increase public support and clout, is an incredibly costly misguided enterprise, which is absolutely ineffectual and must necessarily fail, and which is nothing more than a drain on society;  human beings will always do drugs and will always wish to do so.  It makes about as much sense trying to stop a deluge with a couple of with a couple of matchsticks.  The government itself admits that this is an impossible war to wage, and, notably, many of the enforcers of these laws regard them as being utterly ridiculous and regard enforcing them as posing an unnecessary threat to their lives.

Because there is and will always be a demand for euphoria-inducing drugs, if the government enacts anti-drug laws, someone else will step in to furnish drugs to the cupidinous public and those people will generally be violent, criminal types.  (or rather, because the United States resorts to violent measures to stop drug-traffickers, they must necessarily become violent and carry weapons to defend themselves and their way of life, lest they die of a bullet to the head or of starvation.)  Therefore, the United States is actually responsible is a sense for creating and funding terrorist organizations, the bulk of whose income comes from drug-trafficking which would be non-existent if drugs were legalized.   The United States, having created guerrilla terrorist organizations through misguided and inhumane anti-drug laws, must now fight these people in a war given the appellation "War on Terror," which is another ridiculous term invented by the Bush administration for political purposes.  (Does anyone else feel like they are watching Sesame Street?: Certain words are introduced at some point in the show and they are spoken slowly and with a certain emphasis are are repeated throughout the episode achieving something of a hypnotic effect with the viewers.  I am so sick of the obnoxious little phrases this administration has invented and repeated ad nauseam!  Shut the fuck up already!)  So we are spending incredible amounts of money fighting two wars that we ourselves have created and which we have no chance of winning.

When drugs are illegal, a great amount of effort, time, and money has to be invested in order to manufacture those drugs and deliver them to customers, and this means that they are going to be significantly more expensive than they would otherwise be.  This means that people who become addicted must commit crimes - home robberies, generally - in order to fund their habits, and thus the danger every citizen faces increases dramatically.  If drugs were legal, they would be significantly less costly, and thus drug addicts with meager salaries could fund their habits without having to resort to robbery, and, for this reason, crime rates would drop.

If drugs were legal, the government would be able to superintend over their production to ensure that they were more pure and safe.  As it is, much of the danger associated with taking drugs comes from the fact that drugs are manufactured in the kitchens of stupid people who do not know what the hell they are doing and from the fact that drug dealers cut the drugs with incredibly dangerous substances which are intended to increase the addiction potential, increase quantities, or both. (either way they mean to increase profits).

Often times, people take drugs precisely BECAUSE they are illegal, not despite the fact.  If drugs were legalized, people might take a more responsible attitude towards taking drugs and be more careful with their bodies.  As it is, many are only taking them to be oppositionally temerarious, to challenge the authorities who are telling them that they can't do with their bodies what they will.

There are countless people in prisons for violating drug laws.  Because there is extremely limited amount of room in prisons, individuals who have committed far more serious offenses (murder, for example), fail to fulfill their prison terms and are released due to overcrowding.  If there were no one in prison for violating drug laws, there would be room in prisons sufficient to allowing individuals who have committed more grave offenses to serve out their sentences, and, thus, the overall safety of our society would be increased greatly.

Wishing to outlaw the use of drugs, the government also has made it quite difficult to get a hold of syringes with which people inject drugs.  Therefore, individuals must make the most of what they can get and reuse syringes over and over again, increasing the risk of spreading many diseases - most notably, HIV.  No doubt, if drugs were legal, syringes would be more readily available and rates of contraction of HIV would decrease substantially.  The cost to the taxpayer associated with the treatment of HIV-infected people is astronomical; if these laws were repealed, the financial burden on the taxpayer would decrease dramatically (with time, as those infected with HIV died off, for the most part not having infected anyone else).

Current drug laws are inconsistent and seem to evince cognitive dissonance on the part of those who have enacted them: alcohol and cigarettes are far, far more deadly and deleterious than virtually any other.  Alcohol intoxication, unlike many illegal drugs, is very strongly associated with increased rates of violence (as most can attest); on the other hand, opium-users, for example, when under the influence tend to be serene, calm, reflective, humble, un-irascible, and compliant.  What I am getting at here is that if we are to enact laws against drugs a, b, and c, because they carry risks, then we should also enact laws against alcohol and cigarettes, which are actually more dangerous than most other recreational drugs, on the basis that they, too, carry risks.  How much sense does it make to pick and choose at random what harmful substances should be illegal and which should not be?  (In actuality, it isn't random.  The reason why Alcohol and Tobacco aren't illegal, but merely controlled, is that the companies that produce these drugs make far too much money off their sales to allow them to be illegalized.)  Nutmeg at the moment is currently legal, but is significantly more dangerous than most drugs - being a potent neurotoxin! (Yes, that's right. Nutmeg!)  Just 10g is enough to kill someone and 3g is enough to induce extremely unpleasant hallucinations lasting up to a week!

Anti-drug laws in the United States are based on misguided and arbitrary notions of morality.  It is supposed - and I suppose their supposing to be fallacious - that to induce positive feelings with drugs is an inherently immoral act and that to achieve a high through natural means is inherently moral (or less immoral or morally neutral).  This supposition doesn't seem to be based on anything objective, or empirical, or even anything found in the Bible, which has managed to proscribe virtually every pleasurable activity!  Natural highs are mediated through the release of endogenous forms of street drugs - simply in smaller quantities.

It is against the law to possess Dimethyltryptamine (DMA), Morphine, or Gammahydroxybutyric Acid (GHB) in any quantity, and, yet, all three drugs are produced naturally by the body.  GHB is found in all meats and is vital to the functioning of the body and brain.  Dimethyltryptamine is produced naturally in the brain and is regarded by some as being responsible for dreaming.  And the endogenous forms of opiates, produced in the pituitary gland and hypothalamus, are known collectively as endorphins, chemicals which induce a sense of well being and effect analgesia.  So every citizen is breaking the law every second of the day for their entire lives because these endogenous chemicals are with them at all times, being necessary components of health and happiness.

When the 'soft drugs' - such as Marijuana, et al. - are expensive and hard to find as they are, people resort to what they deem to be the next best thing, 'hard drugs' - such as methamphetamines which is much more dangerous than marijuana - which are cheaper and more readily available since they can be produced with relative facility and expedition from items found at the grocery store.  Experimentation with more clement drug policies in the Netherlands has demonstrated that when people can get the stuff they want, they stay away from the more dangerous hard drugs; addiction rates and rates of usage of hard drugs in the Netherlands are the lowest anywhere in the world, despite the fact that the Netherlands has some of the most lenient drug policies of any country.  (The number of drug-related crimes committed in the Netherlands is also extremely low.)

"That human beings do not learn anything from history is the most important of the lessons which history has to teach us" is my favorite quote.  People have such shitty memories or they at least fail to perceive the similarities between an historical event and a current one.  Does anyone remember the days of prohibition and what they were like?  Anyone?  It was only because the government outlawed alcohol consumption that organized crime organizations became as powerful, wealthy, and resourceful as they did (since they were supplying the alcohol to the people that the people MEANT and INTENDED to drink - the laws be damned).  We are only now beginning to clean up the mess caused by that faux pas, and yet we continue to enact harsher and harsher drug laws, failing to see the connection between the current situation and that of the past.  Pablo Escobar was merely this era's Al Capon - they differed mainly as to their nationalities and the substances which they were trafficking.  Wake up, people.  Stop reacting in emotional and flustered fashions, sit back, and think clearly - for once.  These laws are enacted either because the people who enact them are corrupt or because they are only able to see one side of the issue;  that's to say,  they think to themselves, "Well, I don't want my kid on drugs, so I am definitely going to vote to make these drugs illegal!!!111!eleven" However, what they don't realize is that by making them illegal they are just increasing the dangers their children face, making the world in which they live a crappier one, and actually increasing their children's desire to do drugs since they have become 'forbidden fruit'.

Last edited by ReceptviCanatvr (2007-04-28 18:39:38)

Offline

#75 2007-04-28 18:42:14

Faumdano
Moderator

Re: Mumble

同意. The reason the "war" continues is probably equal parts inertia and the misguided "morals" of some of the people in power. Canada was all set to legalize Marijuana until the good old US of A decided to flex its muscles... Keep in mind that a good portion of the rabidly "devout" christian right in the US very much supports this "war" among the other wars America is fighting. 神の志でしょうかな、ま・さ・か。


蒔かぬ種は生えぬ

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB 1.5.3