Ha ha! The Parking Nazi Strike!

They signed me up for SPAM!! Isn’t that great? My once SPAM-free e-mail address (pixel q [at] nmsu [dot] edu) is now loaded with SPAM. They stole my idea!

Ha ha, they’re funny. Resentful. Morally unjustifiable. Childish. Apparently perverts to boot. But funny… at least in the general out-of-body sense. In real life they’re probably just negative.

Should I respond in kind? Should I put police@nmsu.edu and mdsmith@nmsu.edu on SPAM lists as well? Or should I take the high road?

Last Year: Ind e-Pen XI
| 1 Comment

The A-Ha! Feeling– Now in Prank Form!

I’ve figured out what I’mna do to the person that wronged me so! I’d tell you, but he or she reads this blog and would figure it out sooner or later.

p.s. I’mna have to resurrect the “What is the Pix Capacitor?” post in a short while as I’m going to distribute this week. The regular blog posts will be under it. Sorry for the blatant commercialism.

Last Year: Ind e-Pen XI
| No Comments

The ABCs of Dating

Suppose A is dating B. They’ve dated for a while, but now A no longer has any feelings for B. A has two options:

1) break up with B (or take a break, whatever).
2) not break up with B, and keep it to herself.

What would be the ethical thing to do? I said that as a male, I’d choose (2), but as a member of the human race, I’d hope people would pick (1).

Let’s fix this by assigning value to each. Under (1), B would feel bad and A would feel bad that B felt bad (total feelings: -1.5). Under (2), A would feel slightly bad. Indeed, this would progress over their relationship until A felt so bad, and possibly resentful, that she would have to break up with B (total feelings: -0.5–>-1.0).

Indeed, this wouldn’t be worth it for A unless there were someone else for A to date. A person C, if you will.
Adding C, we get:

3) A leaves B, A & C get together, B resents C.
4) A leaves B, A & C do not get together.
5) A stays with B, A resents B for a missed opportunity with C.
6) A stays with B, A does not resent B.

Under (3), C gets 1 point, B loses 1, and A gets 0.5 (A feels bad for making B feel bad, but good for being with C). Under (4), A & B each lose a point, C stays neutral to negative 0.5 (-2.0 –> -2.5). Under (5), B stays neutral to positive 0.5, C stays neutral to negative 0.5, and A is negative 0.5 (-1.0 –> 0.0). Under (6), B stays neutral to positive 0.5, A stays neutral to positive 0.5, and C stays neutral to negative 0.5 (-0.5 –> 1.0).

Adding in some probabilities, then, lets us know the proper course of actions. Should A & B break up, what are the odds that A & C will get together? The provided percentage was 80. So if we multiply (3) x .8, (4) x .2, (5) x .8, and (6) x .2 (0.5 x .8, -2.5 x .2 –> -2.0 x .2, -1.0 x .8 –> 0.0 x .8, -0.5 x .2 –> 1.0 x .2)

We get (3)= 0.4, (4)= -0.5 –> -0.4, (5)= -0.8 –> 0.0, (6)= -0.1 –> 0.2.
Adding together (3) & (4) and (5) & (6), as would behoove us seeing as there are really only two courses of action for A (1 & 2), we get:

breaking up = -0.1 –> 0.0,
staying together = -0.9 –> 0.2.

Meaning that the greatest good (and also the greatest bad) can be achieved by staying together. It’s all up to the gambling mindset of person A.

But really what is between A & C? It’s really just B.

And not just alphabetically.

Last Year: Ind e-Pen XI
| No Comments

Letter to the Editor 2

It amuses me that the Parking Aides who are so adamant about everyone on campus reading the NMSU Parking and Traffic Regulations are the exact ones that could not even finish reading a simple letter to the editor. Perhaps this says something about my writing?
In my earlier letter, I made specific references to the traffic regulations which affected me in my case. I know what I did wrong. I also know what’s wrong with the current system, which, if you were not so inclined to read my earlier letter, was what I argued to change.
I know the current system allows you to boot and tow cars that are otherwise legally parked. I know the current system fines poor college students an amount of money that approaches and sometimes surpasses the actual cost of a Parking Permit. I know the law. It’s the reason I sought to change it.
As for the argument to not blame the Parking Aides: I contend that they share not just a portion, but the majority of the blame.
I contend that being a Parking Aide is a moral abomination. Let me tell you why.
Suppose it was my job to sodomize orphan puppies every time they defecated in places not specifically marked for puppies. Now, as a Sodomizing Aide, I, too, would argue that you should leave me alone and take it to my employer. After all, I don’t particularly enjoy my job, but I need the money, and besides: all of the puppies were warned what would happen should they poop in the wrong place.
However, as a member of the human race, I find it morally impermissible for you to let me cause such great harm to any being, even IF they left their droppings in the wrong place.

You’d argue that this case is different. After all, the puppy didn’t know about the regulation! And even if he did, he wasn’t able to find an open spot that was marked for puppies! And he hadn’t been sodomized for that in the past! Furthermore, there was another puppy that defecated in the same area and nobody had sodomized him! Besides, the puppy wouldn’t agree with the punishment, and even if he could, he can’t possibly afford to be sodomized.
Those readers familiar with the NMSU Parking and Traffic Regulations would note that every single one of those excuses is absolutely forbidden to be used as “the sole defense against a citation.”
And yet, at the end of the day, what bad things have happened?
If I kept my job, some puppies would be sodomized, but relatively few droppings would be in the wrong place. If I refused to take part in this, puppies in need of going to the bathroom would not have to traverse the entire campus to leave their droppings and no puppies would lose their man-flower.
As you can see by my politically incorrect (yet so appropriate) analogy, there is an inherent evil to working as a Parking Aide.
But why stop there? While I have this medium, let me deconstruct every other argument you are likely to use.
“It’s My Job.” It seems that there are other, less morally repugnant jobs available, like shampoo boy at Super Cuts. The economy, Mr. Smith, is not so bad that you must remain a Parking Aide. I am personally working two jobs, neither of which requires me to give citations to my peers.
“We just make sure people park where they’re supposed to. You wouldn’t want a system where everybody just parked where they wanted.” Of course not. I mean, how terrible would it be if everyone was equal and everyone was able to park where they wanted? Does this remind anyone else of World War II? ‘Supposed to…’ As if the color of our sticker is any reason to discriminate against us.
“If you don’t park illegally, what are you worried about?” This is the same argument people use about the USAPATRIOT Act, the Holocaust, and slavery. As H.L. Mencken said, “the trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
“We’re just enforcing what the Board of Regents laid out for the Parking Office.” To which we respond with another Mencken quote, “Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel.”

-Pixel Q. Styx

Last Year: Ind e-Pen XI
| 1 Comment