just in case anyone's wondering why i didn't go to church today, well, i'm sick again.
It hasn't escalated to a full-blown fever + cold sick, started off with a sorethroat on thursday/friday then became a slight cough, then got a cold yday and today. Hope it gets well by tmr :/ have GP exam tmr.. and exams the whole week.
feeling very drowsy now but i'm trying not to sleep .. otherwise i'll have difficutly falling asleep at night as tested in the past 2 nights.
pray for me. :/
Sunday, 18 March 2007
Friday, 16 March 2007
emopic
man, this is such an emopic. :)
i couldn't figure out how to make torn edges otherwise it'll be nicer. Y'know those burnt/torn edges look.
i couldn't figure out how to make torn edges otherwise it'll be nicer. Y'know those burnt/torn edges look.
Tuesday, 13 March 2007
ill pay you 5 dollars to read this
well, actually i wont.
so what can you do?
I was just thinking of one of the most classic arguments, always have on TV, books, possibly even our everyday lives.
Take a simple basic example:
"I'll give you $10 if you stand on the table and sing a song"
(Or a more generic one would be:
"I'll give you $$ if you -action- ")
So here comes the argument:
'You give me $10 first then i do'
"Later i give you then you run away with my money. You sing first then i give you."
'But what if i do already then you dont give?'
So who should win here? In real life, the quarreling usually goes on and on and in the end the 'dare' is never carried out. In TV shows the hero of the show usually goes 'well you just have to trust me' but obviously this is not a fair argument so i was just thinking about what is the 'correct' way of settling this argument.
This can be solved simply by examining who stands to lose more. Let's call the person who offers the money as Moneyman (lol can't think of anything else that would be not confusing) and the person offered the money as Stuntman.
(see so easy distinguishable)
I'll try to argue for both sides as much as i can:
If Stuntman takes the money and does NOT do the required stunt, Moneyman can chase after the Stuntman for his money back. I mean, they're most likely acquaintances at least so when i say chase i dont mean Stuntman run away and dont pay back, but Moneyman bug him la.
Moneyman's can like try to beat Stuntman up and back his money.. or maybe call in authorities say Stuntman steal his money.
But at this point, Stuntman can simply go 'huh what dare where got dare' or even 'But Moneyman gave me the money on his own accord!' and without a 3rd party, it's simply unresolvable and Stuntman will most probably get away with it.
If Moneyman does NOT pay Stuntman after Stuntman has done the task, Stuntman can chase Moneyman for the agreed money. However, he has almost nothing to say if Moneyman dismisses it trivially like 'Lol such a simple thing you think i'll give you 10 dollars', which the authorities would agree with too. Stuntman hence possibly loses alot of face, and maybe also kena food poisoning if the dare was eat some nonsense.
Assuming that Stuntman wins in the first scenario and Moneyman wins in the second, it is clear that though Moneyman just loses money in the first case, Stuntman loses face and possibly reputation in the second. On top of that, Stuntman's argument in the first scenario is quite weak, perhaps if he kept the money he could be asked how much money he has in his wallet.. then if suddenly got extra that means he cope ma.
Hence Moneyman > Stuntman.
Therefore, Stuntman has a higher chance to lose in both scenarios. hence, the 'correct' way to resolve this is just to give the money to Stuntman first as in scenario 1, since he would lose more in Scenario 2 (his face) and he has a weak argument in scenario 1 anyway.
Kudos =)
haha you probably think this is pointless but think about it.. i'm sure you'd have encountered several similar situations before and the dare is just put off or the stuntman has to sacrifice. So you should pay the stuntman! Pay him first then he do. Then he got more incentive also can do better. =D
bye
so what can you do?
I was just thinking of one of the most classic arguments, always have on TV, books, possibly even our everyday lives.
Take a simple basic example:
"I'll give you $10 if you stand on the table and sing a song"
(Or a more generic one would be:
"I'll give you $$ if you -action- ")
So here comes the argument:
'You give me $10 first then i do'
"Later i give you then you run away with my money. You sing first then i give you."
'But what if i do already then you dont give?'
So who should win here? In real life, the quarreling usually goes on and on and in the end the 'dare' is never carried out. In TV shows the hero of the show usually goes 'well you just have to trust me' but obviously this is not a fair argument so i was just thinking about what is the 'correct' way of settling this argument.
This can be solved simply by examining who stands to lose more. Let's call the person who offers the money as Moneyman (lol can't think of anything else that would be not confusing) and the person offered the money as Stuntman.
(see so easy distinguishable)
I'll try to argue for both sides as much as i can:
If Stuntman takes the money and does NOT do the required stunt, Moneyman can chase after the Stuntman for his money back. I mean, they're most likely acquaintances at least so when i say chase i dont mean Stuntman run away and dont pay back, but Moneyman bug him la.
Moneyman's can like try to beat Stuntman up and back his money.. or maybe call in authorities say Stuntman steal his money.
But at this point, Stuntman can simply go 'huh what dare where got dare' or even 'But Moneyman gave me the money on his own accord!' and without a 3rd party, it's simply unresolvable and Stuntman will most probably get away with it.
If Moneyman does NOT pay Stuntman after Stuntman has done the task, Stuntman can chase Moneyman for the agreed money. However, he has almost nothing to say if Moneyman dismisses it trivially like 'Lol such a simple thing you think i'll give you 10 dollars', which the authorities would agree with too. Stuntman hence possibly loses alot of face, and maybe also kena food poisoning if the dare was eat some nonsense.
Assuming that Stuntman wins in the first scenario and Moneyman wins in the second, it is clear that though Moneyman just loses money in the first case, Stuntman loses face and possibly reputation in the second. On top of that, Stuntman's argument in the first scenario is quite weak, perhaps if he kept the money he could be asked how much money he has in his wallet.. then if suddenly got extra that means he cope ma.
Hence Moneyman > Stuntman.
Therefore, Stuntman has a higher chance to lose in both scenarios. hence, the 'correct' way to resolve this is just to give the money to Stuntman first as in scenario 1, since he would lose more in Scenario 2 (his face) and he has a weak argument in scenario 1 anyway.
Kudos =)
haha you probably think this is pointless but think about it.. i'm sure you'd have encountered several similar situations before and the dare is just put off or the stuntman has to sacrifice. So you should pay the stuntman! Pay him first then he do. Then he got more incentive also can do better. =D
bye
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)