Here's a short back-story. Well, less story, more background info.
Here's some back-info: I like stories. Really impressive ones. The medium doesn't matter, though I can normally just not be bothered with books as they take effort and i am really freaking lazy.
Heck, everyone likes stories. You've probably been playing with lego and created a character in that tiny little model. That's why we like plays and movies and games. Because we like stories.
My dream job is to be a games designer, cause games are awesome but also because it's such a massive engine of story! You can create any characters in any world, and the players can create THEIR own stories as well! I've just got so many stories, I crave a way to show these.
What I'm currently doing? Scripts.
Which is great. Lots. I've got a colab going with my mate who I may have mentioned a name for, but have forgotten. Meh, he's now 'Nameless'. Basically, it recounts the time Kalvin met a girl online and things went... bad. I say '... bad', she dumped him when she say an image of him. It's kind of funny, if inaccurate.
There's also a sci-fi action comedy I've got in mind about an assassin company who basically have to deal with really, really bad rivals. Just to give you an idea of how bad they are, the good guys kill people for commission. The bad guys blow up trains to hit one target.
There's a series of the pantomime stories (Cinderella, Aladdin) being turned into a modern setting (most of the time) with a massively comic element. Can't think of many stories to do, but I definitely enjoy writing them.
I've also got a concept going of a schoolyard sketch-show, with loads of short skits set in school scenarios. This one's fairly new, but I had so many jokes about examination I couldn't NOT do it.
Then come in the ideas I have that wouldn't work in script form. I've got a massive sci-fi universe of 8 stories, three of which would make pretty good games. I've thought up a trilogy based around really deadly spells going psychopathic. The list goes on. One of these hasn't been put ON the list.
I'm boring you, aren't I? Sorry...
Well, here's a joke to make it up to you: A man is walking along and he sees a frog on the ground. The from says "Hello kind sir. Kiss me, and I'll turn into a beautiful princess!"
He just picks up the frog and continues to walk along. The frog says "When I'm a princess, I'll tell everyone of your amazing skills"
He thinks nothing of this. "I'll be your girlfriend for a month, fawning over you."
He doesn't care. "I'll do anything you want for a year!"
Meh. "What is wrong with you? I've promised to do anything for you, and you still won't kiss me?"
"I'm an engineering student. I've got no time for a girlfriend, but a talking frog is awesome!"
You've heard that before haven't you? Darn...
Oh well. I don't have much to say, really. Now I'm questioning why I, with my social life as active as it is, decided to blog about it.
Meh... What'cha gonna do?
Thursday 26 May 2011
Cutting it short
I am in the midst of my science exams and... I don't feel like summing up a curriculum in a blog, as I cannot be bothered. I could sum up the best bits, but I seriously don't want to. Then comes the maths, and just... wow...
So... I shan't be making exam blogs anymore. There's just nothing to write about anymore. Luckily, nobody shall be upset, as nobody reads the blog.
Now, to use up the rest of your time, I shall perform a juggling act!
C'mon, work with me here! This isn't a Vlog, just a standard blog. You'll have to use imagination!
Wow... this post turned out to be depressingly bad. The next one will be better due to impossibility of the other outcomes.
So... I shan't be making exam blogs anymore. There's just nothing to write about anymore. Luckily, nobody shall be upset, as nobody reads the blog.
Now, to use up the rest of your time, I shall perform a juggling act!
C'mon, work with me here! This isn't a Vlog, just a standard blog. You'll have to use imagination!
Wow... this post turned out to be depressingly bad. The next one will be better due to impossibility of the other outcomes.
Tuesday 17 May 2011
English Exams (part 2)
A while ago, I posted a blog about my english exam paper 1. Well, a paper one means there's a paper 2, so I shall discuss that now.
Now, this paper, like the first, is split into two. To fully understand alot of the similarities, I'll just tell you to read part 1.
Paper 2 section A is reading culture poetry. The poems are in a book made just for the exams, containing two clusters of poetry for the paper 2 and a whole amount for the literature poems. As you can guess, these poems areoutstanding intriguing thoroughly checked for school suitibility before ever released cheap to obtain.
Sadly, readinng these poems is not the entire test; we also have to decide why the poems are effective with their language and structure and presentation. Stiiill not sure how presentation doesn't actually include structure. Even less sure how good their devices are, considering one is written to clearly depict a heavy scottish accent that I'd actually allow an american to ask subtitles for and another just switches to a foreign language in the middle, only showing you how to pronounce it and not what it actually says.
The linguistic techniques they apparently use are things such as metaphors and personification. The more rediculous include variations of repetition. Apparently things repeated three times is worthy of it's own rule. Acutally, that is true. I use it often. Nevermind, rule of three makes sense.
Repeating letters is also common. Assonance is when the sound in a word is repeated, though you're thoroughly tough to know without it spoken, which is heresy in exams. Then comes a specific form called sibilance, which is when the sound repeated is an S sound, which is seriously stupid, you should know. S sounds shouldn't show up so often, and it's just a wonder that T sounds aren't the repeated think that talking about obtains marks for. Though, thinking about it, turbulence is taken, thus invalidating it.
I wish I could say more about it, I really do... Probably why I'm better at writing sections than reading sections.
Then comes my overall best section, Paper 2 section B, writing to describe, inform or explain. These don't take any usual formats, being leaflets or articles, or even being a plain and simple piece of fiction. I like to describe, as I always get marked well for it.
I never bother with the last two, so I shall not explain them. Instead, I shalt inform you of how to describe. In short, be dramatic. This works best, as it grips far easier than other genres. You could do humorous, but you'd have to make sure you include techniques in it.
Erm... thinking of how to describe -would you believe- describing... Hey, you know books? Good books, the kind you're not told to study in school. Yeah, those! Think of the most descriptive passage. The passage that takes up most probably several pages, but would never be shown in the film due to the fact it's talking about a still image, and films are moving pictures. The things that are best shown as an event-free camera panning across and up, and maybe an owl flies past.
...Shut up! Let's see you think of a decent example not written by J.K Rowling.
...SHUT UP!!
Henyway, write that. Well, sort of. Write in that sort of style, but about whatever you're told to write about. If need be, write as if you've forgotten the name of what you're talking about, and it's on the tip of your tongue. But don't use second person. And no clicking in an exam. I've learned that it's just as bad as talking.
So, if you make sure to write this description like that, with a good number of metaphors and repetition, you'll be fine.
Don't Panic
Now, this paper, like the first, is split into two. To fully understand alot of the similarities, I'll just tell you to read part 1.
Paper 2 section A is reading culture poetry. The poems are in a book made just for the exams, containing two clusters of poetry for the paper 2 and a whole amount for the literature poems. As you can guess, these poems are
Sadly, readinng these poems is not the entire test; we also have to decide why the poems are effective with their language and structure and presentation. Stiiill not sure how presentation doesn't actually include structure. Even less sure how good their devices are, considering one is written to clearly depict a heavy scottish accent that I'd actually allow an american to ask subtitles for and another just switches to a foreign language in the middle, only showing you how to pronounce it and not what it actually says.
The linguistic techniques they apparently use are things such as metaphors and personification. The more rediculous include variations of repetition. Apparently things repeated three times is worthy of it's own rule. Acutally, that is true. I use it often. Nevermind, rule of three makes sense.
Repeating letters is also common. Assonance is when the sound in a word is repeated, though you're thoroughly tough to know without it spoken, which is heresy in exams. Then comes a specific form called sibilance, which is when the sound repeated is an S sound, which is seriously stupid, you should know. S sounds shouldn't show up so often, and it's just a wonder that T sounds aren't the repeated think that talking about obtains marks for. Though, thinking about it, turbulence is taken, thus invalidating it.
I wish I could say more about it, I really do... Probably why I'm better at writing sections than reading sections.
Then comes my overall best section, Paper 2 section B, writing to describe, inform or explain. These don't take any usual formats, being leaflets or articles, or even being a plain and simple piece of fiction. I like to describe, as I always get marked well for it.
I never bother with the last two, so I shall not explain them. Instead, I shalt inform you of how to describe. In short, be dramatic. This works best, as it grips far easier than other genres. You could do humorous, but you'd have to make sure you include techniques in it.
Erm... thinking of how to describe -would you believe- describing... Hey, you know books? Good books, the kind you're not told to study in school. Yeah, those! Think of the most descriptive passage. The passage that takes up most probably several pages, but would never be shown in the film due to the fact it's talking about a still image, and films are moving pictures. The things that are best shown as an event-free camera panning across and up, and maybe an owl flies past.
...Shut up! Let's see you think of a decent example not written by J.K Rowling.
...SHUT UP!!
Henyway, write that. Well, sort of. Write in that sort of style, but about whatever you're told to write about. If need be, write as if you've forgotten the name of what you're talking about, and it's on the tip of your tongue. But don't use second person. And no clicking in an exam. I've learned that it's just as bad as talking.
So, if you make sure to write this description like that, with a good number of metaphors and repetition, you'll be fine.
Don't Panic
Monday 16 May 2011
Religious studies exams
1) How do examiners look at question one on RS exams?
2) Give two examples of question two requirements.
3) What do you need to know for question three?
4) What is the blogger's viewpoint on question four? Give examples.
5) "Why do we have to bother with RS? These questions are too much effort!" Discuss this statement and give a personal viewpoint. You must refer to Susaga in your answer.
1) They check it's correct, and move on.
2) It must be correct, and there must be two things.
3) Question three is worth three marks, so you have to work on it a little more than the previous two. However, three marks is not a lot, so you shouldn't focus on it. Basically, ramble a little, but stay relevent and keep the floodgates back a bit.
4) The blogger's viewpoint on question four is generally mundane. The OMGWGD division (oh my god we're gonna die) is generally panicked over the question, due to previous struggles with it. This fraction considers that, being worth six marks, this is an extremely difficult question.
However, the BIO division (bring it on) considers it a fairly simple task should you know how to do it. The method is simple: you have to refer to multiple varying views in the religion you're studying, and merely point out that they're different views. Don't psychoanalyze religion, as you won't get any marks. All you need is two paragraphs, at an appropriate length of the paragraph in question three.
5) The statement claiming RS exams being pointless is one that baffles many people, beyond simply Susaga. The views are fairly consistent when it comes to this question, beyond the simple struggle to actually structure well enough to secure twelve marks.
RS is a topic that helps our understanding of the cultures in the world, and an absence of such can make us really closed minded. Most people really dislike people being closed minded, but show themselves as hypocrites. They need RS to expand their point of view, or at least to help with their use of devils ante to back up whatever arguments they use against people.
The question structure, however, is less appreciated, being fairly complex and needing quick and varied levels of response. The use of multiple viewpoints does, however, fulfill the complete understanding needed in the subject.
I, personally, do not like RS, but understand the need for the exams. While they are my most difficult exams to do, I should hope that I can do them well with a good understanding of what is needed. I understand the basic format of the questions, and can spoof answers to a moderate degree of accuracy (aside from the spoofing) so I should do well. However, I am slightly panicked that my ending saying has now, self hurtingly, become advice for myself.
Don't panic.
2) Give two examples of question two requirements.
3) What do you need to know for question three?
4) What is the blogger's viewpoint on question four? Give examples.
5) "Why do we have to bother with RS? These questions are too much effort!" Discuss this statement and give a personal viewpoint. You must refer to Susaga in your answer.
1) They check it's correct, and move on.
2) It must be correct, and there must be two things.
3) Question three is worth three marks, so you have to work on it a little more than the previous two. However, three marks is not a lot, so you shouldn't focus on it. Basically, ramble a little, but stay relevent and keep the floodgates back a bit.
4) The blogger's viewpoint on question four is generally mundane. The OMGWGD division (oh my god we're gonna die) is generally panicked over the question, due to previous struggles with it. This fraction considers that, being worth six marks, this is an extremely difficult question.
However, the BIO division (bring it on) considers it a fairly simple task should you know how to do it. The method is simple: you have to refer to multiple varying views in the religion you're studying, and merely point out that they're different views. Don't psychoanalyze religion, as you won't get any marks. All you need is two paragraphs, at an appropriate length of the paragraph in question three.
5) The statement claiming RS exams being pointless is one that baffles many people, beyond simply Susaga. The views are fairly consistent when it comes to this question, beyond the simple struggle to actually structure well enough to secure twelve marks.
RS is a topic that helps our understanding of the cultures in the world, and an absence of such can make us really closed minded. Most people really dislike people being closed minded, but show themselves as hypocrites. They need RS to expand their point of view, or at least to help with their use of devils ante to back up whatever arguments they use against people.
The question structure, however, is less appreciated, being fairly complex and needing quick and varied levels of response. The use of multiple viewpoints does, however, fulfill the complete understanding needed in the subject.
I, personally, do not like RS, but understand the need for the exams. While they are my most difficult exams to do, I should hope that I can do them well with a good understanding of what is needed. I understand the basic format of the questions, and can spoof answers to a moderate degree of accuracy (aside from the spoofing) so I should do well. However, I am slightly panicked that my ending saying has now, self hurtingly, become advice for myself.
Don't panic.
English Exams (Part 1)
Muuuuuuuuuuuuh... Exams always make me moan, and I never revise for them. Well, I did a few times, but I still just got a B in biology and the other time I was just hoping that staring at the book long enough would help. Now, I worked out a new method of cramming this info in my head.
Can you guess? ...No, I'm not making a flash game about trigonometry. I don't know how yet. Try again.
...I already said I just stare at the book and hope. Ok, I'll tell you. I'll blog about it!
For English, they split it into two halves (Lang and Lit) and split the first half into two papers with two sections each. I shall mock these section by section until I accidentally remember the stuff.
Paper 1 Section A is analysing non-fiction texts, or, in an ironic english, looking at crappy articles and booklets and whatnot and seeing all the dramatic effects they put in without realising. Seriously, a good number of these are articles and if I wasn't told what their point was by the paper, I would never guess.
At one point in time, I was answering questions about an article against young teen votes and, due to uncounered agruments for young votes and philosophies that there's no age of maturity, I assumed he was pro-voting at 16.
They have their opinions disguised as facts, as the actual facts are against their point, and they have to find respected scientists or psychologists in fields so far from the actual subject debated you can tell they just went through a million people who know what they're talking about until he got to one who agreed with them. Then you must refer the captions of a picture to the style it's in and discuss what message this gives (apparently you get marked down for saying 'it was picked because it's pretty') and look at all the language techniques used. Frankly people reading newspapers don't care much for similes.
I find this section is my weakest. Wonder why...
Paper 1 section B I do far better in. This is the non-fiction writing section where you have 45 minutes to either pursuade some guy (normally a head teacher), argue some point (usually in a teen magazine, and my usual choice) or advise something.
It's fun being argumentative, as my previous blogs could tell you. In fact, I reckon it's a limited time until the exam gives you the option to write the text for a blog. That'd definitely be a future blog.
The things you write about are normally linked to section A, thus giving you a chance to correct the argumentative viewpoint from the first section. I expect to get a higher grade than the article I argue against ever would. Eg: If the argument was about violence, you'd be given the chance to argue for or against a ban violence in films. (Psst, I'll blog about that once I'm done with this. You probably read that first, though.)
I nearly always pick the against option, as the point you get to argue for or against is usually just codswallop.
If the exam was a whole lot less important, you could expect alot of surreal essays. In a revision lesson today, there was a question to advise local newcomers. This seems simple, until you remember that the examiner will never be bothered to check this is true, being too busy looking for your techniques. So the extract "Why are the tanks armed? For your protection, of course!" would earn you some marks for rhetorical questions and exclamation marks.
Apparently, in one section, someone wrote "English is s-" and then something I won't say as the entire thing and still got two marks. You do not have to be serious in this. You can lie. There'll be a lot of teachers assuming that 83% of films have used the word 'stab', but aside from that, who cares?
I'm going to be doing this in many bits from here until I'm done because, not sure if you knew this, but there's a lot of exams and I can write alot about them. This is only one paper. I might write about RS soon, or I'll write about the other english paper. But you can expect that I'll definitely write alot.
Final words that I shall repeat at the end of every exam blog: Don't Panic.
Can you guess? ...No, I'm not making a flash game about trigonometry. I don't know how yet. Try again.
...I already said I just stare at the book and hope. Ok, I'll tell you. I'll blog about it!
For English, they split it into two halves (Lang and Lit) and split the first half into two papers with two sections each. I shall mock these section by section until I accidentally remember the stuff.
Paper 1 Section A is analysing non-fiction texts, or, in an ironic english, looking at crappy articles and booklets and whatnot and seeing all the dramatic effects they put in without realising. Seriously, a good number of these are articles and if I wasn't told what their point was by the paper, I would never guess.
At one point in time, I was answering questions about an article against young teen votes and, due to uncounered agruments for young votes and philosophies that there's no age of maturity, I assumed he was pro-voting at 16.
They have their opinions disguised as facts, as the actual facts are against their point, and they have to find respected scientists or psychologists in fields so far from the actual subject debated you can tell they just went through a million people who know what they're talking about until he got to one who agreed with them. Then you must refer the captions of a picture to the style it's in and discuss what message this gives (apparently you get marked down for saying 'it was picked because it's pretty') and look at all the language techniques used. Frankly people reading newspapers don't care much for similes.
I find this section is my weakest. Wonder why...
Paper 1 section B I do far better in. This is the non-fiction writing section where you have 45 minutes to either pursuade some guy (normally a head teacher), argue some point (usually in a teen magazine, and my usual choice) or advise something.
It's fun being argumentative, as my previous blogs could tell you. In fact, I reckon it's a limited time until the exam gives you the option to write the text for a blog. That'd definitely be a future blog.
The things you write about are normally linked to section A, thus giving you a chance to correct the argumentative viewpoint from the first section. I expect to get a higher grade than the article I argue against ever would. Eg: If the argument was about violence, you'd be given the chance to argue for or against a ban violence in films. (Psst, I'll blog about that once I'm done with this. You probably read that first, though.)
I nearly always pick the against option, as the point you get to argue for or against is usually just codswallop.
If the exam was a whole lot less important, you could expect alot of surreal essays. In a revision lesson today, there was a question to advise local newcomers. This seems simple, until you remember that the examiner will never be bothered to check this is true, being too busy looking for your techniques. So the extract "Why are the tanks armed? For your protection, of course!" would earn you some marks for rhetorical questions and exclamation marks.
Apparently, in one section, someone wrote "English is s-" and then something I won't say as the entire thing and still got two marks. You do not have to be serious in this. You can lie. There'll be a lot of teachers assuming that 83% of films have used the word 'stab', but aside from that, who cares?
I'm going to be doing this in many bits from here until I'm done because, not sure if you knew this, but there's a lot of exams and I can write alot about them. This is only one paper. I might write about RS soon, or I'll write about the other english paper. But you can expect that I'll definitely write alot.
Final words that I shall repeat at the end of every exam blog: Don't Panic.
Tuesday 3 May 2011
Alternative Voting
Well, I'm bored waiting for the latest How I Met Your Mother to load on megavideo, so I figured I'd share my views on AV, regardless of how I'm currently unable to vote on it (age). Yeah. This one's political.
So, the system Britain currently has going is just a standard 'you vote on who you want to win' and the first to obtain a particular number gets to rule the country. Sounds simple enough. Nothing wrong with that. Wait... How many parties?
Through many many varied methods of how the country should be run, although they're now just very slight changes, people often wind up with the odd member of a really obscure party voted in as an MP. This leaves a good amount of gaps unfilled to reach majority.
Let me explain. Say there's 299 placed avaliable. To gain majority, you'd need 150. With only two parties, you can have 150:149 and the left party wins. However, adding in a third party people vote for can end at the slight 149:149:1 vote. Nobody has majority, so the voting tanked.To rectify this, one of the parties could teem up with the third one, giving the needed 150. This is coalition.
However, we seem to have noticed that it's not really that fair. Instead of nobody leading us that we voted for, we have two people leading us we didn't. This generally ticks off half the population.
The alternative voting idea is that you order the parties in preference and the first party to reach 50% wins. For example: if a vote is 40% 35% 25%, they would take the least voted for pile and look at each votes second choice. This is then redistributed, so the leading ones get, I dunno, 45% 55%, and then the right hand party wins.
To me, this makes more sense then the 40 teaming up with 25, and ticking off 55 percent of people, doubly so for 20 percent whose votes have been considered dumb. Basically, if you don't get the most liked, you get the least hated.
If this wouldn't sway me, the idiocy of the No to AV reasoning really sways me to Yes. They say "It's far too complicated for the public", and yet I summed it up in a single paragraph. They say "It will let in smaller parties such as the BNP", but I fail to see how votes throughout saying ' I don't want him' will result in him getting in. They say "it will make coalitions more common", to which I just ask "how?" It appears someone doesn't understand it, and he's running the No campaign.
Well, How I Met Your Mother finished loading, so I'll leave it at that. Remember this decided how I vote, so do me a favor. Toodles! ...Never saying that again.
So, the system Britain currently has going is just a standard 'you vote on who you want to win' and the first to obtain a particular number gets to rule the country. Sounds simple enough. Nothing wrong with that. Wait... How many parties?
Through many many varied methods of how the country should be run, although they're now just very slight changes, people often wind up with the odd member of a really obscure party voted in as an MP. This leaves a good amount of gaps unfilled to reach majority.
Let me explain. Say there's 299 placed avaliable. To gain majority, you'd need 150. With only two parties, you can have 150:149 and the left party wins. However, adding in a third party people vote for can end at the slight 149:149:1 vote. Nobody has majority, so the voting tanked.To rectify this, one of the parties could teem up with the third one, giving the needed 150. This is coalition.
However, we seem to have noticed that it's not really that fair. Instead of nobody leading us that we voted for, we have two people leading us we didn't. This generally ticks off half the population.
The alternative voting idea is that you order the parties in preference and the first party to reach 50% wins. For example: if a vote is 40% 35% 25%, they would take the least voted for pile and look at each votes second choice. This is then redistributed, so the leading ones get, I dunno, 45% 55%, and then the right hand party wins.
To me, this makes more sense then the 40 teaming up with 25, and ticking off 55 percent of people, doubly so for 20 percent whose votes have been considered dumb. Basically, if you don't get the most liked, you get the least hated.
If this wouldn't sway me, the idiocy of the No to AV reasoning really sways me to Yes. They say "It's far too complicated for the public", and yet I summed it up in a single paragraph. They say "It will let in smaller parties such as the BNP", but I fail to see how votes throughout saying ' I don't want him' will result in him getting in. They say "it will make coalitions more common", to which I just ask "how?" It appears someone doesn't understand it, and he's running the No campaign.
Well, How I Met Your Mother finished loading, so I'll leave it at that. Remember this decided how I vote, so do me a favor. Toodles! ...Never saying that again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)