thoughts of the moment

I feel that I both have way too much time, and way too little time on my hands all at the same time

I would love it if time would slow down for me, but I'm a very poor runner so likely that's not gonna happen...

...although time has no problem speeding up on me when I have something important to do, yet little time to do it in

I know I shouldn't be wasting my time writing in a blog, but I also feel that doing so helps me to in a way retain (a semblance of) my sanity

I'm 3 hours into the second full day of easter break, but I haven't gotten any work done, and it kills me...

...on the otherhand I've read a lot of comics, talked to friends, eaten food, slept, tinkered with my computer, and done any number of things that I haven't done in ...ages.

does that make it justified?

I like to think that I'm getting better at figuring out linux, yet it still took me a half an hour of concentrated effort (well... semi-concentrated effort) and internet searching to figure out how to get root privileges...

....I'm making a list, and when I get back to campus, I'll remember what I need to ask the people that actually understand all this ubuntu stuff

I've taken up a new hobby:
asking people random questions
one such question: "if you ruled the world, what would you do first?"
the answer suprised me.
...interestingly I can't think of a suitable answer to the question myself

what would be the point in ruling the world? eventually it would get boring as you have to manage all those people, and resources and worry about getting killed or betrayed, or something.

personally I'd much rather have my own area, off to myself, where I can live as I will without the rule of governemt or the threat of anarchy, just live according to my own laws, with my family, and have a means of reaching friends.
I'll sit, and read, and learn, and perhaps program, and of course sleep
even watch tv or movies if I get too bored.
it would be a nice life, one of semi solitude.

I wonder what it would be like to live a life alone, with out any type of interaction with other living beings, they say we humans are social creatures, and I'm inclined to agree, but I have no way of knowing... how do we know? I've read plenty of books on philosophy and so people say so many different things, yet one can't help but ask the question how do these people know?
because they were here before us? that's not a valid argument.
during class discussions I hear people (my professor in particular) bringing up things that other philosophers said as a means to back up his point, but I'm compelled to wonder, "how does that help your arguement?"
if one dead philospher said it, it doesn't make it true.
how do we know that humans are social creatures?
or that animals feel pain or don't feel pain.
or that sociaty is good, or society is bad.
it perverts us, it protects us, it aids us, it frees us from our animal nature.

what all these books on philosophy I've read, or discussed say is that something must be how they describe it, and they know it, without proof, or even legitimate justification. from the point of view of one man or woman, you can't see all the world, you can't tell the nature of every human, or every animal.
you can give opinions, but they will always be tainted with your perspective. which is what is inherently wrong with trying to find an end-all model for human behaviour or anything that implies a global scope or even a scope that extends outside that of a normal human.
we can't leave ourselves, there's no feasible way of looking at things outside of our own perspective, no matter where we go we keep that with us, and it forever has and will affect the world as we see it.