[Error: unknown template qotd]

Depends on what you mean by optimist and pessimist. On the one hand, I'm a pessimist in the sense that I always expect the worst of unknown situations. Frankly I think it's stupid to always believe the best is going to happen, because you're just asking to be disappointed! If you expect the worst, you either get exactly what you expected or you're happily surprised. I tend to worry a lot about things before they happen but they almost never end up as bad as I imagine. I'd rather do this than get all excited in anticipation only to be let down.

On the other, my ability to have faith in people makes me an optimist by some definitions. While I certainly don't expect people to do the right thing or behave positively towards each other all the time and am very well aware how selfish, ignorant, and downright cruel they can be, I also know that much of this is circumstantial and doesn't indicate people aren't capable of positive behavior given a different set of conditions. I have faith that most people are capable of change and positive behavior under the right conditions.

I'm also pretty good about making the best of a bad situation once it has occurred. There's usually a period of moping and despair in there proportionate to the level of disappointment, but once it's out of my system I move on pretty cleanly. I have a grieving period and then I work with what I have left. At a certain point it stops being the circumstances holding you back, but you yourself.

Also as a side note, I hate the expression "half-empty" and "half-full" to describe pessimism and optimism. Who the fuck looks at a glass of liquid and describes it in relation to the lack of liquid? Even the most depressive, fatalistic people I know refer to a glass as "half full of [whatever]" rather than "half not full." Maybe if this were rephrased as "If half your drink is left, do you say you're 'halfway done' or 'still have half to go'" it would make more sense, but I could write a short book on how many cliche expressions misrepresent themselves in their wording. ("Have your cake and eat it too"-- DOESN'T EATING IMPLY HAVING??). Personally I'm more partial to variations on the story of optimist and pessimist kids presented with a room full of shit.

[Error: unknown template qotd]

Haha no. There are places in the world even less likely to see snow at this moment (or ever!), but movies have been made about the improbability of it snowing where I live now.

It did rain a little bit earlier today and it's been getting as low as the high 30sF (2-3C) at night recently-- and there is snow visible on some of the mountains in the distance-- but I'll be traveling across the country to get my potential white Christmas; it's nearly 70% more likely.

[Error: unknown template qotd]

"Must-see" is pretty loose for me, since I'm capable of going the holiday season watching no Christmas-themed movies and not even noticing, but my favorite holiday movies are:

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (the animated one)
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (the stop-motion one)
Muppet Christmas Carol
A Christmas Story

Growing up we also had a compilation of Disney Christmas-themed shorts on VHS called A Walt Disney Christmas, which I probably watched more than any of the above simply because we owned it and could watch it whenever instead of waiting for it to be on TV. (Though we did have Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer recorded off the TV to a tape, too; it just wasn't very good quality).

[Error: unknown template qotd]

I think "whoever asked the other person out" is a pretty good rule of thumb, since it not only accounts for changing gender roles but covers same-sex couples as well. If you suggested the outing and made the arrangements, it makes sense you foot the bill. It also conveniently prevents a lot of awkwardness in the form of disappointed expectations; for example, there are some women who are offended by the very suggestion that the man should ever not pay for the date, but these women probably would never make the first move and ask the man out first, either, so they'll never be in that position.

I'm not opposed to splitting the bill, either, but I think in date situations it's more romantic if one person treats the other person entirely, regardless of that person's gender or income.* However, even when being treated I do make a point of offering to pay my part for the evening-- and I'm fully prepared to do so, and won't be offended if he takes me up on it-- but if he turns me down once, I don't insist again and just offer my gracious thanks for the outing. And that's the gesture I would expect if I were paying for a man on a first date, too-- offering to pay as a sign of respect for what went into the date, but ultimately deferring to the fact I invited you and am fully capable of footing the bill.

*I've seen a lot of people responding to this question with: "whoever has the largest income," but that seems golddiggery to me-- like, you could just go around asking random rich people out on ostentatious dates and then they're supposed to pay for both of you? Plus why should a person be denied the opportunity to treat someone just because their partner has a higher income? Paying for someone's outing-- even if the only costs accrued are an ice cream at the park-- is a symbolic gesture, and honestly I think I'd be more offended than relieved if I planned a date in my budget and was ready to pay but was refused because of the disparity in our incomes!

Of course, there are all kinds of complications and exceptions, and you really have to read it on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes a date involves multiple events (like dinner + movie) and it works out nicely that each person pays for a different part. Sometimes a first date is ambiguous, and splitting the check is the best way to address the ambiguity. Sometimes there's just practical factors like the two meet up for coffee and since the guy got there first, already ordered, and is trying to hold the table, the girl is on her own to get her drink. (That was my first date with Robert!). I think most of all, both parties should be flexible and polite, and not read too much into whatever happens. Presumably you've learned more about the person on the date than just how they handle the check!

So this is really frustrating: The question mark + slash key no longer works on my keyboard.

It may have something to do with some water that got splashed on my keyboard two days ago, since that's also the day it stopped working; the SD/XD card reader has stopped working as well. But absolutely nothing else is wrong with the computer, and it seems very bizarre the malfunction is this specific.

And come on, why couldn't it be, like, the tilde that broke? (Especially since the water hit the left side of my keyboard anyway; I don't even know how it affected the question mark + slash key!). Or one of the numbers on the side numerical keypad I don't use? I recently discovered I can still type a slash with one of the keys near said numerical keypad (though it's going to take some getting used to, as all the LJ codes for style, cut, links, etc are now automatic to me and I keep leaving them open-ended because the slash doesn't type), but every time I want to type a question mark I now have to copy and paste it from somewhere else ):{

Anyone know a way to program an easy question mark command? Like I can press alt + something and it types it for me? Sometimes I need to copy and paste things besides a question mark.

[Error: unknown template qotd]

I have all sorts of problems with the way this question is phrased (damn the multiple meanings of "love"! and fuck the word "destined") but I think I can address the essence of the question.

I don't think we can help who we are attracted to. It's some sum of biology and life experience (associations with certain physical features and personality traits based on others we know with those traits, etc) that give us almost innate preferences for certain people. Timing also plays a factor, like what we're looking for when we meet the person, the context we meet them in (some places are just sexier cues than others) and, if we're a heterosexual female, whether we're at a certain point in our monthly cycles that gives her a preference for a masculine vs. androgynous man. Attraction is instinctual; you feel it almost instantaneously. I don't think there is time for free will.

I don't think we can even help *falling in love,* either. Once all the right cues are in place, the proper hormones kick in and our brain goes into crush mode. Some people are better at resisting (or logicking themselves out of) the pull of this, but for most of us feelings are pretty instinctual as well.

HOWEVER, no matter how we feel, we have free will regarding how to act on it. Just because you find a person beautiful doesn't mean the angels arranged your fated union in heaven. (Yes, I'm talking to you, James Blunt). Finding a person beautiful doesn't even mean you have to even talk to them; you can choose to just walk away. Attraction is not obligation. A crush is not a mandate to pursue. And even if you have already fallen hook line and sinker in love, you can choose to surround yourself with supportive friends, nurse yourself with a few sad movies, and start to forget them.

And, surprisingly often, this is the best idea. Sometimes we can see from the get-go that a person we are attracted to is unaccessible or just straight-up bad news. (James, you said it yourself: "She was with another man"!). Sometimes we find out they aren't into us, or as into us as they ought to be. Sometimes we discover they self-destruct or abuse others, or other dealbreakers. Sometimes we just discover they're going somewhere or doing something that doesn't fit in our life plan. I don't think our feelings for them "fate" us to suffer in unpleasant circumstances. Our free will is our gift to walk away.

Walk away, and perhaps find someone new. There are plenty of other options for love out there. I think the concept of soulmates, one single true love in the entire universe which you must find or die lonely and incomplete (even if they live in Mongolia and you'll never meet? even if they live in a parallel universe? even if they're already dead??), is one of the most illogical (and depressingly pessimistic) things I've ever heard of. Why on earth would only one person possibly be fated to be with you? We may have a very specific set of preferences, but there are more than 6 billion people on the planet, for crying out loud. What's more, we are biologically wired to mate (and probably to mate with more than one person); our species would be gone if we had to hike over seven continents to find our One True Partner. However so much you love the one you're with, there's another (probably hundreds of anothers) you could love just as well. You might love them *differently,* as they're a different person; you would connect in different ways and your relationship might have a different energy or dynamic; but it would still be love, just as valid as any other love. (Take it away, Tim Minchin!).

Finding someone to develop loving feelings for involves an element of chance, certainly. But choosing to enter and maintain a relationship-- true, lasting love-- is all up to you.

[Error: unknown template qotd]

Admittedly I don't play Truth or Dare much these days, lol, but I almost always pick Truth, because I'm not ashamed of who I am, what I've done, or how I feel, and thus there's really nothing anyone could ask me in intimate company that I would be afraid to confess. On the contrary, I'm quite fond of oversharing. Why else would I keep an LJ? ;-P

On the other hand, if I chose Dare, I might end up with experiences I regret. I only choose Dare if I know and trust the people playing to choose reasonable Dares, not anything that could seriously harm me, get me into legal trouble, or defy any of my personal principles.

Just a quick pop-in to say I made it back to the US! I arrived in Detroit last night and my mom and sister drove me back to the lake, where I pretty much went straight to bed after a much-needed shower. (Though here I am, up 6 hours later at 5:30 in the morning. Thanks, jet lag!).

I probably won't be "caught up" with everything online until I actually get to LA and a little more settled, though. This week is going to be pretty busy with seeing a lot of people and getting a lot of errands done. But . . . home safe!

So, I ran into an interesting question today. I worked with Mr. H (the one who brings me candy) and we did a lesson with the JHS 3rd years on "since (date)" and "for (period of time)"-- like, "I have lived in London for 6 years" or "I have lived in Hagi since I was born."

Before we could start, though, we had to talk a little about the pronunciation of years, since English is unique in that until the year 2000, the years are divided into two-digit segments*, like "Eighteen fifty-two" (1852) and "Nineteen ninety-six" (1996). Mr. H had deduced that the 2000s are pronounced "Two-thousand (and X)," but then he took me totally off-guard when he asked me: "But now is this year 'Two-thousand eleven' or 'Twenty eleven'?"

*This is different from every other language I've learned to say the date in (Japanese and Spanish), in which you read the number the way you normally would-- which feels so long-winded to me since I'm used to the simplifying split. This was especially noticeable when I took Spanish in middle school straddling the millennium change; I was so relieved when we got to switch from the tongue-twisting "Mil novecientos noventa y nueve" to simple "Dos mil."

It's funny, because I remember wondering in the late '90s whether 2000 and the following decade would be pronounced "Twenty-hundred" (since we said "Nineteen-hundred" for 1900) and I was kind of put off when everyone said "Two-thousand" with no exception, since that didn't fit with the pattern of every other year. However, I obviously got used to it, because by the time 2010 rolled around I just automatically called it "Two-thousand ten" and I didn't think to question it until today.

And then I realized: I haven't lived in an English-speaking country during this decade. While I know what I say, I don't know if it matches up with the majority. (And maybe it differs depending on region or something anyway?). I don't think year nomenclature is the sort of thing with published rules, at least not that anyone would pay enough attention to to follow, so all I can think of is to take a poll. What do you say?

[Poll #1754615]

I'm going to pass the results along to Mr. H. Like the Rock, Paper, Scissors (or whatever you call it-- that's the point!) thing it's probably way more interesting to me than him (and he's just annoyed there I things I don't *know* about my native language, lol), but hey.

[Error: unknown template qotd]

We already had this question as a Writer's Block, it was just in reference to the world ending in 2012. And while I'm all for answering this hypothetically, as I did then (though my answer this time around doesn't really differ from the first one I gave?), even hypothetically I'm probably not pious enough to be have been (it's now 6:00!) at risk of being taken during the rapture anyway. Rapture =/= end of the world. The end of the world, according to Mr. Camping, won't transpire until October.

(Though apparently in Camping's universe, church-goers are in fact automatically barred from the rapture because all churches are now run by Satan?? Well, sheesh . . . in that case, maybe I had a fighting chance XD).

But anyway, 6:00 pm here in Japan and all is well. (Of course, Japan isn't a very Christian place, so maybe the people enraptured are so few I just have failed to notice). But I probably shouldn't be surprised to learn that Harold Camping also predicted the rapture in 1994. He's like a modern-day William Miller.* I just hope the people who made preparations based on his predictions are shown some mercy when they try to get all their stuff back /-:

*Note: If you want to begin a religious movement, it's generally a wise idea to avoid:
1) predicting your immortality
2) predicting the end of the world

Though in fairness, Miller's followers, the Millerites, did not subsequently dissolve but continued on to become Adventists, who number in the millions worldwide. Of course, none of the Adventists I know seem to have been too fussed over the predictions this time around . . .