The ultimate desperado!

Are there any female readers out there looking for a FREE place to stay with FREE utilities provided? Look no further, because this fella I found on the net is offering it to you at Vista Komanwel KL: http://vk.com.my/node/144
The catch is, however, is that he's looking for a 'romantic relationship' with his would-be tenant.

This post was created to get a good laugh and to help a fellow man in distress ;)

Job Interview IQ Test

Ever had a company put you through a pre-interview IQ test? I had one yesterday and came across this fun question that I'd like to share.

'A' has a younger brother 'B', but 'A' is not 'B's older brother. What is 'A'?

It stumped me for a little while, but eventually I figured out the answer :). Can you?

Lifeboat

Here's an interesting piece I wanted to share, in my own words:

Say you're on a lifeboat with 10 other people after the luxury cruiseliner you were on sank due to a fire on board. Taking helm of captain of the boat, you say 'Everyone, this boat was made for 20 people and is stocked with more than enough rations. I say we each have an extra biscuit or 2 since these rations will last us well along until we're rescued, which should be in 24 hours. What say you?'. A lady pipes up and says, 'A biscuit or 2 more will certainly be welcome, but shouldn't we rescue that woman there in the water who has been calling out to us for the past hour?'.  Some of the people on board look embarassed, others look indignant. 'Why should we?", you reply. "We agreed that it's not us who killed her. It's certainly not our fault she's not on board". "If we don't save her, she'll die", says the lady. "Well, life's not fair and there's no free lunch", you reply. "Who wants another biscuit?".

This analogy represents the real world where some people in developed nations are not willing to give up their extra 'biscuits' to help those dying or severely disadvantaged in developing nations where malnutrition, lack of access to basics like clean water and medicine are taking the lives of people on a daily basis. In a local context, it represents the upper/middle class and those below the poverty line. Seen in this light, it's certainly shocking and seemingly immoral to deny help to others when we are able to give our extra biscuits. Yet does this analogy stand in reality?

It can be argued that we work hard to maintain ourselves, our families, our loved ones, and therefore we deserve the extra biscuits that we can get by principle of ownership. Yet, if we're to alter the analogy so that the items on the boat are owned by the occupants, does it make it alright?

The article halts it's analysis here and implies not giving is immoral. But I have a few extra thoughts on the issue. In the analogy, the estimated time of arrival of help is known, 24 hours. So the extra capacity and the exact use of the resource is known, hence it's immoral to deny help to another person when the ship has excess capacity. In real life, we have no way of really knowing how much resources is enough. Inflation eats away at our spending power, drawing us ever closer to poverty unless we struggle to keep afloat. To give away wealth without knowing the future for certain would be risky. If we alter the analogy so that it is unknown when help will arrive, so much so that those on board take their rationing seriously, then it becomes more ambiguous if it's immoral to deny others help in the interest of the group, particularly if they hold ownership of the items on board.  

Perhaps then, it's immoral if one knows for certain that he or she has enough but refuses to help those who are dying from the lack of resources. Personally, I think the best time to give help is in your will. That's the time you're pretty sure you won't need most of what you've earned, after you've covered your dependents, that is. What do you think? Is it immoral not to give up your luxuries in life to help others?

Eternal life

My sister recently bought some books on which the recent movie 'Twilight' was based on. The protagonist cum narrator of the story is an average girl that recently moved into Folks, a rural town where her father lives. There she meets and falls in love with a vampire.

Personally, I found the vampire concept quite facinating, particularly the part of living on for a long long time or eternally. Would you want to live forever, if the opportunity presented itself to you and you alone? I certainly wouldn't because I can't bear to live alone. Others will age and die, right? It'll be hard to make new friends, knowing how much older you are mentally than the rest of the population.

Cornered for the truth

I had a brutal 2.5 hour interview with Company A this afternoon in Bayan Lepas. The interviewers were mostly trying to assess my technical capabilities besides the usual 'Tell me about yourself' and some clarification questions. The job function I applied for at Company A was similar to a job function at Company I in Bayan Lepas, which I worked at previously. The thing is, this job function was supporting my job function and was not directly related. 

Towards the end of the interview, interviewer 1 asked "Why didn't you apply to the other department (in Company A) that's offering a job that's a closer fit to your experience?'. I said I would have applied to the other vacancy in addition to the one I was interviewing for if I knew of it. "Why didn't you go back to Company I?". "Global hiring freeze", I replied. Then he popped the impossible question, that is, a question one cannot answer impartially. This question is in the league of the movie cliche where the wife/girlfriend asks the husband/boyfriend, "Am I fat?" or "Do you find that girl over there attractive?".

He asked, "If we offer you a job, and so does the other department and Company I, which will you prioritize?".  Without batting an eyelid, I answered truthfully of course (I'm not revealing what I said here!) , but say you, the reader, were asked this question and this department/company were not your first choice, would you risk telling the truth?

I wonder if they really expected an honest answer. Any sane person who wants to maximize his/her chances of getting a job offer will give the golden answer, i.e. "Your department first, then the other department, finally Company I". Is this just formality?

Do thoughts affect actions or vice versa?

I came across a very thought provoking piece that I'd like to share tonight.

Do thoughts affect actions? Or does action give rise to thoughts, i.e. is the body just a physical engine with thoughts as a byproduct?

I think it can be argued both ways. For example, solving a simple math problem, 1+1=2 seems to merely require conscious thought. On the other hand, when solving a complex problem, work is done on the problem, but the solution usually depends on an eureka moment that seems to be beyond our control, i.e. the answer just comes to us. Could it be that conscious thought, the feeling of finding the answer is a result of physical processes in the brain that we are not aware of? Are conscious thoughts really just the byproduct of the body or do our conscious thoughts control our body?

Puzzling, isn't it? Any thoughts?

The lesser evil?

Imagine a scenario, you're in an army and your platoon has successfully raided a village and captured some civillians. Your commander has ordered you to rape and then kill a civillian (a war crime, for sure) whom you know to be innocent, but just so happens to be on the wrong side. Should you obey the order?

On one hand, you could reason that it's outright morally wrong to do so and refuse. The problem with that is that you will be shot in the head, and probably someone else will do it and, perhaps, more violently than necessary.

On the other hand, you could do it without being more violent than necessary, hence sparing the victim from unnecessary trauma AND your own life.

In short - 'If you don't do it, someone else will, with worse consequences.' In this case, is it perfectly moral to make a decision with a better, although bad, outcome?

This problem with taking the path with the better outcome is that the act is still clearly wrong, although seemingly the moral thing to do. For example, you'd probably still be tried for war crimes and found guilty despite your good intentions. How do you justify that this is a moral decision? In my opinion, we can say that the action itself is wrong, but the person in this circumstance is blameless. Or could this be just another means of justifying the unjustifiable?

Alternatively, if you refuse to carry out the order, is preserving your integrity more important than saving lives and relieving people of suffering? I hope to hear your opinions.

Cybersex

Let's say you live in the future where technology is so advanced that you can hook your brain up to a computer ala Matrix style and go into virtual reality. Someone programmes a simulated person, guy or girl, according to your preference, and you have virtual sex. It feels exactly like the real thing, only that it's simulated in your brain.

If you're married or have a bf/gf, would that be considered cheating on your partner, since the sex wasn't with a real person?