|SourceCodeOf_HumanGenome > SourceCodeOf_HumanGenome @ 2008/12/1 17:18|
I am I.
You are you.
He his him.
They their them theirs.
Last edited on 2009/11/07/09:45JST
|SourceCodeOf_HumanGenome > Don't Pray Anyone for Anything. @ 2009/11/5 10:52|
Morally, there are no limits of accomplishing good things by myself though there is a limit of requesting a thing of someone.
So, don't pray anyone for anything, or you will have to resign yourself to stopping further pursuit.
I never pray anyone for anything in order to continue my pursuit till my dying day.
I don't think of any fame, any wealth, or any comfort as an ultimate goal, I try to accomplish more, but it is not contradictory to the moral.
People who have no limits of requesting things of others by saying that they are only doing the same thing as I am doing are such fools.
Last edited at 2010/02/24/17:37JST
|SourceCodeOf_HumanGenome > Two Types of Beautiful Women @ 2010/1/4 10:38|
I think that there are two types of beautiful women.
I thought that they are a fox type and a raccoon dog type before.
I came to think that they are a rabbit type and a dog type recently.
Last edited at 2010/02/24/17:49JST
|SourceCodeOf_HumanGenome > Track @ 2010/2/11 11:05|
Every human being reads each page of such a thumbmarked book named life as if he or she opened a fresh page.
Last edited at 2010/02/13/16:30JST
|SourceCodeOf_HumanGenome > Track(in Japanese language) @ 2010/2/13 16:36|
Last edited at 2010/02/24/17:41JST
|SourceCodeOf_HumanGenome > Flash @ 2010/2/24 17:30|
Everybody has been living in his or her last days since he or she was born.
Last edited at 2010/02/24/17:58JST
|SourceCodeOf_HumanGenome > Flash(in Japanese language) @ 2010/2/24 17:32|
Last edited at 2010/02/24/17:54JST
|SourceCodeOf_HumanGenome > Only the result of the competition in making history is certain. @ 2010/6/27 11:12|
I am at a loss to settle the following composition.
I have had eyes almost only for making history since I was a student because I do not believe that I can get the appropriate reputation for my doing some remarkable thing smaller than making history.
If you have only mastered an academic subject established many years ago when you are younger than all your friends, it is not certain that you exceed your friends.
Because the adults around you possibly taught you unfairly harder in secret as if they were date doctors than your friends. (I am not accusing cram schools of being unfair because they do not hide their activity.)
On the other hand, if you have accomplished the highest academic work which has never been seen by anyone before, it is certain that you exceed all your friends.
Because no one can teach you something unfairly to win.
Of course, there are persons who can teach their students how to make history.
If you are taught by a teacher who won the Nobel prize, you might possibly win the same prize proving that you have made history.
And this is not unfair except for the case that you only typewrote the words spoken by the teacher. (I am not saying that persons who won the Nobel prize were inferior to their teachers, I suppose that they exceeded their teachers in most cases.)
But, if I establish a theory which exceeds imagination of such teachers, you can not rank with me by being taught from them.
Or that student who made the highest score of an examination might possibly have been informed what is asked in the examination beforehand.
Or that best answer for that difficult problem for that prize contest might possibly have been posted by an adult assuming child's age.
Or you might possibly have been cheated on the values of statistical data indicating how all other people than you are by the people taking advantage of such difficulty in exposing the cheat as in exposing a violation of the election law by yourself as if you are asked an unreasonable price by a sushi cook.
For example, when you tell your new idea expected by you to be known by only three percent of students to your friend and are told that fifty percent of students know it, how can you verify if it is really so?
Even if you win a debate with the desperate champion of your competitor group, a member of the group might pretend later to know the person as low-ranking man in the group.
Besides it is not absolutely impossible that an examiner makes questions avoiding only your strike zone like baseball pitching.
And to compete by being incited for small things not followed by future is an obstacle to prove yourself as seen in 'the frog and the ox' in the Aesop's fable.
On the other hand, if you first publish a new idea known by no one, after that you can verify if the same idea was published earlier than your publishing.
So I mean that to win the race among students has no certain meaning and only to win the race among all scholars including senior researchers has certain meaning.
Here I am not recommending arrogance but pointing out skepticism and criminology.
Since human beings communicate with each other, I can know that I exceed all other physicists and I can know that some physicist exceeds me but I can not know which physicist exceeds me.
Suppose that you were popular in a small group and you hear everybody from the group testify later that you were inconspicuous in the group, you will feel that you can not avoid suffering from such dishonesty unless you make history.
I had already noticed such logic when I was a student.
Last edited at 2010/09/19/10:10JST
|SourceCodeOf_HumanGenome > A brain is a pack of agricultural soil. @ 2010/11/29 11:16|
An agricultural farmer cultivates agricultural soil to harvest grain, vegetables and fruits while a cultural farmer cultivates one's own brain to harvest ideas.
Last edited at 2010/11/30/14:44JST
|SourceCodeOf_HumanGenome > I said 'you can not understand me.' @ 2011/3/31 17:19|
The motive for some decision of a very genius is easily confused with a pretext of an idler.
So I did not want to explain my decision.
If I did, you would start an invalid lecture off the point.
I hate such an annoying situation.
Last edited at 2011/04/01/10:35JST