So our result is out. I got 4 As, and an A+ for Basic Accounting.
So 4 As and an A+ equals to 4.0
So if a person got 5 As, he/she gets 4.0
What if a person gets 5 A+s would she/he gets more than 4.0?
Anyway, I got CGPA of 4.0. Too bad, I have nobody to celebrate with.
And I don't tell anybody in my family. Especially my mother. She would say "Yeah, you're clever, but WHY DID YOU QUIT MEDICINE?"
Actually, I didn't quit. It's more than 7 years, which is the maximum/limit for medical studies. Well, who the heck came out with this stupid idea?
And most people thinks our Medical school is like Medical Schools elsewhere, where one can just continue their studies after umphteen years of sabbatical. "Oh, it's only one semester, you can continue next time once you're comfortable enough to go to the hospital..." one would say.
Unsolicited advice. It's impossible in the land of 'possibility', 'doablility' and 'canablility'.
If changing to another university with medical school is impossible, what more to say extended years?
Sunday, 7 June 2015
Why do you study Business?
A quite common question I have encountered.
"Oh Business! So, you're going to be a business man?"
Oh I wish, graduating with Business makes one a businessman, automatically!
I was tired with the question, especially because of my science background... and 1 semester shy from graduating medical school.
I wish I could just answer "So that I can fly business class" without looking like a stupid asshole.
Imagine if such response were used by Economics students...
"Oh Business! So, you're going to be a business man?"
Oh I wish, graduating with Business makes one a businessman, automatically!
I was tired with the question, especially because of my science background... and 1 semester shy from graduating medical school.
I wish I could just answer "So that I can fly business class" without looking like a stupid asshole.
Imagine if such response were used by Economics students...
Analog perm?
I was in a hair saloon when I noticed 'Digital Perm' on the price list.
If there's digital perm, is there such thing as analog perm?
or does it have to do with fingers?
Fingers are digits, in medical term. But digitalis isn't from fingers. It's from foxgloves. Gloves=fingers.
Speaking of foxgloves, I couldn't help but remember Enid Blyton's story on the origin of foxgloves. Apparently, foxgloves original name is folk's gloves. A naughty pixie hates gloves so much and tricked the glove-makers into making heaps of 'wrong/misfit' pixie gloves. And somehow the gloves turn into flowers. Couldn't recall the whole story, I hope it's right.
If there's digital perm, is there such thing as analog perm?
or does it have to do with fingers?
Fingers are digits, in medical term. But digitalis isn't from fingers. It's from foxgloves. Gloves=fingers.
Speaking of foxgloves, I couldn't help but remember Enid Blyton's story on the origin of foxgloves. Apparently, foxgloves original name is folk's gloves. A naughty pixie hates gloves so much and tricked the glove-makers into making heaps of 'wrong/misfit' pixie gloves. And somehow the gloves turn into flowers. Couldn't recall the whole story, I hope it's right.
Wednesday, 3 June 2015
Toiletries: Bedroom or Bathroom?
I'm not sure about other household or culture. But for our household, and most of the people I know store their toiletries in both bathroom and bedroom.
My late cousin used to 'hide' her shampoo in her wardrobe... along with other her bath creme. So, when ever I spent one or two nights there, she would tell me to get the toiletries from the wardrobe. It might sound weird, but she had her own reason. She's hiding them from her brother. My other cousin, would 'shampoo' his rooster with his sister's shampoo. A dedicated chicken owner. There's a lot of other things that she would hide from her brother, including pastries from her favourite bakery.
The reason for this entry is, where would one put most of their toiletries, bath or bedroom?
In the past, I would put my lotion in the bedroom, on the chest of drawers. Since Nivea came with their in-bath shower, which is genius, I put them... well, in the bath.
Of course one would put their soap, face-wash, toothpaste, toothbrush in the bathroom, but what about deodorant? I put my deodorant in the bedroom, along with my eau de toilette, perfumes and cologne. Shaver and shaving cream/oil is usually found in the bathroom, but not aftershave.
But EDT were meant to be used in the bathroom, hence the name, French for 'toilet water'. Not from the toilet bowl of course! Since deodorant is in the same category as EDT, why don't I put them in the bathroom? Why most people in this part of the world put them in the bedroom?
Probably because we don't really have medicine chest to store such stuffs. And those things are considered expensive. Another reason would be because our bathroom is very humid. As in very very humid. A humid room in a hot and humid region. Small window, and absence of ventilation fan in most household bathroom, and our bathroom is really really wet*. When I was younger, I thought the Westerners keep their bathroom very neat and dry. One of the interior decorating magazine even showcase a commode in the middle of the, what I assume as a library. Toilet among bookcases. A functional toilet along with bathtub.
Which makes our 'Westerners seldom take bath' stereotype stronger. And I thought Westerners seldom poop too! (Try putting books in the toilet and someone might scold you for not respecting knowledge book**)
What about the cheap deodorant? I think it's more convenient to apply deodorant in the bathroom, while your armpits are still fresh. And it's private enough for one to apply deodorant in the nether region. Yes, it's a thing! Along with powders. Using powder in the 'powder room' is less messy than in bedroom. Imagine the spill in the bedroom. In bathroom, one can just wipe it off, or like us, flush it off (yes, another reason why our bathroom is very very wet. We don't only mop the bathroom floor, we flush the whole floor for cleaning!)
I my bathroom is drier, I would put powder and deodorant in the bathroom. For the time being let's just put them in the bedroom. Maybe I'll start with putting the deodorant first.
* I'm not exaggerating. During my first year of medical school, we were to collect questionnaire on home safety. Distributing the questionnaire among 30-40 households. Most score less in bathroom section. Our respondent even asked us "Aren't bathrooms meant to be wet?"
** A friend of mine, scolded me in a holier-than-thou manner, after I told her I sometimes do my revision in the toilet. I told her that as a warning that, my reference books aren't that clean, and one would borrow them at their own risk. Well, I'm just being honest, a disclaimer. She told me "And all the knowledge you acquire from reading in the toilet would not be blessed!". The joke is on her, I passed my geography with flying colours. Maybe, digesting knowledge is complemented by the digesting system. Hence our affinity to read while seated on the porcelain throne.
p/s I am writing while watching ANTM cycle 17... -wanna be on top?-
My late cousin used to 'hide' her shampoo in her wardrobe... along with other her bath creme. So, when ever I spent one or two nights there, she would tell me to get the toiletries from the wardrobe. It might sound weird, but she had her own reason. She's hiding them from her brother. My other cousin, would 'shampoo' his rooster with his sister's shampoo. A dedicated chicken owner. There's a lot of other things that she would hide from her brother, including pastries from her favourite bakery.
The reason for this entry is, where would one put most of their toiletries, bath or bedroom?
In the past, I would put my lotion in the bedroom, on the chest of drawers. Since Nivea came with their in-bath shower, which is genius, I put them... well, in the bath.
Of course one would put their soap, face-wash, toothpaste, toothbrush in the bathroom, but what about deodorant? I put my deodorant in the bedroom, along with my eau de toilette, perfumes and cologne. Shaver and shaving cream/oil is usually found in the bathroom, but not aftershave.
But EDT were meant to be used in the bathroom, hence the name, French for 'toilet water'. Not from the toilet bowl of course! Since deodorant is in the same category as EDT, why don't I put them in the bathroom? Why most people in this part of the world put them in the bedroom?
Probably because we don't really have medicine chest to store such stuffs. And those things are considered expensive. Another reason would be because our bathroom is very humid. As in very very humid. A humid room in a hot and humid region. Small window, and absence of ventilation fan in most household bathroom, and our bathroom is really really wet*. When I was younger, I thought the Westerners keep their bathroom very neat and dry. One of the interior decorating magazine even showcase a commode in the middle of the, what I assume as a library. Toilet among bookcases. A functional toilet along with bathtub.
Which makes our 'Westerners seldom take bath' stereotype stronger. And I thought Westerners seldom poop too! (Try putting books in the toilet and someone might scold you for not respecting knowledge book**)
What about the cheap deodorant? I think it's more convenient to apply deodorant in the bathroom, while your armpits are still fresh. And it's private enough for one to apply deodorant in the nether region. Yes, it's a thing! Along with powders. Using powder in the 'powder room' is less messy than in bedroom. Imagine the spill in the bedroom. In bathroom, one can just wipe it off, or like us, flush it off (yes, another reason why our bathroom is very very wet. We don't only mop the bathroom floor, we flush the whole floor for cleaning!)
I my bathroom is drier, I would put powder and deodorant in the bathroom. For the time being let's just put them in the bedroom. Maybe I'll start with putting the deodorant first.
* I'm not exaggerating. During my first year of medical school, we were to collect questionnaire on home safety. Distributing the questionnaire among 30-40 households. Most score less in bathroom section. Our respondent even asked us "Aren't bathrooms meant to be wet?"
** A friend of mine, scolded me in a holier-than-thou manner, after I told her I sometimes do my revision in the toilet. I told her that as a warning that, my reference books aren't that clean, and one would borrow them at their own risk. Well, I'm just being honest, a disclaimer. She told me "And all the knowledge you acquire from reading in the toilet would not be blessed!". The joke is on her, I passed my geography with flying colours. Maybe, digesting knowledge is complemented by the digesting system. Hence our affinity to read while seated on the porcelain throne.
p/s I am writing while watching ANTM cycle 17... -wanna be on top?-
Tuesday, 2 June 2015
Pondering... is it OK to watch Air Crash Investigation while flying?
Say, if I were to download an episode of ACI and watch it while flying.
Well, with the advancement of In-flight entertainment system, where it is possible to watch movie or TV programme from a portable device, it's possible.
Air crash scenes are commonly replaced with 'milder' crash scene. An information I read from a book. In the same paragraph, only Qantas retain the famous dialog from the movie Rain Man.
"Qantas never crashed..."
In the following forum, one of my favourite forum, there's some conflicting responds on whether airlines do show air crash scene in-flight.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/576246/
I'm thinking of watching Gimli Glider onboard. Nobody died, no hull loss, only excitement...
Imagine how pale my seatmate would be... horrified.
Well, with the advancement of In-flight entertainment system, where it is possible to watch movie or TV programme from a portable device, it's possible.
Air crash scenes are commonly replaced with 'milder' crash scene. An information I read from a book. In the same paragraph, only Qantas retain the famous dialog from the movie Rain Man.
"Qantas never crashed..."
In the following forum, one of my favourite forum, there's some conflicting responds on whether airlines do show air crash scene in-flight.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/576246/
I'm thinking of watching Gimli Glider onboard. Nobody died, no hull loss, only excitement...
Imagine how pale my seatmate would be... horrified.
Monday, 1 June 2015
Mrs Doubtfire... fish sorority version.
My female bettas are kept in a big bowl (their new home), a sorority, until I found out one of the 4 fishes is a male betta.
This afternoon, I put Beau with the 'females'. Beau is quite shy actually. Not very aggressive. Well, he's my favourite since he responds to me, and let me touch him. He would be a good dog if he were a dog.
A few minutes after introducing the 'girls' with Beau, one attacked Beau, nipping his tail. Eventually, I found out that the girl is actually a boy.
While the other 3 girls show signs ob nipped fin, the dominant one isn't. He/She is in perfect condition. I thought he/she is just a dominant girl. Well, until I found out bubble nests under the pistia.
Would I separate the boy from the girls? No. They could coexist together. For Pete's sake, they have live in the same container since hatched. They were in the same tank at Sen's shop. I would just let them breed. So that I have more baby bettas siblings. Yes, siblings would never murder each other if they were together since they were little fish fries.
This afternoon, I put Beau with the 'females'. Beau is quite shy actually. Not very aggressive. Well, he's my favourite since he responds to me, and let me touch him. He would be a good dog if he were a dog.
A few minutes after introducing the 'girls' with Beau, one attacked Beau, nipping his tail. Eventually, I found out that the girl is actually a boy.
While the other 3 girls show signs ob nipped fin, the dominant one isn't. He/She is in perfect condition. I thought he/she is just a dominant girl. Well, until I found out bubble nests under the pistia.
Would I separate the boy from the girls? No. They could coexist together. For Pete's sake, they have live in the same container since hatched. They were in the same tank at Sen's shop. I would just let them breed. So that I have more baby bettas siblings. Yes, siblings would never murder each other if they were together since they were little fish fries.
Airbus vs Boeing... (Queen sized)
Before I proceed further, I am a Boeing fan.
PART 1
Almost a decade ago, the first A380 landed in this country. Back then, the Super Jumbo was very popular. Some even thought that it is the first double decked airliner.
A friend of mine, Danny enthusiastically told me to see the 'double-storeyed' airliner. I asked him, which one? 747 or A380. He replied "I thought the new aircraft is the only double decked aircraft"
Well, not even the 747 can assume the title of the first model to have 2 passenger deck. Some older aircraft particularly the Stratocruise utilized the lower deck for passenger use, (as in passenger lounge)
A380 was so popular, outshining the 747.
However, some are not that keen with A380. Another friend, Humphrey said that the A380 takes off clumsily. Not as graceful as the 777 or 747.
While I prefer 747 to 380, there is some aspect in the aviation industry evolving with the advent of the Super Jumbo. Before the introduction of the A380, First class suite is uncommon. As far as I know, the first airline to introduce the First Class Suite is Jet Airways of India on its 777. Shah Rukh Khan was the brand ambassador, featured in the advert, promoting the First Class Suite.
What distinguish the First class to Business class were wider seat, wider PTV screen, dedicated crews, better amenity kits, and fewer passenger to share the space with. The First Class in the 90's were as good as today's Business Class.
Although Jet Airways was the first to introduce the First Class Suite, this line of service was made popular by Singapore Airlines with the introduction of A380. And many airlines join the trend. Some like Etihad, offer a better option. A private apartment. A higher end niche to the First Class Suite. In this line of service, the apartment comes with a bed fit for 2, private bathroom and private sitting area. In 'normal' First Class, only Lufthansa offer a bed (a permanent bed, not a lie flat seat, or convertible bed/seat) on it's 747-400, which would be phased out within this decade.
Such improvement were made possible by A380. Those luxuries were only possible in private aviation. It's like bringing private aviation into general mainline passenger aviation.
Improvement were not only limited to First class. Business Class and Economy undergoes improvements too. Snack bars and premium economy for economy class. In business class, lie flat seats are becoming more common, replacing the cradle seats.
PART 2
While the Airbus comes with many perks, there are also downside of it. It's sheer size means not all airport could handle them. Some airport have to undergo some renovations such as extending their runways, longer air bridge, larger hall to accommodate the crowd of passengers in a time. The large size means flying with low density is not feasible.
As there are more profitable for high density route, it is mainly used in hub and spoke network. This overcrowds the hub. Making hub airports prone to delays. Very crowded airports means very long queue. One have to open more lines.
It is only feasible for intercontinental flights. So it is limited to big airports. So having an Airbus 380 is only feasible if your airline is flying long distance, with high density.
747 can fly from most regional airport.
PART 3
While Airbus 380 could bring prestige, it is not always wise to have one. Currently, a famous airlines is planning to sell or lease it's A380. Well, in my personal opinion, this particular airline should have not bought them in the first place. It sounds like impulse buying just to compete with another rival airlines. Not wanting to lose face.
The 2 airlines mentioned are both a 5 star airlines, previously operated as a single entity. Well, the airlines separated because of conflicting philosophy on improving the airlines services.
The former airlines aims to improve domestic services while the latter, wanted to expand globally.
Both airlines goes a separate ways, the latter being more famous than the former airlines.
The former airlines in currently downsizing due to financial difficulties and aim to improve on regional and domestic services. Having a Super Jumbo while operating mostly on regional/domestic services doesn't make sense.
Why the airlines opted for A380? Probably due to anti-American sentiment? Palestine sympathizer? Well, it's just some possible explanation. It could be that or some other reasons. But buying A380 is costly. A grave mistake I would say.
PART 4
Personally, I think Boeing 747 is more versatile than 380. The airline should have bought newer generation of Jumbo Jet instead of the Super Jumbo. Had they do that, probably the airline wouldn't be in such deficit. The delay with the deliveries could cover the cost of a 747-8. Not a financial analyst but 747 is matured enough, the one you can count on. Sadly, compared to 380, 747-8 is less popular. Most 747-8 are freight planes. And most airliners are retiring their 747 from their fleet referring smaller aircraft like 777 and 787 or larger aircraft (A380).
If 747 were an animal, it's status would be endangered or threatened despite having a younger generation variant. It's sad considering that 747 have a legacy of it's own. But the good news is, the new Air Force One would still be 747. A good decision of not using A380 for the presidential fleet. American pride.
My opinion could be biased because I have a deep connection with Boeing. I always fly in a Boeing. Baby Boeing. Never in a Jumbo Jet, which I wish I had.
And if I were to have unfathomable wealth, I would buy a Jumbo Jet over a Super Jumbo.
Jumbo Jet is a marvel. Designed before the computer age. A bold move to prove that a big aircraft is profitable both as passenger plane or freight plane, convertible, or combi. Very versatile. A humble origin. Unlike the Super Jumbo which is pompous.
Like most Boeing fan would say...
"Boeing let's pilots to control the plane, Airbus rely on computers, and would not let pilot to override the system"
Of course Airbus fans would counter by saying such system is standard. But I see it as being too reliant to artificial intelligence.
An Airbus fan I know blame such thing on the disappearance of MH370, which I counter with the GermanWings deliberate crash.
Really, nothing to do with the control system.
However, I would trust a pilot flying Boeing than a pilot who flies an Airbus.
But that's nothing compared to a pilot who flies bush planes.
PART 1
Almost a decade ago, the first A380 landed in this country. Back then, the Super Jumbo was very popular. Some even thought that it is the first double decked airliner.
A friend of mine, Danny enthusiastically told me to see the 'double-storeyed' airliner. I asked him, which one? 747 or A380. He replied "I thought the new aircraft is the only double decked aircraft"
Well, not even the 747 can assume the title of the first model to have 2 passenger deck. Some older aircraft particularly the Stratocruise utilized the lower deck for passenger use, (as in passenger lounge)
A380 was so popular, outshining the 747.
However, some are not that keen with A380. Another friend, Humphrey said that the A380 takes off clumsily. Not as graceful as the 777 or 747.
While I prefer 747 to 380, there is some aspect in the aviation industry evolving with the advent of the Super Jumbo. Before the introduction of the A380, First class suite is uncommon. As far as I know, the first airline to introduce the First Class Suite is Jet Airways of India on its 777. Shah Rukh Khan was the brand ambassador, featured in the advert, promoting the First Class Suite.
What distinguish the First class to Business class were wider seat, wider PTV screen, dedicated crews, better amenity kits, and fewer passenger to share the space with. The First Class in the 90's were as good as today's Business Class.
Although Jet Airways was the first to introduce the First Class Suite, this line of service was made popular by Singapore Airlines with the introduction of A380. And many airlines join the trend. Some like Etihad, offer a better option. A private apartment. A higher end niche to the First Class Suite. In this line of service, the apartment comes with a bed fit for 2, private bathroom and private sitting area. In 'normal' First Class, only Lufthansa offer a bed (a permanent bed, not a lie flat seat, or convertible bed/seat) on it's 747-400, which would be phased out within this decade.
Such improvement were made possible by A380. Those luxuries were only possible in private aviation. It's like bringing private aviation into general mainline passenger aviation.
Improvement were not only limited to First class. Business Class and Economy undergoes improvements too. Snack bars and premium economy for economy class. In business class, lie flat seats are becoming more common, replacing the cradle seats.
PART 2
While the Airbus comes with many perks, there are also downside of it. It's sheer size means not all airport could handle them. Some airport have to undergo some renovations such as extending their runways, longer air bridge, larger hall to accommodate the crowd of passengers in a time. The large size means flying with low density is not feasible.
As there are more profitable for high density route, it is mainly used in hub and spoke network. This overcrowds the hub. Making hub airports prone to delays. Very crowded airports means very long queue. One have to open more lines.
It is only feasible for intercontinental flights. So it is limited to big airports. So having an Airbus 380 is only feasible if your airline is flying long distance, with high density.
747 can fly from most regional airport.
PART 3
While Airbus 380 could bring prestige, it is not always wise to have one. Currently, a famous airlines is planning to sell or lease it's A380. Well, in my personal opinion, this particular airline should have not bought them in the first place. It sounds like impulse buying just to compete with another rival airlines. Not wanting to lose face.
The 2 airlines mentioned are both a 5 star airlines, previously operated as a single entity. Well, the airlines separated because of conflicting philosophy on improving the airlines services.
The former airlines aims to improve domestic services while the latter, wanted to expand globally.
Both airlines goes a separate ways, the latter being more famous than the former airlines.
The former airlines in currently downsizing due to financial difficulties and aim to improve on regional and domestic services. Having a Super Jumbo while operating mostly on regional/domestic services doesn't make sense.
Why the airlines opted for A380? Probably due to anti-American sentiment? Palestine sympathizer? Well, it's just some possible explanation. It could be that or some other reasons. But buying A380 is costly. A grave mistake I would say.
PART 4
Personally, I think Boeing 747 is more versatile than 380. The airline should have bought newer generation of Jumbo Jet instead of the Super Jumbo. Had they do that, probably the airline wouldn't be in such deficit. The delay with the deliveries could cover the cost of a 747-8. Not a financial analyst but 747 is matured enough, the one you can count on. Sadly, compared to 380, 747-8 is less popular. Most 747-8 are freight planes. And most airliners are retiring their 747 from their fleet referring smaller aircraft like 777 and 787 or larger aircraft (A380).
If 747 were an animal, it's status would be endangered or threatened despite having a younger generation variant. It's sad considering that 747 have a legacy of it's own. But the good news is, the new Air Force One would still be 747. A good decision of not using A380 for the presidential fleet. American pride.
My opinion could be biased because I have a deep connection with Boeing. I always fly in a Boeing. Baby Boeing. Never in a Jumbo Jet, which I wish I had.
And if I were to have unfathomable wealth, I would buy a Jumbo Jet over a Super Jumbo.
Jumbo Jet is a marvel. Designed before the computer age. A bold move to prove that a big aircraft is profitable both as passenger plane or freight plane, convertible, or combi. Very versatile. A humble origin. Unlike the Super Jumbo which is pompous.
Like most Boeing fan would say...
"Boeing let's pilots to control the plane, Airbus rely on computers, and would not let pilot to override the system"
Of course Airbus fans would counter by saying such system is standard. But I see it as being too reliant to artificial intelligence.
An Airbus fan I know blame such thing on the disappearance of MH370, which I counter with the GermanWings deliberate crash.
Really, nothing to do with the control system.
However, I would trust a pilot flying Boeing than a pilot who flies an Airbus.
But that's nothing compared to a pilot who flies bush planes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)