Tourist: The jungle here is so dense with vegetation!!
Tour guide: Yeah, the park is less dense with people during the day...

Is it me or is there something seriously wrong with the tour guide? Its like asking about A and you get something totally different for answer..

 Would you....

1) work from 7am to 6pm on weekdays
2) work from 7am to 4pm on saturdays
3) work from 7am to 4pm 3 sundays a week
4) work from 7am to 4pm on public holidays
5) handle 50 bangalas
6) Doing jobs that actually requires more ppl
7) At the mercy of people less competent 
8) THROW RUBBISH (seriously, its trash bins and its a everyday job)
9) Walk under the hot sun for 95% of your working hours?

Would you do a job that has all of the above criteria? If so, HOw much pay will you be asking?

 As some of you might know, I do an annual pilgrimage to Thailand once a year during the month of october to the Erwin shrine. This year, instead of a 48hour trip, i decided to go on a 36 hour trip instead. Joining us is my mom, sis, Uncle auntie and cousin ( From Dad's side).
I'm quite stoned now to write down everything i wan to say.. But will do it in point form.. 

1) Bloody Iranians cutting queue in front of us, Kena scolding from me left right and centre. Got backed up by a group of nice Singapore girls. In the end Big hoha was created and they end up to the back of the queue. 

2) Spend the last of my savings buying prayer materials for the buddha. Noticed that buying them outside the shrine compound is cheaper ( about half priced)

3) Got my hand burnt from the hot ashes falling from my giant joss sticks. Quite chao ta... But luckily never kena face. 

4) Ripped my berms when leaving the shrine, lucky got wear underwear and carrying a huge crumpler... if not will all be exposed

5) Chachucat market is hereby known as the Suana market. 

6) Managed to get my pair of berms there, but sadly i dun see any plants, No sign of giant yoshi as well. 

7) Alot of kawaii puppies... But cannot buy home due to expensive importing/misc fees.

8) 7 hours of non stop shopping in suana market, main sustenance is bottled mineral water.

9) Dinner was bleah as well. Mom wanna eat street food, which I dun really like at all.

10) Pissed off by mom a few times....

11) went back hotel n rot while all went for thai massage...

12) ate mango rice and went to bed

Will write the last 24 hours soon... lol

When a person places his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, all of his sins are forgiven. That includes past, present, and future, big or small. Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins, and once they are forgiven, they are all forgiven (Colossians 1:14; Acts 10:43).

We are all guilty of sin (Romans 3:23) and deserve eternal punishment (Romans 6:23). Jesus died for us, to pay our penalty (Romans 5:8). Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ for salvation is forgiven, no matter what sins he has committed (Romans 6:23; John 3:16). Now, a murderer or adulterer will likely still face serious consequences (legal, relational, etc.) for his evil actions – more so than someone who was “just” a liar. But a murderer’s or adulterer’s sins are completely and permanently forgiven the moment he believes and places his faith in Christ.

My thoughts: It seems somewhat strange to me. Since your sins will be forgiven anyway if you believed in Christ, then what is the purpose of Sin? Doesnt it meant that people who actually believed in that will essentially evolved into people who actually have no concept of sin? Its like its ok to steal/murder etc etc because I am already forgiven from it. After many years down the road as more and more people started to believe in that ( and many do), Wont it be even more chaotic than it is now?

Sin is what defines Salvation. If Sin loses its meaning tru forgiveness, Doesnt salvation loses its meaning as well?

 Im quite highly stressed of my current job status..
Whatever i applied for seems to have no replies at all..

Brother asked me why i never try IR or some other jobs..
I just blew my top at him..

Why the fuck did i go overseas to study for if i dun wan to do wat i have an interest for???

Fucking retard

Rules: Don't take too long to think about it. Fifteen movies you've seen that will always stick with you. First fifteen you can recall in no more than fifteen minutes.  
1) Presque rien2) Un Amour à Taire
3) Priscilia, Queen of the desert
4) Schindler's list
5) The Pianist
6) La vie en Rose
7) The orphanage
8) A very long engagement
9) Yossi and jager
10) 15
11) 12 lotus
12) Artificial intelligence
13) Juste une question damour
14) Leoy yen sei seu
15) Hu Du men

Im sure everyone has a favorite spot when taking MRT. MIne happen to be the corners and happen to be a priority seat.
As usual, I always took the MRT to Marina bay from city hall to woodlands as i would like a seat to doze off. Although you may not believe it, Iactually do give up my seat to people in need if i see them.

Today, after going out, I took my usual route from city hall to marina bay before going backwards again to woodlands. As per usual, i dozed off even before the train left the station. Somewhere between dreamland and the waking world, i heard someone saying quite loudly in the vicinity of my face..

"EXCUSE ME, CANT YOU SEE THERE IS A WOMAN CARRYING A CHILD AND THIS IS A PRIORITY SEAT??"

Of course, i was awaken to see this malay girl, prolly ard 20ish looking at me. In front of me there is this woman carrying a child, of course I gave up my seat to her. What really pisses me off is that cant she tell that someone is sleeping? OF COURSE I CANT SEE THE LADY IN FRONT OF ME BECAUSE I AM SLEEPING. Another thing is.. So what if its a priority seat? Does it mean that other seat cant be given up for other people because there is no PRIORITY SEAT sticker pasted on top of them? There is an middle age uncle beside me, cant she just tell that uncle to give up his seat instead and leave the sleeping me alone?

Seriously,  she's pretty inconsiderate to me in an effort to be considerate to the lady. In a way i think Singaporeans on a whole are an inconsiderate bunch of people. Does it only meant that only people in priority seats should give up their seats for people in need? What if the person in the priority seat is actually sick n sleep on that seat to rest? Shouldnt it be that all seats should be give to people in need regardless of priority or not?

I also feel that the priority seat and the reminder above it is a testament on how inconsiderate we are. That we actually need something like that to remind us to be considerate. And Im also quite morbid that someone can be of such low EQ and cant think out of the box. Yes, Priority seats are for people in need, but so are other seats as well. If you see people sleeping, please DO NOT FUCKING DISTURB THEM, let them sleep and ask someone else to give up their seats.

She's one fine example of being considerate to the point of being inconsiderate. Someone please smack some idea into her head.

ON another note, I also do realised that 85% of the time when i actually give up my seat (namely priority seats) to people in need, I do not get any form of thank yous. Those people are normally people with kids and pregnant women and I am seriously worried for their children upbringing. In the above-mentioned case,sadly  it happen to fall within the 85% sector. HELLO!!! You do not have a right to those seats, and if I am inconsiderate enough, you jolly well stand while I gloat at you. Please show some good manners and be a role model to your kids by acknowledging a stranger's kindness with a simple thank you. I actually prefer to give my seats to old people. They will at least say thank you and smile at you.

While we are at the issue of women with kids, I must also emphasis that women with baby strollers and kids do not qualify as a person in need of a seat. They better jolly well buckle up their kids in the stroller and stand like the rest of us while letting people with genuine needs have seats. Not walk right in the middle of the train and start complaining that there are no seats for you. It just shows how dumb you are.

 Auxin dynamics and branching in Pisum sativum

 

The major aim of this experimental thesis was to expand our current knowledge on the role of auxin in shoot branching and to provide evidence to support or disprove some aspects of the classical hypothesis and the auxin transport hypothesis on shoot branching.

 

The classical hypothesis suggests that auxin content regulates shoot branching, by influencing levels, transport or action of other signals (e.g. cytokinin: Li et al 1995) required to inhibit bud outgrowth. However, Morris et al (2005) suggested that initial bud outgrowth does not require auxin to be depleted around the stem in order for the axillary buds to grow out, and that sustained growth dies require such a depletion. The rate of auxin depletion in the stem is about 1cm/hr (Goldsmith 1977) and did not correlate well with the initial bud outgrowth. In this study, the pea line 1771 was used, as opposed to the shorter plants used by Morris et al (2005). The advantages of Line 1771 pea line are that: (i) they are able to grow to a height of more than 2 metres; (ii) the axillary buds are prominent and easy to measure at the time of experiment, and; (iii) suitable for long distance signalling studies because of long internodes that separates the nodes and apical bud. From this experiment, a major conclusion that can be made is that axillary buds grow out after decapitation even thought auxin levels in the surrounding tissue remain unchanged. This supports the observation made by Morris et al (2005) that initial bud outgrowth does not require auxin. However, the results also show that sustained growth occurred even thought auxin levels remained unchanged. In fact we found higher levels of IAA in the internodes of decapitated plants when compared to intact plants, suggesting that the growing buds exported auxin into the stem. These findings do not agree with the classical hypothesis and indicate that bud outgrowth is independent of changes in auxin levels caused by decapitation.

 

The experiment on auxin transport in wild-type plants using the auxin transport inhibitor, 1-N-naphthylphthalamic acid (NPA) also yielded some interesting results. We showed that when NPA was applied to decapitated plants, axillary buds did grow out even thought NPA was inhibiting auxin transport from the buds into the stem. This result contradicts the auxin transport hypothesis, which states that in order for a bud to grow out, the bud must be able to export auxin into the stem (Hall an Hillman 1975, Morris 1977, Bangerth 1989, Leyser 2005). The application of auxin on the stem to replenish endogenous levels of IAA in decapitated plants to wild type levels was also believed to restore wild type branching in decapitated plants. Our results showed that 0.1mg to 0.5mg of IAA did not inhibit branching in decapitated plants and even at a high concentration of IAA (3.0mg), bud outgrowth was not completely inhibited.

 

The auxin hypothesis was based mainly on the study of intact branching mutants in Arabidopsis (eg. max4 mutants) whereas this experimental thesis focuses on decapitated wild type peas (Pisum sativum). The difference in results may therefore be due to the inherent differences in the plant systems used.

 

In the experiment where we applied radioactive IAA to buds in decapitated and intact pea plants, the results did not support the auxin transport hypothesis. According to the auxin transport hypothesis, the transport stream in an intact plant is at its maximum capacity and axillary bud growth was inhibited because they were unable to establish auxin export into the transport stream. We found that buds of intact pea plants were able to export a small amount of radioactive IAA into the stem transport stream and still remain dormant. We observed that in an intact pea plant, axillary buds remained dormant even thought they were able to export auxin into the transport stream and that the transport stream was not functioning at its maximum capacity. However, there was also an indication that buds were able to begin exporting auxin between 6 to 12 hours after decapitation and decapitated pea plants were able to transport more IAA than intact pea plants.

 

In the experiment to detect IPyA using a LC-MS/MS system, we showed that the system was able to detect at least 3ng of IPyA standard. One interesting observation from this part of the research was that IPyA seemed to degrade readily into IAA. Our attempts to isolate IPyA in peas were unsuccessful, suggesting that IPyA might have a rapid turn-over rate in peas and/or that it was present in such low levels that LC-MS/MS might not have been sensitive enough to detect it. Alternatively, the compound might also have been lost during the purification process or simply degraded into IAA.

 

The instability of IPyA was a limitation of the experiment. It was a requirement to make up fresh IPyA standards every time they were required, and to keep them as cold as possible to possibly prevent its degradation into IAA.   While it was possible to make D5 IPyA standards for quantifying endogenous IPyA, time constrains did not allow for it in this case.