Or, Dear God Another One.
Yes, theres another one of them thar writing competitions. Actually, there's probably at least one for every month, I just happened to have joined a July one.
For this one, I'll be doing a contemporary fantasy about a guy who works for a secret agency (O.S.I.R.I.S - still working out exactly what that stands for) that monitors supernatural activity and makes sure the public doesn't find out about it. Then wraiths start appearing everywhere, and the main character thinks O.S.I.R.I.S's rival, Spitfire, is back. That's pretty much all I've got so far. Wish me luck, on the off-chance you're actually reading this.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Dadaist Baseball
Dadaist Baseball is a game conceived about 10 months ago (though I just thought up the name today.) The basic premise is that it is baseball with as few rules as humanly possible.
One night, me and some relatives were bored out of our skulls, and for some reason there were baseball supplies nearby. So we started pitching and hitting, and eventually I decided to designate some bases with some random objects around the yard. What basically came of this was a bunch of people hitting, running around the yard trying to touch the bases in order, and occasionally switching teams and tackling their opponents.
Thus Dadaist Baseball was born. I named it after the Dadaist art movement - Dadaism rejects all traditional connotations of art, and Dadaist Baseball rejects all traditional connotations of sports. It is conveniently designed to do what sports education claims to do but in fact fails spectacularly at: promote a positive, friendly atmosphere throughout the game and teach sportsmanship. The idea was not to win by gaining runs - the one time we played it, we didn't keep score - but simply to have a good time by acting like a freak; in that respect it is similar to the sports found in Calvin and Hobbes. The rules are meant to be abused, selectively ignored and, under the right circumstances, discarded altogether; with that in mind it is surprisingly easy to construct a solid rule set.
RULES
1. The game can technically be played with any number of players. There must be two designated teams with at least one player on each; extra players are essentially allowed to do whatever they want, and switch between teams at will.
1a. Technically, team-designated players can switch teams at any time as well.
2. When the ball is pitched, the batter attempts to hit it with a bat. As long as the bat touched the ball, the hit is valid.
2a. The batter catching the ball in no way invalidates the hit. If this occurs, the bat must still touch the ball at some point.
2b. There is no cap on strikes other than that determined by whims and how bored other players get.
2c. A player could probably get away with not hitting the ball and running nonetheless.
3. To score a run, one must touch all the bases in order.
3a. A player is out if he is tagged with a ball.
3aI. This includes balls other than the one actually pitched by the pitcher; if you don't eventually start whacking people with a bag full of baseballs, the game is not being played properly.
3b. There is no preset route that one must follow for touching the bases. Again, if the routes don't start meandering throughout the field, the surrounding area and, kept up long enough, nearby buildings, you're doing it wrong.
3c. If more than one game is being played, bases and balls from nearby games are perfectly valid to all players, regardless of which game they are playing or if they are, in fact, playing at all.
4. Teams do not switch positions formally. If the game is played properly, players will trickle between the field and the batting team over the course of the game.
4a. Players may also opt to be on neither team for some or all of the game, simply causing mischief and helping either team on a whim.
4b. Players may also choose to cease playing for some or all of the game.
5. Under no circumstances will score of any kind be kept.
5a. If one finds that one's psychological well-being completely depends on keeping score in some way, one should:
5aI. keep score by judging the awesomeness and ridiculousness of given plays, and rewarding points accordingly, and
5aII. seek help.
As you can see, the rules are, for the most part, designed to increase the range of possible actions, rather than limit them. They are, in fact, little more then general statements about the spirit of the game and how it is played, rather than a rigid system. As mentioned, to be played properly, these rules will be horribly abused throughout the game and probably blatantly ignored once or twice near the end (though this is difficult to do). While, in theory, it would be possible to institute Dadaist Baseball school education (this would be one of the better ideas regarding sports education in schools, ever), getting "into it" and playing to win is a self-defeating exercise that will kill the game for everyone and, depending on the magnitude of the transgression, possibly get you beaten with a baseball bat.
One night, me and some relatives were bored out of our skulls, and for some reason there were baseball supplies nearby. So we started pitching and hitting, and eventually I decided to designate some bases with some random objects around the yard. What basically came of this was a bunch of people hitting, running around the yard trying to touch the bases in order, and occasionally switching teams and tackling their opponents.
Thus Dadaist Baseball was born. I named it after the Dadaist art movement - Dadaism rejects all traditional connotations of art, and Dadaist Baseball rejects all traditional connotations of sports. It is conveniently designed to do what sports education claims to do but in fact fails spectacularly at: promote a positive, friendly atmosphere throughout the game and teach sportsmanship. The idea was not to win by gaining runs - the one time we played it, we didn't keep score - but simply to have a good time by acting like a freak; in that respect it is similar to the sports found in Calvin and Hobbes. The rules are meant to be abused, selectively ignored and, under the right circumstances, discarded altogether; with that in mind it is surprisingly easy to construct a solid rule set.
RULES
1. The game can technically be played with any number of players. There must be two designated teams with at least one player on each; extra players are essentially allowed to do whatever they want, and switch between teams at will.
1a. Technically, team-designated players can switch teams at any time as well.
2. When the ball is pitched, the batter attempts to hit it with a bat. As long as the bat touched the ball, the hit is valid.
2a. The batter catching the ball in no way invalidates the hit. If this occurs, the bat must still touch the ball at some point.
2b. There is no cap on strikes other than that determined by whims and how bored other players get.
2c. A player could probably get away with not hitting the ball and running nonetheless.
3. To score a run, one must touch all the bases in order.
3a. A player is out if he is tagged with a ball.
3aI. This includes balls other than the one actually pitched by the pitcher; if you don't eventually start whacking people with a bag full of baseballs, the game is not being played properly.
3b. There is no preset route that one must follow for touching the bases. Again, if the routes don't start meandering throughout the field, the surrounding area and, kept up long enough, nearby buildings, you're doing it wrong.
3c. If more than one game is being played, bases and balls from nearby games are perfectly valid to all players, regardless of which game they are playing or if they are, in fact, playing at all.
4. Teams do not switch positions formally. If the game is played properly, players will trickle between the field and the batting team over the course of the game.
4a. Players may also opt to be on neither team for some or all of the game, simply causing mischief and helping either team on a whim.
4b. Players may also choose to cease playing for some or all of the game.
5. Under no circumstances will score of any kind be kept.
5a. If one finds that one's psychological well-being completely depends on keeping score in some way, one should:
5aI. keep score by judging the awesomeness and ridiculousness of given plays, and rewarding points accordingly, and
5aII. seek help.
As you can see, the rules are, for the most part, designed to increase the range of possible actions, rather than limit them. They are, in fact, little more then general statements about the spirit of the game and how it is played, rather than a rigid system. As mentioned, to be played properly, these rules will be horribly abused throughout the game and probably blatantly ignored once or twice near the end (though this is difficult to do). While, in theory, it would be possible to institute Dadaist Baseball school education (this would be one of the better ideas regarding sports education in schools, ever), getting "into it" and playing to win is a self-defeating exercise that will kill the game for everyone and, depending on the magnitude of the transgression, possibly get you beaten with a baseball bat.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Irreligion
Or, ramblings on God.
I recently changed my facebook religious listing from atheist to ignostic (the exact entry is "ignostic, but atheist has more accurate connotations"). I did this mainly because, while I staunchly believe that the idea of the Christian God (and most, if not all, other deities) goes firmly against most precepts of logic, I don't believe that any sort of quasi-sentient quasi-entity that created the universe can't exist.
To summarize and hopefully make coherent my ideas on quasi-theology (a name I just made up now):
Taking a look at the universe, and the way atoms and molecules are structured, we seem extraordinarily lucky to have a universe that exists in such a way to even have the possibility of supporting life. More accurately, it seems like a massive coincidence that subatomic particles so easily line up in such a way as to make atoms, which can then make molecules, et cetera. With the universe beginning the way it did, i.e., from a singularity (not a single atom, naysayers), and bringing time and space with it, I believe that it is either necessarily true or necessarily impossible for other, "separate" universes to exist, and (at the moment) necessarily impossible seems more reasonable. Since the big bang initiated time and space, and since our lack of knowledge of quantum gravity means that we can't possibly understand the conditions at the big bang (yet), it seems possible that the laws of physics could have "turned out differently". With that in mind, there may be some sentience that influenced the laws of physics to turn out as they did.
This idea probably sounds ridiculous, and it probably is - but the point I'm making here is that we don't actually know. However, for an encore I will hereby explain my denouncement of the Christian God.
A casual scan of historical information reveals that mystical ideas were heavily entwined with "science" in past times. As science developed, however, many things held to be facts were denounced, from witchcraft to alchemy. I'll specifically be focusing on two main concepts here: morals and the human soul.
First, the soul. The soul was once thought to be a physical part of a person (the exact source that I got this from escapes me), and carry out several physical functions. As medical science advanced, however, physical and eventually behavioral aspects of the soul were determined to have purely physical sources - which brings me to my second subject, morals. Morality has long been thought to come from God, but there are plenty of articles out there about neuroscientific sources (just take a look at the external links section of Wikipedia's article on morality to get started). And, hand in hand with evolution, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the brain evolved a moral center to stop our species - indeed, every species - from killing itself off. If we have an instinct that tells us it's wrong to kill our own kind, than squabbles over food and territory (common before we evolved sentience and developed civilization) would have been fatal much more rarely, and thus be more beneficial for the species's survival overall. Obviously, these statements don't disprove the existence of God, but it's not a big logical leap to go from "the Christian church has to keep revising scripture to keep up with science" to "hey, maybe the Christian church was wrong all along."
I recently changed my facebook religious listing from atheist to ignostic (the exact entry is "ignostic, but atheist has more accurate connotations"). I did this mainly because, while I staunchly believe that the idea of the Christian God (and most, if not all, other deities) goes firmly against most precepts of logic, I don't believe that any sort of quasi-sentient quasi-entity that created the universe can't exist.
To summarize and hopefully make coherent my ideas on quasi-theology (a name I just made up now):
Taking a look at the universe, and the way atoms and molecules are structured, we seem extraordinarily lucky to have a universe that exists in such a way to even have the possibility of supporting life. More accurately, it seems like a massive coincidence that subatomic particles so easily line up in such a way as to make atoms, which can then make molecules, et cetera. With the universe beginning the way it did, i.e., from a singularity (not a single atom, naysayers), and bringing time and space with it, I believe that it is either necessarily true or necessarily impossible for other, "separate" universes to exist, and (at the moment) necessarily impossible seems more reasonable. Since the big bang initiated time and space, and since our lack of knowledge of quantum gravity means that we can't possibly understand the conditions at the big bang (yet), it seems possible that the laws of physics could have "turned out differently". With that in mind, there may be some sentience that influenced the laws of physics to turn out as they did.
This idea probably sounds ridiculous, and it probably is - but the point I'm making here is that we don't actually know. However, for an encore I will hereby explain my denouncement of the Christian God.
A casual scan of historical information reveals that mystical ideas were heavily entwined with "science" in past times. As science developed, however, many things held to be facts were denounced, from witchcraft to alchemy. I'll specifically be focusing on two main concepts here: morals and the human soul.
First, the soul. The soul was once thought to be a physical part of a person (the exact source that I got this from escapes me), and carry out several physical functions. As medical science advanced, however, physical and eventually behavioral aspects of the soul were determined to have purely physical sources - which brings me to my second subject, morals. Morality has long been thought to come from God, but there are plenty of articles out there about neuroscientific sources (just take a look at the external links section of Wikipedia's article on morality to get started). And, hand in hand with evolution, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the brain evolved a moral center to stop our species - indeed, every species - from killing itself off. If we have an instinct that tells us it's wrong to kill our own kind, than squabbles over food and territory (common before we evolved sentience and developed civilization) would have been fatal much more rarely, and thus be more beneficial for the species's survival overall. Obviously, these statements don't disprove the existence of God, but it's not a big logical leap to go from "the Christian church has to keep revising scripture to keep up with science" to "hey, maybe the Christian church was wrong all along."
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Yay new blog name
I like this one much better.
God, I want to play Halo. Sometimes, fantasizing about going to California this summer and starting my Halo machinima (see below) is all that keeps me going.
On a different, though related, note, I'm participating in Script Frenzy (http://www.scriptfrenzy.org/) this April. It's similar to NaNoWriMo, but instead of a 50,000 word novel, the goal is a 100 page script. It actually sounds easier, since a.) my 50,000 word novel came to about 110 pages, and b.) there are probably all kinds of weird formatting differences with scripts that will beef up the length. I'll be using the Script Frenzy motivation to make some episodes (or maybe just one? I'm not sure how long a script for one episode should be) for my upcoming Halo machinima.
God, I want to play Halo. Sometimes, fantasizing about going to California this summer and starting my Halo machinima (see below) is all that keeps me going.
On a different, though related, note, I'm participating in Script Frenzy (http://www.scriptfrenzy.org/) this April. It's similar to NaNoWriMo, but instead of a 50,000 word novel, the goal is a 100 page script. It actually sounds easier, since a.) my 50,000 word novel came to about 110 pages, and b.) there are probably all kinds of weird formatting differences with scripts that will beef up the length. I'll be using the Script Frenzy motivation to make some episodes (or maybe just one? I'm not sure how long a script for one episode should be) for my upcoming Halo machinima.
Hey, I haven't mentioned that yet, have I? I'll be starting a Halo machinima (hopefully; plans may change) once I get over to California this summer. Which I'm also doing. Yeah. It'll be a pretty serious machinima, about a guy named Xander. It won't take place in the Halo universe, which will give me a lot more freedom to do with the plot what I will. I won't reveal too much about it here, but I've got a pretty developed idea for how the first season will go. Sadly, it may not get published for a long while, since there will have to be a break between making the first and second seasons when my relatives who I'm doing this with move to Switzerland. (I'll miss you guys! Even though you're in California now.)
Sunday, February 14, 2010
So, my blog's name changed again
Yep. I saw another blog that had the same name, so I changed mine because I'm weird like that. This name is temporary, until I can think of a new one.
In other news.
Editing's been going well. I had no idea what I was doing the first day, but I think I'm getting better at it. I've got a growing nest of post-its on the attic wall next to where I work, and my manuscript is still up there. I'll post a picture in a few days.
I have addressed the one main plothole I wanted to close up - I need to write the requisite scenes, but I've at least fitted it in, as well as creating a place to work in solutions to other problems.
In other other news... well, I really don't have enough of a life to post any other news. I'll keep you posted though.
kthxbai
In other news.
Editing's been going well. I had no idea what I was doing the first day, but I think I'm getting better at it. I've got a growing nest of post-its on the attic wall next to where I work, and my manuscript is still up there. I'll post a picture in a few days.
I have addressed the one main plothole I wanted to close up - I need to write the requisite scenes, but I've at least fitted it in, as well as creating a place to work in solutions to other problems.
In other other news... well, I really don't have enough of a life to post any other news. I'll keep you posted though.
kthxbai
Friday, February 12, 2010
Vacation
I get next week off from school. Guess what I'll be doing.
I'll be shut up in my room, with a red ultra fine point sharpie, a clipboard, and a 100-and-change page long manuscript. Everyone cross your fingers that I don't die from ink fumes.
Editing, I've heard, can be very rewarding, and I'm looking forward to that. I've already identified a few big plot holes to take care of, and more or less every character and scene can be improved upon or else removed. I've also heard that it can be very tiring, and that plus the bout of minor quasi-sickness I had a few days back has prompted me to start regulating an actual sleep schedule.
After I do the editing, I'll spend all my free time feeding the edits into the computer copy and writing the new and improved epilogue. (I scrapped the old one. It was awful. Just awful.)
My editing checklist, as of now, is as follows:
~Fix the plothole involving Legion collecting "hellbound" souls even though all souls should be going to Limbo
~Develop Tobias's relationship with his stepfather, and possibly institute Samael as a substitute father figure
~Take out some of the mushy scenes. There are just too many.
~Get rid of some of the needless battles
~Improve the palace in Limbo, greatly
No one gets to read my manuscript until I've edited it at least once.
I'll be shut up in my room, with a red ultra fine point sharpie, a clipboard, and a 100-and-change page long manuscript. Everyone cross your fingers that I don't die from ink fumes.
Editing, I've heard, can be very rewarding, and I'm looking forward to that. I've already identified a few big plot holes to take care of, and more or less every character and scene can be improved upon or else removed. I've also heard that it can be very tiring, and that plus the bout of minor quasi-sickness I had a few days back has prompted me to start regulating an actual sleep schedule.
After I do the editing, I'll spend all my free time feeding the edits into the computer copy and writing the new and improved epilogue. (I scrapped the old one. It was awful. Just awful.)
My editing checklist, as of now, is as follows:
~Fix the plothole involving Legion collecting "hellbound" souls even though all souls should be going to Limbo
~Develop Tobias's relationship with his stepfather, and possibly institute Samael as a substitute father figure
~Take out some of the mushy scenes. There are just too many.
~Get rid of some of the needless battles
~Improve the palace in Limbo, greatly
No one gets to read my manuscript until I've edited it at least once.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Twilight, Twihards, and the Harry Potter phenomenon
It ticks me off when people compare Twilight mania with the Harry Potter phenomenon.
Harry Potter was/is popular because it is well written, has an engaging story, and appeals to teenage dilemmas of feeling left out and the difficulties of being thrust into the new environment of middle school and high school, while at the same time teaching kids how to be good people. Drawbacks: lots of people die.
Twilight is, bluntly, a cheap appeal to the adolescent fantasies of every teenage girl on the planet (notwithstanding the poorer countries in which most fantasies involve adequate food and water and not being generally war-ravaged - but that is not my subject of the day). Though I haven't actually read the series, I've read a lot about it, and from what I can gather, personality-less Bella Swan falls for a "vampire" (in the loosest sense of the word - he drinks blood, lives forever, and has yellow eyes, and no other vampirish qualities) named Edward Cullen, who falls for her. Unfortunately, intimacy means that Edward the Sparkly Mosquito Man (yes, he sparkles. I am not making this up.) will subconsciously bite her and vampire-ize her. Which can't happen because she'd be ostracized from her family, psychological trauma, etc. For the sake of her relationship with Edward, Bella eventually ostracizes all of her friends. Several anecdotes that interested me, including this one: once Bella establishes her "relationship" with Sparkly Mosquito, she refuses a can of pepper spray from her father, saying something to the effect of: "I don't need it, my sparkly vampire man will protect me." And, from what I can gather, she had already been almost raped earlier in the book. Can we say dependence? Misogyny? Idiocy? The list goes on.
Some more particularly disturbing bits:
~Edward watches her sleep. Apparently, extendedly. Need I say more?
~Edward is 107. One hundred and freaking seven. And Bella is about 14. That is about the mathematical equivalent of a 25 year old together with a toddler. Eew.
~It kills the vampire mythos. At least Cirque du Freak failed to make use of more or less every bit of vampire mythology tastefully.
~Bella rejects her friends in favor of her boyfriend, who apparently is only physically attracted to her. Children, that's called glorification of abusive relationships.
And let us not forget that the MaGiCaL Edward Cullen was more or less hand-carved from Miracle Fantasy Man wood by the series' author, Stephanie Meyer, to make readers fall in love with him. Edward is handcrafted to literally be the perfect man, and so endless Twilight readers (who, and I am not joking here, seriously call themselves "Twihards") will fall in love with Sparkle Man and, on the off-chance that they do develop a relationship with a guy, will forever compare him to Edward Cullen, and - big surprise - no one, and I mean no one, will ever measure up. I think this counts as severe psychological damage.
I've heard net rumors about acts of violence by Twihards towards people who admit that they don't think that the Twilight series is completely wonderful in any way, which is why I'm glad that this blog post isn't traceable to my address. I'm not going to formally confirm this, but it doesn't strike me as totally unrealistic. As I said, the character of Edward Cullen is literally built to be fallen in love with, and built to be absolutely perfect in every way - disregarding the whole disturbed pedophile stalker thing.
Frankly, I'm astonished that no one has compared attacks on the Twilight series to the "Harry Potter glorifies satanism" ridiculousness. On the off chance that (a) they have, or (b) some actually intelligent Twihard (pfft) finds this and makes that argument, I'm debunking it ahead of time. In the entire seven books and countless chapters of Harry Potter, Satan is not mentioned once, and Hell only in the context of swear words. Magic is its own thing, disparate from devil worship, in the Potter universe; very religious types (to put it tastefully) simply saw the word "witchcraft" and went crazy. In Twilight, there is a provable overtone of misogyny and sexism throughout the books. The only way it could be sadder is if the author was a wom... wait... never mind.
Harry Potter was/is popular because it is well written, has an engaging story, and appeals to teenage dilemmas of feeling left out and the difficulties of being thrust into the new environment of middle school and high school, while at the same time teaching kids how to be good people. Drawbacks: lots of people die.
Twilight is, bluntly, a cheap appeal to the adolescent fantasies of every teenage girl on the planet (notwithstanding the poorer countries in which most fantasies involve adequate food and water and not being generally war-ravaged - but that is not my subject of the day). Though I haven't actually read the series, I've read a lot about it, and from what I can gather, personality-less Bella Swan falls for a "vampire" (in the loosest sense of the word - he drinks blood, lives forever, and has yellow eyes, and no other vampirish qualities) named Edward Cullen, who falls for her. Unfortunately, intimacy means that Edward the Sparkly Mosquito Man (yes, he sparkles. I am not making this up.) will subconsciously bite her and vampire-ize her. Which can't happen because she'd be ostracized from her family, psychological trauma, etc. For the sake of her relationship with Edward, Bella eventually ostracizes all of her friends. Several anecdotes that interested me, including this one: once Bella establishes her "relationship" with Sparkly Mosquito, she refuses a can of pepper spray from her father, saying something to the effect of: "I don't need it, my sparkly vampire man will protect me." And, from what I can gather, she had already been almost raped earlier in the book. Can we say dependence? Misogyny? Idiocy? The list goes on.
Some more particularly disturbing bits:
~Edward watches her sleep. Apparently, extendedly. Need I say more?
~Edward is 107. One hundred and freaking seven. And Bella is about 14. That is about the mathematical equivalent of a 25 year old together with a toddler. Eew.
~It kills the vampire mythos. At least Cirque du Freak failed to make use of more or less every bit of vampire mythology tastefully.
~Bella rejects her friends in favor of her boyfriend, who apparently is only physically attracted to her. Children, that's called glorification of abusive relationships.
And let us not forget that the MaGiCaL Edward Cullen was more or less hand-carved from Miracle Fantasy Man wood by the series' author, Stephanie Meyer, to make readers fall in love with him. Edward is handcrafted to literally be the perfect man, and so endless Twilight readers (who, and I am not joking here, seriously call themselves "Twihards") will fall in love with Sparkle Man and, on the off-chance that they do develop a relationship with a guy, will forever compare him to Edward Cullen, and - big surprise - no one, and I mean no one, will ever measure up. I think this counts as severe psychological damage.
I've heard net rumors about acts of violence by Twihards towards people who admit that they don't think that the Twilight series is completely wonderful in any way, which is why I'm glad that this blog post isn't traceable to my address. I'm not going to formally confirm this, but it doesn't strike me as totally unrealistic. As I said, the character of Edward Cullen is literally built to be fallen in love with, and built to be absolutely perfect in every way - disregarding the whole disturbed pedophile stalker thing.
Frankly, I'm astonished that no one has compared attacks on the Twilight series to the "Harry Potter glorifies satanism" ridiculousness. On the off chance that (a) they have, or (b) some actually intelligent Twihard (pfft) finds this and makes that argument, I'm debunking it ahead of time. In the entire seven books and countless chapters of Harry Potter, Satan is not mentioned once, and Hell only in the context of swear words. Magic is its own thing, disparate from devil worship, in the Potter universe; very religious types (to put it tastefully) simply saw the word "witchcraft" and went crazy. In Twilight, there is a provable overtone of misogyny and sexism throughout the books. The only way it could be sadder is if the author was a wom... wait... never mind.
Friday, January 8, 2010
No one's reading this.
Ah, well. Who cares.
New stuff. Girl I've liked for quite a bit of the school year turns out to be dating someone now. Pretty neutral towards the guy beforehand, and now of course I inadvertently hate his guts.
Actually considering dating the girl the entire school thinks I like now (she is pretty cute).
Preparing for a salsa dancing contest in spanish class. Sounds actually vaguely fun. Our class is going to be pitted against someone else's, and we'll see which one is better at dancing. But everyone has to dance. So, not quite as fun, but probably hilarious... er.
I hate people now. Bunch of bigotly jerkfaces. Bleah.
That's pretty much what's new in my life. From your end it probably looks bad, but its actually kind of awesome. Happy 2010! Except for you wacky Chinese and your wacky new year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)