Does the body know it's asleep? I had another pee dream last night and I find it weird that my dreams have to resort to symbolism like a sense of urgency, displays of flowing water, loss of control (like becoming suddenly clumsy or in a recent dream, cars riding the sidewalk keeping me from walking safely and confidently), etc. to get the point across that I need to wake up and empty my bladder.
I found myself wondering, why doesn't some character in the dream just say flat out, "Vachon, you need to wake up so I can pee."? Or even more simply, why don't I just wake up? Why is it like I'm in a wussified Nightmare on Elm Street movie rather than something more simple?
Thankfully I've never had an accident though I know it's come close, even in adulthood. I've actually urinated in my dreams and woke up ever-so-thankful that it was "just a dream".
Seriously though, why can't we just wake up when we have to pee? I don't think the language center of the brain is shut down because I have dreams with speech in them. Does the sense of self shut down during sleep? I don't think so because I know it's me when I'm dreaming. I never feel outside of myself.
The only thing I've noticed about dreams, aside from their inherent weirdness and internal inconsistencies, is that dreams only seem to work so long as I'm not concentrating on details. It's like dreams are great whooshes of generalities but I have memories of waking up from several dreams because I got suspicious and simply wouldn't just "go with it".
I remember many years ago having a dream with the First One. Already curious that she would be visiting me at my father's house, I couldn't help but try and focus on her face because something about it wasn't quite right. It doesn't help that I can't remember faces that well at all so in my dream she may have had, for all I know, a mannequin face...featureless. I kept focusing on that detail; I wanted to see. My insistence on detail I think activated some part of my brain that was necessary for consciousness as I would wake up soon after.
I don't know. I mean, c'mon! Just wake up. I gotta pee!!!
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
AHOY ME MATEYS...
The last time I was at the dentist, I was thinking about all the blood from the cleaning. It was much more than usual. My gums had been bleeding frequently too when brushing my teeth. I joked about it with my hygienist but the more I thought about it, I couldn't think of any substantial sources of vitamin C in my diet.
For years I would take a juice box with me for my lunch but starting maybe a year or so ago, I started buying styrofoam cups and filling them with water instead. The Hi-C fruit punches advertised a 100% daily supply of vitamin C, something I would thus get five times a week. Now I wasn't getting any. The vegetables I would eat with dinner would have some, but my diet could not give me 100% of that vitamin ever.
I bought vitamin C supplements and just like that, the bleeding went away. I'm sure my next cleaning will be bloody again because that seems to be the norm now but in my daily life my gums are no longer swelling easily nor are they bleeding.
I had scurvy, or at least its early stages. Imagine that. That's so 18th century :-)
For years I would take a juice box with me for my lunch but starting maybe a year or so ago, I started buying styrofoam cups and filling them with water instead. The Hi-C fruit punches advertised a 100% daily supply of vitamin C, something I would thus get five times a week. Now I wasn't getting any. The vegetables I would eat with dinner would have some, but my diet could not give me 100% of that vitamin ever.
I bought vitamin C supplements and just like that, the bleeding went away. I'm sure my next cleaning will be bloody again because that seems to be the norm now but in my daily life my gums are no longer swelling easily nor are they bleeding.
I had scurvy, or at least its early stages. Imagine that. That's so 18th century :-)
Monday, November 10, 2014
VOTING SHMOTING...
If you don't vote, you lose the right to complain. See, I don't understand that line of reasoning. How is that even possible? Does not voting somehow negate my rights as a US citizen under the Constitution? No, of course not. You can't even vote until you're both 18 and registered and there are numerous ways to lose that right but regardless of whether you vote or not (or can't), your rights under the First Amendment...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
...are in no way affected, not to mention any of the other rights afforded to you as a citizen. Whether I vote or not, I am still allowed to petition the government and peaceably assemble. Those are not voter's rights, those are US citizen rights.
Voting may have gotten those men and women into office but it doesn't preclude the citizenry from complaining about them (or praising them as the case may be...or have I "lost" that right too by not voting?).
Another reason that argument is bullshit is because only white, land-owning males were allowed to vote originally. That's a whole lotta people with no say in who may or may not represent them. Were the multitudes of disenfranchised from the late 18th to mid-20th century admonished for complaining about a government they did not vote for?
Their voices may not have been appreciated (especially I would gather from blacks and women), but they were still entitled to their free speech, free presses, to peaceably assemble, and to write the government about wrongs they feel have been committed.
I'm pretty sure the only thing you lose by not voting is the ability to say you voted for that particular person or proposition.
By extension, I wonder if anyone has done any research on those who didn't vote. Like, during the day of an election or just before, has a suitably done poll of people who were definitely not voting ever been conducted to see whom they would've voted for if they could've been bothered to go to a polling station?
If so, did the acquired results, if tabulated as actual votes, ever affect the outcome of an election? I have this feeling their missing votes would not change anything. Without any evidence (mind you) to support my opinion, I feel the collective opinion of those who don't vote will closely match the collective opinion of those who did vote.
I say this because there are no longer any deliberately disenfranchised voters in this country anymore. Women have the vote. Blacks have the vote. Anyone who's 18 and older and a US citizen may vote.
Arguably the only disenfranchised population are felons. Whether convicted or not, and especially those who have been released, I don't see why committing a crime ought to cause one's right to vote to be revoked. Criminals may not be desirable but they are still citizens, right?
But that's a different argument. My concern here would be are there enough legally disenfranchised people that, if their votes could be cast, would they be able to affect the outcome of an election? I'm guessing had the United States had full suffrage for all citizens back at the Constitution's signing, our line-up of Presidents would likely be very different today.
I don't know. That's not much of argument and it's certainly not well-supported, but it's something to perhaps start a conversation...
Sunday, November 9, 2014
ABOUT AS MUCH A PROTEST AS BISMUTH-209 IS RADIOACTIVE...
I decided since neither my store nor my union supported me with my latest run-in with management that I would no longer shop at my store. I figure, I will take their money but I will not give any of it back.
I was placed on cash control at the end of September. This is one of the drawbacks of lane accountability. While the upside is that I get to go through a hell of a lot more change (my take of 1978-dated coins, especially quarters, has been WAY higher since my store switched over to this new system), the downside is that the screw-ups of those who worked the lane before (and after) me affect us all.
Anywho, when placed on cash control, I was given a sheet to sign with several rules regarding how I am supposed to conduct myself and control my cash while under this observation period.
This was also my first time on cash control ever. Nearly fourteen years I've been there and it's never happened. Yes, I've gotten the occasional write-up for being over/short (almost always over...I seem to be good at convincing customers to walk out without their money) warning me that if it happened again within a certain period I would be placed on cash control. I never was. I'd get a write-up once, sometimes twice, a year.
Three months into lane accountability and I've been written up three times for shortages. Like the other warnings there is a rollover period where if nothing else happens (I think it's ten days), your reputation is restored...until the next time. The trouble is, this third write-up mentioned that the shortage was excessive so I was placed on CC immediately...
Right away I got into conflict with my manager. He would refuse to prove my till either having me do it myself or not at all despite the CC guidelines specifically stating the manager has to do it. I had also been directed to not leave my register unattended (the till would have to be placed in a cash control bag, sealed, and locked away before I could leave).
The second night he insisted I leave my register without securing it first. And when I protested and finally refused, he sent me home for insubordination. Was it insubordination? Yes. Technically.
It bugged me that he refused to take the thirty or so seconds it would take to lock away my till as directed or that he refused to use another employee who wasn't on cash control...no, it had to be me for some reason. It bothered me that he reprimanded me publicly and in front of other employees (both union no-no's). I was also annoyed that I got sent home for refusing to violate cash control policy and another cashier that same night also refused to do what he told her for the exact same reason and did NOT get sent home. And it irked me that when I returned, he took me aside immediately and insisted I pledge to do whatever he tells me.
I told him I would do what he said provided it does not violate CC policy. For him, this was a yes or no question. He would not accept my modification and sent me home again, pending a union meeting...also my first in all my years there.
I made my detailed statement, gave it to the shop steward, and when I finally got my callback, I was told basically "do the crime, snitch later." My union did not side with me at all. My union would not fight to get my lost pay restored for refusing to follow what I felt was an illegal order. And my store felt the same. Insubordination, period. Completely risking my job now if it happens again.
Now understand, yes...I would've like to have won that battle but that's not really the point as far as I'm concerned. All I needed to hear was the gist of President Luchenko's speech to Sheridan (from Babylon 5) and I would've been fine.
In Rising Star she told Sheridan that his insurrection against President Clark's dictatorship was probably the right thing to do but that he did it the wrong way, the inconvenient way and thus, even though we viewers saw Sheridan as a hero, he still legitimately faced execution for taking up arms against his own government.
Now obviously I didn't go THAT far, but it would've been nice to hear from either side that at least someone believed that I was trying to do the right thing but that I was doing it the wrong way...the inconvenient way and thus I still had to be punished. But I would never get such satisfaction.
Thoroughly demoralized, I knew I couldn't quit my job (I was really, really tempted to). I meant to take a "mental health" day too after that phone call but I ultimately decided not to. The bitch of that decision was when I got into work, I was the only one on my shift who DIDN'T call out. What luck!
I went into a severe depression that got interrupted, but not aborted. When I get very sad I lose my appetite. This was the first time since 2008 that I had gone the no-eating route. I forgot I had agreed to go to a charity dinner that Friday so I had to eat before I was ready to again. By that point, I had gone thirty hours without a calorie. I gorged at the dinner thus refueling my sadness. After that dinner I went another forty hours without food...a new record. My previous record was thirty-six hours (which is also the longest I've ever gone without sleep) so, uh...yay?
I've been fine since but I decided I would no longer shop at my store. I imagine this will become difficult after Christmas when I'm staring at all those discounted M&Ms. I'll have to hope my alternate store will have had the same difficulty off-loading their supply as mine always does.
My alternate store is smaller than my own so its product diversity is not as high. One thing it definitely does not have is my high-fiber Fiber One bread so I've been eating a different brand of ordinary whole-wheat bread.
Here's the thing. I've had hemorrhoids for a good five years now. My asshole still bleeds occasionally (story's taken a turn now, hasn't it?) but since I've stopped eating the Fiber One bread, my asshole's been getting, well...better. So far, it's the only thing I'm doing differently in my diet. Everything else is the same. My poops are smaller too...easier to pass. Is it possible there is such a thing as "too much fiber"? Perhaps.
I've had some hints of blood on my wipes, but not as much and many times now, none at all. It's weird those unintended consequences, right? I inconvenience myself to make purchases at another supermarket, a protest which the accountants will never even notice in their weekly sales reports and it results in me discovering that maybe I've been overdoing it with my fiber intake.
Weird...
I was placed on cash control at the end of September. This is one of the drawbacks of lane accountability. While the upside is that I get to go through a hell of a lot more change (my take of 1978-dated coins, especially quarters, has been WAY higher since my store switched over to this new system), the downside is that the screw-ups of those who worked the lane before (and after) me affect us all.
Anywho, when placed on cash control, I was given a sheet to sign with several rules regarding how I am supposed to conduct myself and control my cash while under this observation period.
This was also my first time on cash control ever. Nearly fourteen years I've been there and it's never happened. Yes, I've gotten the occasional write-up for being over/short (almost always over...I seem to be good at convincing customers to walk out without their money) warning me that if it happened again within a certain period I would be placed on cash control. I never was. I'd get a write-up once, sometimes twice, a year.
Three months into lane accountability and I've been written up three times for shortages. Like the other warnings there is a rollover period where if nothing else happens (I think it's ten days), your reputation is restored...until the next time. The trouble is, this third write-up mentioned that the shortage was excessive so I was placed on CC immediately...
Right away I got into conflict with my manager. He would refuse to prove my till either having me do it myself or not at all despite the CC guidelines specifically stating the manager has to do it. I had also been directed to not leave my register unattended (the till would have to be placed in a cash control bag, sealed, and locked away before I could leave).
The second night he insisted I leave my register without securing it first. And when I protested and finally refused, he sent me home for insubordination. Was it insubordination? Yes. Technically.
It bugged me that he refused to take the thirty or so seconds it would take to lock away my till as directed or that he refused to use another employee who wasn't on cash control...no, it had to be me for some reason. It bothered me that he reprimanded me publicly and in front of other employees (both union no-no's). I was also annoyed that I got sent home for refusing to violate cash control policy and another cashier that same night also refused to do what he told her for the exact same reason and did NOT get sent home. And it irked me that when I returned, he took me aside immediately and insisted I pledge to do whatever he tells me.
I told him I would do what he said provided it does not violate CC policy. For him, this was a yes or no question. He would not accept my modification and sent me home again, pending a union meeting...also my first in all my years there.
I made my detailed statement, gave it to the shop steward, and when I finally got my callback, I was told basically "do the crime, snitch later." My union did not side with me at all. My union would not fight to get my lost pay restored for refusing to follow what I felt was an illegal order. And my store felt the same. Insubordination, period. Completely risking my job now if it happens again.
Now understand, yes...I would've like to have won that battle but that's not really the point as far as I'm concerned. All I needed to hear was the gist of President Luchenko's speech to Sheridan (from Babylon 5) and I would've been fine.
In Rising Star she told Sheridan that his insurrection against President Clark's dictatorship was probably the right thing to do but that he did it the wrong way, the inconvenient way and thus, even though we viewers saw Sheridan as a hero, he still legitimately faced execution for taking up arms against his own government.
Now obviously I didn't go THAT far, but it would've been nice to hear from either side that at least someone believed that I was trying to do the right thing but that I was doing it the wrong way...the inconvenient way and thus I still had to be punished. But I would never get such satisfaction.
Thoroughly demoralized, I knew I couldn't quit my job (I was really, really tempted to). I meant to take a "mental health" day too after that phone call but I ultimately decided not to. The bitch of that decision was when I got into work, I was the only one on my shift who DIDN'T call out. What luck!
I went into a severe depression that got interrupted, but not aborted. When I get very sad I lose my appetite. This was the first time since 2008 that I had gone the no-eating route. I forgot I had agreed to go to a charity dinner that Friday so I had to eat before I was ready to again. By that point, I had gone thirty hours without a calorie. I gorged at the dinner thus refueling my sadness. After that dinner I went another forty hours without food...a new record. My previous record was thirty-six hours (which is also the longest I've ever gone without sleep) so, uh...yay?
I've been fine since but I decided I would no longer shop at my store. I imagine this will become difficult after Christmas when I'm staring at all those discounted M&Ms. I'll have to hope my alternate store will have had the same difficulty off-loading their supply as mine always does.
My alternate store is smaller than my own so its product diversity is not as high. One thing it definitely does not have is my high-fiber Fiber One bread so I've been eating a different brand of ordinary whole-wheat bread.
Here's the thing. I've had hemorrhoids for a good five years now. My asshole still bleeds occasionally (story's taken a turn now, hasn't it?) but since I've stopped eating the Fiber One bread, my asshole's been getting, well...better. So far, it's the only thing I'm doing differently in my diet. Everything else is the same. My poops are smaller too...easier to pass. Is it possible there is such a thing as "too much fiber"? Perhaps.
I've had some hints of blood on my wipes, but not as much and many times now, none at all. It's weird those unintended consequences, right? I inconvenience myself to make purchases at another supermarket, a protest which the accountants will never even notice in their weekly sales reports and it results in me discovering that maybe I've been overdoing it with my fiber intake.
Weird...
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
CASTLEVANIA THOUGHTS...
One thing that bugs me about the Castlevania series is how easy it is to upgrade your whip (for the record, I'm talking about Castlevania, Castlevania III, and Super Castlevania IV).
The rules of the game made it so that you needed four (4) hearts to upgrade from the leather whip you start with to a stronger ball&chain whip of the same length and eight (8) hearts to upgrade to the longer ball&chain whip. The thing is, you start each life with five (5) hearts so it's practically impossible to be stuck with the leather whip for any length of time.
The player may as well have started with the ball&chain whip...
This could've been rectified by having either the player start each life with no hearts or making the upgrades at higher heart levels, say eight (8) for the first upgrade and sixteen (16) for the second one.
Another option could've been to adopt the rule from Game Boy version of Castlevania: if the player gets hit, he loses an upgrade. In that game, you could get a chain whip that launches a fireball after two upgrades. One hit and you're back to the chain whip. A second hit brought you back to your standard leather whip.
Either option would've made the game a little harder. Whether it would've made the game better is a matter of debate. It makes me wish I knew how to ROM hack...
The rules of the game made it so that you needed four (4) hearts to upgrade from the leather whip you start with to a stronger ball&chain whip of the same length and eight (8) hearts to upgrade to the longer ball&chain whip. The thing is, you start each life with five (5) hearts so it's practically impossible to be stuck with the leather whip for any length of time.
The player may as well have started with the ball&chain whip...
This could've been rectified by having either the player start each life with no hearts or making the upgrades at higher heart levels, say eight (8) for the first upgrade and sixteen (16) for the second one.
Another option could've been to adopt the rule from Game Boy version of Castlevania: if the player gets hit, he loses an upgrade. In that game, you could get a chain whip that launches a fireball after two upgrades. One hit and you're back to the chain whip. A second hit brought you back to your standard leather whip.
Either option would've made the game a little harder. Whether it would've made the game better is a matter of debate. It makes me wish I knew how to ROM hack...
Monday, October 13, 2014
LINE OF THE DAY, part XXXVII
from Emiscary:
"Being cloned makes an oddly perfect metaphor for birth.
Congratulations, you now exist. Here's a fistful of problems you didn't cause, they're officially yours to fix. Here are the expectations of everyone who existed before you showed up, their desires automatically take precedence over yours because they outnumber you and/or outrank you within an arbitrarily designed pecking order into which you've been inserted against your will.
Oh! And be sure to realize that what you feel is effectively meaningless beyond what it makes you do. And free will is an illusion. Good luck!"
Congratulations, you now exist. Here's a fistful of problems you didn't cause, they're officially yours to fix. Here are the expectations of everyone who existed before you showed up, their desires automatically take precedence over yours because they outnumber you and/or outrank you within an arbitrarily designed pecking order into which you've been inserted against your will.
Oh! And be sure to realize that what you feel is effectively meaningless beyond what it makes you do. And free will is an illusion. Good luck!"
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
METROID II THOUGHTS...
In retrospect, one thing that bugged me about Metroid II: The Return of Samus is why did she start the game with so few items? Now, I don't mean fully powered-up because that would be a weird game. I'm talking about the minimum necessary for her to accomplish her mission.
The story of the game has Samus traveling to the planet SR-388 to eliminate the Metroid species. I guess they have been deemed too dangerous to live. Unfortunately the game manual gives away that the Metroid species moults into successively larger forms when permitted to go through its natural life cycle but that's a God's-eye view for the player.
Samus, as far as I know, is unaware of this creature's capability so one would think she would've landed on SR-388 expecting to encounter the same creatures she found in the Tourian region of the planet Zebes. Those Metroids could only be killed by freezing them with her ice beam and pumping five missiles into their now-hardened gelatinous bodies.
Metroids attacked by grabbing onto Samus and rapidly drawing out her energy. That's how Metroids eat, they draw out the life force of living creatures. If this happened to you, you rolled up into a ball and dropped bombs. The bombs would knock the Metroid off you since you could not freeze them from inside.
Based on these attacks and abilities, one would think Samus would go to SR-388 bearing an ice beam, some missiles, morph ball, and bombs. Instead she begins the game with only a standard beam, the ball form, and 30 missiles.
The game had a chance to set up a HOLY SHIT! moment but missed the opportunity. Let me illustrate.
In the original Samus runs around a fairly open and unprotected cave encountering few enemies. At one dead-end is a pool of corrosive liquid through which she cannot pass and the other dead-end is a flashing Metroid resting on the ground and definitely not pursuing Samus. Get within a defined range and the Metroid's first metamorphosis occurs right before your eyes. An Alpha Metroid appears. Your shots have no effect on it, nor should you expect them to because in the original game only the ice beam would stop their advance. Your missiles, however, hurt the creature and five hits later it is vanquished, an earthquake happens, and the previous dead-end no longer has the corrosive liquid allowing you to advance.
Later on you find bombs and an ice-beam among other new and old items.
What I propose should have happened is Samus begins her adventure appropriately armed for killing the Metroids she expects to find (ice beam, missiles, morph ball, bombs). She travels through the same open cave.
The difference is she encounters an ordinary Metroid below several rock layers that one cannot quickly traverse. I'm thinking a couple layers of narrow corridors. Go all the way left, drop a bit, go all the way right, drop a bit, repeat. This is a set-up for the player. Why the Metroid is flashing would be unknown to the player and even easily dismissed as something the Game Boy's limited graphics were doing to make the enemy appear more interesting.
The Metroid would appear unaware of Samus perhaps because of the many rock layers between them the player might surmise. Either way, since this appears to be the point of the game, the player would give chase and the Metroid would dart out of the room further incentivizing the player.
The player then encounters the floor-resting Metroid like in the actual game and the metamorphosis sequence begins.
The player would fire ice beams only to find they have no effect. This teaches the player that this new, lightly armored version of the Metroid has developed a resistance to cold.
The player would also quickly learn these Alpha Metroids don't draw out life energy by circumcluding their prey like the larval forms do. They instead directly attack prey, perhaps drawing out energy via pokes and prods making the bombs she has brought worthless for keeping these new Metroids at bay.
The player would then find only direct missile strikes in the smaller exposed core have any effect. Five hits would kill the creature resulting in the earthquake as before. Game continues as normal but this time the player gets that shock of finding out Metroids are a lot different from what we've come to know about them.
The manual, if it were especially devious, would give no hints about the various Metroid moults and explain them only in an ending sequence or via log entries like Project AM2R has been doing.
Sometimes I wish manuals wouldn't give crap away. In the original game the manual told you how to kill the Metroids. You would think it would have left that for the player to figure out. Too bad they couldn't just be killed with missiles but freezing them with the ice beam would make it easier. The game had a wave beam and you were pretty screwed if you entered Tourian with it. Hell, if you didn't have the manual, you might have thought the Metroids were invincible :-)
The story of the game has Samus traveling to the planet SR-388 to eliminate the Metroid species. I guess they have been deemed too dangerous to live. Unfortunately the game manual gives away that the Metroid species moults into successively larger forms when permitted to go through its natural life cycle but that's a God's-eye view for the player.
Samus, as far as I know, is unaware of this creature's capability so one would think she would've landed on SR-388 expecting to encounter the same creatures she found in the Tourian region of the planet Zebes. Those Metroids could only be killed by freezing them with her ice beam and pumping five missiles into their now-hardened gelatinous bodies.
Metroids attacked by grabbing onto Samus and rapidly drawing out her energy. That's how Metroids eat, they draw out the life force of living creatures. If this happened to you, you rolled up into a ball and dropped bombs. The bombs would knock the Metroid off you since you could not freeze them from inside.
Based on these attacks and abilities, one would think Samus would go to SR-388 bearing an ice beam, some missiles, morph ball, and bombs. Instead she begins the game with only a standard beam, the ball form, and 30 missiles.
The game had a chance to set up a HOLY SHIT! moment but missed the opportunity. Let me illustrate.
In the original Samus runs around a fairly open and unprotected cave encountering few enemies. At one dead-end is a pool of corrosive liquid through which she cannot pass and the other dead-end is a flashing Metroid resting on the ground and definitely not pursuing Samus. Get within a defined range and the Metroid's first metamorphosis occurs right before your eyes. An Alpha Metroid appears. Your shots have no effect on it, nor should you expect them to because in the original game only the ice beam would stop their advance. Your missiles, however, hurt the creature and five hits later it is vanquished, an earthquake happens, and the previous dead-end no longer has the corrosive liquid allowing you to advance.
Later on you find bombs and an ice-beam among other new and old items.
What I propose should have happened is Samus begins her adventure appropriately armed for killing the Metroids she expects to find (ice beam, missiles, morph ball, bombs). She travels through the same open cave.
The difference is she encounters an ordinary Metroid below several rock layers that one cannot quickly traverse. I'm thinking a couple layers of narrow corridors. Go all the way left, drop a bit, go all the way right, drop a bit, repeat. This is a set-up for the player. Why the Metroid is flashing would be unknown to the player and even easily dismissed as something the Game Boy's limited graphics were doing to make the enemy appear more interesting.
The Metroid would appear unaware of Samus perhaps because of the many rock layers between them the player might surmise. Either way, since this appears to be the point of the game, the player would give chase and the Metroid would dart out of the room further incentivizing the player.
The player then encounters the floor-resting Metroid like in the actual game and the metamorphosis sequence begins.
The player would fire ice beams only to find they have no effect. This teaches the player that this new, lightly armored version of the Metroid has developed a resistance to cold.
The player would also quickly learn these Alpha Metroids don't draw out life energy by circumcluding their prey like the larval forms do. They instead directly attack prey, perhaps drawing out energy via pokes and prods making the bombs she has brought worthless for keeping these new Metroids at bay.
The player would then find only direct missile strikes in the smaller exposed core have any effect. Five hits would kill the creature resulting in the earthquake as before. Game continues as normal but this time the player gets that shock of finding out Metroids are a lot different from what we've come to know about them.
The manual, if it were especially devious, would give no hints about the various Metroid moults and explain them only in an ending sequence or via log entries like Project AM2R has been doing.
Sometimes I wish manuals wouldn't give crap away. In the original game the manual told you how to kill the Metroids. You would think it would have left that for the player to figure out. Too bad they couldn't just be killed with missiles but freezing them with the ice beam would make it easier. The game had a wave beam and you were pretty screwed if you entered Tourian with it. Hell, if you didn't have the manual, you might have thought the Metroids were invincible :-)