You should look into paleopathologists, and their take on the last 375,000 years, instead of anthros. It's a newer field with less establishment-authoritarian rule base on what's polite to say, and they offer more accurate science. As it stands, the anthropologists are getting to be about as accurate or scientific as the egyptologists, these days.
I apologise for all those times I rebuked my friends and made them feel foolish for ranting on while stoned or drunk about "evolving" in their own lifetimes, by ingesting chemicals or meditating or whatever. I take back all those times when I said, "no, at best you'll be able to manipulate such changes across numerous generations of carefully selected offspring, but it's not likely to be something you can see to fruition before you die, let alone something you can perform in one generation, let alone something we'll ever see made possible to begin with in our own lifetimes, let alone something you can cause to happen inside of yourself in this lifetime."
Why would Kinect construct a building just to base the whole thing off a game of "Breakout"? Won't the building just be demolished? Why did Microsoft create an entire venture out of Kinect, anyway, when it was doing just fine as a product? God, corporate suicide is all over the news, these days. What's wrong with people?!
... (1) Linux can be said to be easier to hack than it is to install;
(2) The above can be said by the least qualified Linux user and still be accurate;
(3) The above can be said by the least qualified computer user in general and still be accurate (unless it has somehow come to pass that "script kiddy" no longer refers to a talentless point and clicker).
Even an old-timey, blood and guts, clap you on the back and shove a cigar in your mouth, promise you the corner office in exchange for your soul, fuck your wife on Saturdays businessman will now look at Linux as a ridiculous option and no longer be a blatant asshat.
Yeah, they damn well ahould play it down. What else can they do, now?
Luckily not too many companies still make IT decisions based on the combined input of J.R. From "Dallas" and Boss Hogg of "Hazzard". Still, it's funny (as in the laughter of demons) to me that Linux got kicked in the nuts. Stop standing around spread-legged, fists on your hips, in crotchless pants saying your nuts can't be kicked!
Great, because, people living in poverty who need affordable computing also typically have permanent residences, consistent (running) AC power, and not enough to carry around during the busy day already -- they need PCs.
This will be worth reading when it's about laptops.
"Gotta tune in pico waves, gotta tune out PCBs, gotta tune in market crash, gotta tune out polar shift, gotta tune in narrow minds, gotta tune out space junk, gotta tune in bombs, atomic lasers falling from the sky... where's my umbrella?"
Yeah, but wow, this guy's such a douche idiot fucking twat. And as somebody else here pointed out, now he's endangered all of those peoples' lives with no apparent rhyme or reason to his actions except
I just went into all these new privacy settings last night. I found exactly that option (not to be tagged) and verified that it was still as before -- set to not allowed. Nothing changed, in other words. What are you smoking?
This is all pretty interesting, but one thing you said has me stumped:
"waste heat can be used to purify water (important on moon)"... If there's much water on the Moon, what microbes are contaminating it?... If there's water on the Moon that we brought there via space rocket, why didn't we purify it beforehand? Why would we ship non-potable water to the Moon?... and, important why? What are we going to need purified water for? I guess there are some instruments and chemical reactions that require purified water, but aside from scientific purposes what would we need purified water on the Moon for in the first place? Not like people are actually going to live on Moon bases. They'll be populated by machines.
I really wish people would stop dreaming after sci-fi and escapist fantasies and put their amazing intellectual abilities to solving real problems that face us on Earth.
We're never going to live on other planets. It's not going to happen. At the most, we're just going to send autonomous, robotic mining operations to those places. Considering the complexity of designing the autonomous space faring systems we'd need to get the refined products back to Earth, it's likely there'll still be space cadet rocket-man jobs for people to enjoy, if being sterilized and living in a efficient, tiny metal pod for months at a stretch is your idea of fun. Again, reasons why we'll probably either come up with ways to automate space-faring or just give up on it entirely.
I'll never understand how people older than eight are so ridiculously excited by the idea of living on another planet, and would so readily waste significant portions of Earth's remaining resources on these pursuits.
i think the analogies used are inappropriate. hp owns the memristor. think about it... they're poised to recreate our entire concept of storage. but it pains me to see them being so reckless. when the fuck are we getting memristor?! can't believe they're screwing around like that.
You're stuck on Earth. You're never, ever, going to live on some other planet. It will never happen. You will probably never even live on the Moon. If somebody ever does live on the moon, it's going to be very exclusive and very tight. The Jetsons won't be over for supper. Your life is never going to resemble Lost In Space. Give it up, already. And as for this space station, how irresponsible can people get? America invested so much in this thing and we've basically tipped our hat and stepped out. Now we're not even capable of keeping the thing in orbit because we've scrapped our shuttle program. What are you going to do, space cadets? You planning anything amazing for us? Maybe pulling all your space cadet sticks out of your asses, duct taping them end to end and propping the ISS up that way? And now look, Russia was so hype to step up to the plate because, as you noticed, the ownership of the ISS defaults to Russia if America isn't capable of upkeep. Yet even they can't manage to resupply. Who's it going to default to, now? Buck Rodgers?
It's a fiasco, and all you butt-hurt sci-fi bookworms are to blame. We don't NEED an ISS, we don't NEED space programs, at all, any of us, anywhere, for anything. You're never going to live on Mars. Your responsibilities and your life's consequences here on Earth are real things, not imaginary. Space is never going to be a place to escape to no matter how much money you throw at it.
Tonight: go outside, close your eyes, count backwards from ten, and when you open them I want you to look up at the dark night sky and believe it's nothing but a giant black hole and it's worthless, it's a waste of time and money and the stars might be pretty and all but they aren't full of friends and adventure.
I think you have a good point. Anything that captures the photons by necessity is going to filter said light and therefore what reaches you is going to appear darker for that "setting" than it would without the filter. It is highly, highly, HIGHLY unlikely that there is somehow a way to get more energy out of "recouping" the backlight through that filter than would have been reserved simply by running the battery at the lower light level that corresponds to the diminished level of light reaching the user.
I think that's the most worthwhile thing anybody mused about it so far, and is possibly the only thing a sane person could surmise about the language without waxing esoteric.
I read and re-read the parent and have to agree. The Frost poem is about an individual whose self-absorption leaves them without an ability to make decisions about the external world. They're so pent up in fascination with the fact that first impressions can be broken by comparisons, that they fail to even relate the decision that was ultimately made. Instead, they go a step further in their demented anxiety and begin self-absorbing to the point of getting hung up on things that haven't even happened, yet. Then they go on to suppose that they'll never get back to the reality of immediacy and relevance. The actual action taken post-narration by the narrator could have been to sit down on the spot and die, for all you know, as a perfect example of analytical paralysis -- which is what the poem IS about, the antithesis of decision-making, not (as you clearly located affixed to a surface someplace betwixt your haunches, detached with a wet sucking noise and hurled at your audience without care or compassion) "a reflection on how we, as individuals, make choices".
It did cause me to go one-further in my own browser experience. Allow me to relate.
["tl;dr"? I double-checked to make sure I made the right choice with Chrome.]
I recently hit a milemark with this old laptop and finally chose something besides IE as my "default browser". I was looking for a new OS for computers I get in donations for resale and had looked into Chrome-OS. This naturally led me to look at the browser, and I found that in comparisons it got a lot of praise. I wanted a new browser because Firefox 5 disappointed the hell out of me to the extent that I still kept a shortcut for Firefox 4 right next to it. Even Firefox 4 had just enough problems that the question "as my default browser" was always answered "no".
Granted, I don't like my programs calling my browser willy-nilly in the first place. The appearance of IE on my screen unbidden is a black mark against whatever program was responsible, unless I've capitulated to an "online help" feature requirement and forgotten that I have the help stored in a folder somewhere instead of behind the F1 key. I also like the idea of leaving the registry of Windows XP well enough alone. I don't like programs that want to use my browser, I prefer calling my browser explicitly myself using my own controls. To me, browsers are sort of clunky and shouldn't be treated like a self-contained subroutine.
Anyways, I passed that milestone on this machine once I'd used Google Chrome for about ten or fifteen minutes. If some annoying program insists on calling my browser I feel better knowing it's just loading up Chrome. To the extent that I haven't really spent any time using the Firefox 6b3 I recently downloaded.
That being said, since I was still in hot-mode with Chrome, the article on High-IQ = Opera had me anxious to check out Opera and see if I wasn't yet missing out on browser excellence. But, the last experience I had with Opera was when I was trying to get a 386 dx4/100 running DR-DOS online with fossil driver sockets in the year 2000. Opera was the only browser with a recently-compiled version for DOS in the year 2000, so I used it. So to me, that was the last time I had come across Opera in any form. So imagine that all these years I've been reading about Opera, I've been laughing wondering what kind of cheap person is still using equipment old enough and pinching pennies tight enough to still use Opera. It didn't occur to me that I could just as easily have assumed that the company that updated in 2000 probably has updated since then, as well, or that they had done anything besides a DOS browser. So I was always laughing when I read about people using Opera, scratching my head and wondering wtf.
Anyways, I decided to just go out, read some articles, and rate Opera based on hearsay.
The Sixrevisions article puts Chrome way out in the lead with Opera in third behind a tie for 2nd. The ghacks article puts Chrome in a sort of scary middle-land, where Internet Explorer holds two gold medals and Firefox goes home with three booby prizes. What to do? I want to go into detail about the various tests used, but I think it would be best represented if I simple made a big ascii table conglomerating all the results and applying my own arbitrary plus and minus system to
even though they're a bunch of greedy, fat-cat hypocrites, liars, and other sorts of assholes, i believe they should have the right to just say: "screw you, no, we're not going to court unless we've been shown to have already broken some kind of law. the answer is we're using them PRIVATELY, for WHATEVER THE FUCK WE WANT.'
BTW that's an awesome sig line, I had no idea where the quote originated so I searched for it and found the "Windows Usability Systematic degradation flame" email. What a riot!
I would agree with others, here, that the author is fairly ignorant of the topic.
However I still stand by my assertion that just because something is proclaimed dissolved doesn't mean it "went away". That's like saying you threw something "away" therefore it's "gone". Where do you think the trash ends up?
The agents of the KGB weren't systematically assassinated. Some of them went on to hold office, sure, but I'd guess that others went on to do things of their own choosing, perhaps in pursuit of KGB agendas that would have been best done without any bureaucratic attachments or national affiliations, before they became members of newer, more officially-existing agencies.
But at any rate, whatever went on, unless the actual agents were somehow made to not exist, there's no way you can convince me that the KGB "went away", in fact their dropping official pretenses would have been a signal that things were about to get dirty.
So, since 1/10 people believe the world is ending soon, that's apparently the belief of everybody? We can't deny that roughly one out of ten people have the armageddon bug, so where's the majority on that?
What people say and what people do help to illustrate how humans are capable of believing, sure, but also of saying what they think other people want them to hear. Behaviour, not words, proves a person's belief. You can say all day that you don't believe in adultery but still have sex with your neighbor instead of your spouse. What did you really believe, then?
You can say all day that you believe the world is ending but you still hold long-term investments and you still go to work and try to keep the company afloat in tough economic times, stressing yourself out and sustaining a family and heralding the birth of your descendants. What happened to "the world could end at any minute" in all of that?
Humans don't stress themselves out needlessly, we have built-in stops protecting us against that. When you break it to the poor guy down in the hole whose back is giving out and who's sweating like a hog that you lied, there's no buried treasure down there but you want him to dig anyway, he's not going to keep digging, moron.
Even if there are ten guys down there doing the work and sending the dirt up in buckets, and once they're deep enough that they can't climb out you pull up the ropes and tell them all never mind, it's a ten-man gravesite, and ONE GUY says "no, I still believe there's buried treasure", the rest of them aren't going to flip you the bird and resume digging!
Have you ever considered how stupid it is to assume that something like the KGB would cease to exist just because it's no longer officially sanctioned? As agents of espionage and assassination, if anything, they're potentially more powerful, more capable, and more of a threat for not being "really there". It never bores me what a great idea it is to claim your intelligencia don't actually exist, or how easily duped the average, opinionated, modern person really is.
Slashdot Mirror
You should look into paleopathologists, and their take on the last 375,000 years, instead of anthros. It's a newer field with less establishment-authoritarian rule base on what's polite to say, and they offer more accurate science. As it stands, the anthropologists are getting to be about as accurate or scientific as the egyptologists, these days.
I apologise for all those times I rebuked my friends and made them feel foolish for ranting on while stoned or drunk about "evolving" in their own lifetimes, by ingesting chemicals or meditating or whatever. I take back all those times when I said, "no, at best you'll be able to manipulate such changes across numerous generations of carefully selected offspring, but it's not likely to be something you can see to fruition before you die, let alone something you can perform in one generation, let alone something we'll ever see made possible to begin with in our own lifetimes, let alone something you can cause to happen inside of yourself in this lifetime."
how the hell does THAT work?
system admins are legislators, now? gtfo!!!
American politicians are so god-damned stupid and willfully ignorant of even the least technical of computer-related matters.
Why would Kinect construct a building just to base the whole thing off a game of "Breakout"? Won't the building just be demolished? Why did Microsoft create an entire venture out of Kinect, anyway, when it was doing just fine as a product? God, corporate suicide is all over the news, these days. What's wrong with people?!
... (1) Linux can be said to be easier to hack than it is to install;
(2) The above can be said by the least qualified Linux user and still be accurate;
(3) The above can be said by the least qualified computer user in general and still be accurate (unless it has somehow come to pass that "script kiddy" no longer refers to a talentless point and clicker).
Even an old-timey, blood and guts, clap you on the back and shove a cigar in your mouth, promise you the corner office in exchange for your soul, fuck your wife on Saturdays businessman will now look at Linux as a ridiculous option and no longer be a blatant asshat.
Yeah, they damn well ahould play it down. What else can they do, now?
Luckily not too many companies still make IT decisions based on the combined input of J.R. From "Dallas" and Boss Hogg of "Hazzard". Still, it's funny (as in the laughter of demons) to me that Linux got kicked in the nuts. Stop standing around spread-legged, fists on your hips, in crotchless pants saying your nuts can't be kicked!
Great, because, people living in poverty who need affordable computing also typically have permanent residences, consistent (running) AC power, and not enough to carry around during the busy day already -- they need PCs.
This will be worth reading when it's about laptops.
"Gotta tune in pico waves, gotta tune out PCBs,
gotta tune in market crash, gotta tune out polar shift,
gotta tune in narrow minds, gotta tune out space junk,
gotta tune in bombs, atomic lasers falling from the sky...
where's my umbrella?"
-- The B-52's, 'Channel Z' (Cosmic Thing)
Yeah, but wow, this guy's such a douche idiot fucking twat. And as somebody else here pointed out, now he's endangered all of those peoples' lives with no apparent rhyme or reason to his actions except
1. he hates wikileaks
2. he's a complete and utter moron
I just went into all these new privacy settings last night. I found exactly that option (not to be tagged) and verified that it was still as before -- set to not allowed. Nothing changed, in other words. What are you smoking?
This is all pretty interesting, but one thing you said has me stumped:
"waste heat can be used to purify water (important on moon)" ... If there's much water on the Moon, what microbes are contaminating it? ... If there's water on the Moon that we brought there via space rocket, why didn't we purify it beforehand? Why would we ship non-potable water to the Moon? ... and, important why? What are we going to need purified water for? I guess there are some instruments and chemical reactions that require purified water, but aside from scientific purposes what would we need purified water on the Moon for in the first place? Not like people are actually going to live on Moon bases. They'll be populated by machines.
I really wish people would stop dreaming after sci-fi and escapist fantasies and put their amazing intellectual abilities to solving real problems that face us on Earth.
We're never going to live on other planets. It's not going to happen. At the most, we're just going to send autonomous, robotic mining operations to those places. Considering the complexity of designing the autonomous space faring systems we'd need to get the refined products back to Earth, it's likely there'll still be space cadet rocket-man jobs for people to enjoy, if being sterilized and living in a efficient, tiny metal pod for months at a stretch is your idea of fun. Again, reasons why we'll probably either come up with ways to automate space-faring or just give up on it entirely.
I'll never understand how people older than eight are so ridiculously excited by the idea of living on another planet, and would so readily waste significant portions of Earth's remaining resources on these pursuits.
If there's a part of the Moon that's "permanently sun-illuminated", it's news to the rest of the natural world.
i think the analogies used are inappropriate. hp owns the memristor. think about it... they're poised to recreate our entire concept of storage. but it pains me to see them being so reckless. when the fuck are we getting memristor?! can't believe they're screwing around like that.
You're stuck on Earth. You're never, ever, going to live on some other planet. It will never happen. You will probably never even live on the Moon. If somebody ever does live on the moon, it's going to be very exclusive and very tight. The Jetsons won't be over for supper. Your life is never going to resemble Lost In Space. Give it up, already. And as for this space station, how irresponsible can people get? America invested so much in this thing and we've basically tipped our hat and stepped out. Now we're not even capable of keeping the thing in orbit because we've scrapped our shuttle program. What are you going to do, space cadets? You planning anything amazing for us? Maybe pulling all your space cadet sticks out of your asses, duct taping them end to end and propping the ISS up that way? And now look, Russia was so hype to step up to the plate because, as you noticed, the ownership of the ISS defaults to Russia if America isn't capable of upkeep. Yet even they can't manage to resupply. Who's it going to default to, now? Buck Rodgers?
It's a fiasco, and all you butt-hurt sci-fi bookworms are to blame. We don't NEED an ISS, we don't NEED space programs, at all, any of us, anywhere, for anything. You're never going to live on Mars. Your responsibilities and your life's consequences here on Earth are real things, not imaginary. Space is never going to be a place to escape to no matter how much money you throw at it.
Tonight: go outside, close your eyes, count backwards from ten, and when you open them I want you to look up at the dark night sky and believe it's nothing but a giant black hole and it's worthless, it's a waste of time and money and the stars might be pretty and all but they aren't full of friends and adventure.
Now grow up.
I think you have a good point. Anything that captures the photons by necessity is going to filter said light and therefore what reaches you is going to appear darker for that "setting" than it would without the filter. It is highly, highly, HIGHLY unlikely that there is somehow a way to get more energy out of "recouping" the backlight through that filter than would have been reserved simply by running the battery at the lower light level that corresponds to the diminished level of light reaching the user.
I think that's the most worthwhile thing anybody mused about it so far, and is possibly the only thing a sane person could surmise about the language without waxing esoteric.
I read and re-read the parent and have to agree. The Frost poem is about an individual whose self-absorption leaves them without an ability to make decisions about the external world. They're so pent up in fascination with the fact that first impressions can be broken by comparisons, that they fail to even relate the decision that was ultimately made. Instead, they go a step further in their demented anxiety and begin self-absorbing to the point of getting hung up on things that haven't even happened, yet. Then they go on to suppose that they'll never get back to the reality of immediacy and relevance. The actual action taken post-narration by the narrator could have been to sit down on the spot and die, for all you know, as a perfect example of analytical paralysis -- which is what the poem IS about, the antithesis of decision-making, not (as you clearly located affixed to a surface someplace betwixt your haunches, detached with a wet sucking noise and hurled at your audience without care or compassion) "a reflection on how we, as individuals, make choices".
Ungh, ones NUFF man!! Nuh UNGH!!
Does it even prove anything?
It did cause me to go one-further in my own browser experience. Allow me to relate.
["tl;dr"? I double-checked to make sure I made the right choice with Chrome.]
I recently hit a milemark with this old laptop and finally chose something besides IE as my "default browser". I was looking for a new OS for computers I get in donations for resale and had looked into Chrome-OS. This naturally led me to look at the browser, and I found that in comparisons it got a lot of praise. I wanted a new browser because Firefox 5 disappointed the hell out of me to the extent that I still kept a shortcut for Firefox 4 right next to it. Even Firefox 4 had just enough problems that the question "as my default browser" was always answered "no".
Granted, I don't like my programs calling my browser willy-nilly in the first place. The appearance of IE on my screen unbidden is a black mark against whatever program was responsible, unless I've capitulated to an "online help" feature requirement and forgotten that I have the help stored in a folder somewhere instead of behind the F1 key. I also like the idea of leaving the registry of Windows XP well enough alone. I don't like programs that want to use my browser, I prefer calling my browser explicitly myself using my own controls. To me, browsers are sort of clunky and shouldn't be treated like a self-contained subroutine.
Anyways, I passed that milestone on this machine once I'd used Google Chrome for about ten or fifteen minutes. If some annoying program insists on calling my browser I feel better knowing it's just loading up Chrome. To the extent that I haven't really spent any time using the Firefox 6b3 I recently downloaded.
That being said, since I was still in hot-mode with Chrome, the article on High-IQ = Opera had me anxious to check out Opera and see if I wasn't yet missing out on browser excellence. But, the last experience I had with Opera was when I was trying to get a 386 dx4/100 running DR-DOS online with fossil driver sockets in the year 2000. Opera was the only browser with a recently-compiled version for DOS in the year 2000, so I used it. So to me, that was the last time I had come across Opera in any form. So imagine that all these years I've been reading about Opera, I've been laughing wondering what kind of cheap person is still using equipment old enough and pinching pennies tight enough to still use Opera. It didn't occur to me that I could just as easily have assumed that the company that updated in 2000 probably has updated since then, as well, or that they had done anything besides a DOS browser. So I was always laughing when I read about people using Opera, scratching my head and wondering wtf.
Anyways, I decided to just go out, read some articles, and rate Opera based on hearsay.
Link (Article, "Sixrevisions.com"): "Performance Comparison of Major Web Browsers", web:
http://sixrevisions.com/infographics/performance-comparison-of-major-web-browsers/
(That's the article, the only article I read as for browser comparisons actually, that led me to try Google Chrome.)
Link (Article, "ghacks.net"): "Web Browser Benchmark Results Comparison", web:
http://www.ghacks.net/2011/03/17/web-browser-benchmark-results-comparison/
(Today I decided to be slightly more mature about it and add some kind of objective comparison.)
The Sixrevisions article puts Chrome way out in the lead with Opera in third behind a tie for 2nd. The ghacks article puts Chrome in a sort of scary middle-land, where Internet Explorer holds two gold medals and Firefox goes home with three booby prizes. What to do? I want to go into detail about the various tests used, but I think it would be best represented if I simple made a big ascii table conglomerating all the results and applying my own arbitrary plus and minus system to
even though they're a bunch of greedy, fat-cat hypocrites, liars, and other sorts of assholes, i believe they should have the right to just say: "screw you, no, we're not going to court unless we've been shown to have already broken some kind of law. the answer is we're using them PRIVATELY, for WHATEVER THE FUCK WE WANT.'
BTW that's an awesome sig line, I had no idea where the quote originated so I searched for it and found the "Windows Usability Systematic degradation flame" email. What a riot!
Funny the lengths companies will go to in over-compensating for the fact that they aren't publishing "Need for Speed".
holy shit, JADE is released? fucking no WAY!
That's a great point.
I would agree with others, here, that the author is fairly ignorant of the topic.
However I still stand by my assertion that just because something is proclaimed dissolved doesn't mean it "went away". That's like saying you threw something "away" therefore it's "gone". Where do you think the trash ends up?
The agents of the KGB weren't systematically assassinated. Some of them went on to hold office, sure, but I'd guess that others went on to do things of their own choosing, perhaps in pursuit of KGB agendas that would have been best done without any bureaucratic attachments or national affiliations, before they became members of newer, more officially-existing agencies.
But at any rate, whatever went on, unless the actual agents were somehow made to not exist, there's no way you can convince me that the KGB "went away", in fact their dropping official pretenses would have been a signal that things were about to get dirty.
So, since 1/10 people believe the world is ending soon, that's apparently the belief of everybody? We can't deny that roughly one out of ten people have the armageddon bug, so where's the majority on that?
What people say and what people do help to illustrate how humans are capable of believing, sure, but also of saying what they think other people want them to hear. Behaviour, not words, proves a person's belief. You can say all day that you don't believe in adultery but still have sex with your neighbor instead of your spouse. What did you really believe, then?
You can say all day that you believe the world is ending but you still hold long-term investments and you still go to work and try to keep the company afloat in tough economic times, stressing yourself out and sustaining a family and heralding the birth of your descendants. What happened to "the world could end at any minute" in all of that?
Humans don't stress themselves out needlessly, we have built-in stops protecting us against that. When you break it to the poor guy down in the hole whose back is giving out and who's sweating like a hog that you lied, there's no buried treasure down there but you want him to dig anyway, he's not going to keep digging, moron.
Even if there are ten guys down there doing the work and sending the dirt up in buckets, and once they're deep enough that they can't climb out you pull up the ropes and tell them all never mind, it's a ten-man gravesite, and ONE GUY says "no, I still believe there's buried treasure", the rest of them aren't going to flip you the bird and resume digging!
God, people are so fucking stupid sometimes.
Have you ever considered how stupid it is to assume that something like the KGB would cease to exist just because it's no longer officially sanctioned? As agents of espionage and assassination, if anything, they're potentially more powerful, more capable, and more of a threat for not being "really there". It never bores me what a great idea it is to claim your intelligencia don't actually exist, or how easily duped the average, opinionated, modern person really is.