Yes, this demonstrates that facts can be manipulated to make a point, ergo ALL facts have a political leaning! The measurable climate change is therefore just a deliberate misrepresentation of the anticorporate Universities and can safely be ignored! Thank goodness!
but then you may be from somewhere where this does not happen
No, I definately come from a ruder intellectual background. As another illustration of how different our perspecives are, I have been thinking that I'm coming from a theoretical point of view and you from the applied!
I'm at work, so I can't spend as much time, but I've certainly enjoyed this debate, and learned a few things. I'm part of the Math meetup, if by chance you're based in the DC area, we can continue this or other discussions face to face.
The problem is that we're coming from vastly different points of view; so different that it seems we're talking around each other. So I'll start making a bridge. I ought to say I'm sorry for calling you an idiot, but I won't, since it seems you've brought your best thinking to the debate, at least once you got done whining. You think I didn't read your post at all when in fact I spent a long time reading it and working on my reply (notwithstanding the diversion into how many binary numbers are in fact evenly distributed).
You took my argument the wrong way; I have no intention of attempting to map the tortured turnings of your byzantine mind. I was trying to get you to accept that there are random events in the world. You went off and started talking about Laplace's Demon. My tactic was to make you see what a repugnant idea your radical determinism is, but that failed. I'll just put it to you straight. Determinism is dead. Heisenburg's Uncertainly Principle shot it and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem buried it. Einstein might not like it, but there are events in this world that cannot and will not succomb to the mechanistic tyrrany of a Turing Machine. God does play dice.
So skip the coin flip, quantum physics tells us that there are random events. It is not possible to calculate or predict alpha particle emissions.
That's the corner of the debate. You're not an idiot, you're right, it's not very useful in some situations to have a random number generator hooked up as input for a scientific experiment, because you can then never repeat the results. An LCG with a "properly chosen seed" is the correct tool to generate "random" input, when reproducibility of results matters. What you're not seeing is that there are situations, such as cryptography, where repetition is NOT desired, and so truely random numbers are needed and in fact do exist.
Where we actually differ is that you see that "properly chosen seed" as merely the output of a complex system, and I see true unpredictability.
If you'd like a random number of your very own, try HotBits which uses radioactive decay as its source of entropy, or if you prefer something cooler, try Random.org who can serve up random bits in whatever package you like, even via CORBA! Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to take my completely predictable dog out for a walk.
So the output of a coin flip is what then? random or predictable? Our intuition of coin flips is that they represent a random outcome. You might argue that the outcome is calculatable, given enough information about initial spin and force, wind speed and etc. To that I respond that if so, I can calculate your current state of mind given enough information about your brain and predict ahead of time your arguments, since the neurons in your brain fire according to the laws of physics. I doubt you're willing to allow me to assert that you are not a free agent, able to make decisions for yourself. So for the purposes of this discussion you must accept that the outcome of a coin toss is at the very least, incalculably complex and therefore practically random. If you're still stubbornly refusing to accept this, substitute "alpha particle emission at time t" for "coin flip" in the remainder of this post.
Given that we admit the actuality of events in the natural world whose outcome cannot be predicted, I'd like to see a reference to back up your assertion of the non-existence of random numbers. But that's just intuition, not a rigorous argument.
The traditional CS definition of a random number is that it has uniform distribution across the component digits and future results are unpredictibile. I disagree here for two reasons: first, that uniform distribution is an emergent property of a random number, not a necessity, and second, it precludes numbers under a certain complexity from "randomness" -- which I think is part of your issue with the random digits being sold as "random numbers" (by the way, the bounding problem seemed to be the author's way of explaining the problem. You're right, a single-digit random number is worthless).
Here's the problem; we agree that the output of a "coin flip" is random (well, you agree or accede to being an automoton), but that definition would make the numeric output of a single coin flip a non-random number. While no future results would be predictable, as there is only one digit to the number, so it is not uniformly distributed across the range. Does this preclude from randomness any decimal in (0,1) that does not have an even multiple of ten digits? Our intuition tells us that any series of coin flips of arbitrary length should certainly generate a random number. The problem is that addition of uniform distribution in the definition is similar to defining "sunset" using the word "orange". It seems there's no "sunset" on Mars because we recently discovered that the "sunsets" there are "blue".
Uniform distribution does not imply randomness, as pi is uniform across the integers, yet is completely determined as far out as you like to go. I can tell you with exact precision the 17th digit of pi. Randomness does imply uniform distribution across the component set, and a statistical analysis can be used to make reasonable predictions about the next value. But the gulf between a "reasonable prediction" and "certainty" is life and death to certain GedankenKatzen. As you remember from your high school stats lessons, the fact that we've thrown heads 16 times in a row does not change the chance that we throw heads this time. Tell me you've flipped 16 heads in a row, I'll bet on tails, but that doesn't improve my odds.
A more sound definition of a random number is based on information theory; a random number is one that cannot be expressed in any way "shorter" than the number itself. I can generate a random binary number of arbitrary length simply by flipping a coin n times. This is a random number by definition because the only way to express this number is by describing the sequence of coin flips it took to create it. (I flipped heads then tails then heads... is longer than 101... ergo the result is a random number. This has everything to do with compression algorithms by the way, and why compressing an already maximally compressed file will end up giving you a larger file).
Well, it's very easy to not interact with anyone in a public space, but you're missing out on a lot of interesting exchanges. Just seeing a stranger's face light up when you give them a big, honest, uncomplicated smile is a real joy. And so you know, I'm an introvert too, so don't give me any talk about how it's uncomfortable. You'll get over it.
Two months ago, I met a woman who is also a seventh child, and invited her along to a talent show I was going to. The romance didn't go far, but it was fun while it lasted. Just Tuesday I was on the platform at Union Station, and passing a disreputable looking young man I heard a quiet "Excuse me". Typically my response is to continue on my way, as this is usually panhandling behavior. For some reason I turned back and asked if he needed some help. Well, my hunch was correct, he was panhandling, but I did as I usually do (when I do anything) which is to get something to eat with them (I'm hypoglycemic, so I'm eating all the time anyway). Turns out he was also a mathematician, and we talked well into the night about topology, multivalent and/or fuzzy logic, tensors, artificial intelligence and on and on. He insipred me to start a group of Math Geeks in DC, just to get together for a meal and good conversation.
As much as I love music, I learned years ago that personal players completely rule out this sort of chance meeting. Talking to stangers is the source of a wealth of social riches, try it yourself!
Or you could read the article. Or the rest of the discussion.
Machines that would allow time travel could only allow travel by beings/objects in the future to the time the machine is invented/turned on. If we solve time travel, we enter a new period of civilization, wherin time travel has been possible from that time forward. For those who need it spelled out, we'll know we did it if someone from the future steps out of it as soon as it's turned on.
Far-fetched, but intriguing, from a sociological point of view. Essentially, think of the space contraction that mass global communications and travel have created and do that to time.
But man, the date of the article IS ironic. If only someone could have told the president in advance that al Qaeda was planning an attack involving hijacked airliners... jaz
Well, the topic of the thread is American politics. I respect those who take months or years out of their life for service in the peace corps. That does not make what I do once a week in a local soup kitchen any less a service to humanity. Charity is not a zero-sum game. My point was that the people who blow hot and heavy that "the government should get out of the 'charity' business" rarely donate any sweat equity to those organizations.
And let me get up on a soapbox here, because you just highlighted for me why Dubya's going to get reelected. Too many in this country, regardless of politics, are completely and totally self-centered. The people on the right want more for themselves and the people on the left want more for their pet cause. The interests of the right are sigular, the left plural, so the lefties split up their vote and the right wins.
I talked to a young lady tonight who used her first ever presidential vote for Nader in '00. She did not seem to understand that she and all her compatriots might as well have voted for Bush. All she wanted to talk about was how much the Green party has gained in new registrants and exposure since that election. The fact that Dubya's administration has rolled back decades of progress in protecting the environment didn't seem to dampen her zeal at all. Did I hold my nose when I voted for Gore? You bet. Am I voting for Kucinich, even though he most likely reflects my personal views? Let me answer that with an equivaltent statement: Do I want four more years of Dubya?.
The problem with liberals today is that everyone's so damn self-righteous about their pet cause. There's zero pragmatism; if they (and by "they" I mean *you*) would realize that if we all get together under a big tent, we'll make progress on all our altruistic goals. Do you think the fical conservatives and the social conservatives like each other? There's room in the republican party for people as diverse as multi-divorce-scotch-swilling-CEOs and homophobic-doctor-murdering-jesus-freaks. Most people in the GOP want nothing to do with either of these over-hyphenated groups, but THEY ALL VOTE FOR DUBYA. The liberals always want to put their little cause ahead of anything else and end up getting nothing. Politics is the art of compromise. Clinton understood that, Nader and most of the Democrats running today don't.
Here are my pet causes; fair living wage, safe working conditions, recycling, addiction and homelessness. I don't buy products made in China, I buy products that use recycled packaging (not just recyclable, but post-consumer recycled), I volunteer at treatment centers and shelters. My time and my money are much more powerful tools for change than my vote. When you go in the voting booth, remember, we have a two party system. Vote for the guy closest to your ideology with the best chance to win, and save the statements for the supermarket.
Just the fact that you use the word "oppressive" in the context of taxation in this country belies your level of international awareness. We pay lower taxes than most if not all other industrialized nations.
Funding and support of the lowest levels of the economy is not charity. The social programs are not there because the government is benevolent. At best it is enlightened self-interest to help people who have been put out of work temporarily. We do not have a welfare economy any more. You get two years and that's it.
You give yourself a lot of credit for knowing all the answers to the problems of homelessness, poverty and addiction. I don't. We may have higher taxes than Sweeden, or there may be loopholes that let people stay on welfare indefinately. What I do know is that there's a big difference between knowing the answer and being the answer. If blowhard know-it-all's like yourself EVER showed up at the soup kitchens or shelters as volunteers, I'd have a lot more respect for your theories.
The moon is pockmarked (compared to earth) because it does not have an atmosphere to burn up meteorites. The odds of a meteorite making impact are significantly greater than astronomical. Unless you mean "astronomical" as in the subject of the odds (moons and meteorites)rather than the odds themselves.
Mr. Moderator, please feel free to enforce sterility and conformity as you see fit. I meta-moderate daily.
As most people have noted, horoscopes are written as generally as possible, since the horoscopes printed in a paper should "fit" 1/12 of the population. Why do I read them and apply their advice to my life? Because I've been around long enough to understand that a life lacking in mythology is drab and uninspiring. So I take a generic horoscope and look for its (usually positive) outcome in my life. And of course, I find it.
So how is this different from your collection of Star Wars "collectibles" *snort* or your borg mask? Well, the guidance I get actually makes a difference in my life. Well, one example is that I'm engaged to be married to a woman I met on a day about seven years ago that said "you will meet your soul mate today". Did I take extra care that day to keep my eyes out for intelligent and attarctive women? Sure. Am I glad I did? Yep.
In short, I have a life plan, and I'm working toward goals, but I don't think that I am the sole arbiter of events. The world doesn't revolve around me. A time to sow, a time to reap and all that. It's human nature to look to some source of greater guidance and pattern in the ebb and flow of life. Astrology's been around for thousands of years; if it were complete bunk, wouldn't we would have thrown it out by now? Does it matter that it can easily be explained as a self-fulfilling prophesy? Nah.
I love the Sagan quote, by the way. The bull-headed application of science in the realm of faith is absurd; similar to pointing out that a man can't really be suspended on a cross by nails through his hands.
alatcluy, the bnaelkd out vriseon, for me, is a llttie hdraer to raed tahn the slpimy sbrcalmed vriseon.
I did a couple of intentional changes to make that slightly harder to read than a random sort might be. I think that the original post is a fraud because it shows some attention paid to the same aspect, except to make it more readable.
Give up? I made sure in my sentence that the shape of the words is distinctly different from the original word. I.e. if the original word had an early ascender and a late decender I intentionally switched the two. A lot of the words in the original text retain their shape: "Aoccdrnig", "lteter", "wlohe", "iprmoetnt", etc.
OVERUSE OF ALL CAPS IS UNWISE, AS CAPS "BLOCKS UP" THE TEXT MAKING IT HARDER TO READ.
Now you know why people "shouting" online is annoying. Important text shsould always be in mixed case, because we use word shape as a cue. As many have already pointed out, we do not read a letter at a time.
It seems to me that in many of the words of the above paragraph the word shape is retained, and that makes me think it is a handcrafted meme, birthed by an agent of chaotic and perhaps evil intent. We should hunt down the author and burn him, as any reasonable mob would do.
amen. I have two model M's, one of which has a "Boss" key (the + on the numeric keypad). It's great for surfing/. on the sly at work. Or would be if I had a real job. Instead of living in BFE. Where the only industries are textiles, furniture and tobacco. But I do have ready access to Model M keyboards. Because all those monoliths of early industrialism are going belly-up.
Go ahead, waste a mod point making me "off-topic" instead of actually doing your real job, finding and rewarding good posts. Eventually you'll get tired of all those "unfair" metamods and stop.
>You really can't be told the plotline of >Reloaded. You have to see it for yourself
NO, YOU CAN'T BE TOLD THE PLOT BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE!
God that movie SUCKED. All you "I took the red pill" dumbasses are reading way more into the movie than there really was.
The first movie was really great, made you look at the world a little differently AND had kickass fight scenes. This movie just fell over under its own pomposity. Everyone that was purportedly "explaining" just sounded like they were stoned out of their gourd. See it at a matinee for the fight scenes. I hope someone makes an edited version that tightens up this gasbag of a movie to give us the good fight scenes and the philosophy you guys are reading into it (but that wasn't really there).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, this demonstrates that facts can be manipulated to make a point, ergo ALL facts have a political leaning! The measurable climate change is therefore just a deliberate misrepresentation of the anticorporate Universities and can safely be ignored! Thank goodness!
No, I definately come from a ruder intellectual background. As another illustration of how different our perspecives are, I have been thinking that I'm coming from a theoretical point of view and you from the applied!
I'm at work, so I can't spend as much time, but I've certainly enjoyed this debate, and learned a few things. I'm part of the Math meetup, if by chance you're based in the DC area, we can continue this or other discussions face to face.
jaz
The problem is that we're coming from vastly different points of view; so different that it seems we're talking around each other. So I'll start making a bridge. I ought to say I'm sorry for calling you an idiot, but I won't, since it seems you've brought your best thinking to the debate, at least once you got done whining. You think I didn't read your post at all when in fact I spent a long time reading it and working on my reply (notwithstanding the diversion into how many binary numbers are in fact evenly distributed).
You took my argument the wrong way; I have no intention of attempting to map the tortured turnings of your byzantine mind. I was trying to get you to accept that there are random events in the world. You went off and started talking about Laplace's Demon. My tactic was to make you see what a repugnant idea your radical determinism is, but that failed. I'll just put it to you straight. Determinism is dead. Heisenburg's Uncertainly Principle shot it and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem buried it. Einstein might not like it, but there are events in this world that cannot and will not succomb to the mechanistic tyrrany of a Turing Machine. God does play dice.
So skip the coin flip, quantum physics tells us that there are random events. It is not possible to calculate or predict alpha particle emissions.
That's the corner of the debate. You're not an idiot, you're right, it's not very useful in some situations to have a random number generator hooked up as input for a scientific experiment, because you can then never repeat the results. An LCG with a "properly chosen seed" is the correct tool to generate "random" input, when reproducibility of results matters. What you're not seeing is that there are situations, such as cryptography, where repetition is NOT desired, and so truely random numbers are needed and in fact do exist.
Where we actually differ is that you see that "properly chosen seed" as merely the output of a complex system, and I see true unpredictability.
If you'd like a random number of your very own, try HotBits which uses radioactive decay as its source of entropy, or if you prefer something cooler, try Random.org who can serve up random bits in whatever package you like, even via CORBA! Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to take my completely predictable dog out for a walk.
jaz
"It's a fair cop" is Brit slang most closely translated for Yanks as "you got me". It's "cop" for sure.
It would be a random particle with opposing spin, the randino.
Given that we admit the actuality of events in the natural world whose outcome cannot be predicted, I'd like to see a reference to back up your assertion of the non-existence of random numbers. But that's just intuition, not a rigorous argument.
The traditional CS definition of a random number is that it has uniform distribution across the component digits and future results are unpredictibile. I disagree here for two reasons: first, that uniform distribution is an emergent property of a random number, not a necessity, and second, it precludes numbers under a certain complexity from "randomness" -- which I think is part of your issue with the random digits being sold as "random numbers" (by the way, the bounding problem seemed to be the author's way of explaining the problem. You're right, a single-digit random number is worthless).
Here's the problem; we agree that the output of a "coin flip" is random (well, you agree or accede to being an automoton), but that definition would make the numeric output of a single coin flip a non-random number. While no future results would be predictable, as there is only one digit to the number, so it is not uniformly distributed across the range. Does this preclude from randomness any decimal in (0,1) that does not have an even multiple of ten digits? Our intuition tells us that any series of coin flips of arbitrary length should certainly generate a random number. The problem is that addition of uniform distribution in the definition is similar to defining "sunset" using the word "orange". It seems there's no "sunset" on Mars because we recently discovered that the "sunsets" there are "blue".
Uniform distribution does not imply randomness, as pi is uniform across the integers, yet is completely determined as far out as you like to go. I can tell you with exact precision the 17th digit of pi. Randomness does imply uniform distribution across the component set, and a statistical analysis can be used to make reasonable predictions about the next value. But the gulf between a "reasonable prediction" and "certainty" is life and death to certain GedankenKatzen. As you remember from your high school stats lessons, the fact that we've thrown heads 16 times in a row does not change the chance that we throw heads this time. Tell me you've flipped 16 heads in a row, I'll bet on tails, but that doesn't improve my odds.
A more sound definition of a random number is based on information theory; a random number is one that cannot be expressed in any way "shorter" than the number itself. I can generate a random binary number of arbitrary length simply by flipping a coin n times. This is a random number by definition because the only way to express this number is by describing the sequence of coin flips it took to create it. (I flipped heads then tails then heads... is longer than 101... ergo the result is a random number. This has everything to do with compression algorithms by the way, and why compressing an already maximally compressed file will end up giving you a larger file).
I belie
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=definition+of+random+num ber
d'oh. when did posting anonymously undo mods?
Two months ago, I met a woman who is also a seventh child, and invited her along to a talent show I was going to. The romance didn't go far, but it was fun while it lasted. Just Tuesday I was on the platform at Union Station, and passing a disreputable looking young man I heard a quiet "Excuse me". Typically my response is to continue on my way, as this is usually panhandling behavior. For some reason I turned back and asked if he needed some help. Well, my hunch was correct, he was panhandling, but I did as I usually do (when I do anything) which is to get something to eat with them (I'm hypoglycemic, so I'm eating all the time anyway). Turns out he was also a mathematician, and we talked well into the night about topology, multivalent and/or fuzzy logic, tensors, artificial intelligence and on and on. He insipred me to start a group of Math Geeks in DC, just to get together for a meal and good conversation.
As much as I love music, I learned years ago that personal players completely rule out this sort of chance meeting. Talking to stangers is the source of a wealth of social riches, try it yourself!
jaz
Um, Why do you keep broken hardware? Is there some other nefarious use for a dead NIC? Explain, please, preferably with diagrams and purple prose.
It's Bush II, not Jr. Juniors have the exact same name. Boy Emporers have roman numerals.
Theocracy is incorrect. Bush uses the cross and American flag as props, like flight suits and fake turkeys. The correct term is kleptocracy.
Machines that would allow time travel could only allow travel by beings/objects in the future to the time the machine is invented/turned on. If we solve time travel, we enter a new period of civilization, wherin time travel has been possible from that time forward. For those who need it spelled out, we'll know we did it if someone from the future steps out of it as soon as it's turned on.
Far-fetched, but intriguing, from a sociological point of view. Essentially, think of the space contraction that mass global communications and travel have created and do that to time.
But man, the date of the article IS ironic. If only someone could have told the president in advance that al Qaeda was planning an attack involving hijacked airliners...
jaz
And let me get up on a soapbox here, because you just highlighted for me why Dubya's going to get reelected. Too many in this country, regardless of politics, are completely and totally self-centered. The people on the right want more for themselves and the people on the left want more for their pet cause. The interests of the right are sigular, the left plural, so the lefties split up their vote and the right wins.
I talked to a young lady tonight who used her first ever presidential vote for Nader in '00. She did not seem to understand that she and all her compatriots might as well have voted for Bush. All she wanted to talk about was how much the Green party has gained in new registrants and exposure since that election. The fact that Dubya's administration has rolled back decades of progress in protecting the environment didn't seem to dampen her zeal at all. Did I hold my nose when I voted for Gore? You bet. Am I voting for Kucinich, even though he most likely reflects my personal views? Let me answer that with an equivaltent statement: Do I want four more years of Dubya?.
The problem with liberals today is that everyone's so damn self-righteous about their pet cause. There's zero pragmatism; if they (and by "they" I mean *you*) would realize that if we all get together under a big tent, we'll make progress on all our altruistic goals. Do you think the fical conservatives and the social conservatives like each other? There's room in the republican party for people as diverse as multi-divorce-scotch-swilling-CEOs and homophobic-doctor-murdering-jesus-freaks. Most people in the GOP want nothing to do with either of these over-hyphenated groups, but THEY ALL VOTE FOR DUBYA. The liberals always want to put their little cause ahead of anything else and end up getting nothing. Politics is the art of compromise. Clinton understood that, Nader and most of the Democrats running today don't.
Here are my pet causes; fair living wage, safe working conditions, recycling, addiction and homelessness. I don't buy products made in China, I buy products that use recycled packaging (not just recyclable, but post-consumer recycled), I volunteer at treatment centers and shelters. My time and my money are much more powerful tools for change than my vote. When you go in the voting booth, remember, we have a two party system. Vote for the guy closest to your ideology with the best chance to win, and save the statements for the supermarket.
I'm jaz, and this is my .sig
oh yeah?
Funding and support of the lowest levels of the economy is not charity. The social programs are not there because the government is benevolent. At best it is enlightened self-interest to help people who have been put out of work temporarily. We do not have a welfare economy any more. You get two years and that's it.
You give yourself a lot of credit for knowing all the answers to the problems of homelessness, poverty and addiction. I don't. We may have higher taxes than Sweeden, or there may be loopholes that let people stay on welfare indefinately. What I do know is that there's a big difference between knowing the answer and being the answer. If blowhard know-it-all's like yourself EVER showed up at the soup kitchens or shelters as volunteers, I'd have a lot more respect for your theories.
The moon is pockmarked (compared to earth) because it does not have an atmosphere to burn up meteorites. The odds of a meteorite making impact are significantly greater than astronomical. Unless you mean "astronomical" as in the subject of the odds (moons and meteorites)rather than the odds themselves. Mr. Moderator, please feel free to enforce sterility and conformity as you see fit. I meta-moderate daily.
So how is this different from your collection of Star Wars "collectibles" *snort* or your borg mask? Well, the guidance I get actually makes a difference in my life. Well, one example is that I'm engaged to be married to a woman I met on a day about seven years ago that said "you will meet your soul mate today". Did I take extra care that day to keep my eyes out for intelligent and attarctive women? Sure. Am I glad I did? Yep.
In short, I have a life plan, and I'm working toward goals, but I don't think that I am the sole arbiter of events. The world doesn't revolve around me. A time to sow, a time to reap and all that. It's human nature to look to some source of greater guidance and pattern in the ebb and flow of life. Astrology's been around for thousands of years; if it were complete bunk, wouldn't we would have thrown it out by now? Does it matter that it can easily be explained as a self-fulfilling prophesy? Nah.
I love the Sagan quote, by the way. The bull-headed application of science in the realm of faith is absurd; similar to pointing out that a man can't really be suspended on a cross by nails through his hands.
Engage Shields
jaz
I did a couple of intentional changes to make that slightly harder to read than a random sort might be. I think that the original post is a fraud because it shows some attention paid to the same aspect, except to make it more readable.
Give up? I made sure in my sentence that the shape of the words is distinctly different from the original word. I.e. if the original word had an early ascender and a late decender I intentionally switched the two. A lot of the words in the original text retain their shape: "Aoccdrnig", "lteter", "wlohe", "iprmoetnt", etc.
OVERUSE OF ALL CAPS IS UNWISE, AS CAPS "BLOCKS UP" THE TEXT MAKING IT HARDER TO READ.
Now you know why people "shouting" online is annoying. Important text shsould always be in mixed case, because we use word shape as a cue. As many have already pointed out, we do not read a letter at a time.
It seems to me that in many of the words of the above paragraph the word shape is retained, and that makes me think it is a handcrafted meme, birthed by an agent of chaotic and perhaps evil intent. We should hunt down the author and burn him, as any reasonable mob would do.
love,
jaz
Go ahead, waste a mod point making me "off-topic" instead of actually doing your real job, finding and rewarding good posts. Eventually you'll get tired of all those "unfair" metamods and stop.
jaz
jawoll mein herr
jaz
(crickets)
too close to truth I guess...
jaz
the last thing I wanted to do after that movie was stay longer for more. I ran for the exit and purged myself. Awful awful crap.
NO, YOU CAN'T BE TOLD THE PLOT BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE!
God that movie SUCKED. All you "I took the red pill" dumbasses are reading way more into the movie than there really was.
The first movie was really great, made you look at the world a little differently AND had kickass fight scenes. This movie just fell over under its own pomposity. Everyone that was purportedly "explaining" just sounded like they were stoned out of their gourd. See it at a matinee for the fight scenes. I hope someone makes an edited version that tightens up this gasbag of a movie to give us the good fight scenes and the philosophy you guys are reading into it (but that wasn't really there).
jaz
http://www.peepresearch.org/solubility/acetone.htm l