I think of the internet as one gigantic brain. As your finger touches a hotplate for the first time, you mentally register "hey, that's hot, don't touch." As someone posts, say, a recipe online for the first time, the collective (or at least those who find that information relevant) will be able to recall it using its prefrontal cortex known as "Google" whenever they want. I think that we have much more access to knowledge now. That doesn't mean we're smarter, but that we can allocate our memory for what we feel is more relevant. In the process, we leave the (subjectively) less important material online where we can search any time we want.
You are wrong. Free will and proof are not mutually exclusive. Free will allows us to seek proof. Without free will, we would have no use for proof.
You'll have to explain this: by your own premise, the fact we were "given" free will means that proof can't exist? Why exactly? I would assume that if there WERE something who "gave" us free will, then the free will would be used to seek out proof. Why else would I be given the ability to ask questions if I couldn't use it to find answers?
This is my theory: Cake, in this sense, is used as a verb. "To cake:" v. The process of not only having your cake, but eating it too. So, by saying "the cake is a lie" is much like saying "the eating is a lie." The noun (cake) may exist, but the act of eating it is only promised, but never given.
Then might I suggest trying Firefox 3. It's in RC1 now, and works like a charm! My only problem is that I prefer Adblock over Adblock Plus, and it doesn't work correctly (ie: imeem.com playlists won't load even if it's disabled)
Better yet, wait a month and download it with the rest of us.
It wasn't sarcastic, because that would imply you had a point outside the flamebait. It wasn't a joke because it wasn't funny...at all. You are completely wrong, it is not "minorities" but single, white women, and here are my sources:
BTW: You are already better than 99% of all DBA's I've ever worked with. You at least ALLOW custom queries in the first place, and even take the time to write them yourself. Your co-workers don't know how lucky they have it...
I read this on AICN earlier this week. If you read the reviews coming in (there are now at least 3) the first seemed to slam the movie. It was supposed to be an executive who saw the movie, and just wasn't impressed. Personally, I felt he was just trying to review it to sway the tide. The next two reviews that came in were both fairly positive. The second said that it was basically "just like the first two, just add 20 years to the characters." The third said "seems hollow, but still true to the Indiana Jones universe."
Basically, I feel that the first review was some guy either pissed off at the studios, pissed at GL or SS, OR, knew that a crapload of people who have been hanging on the edge of their seats for any word of this movie would hear HIS first, and for whatever reason he decided to hate on it.
Personally, I'm going to see it. I am too young to remember the others in the theater, though I have seen every one multiple times, and it just seems like the theater experience is the REASON to see a blockbuster like this.
I suggest reading up on some Richard Feynman or some Paul Davies. They are both WONDERFUL at "dumbing down" science with metaphors and models so just about anyone can read and understand it.
To paraphrase Feynman (as it has been a few years since I read "Surely You're Joking"): --"If you cannot teach a subject, ANY subject to elementary students, then you do not understand the subject."
Exactly. It seemed less about controlling what was read and more about controlling what was said. At least, those were my impressions. IANC (I am not Chinese)
Put the address of where you want to send the letter as the return address. Then put your own address as the recipient. Don't put postage on the letter and mail it out.
Again, don't do this as it's called mail fraud and will plop you in federal prison for an extended vacation.
Slashdot Mirror
So...teens acquire the majority of their ... material ... for their "spair time" online? I guess that makes sense.
Either some redtube or a klondike bar...you have to elaborate first.
sex
I think of the internet as one gigantic brain. As your finger touches a hotplate for the first time, you mentally register "hey, that's hot, don't touch." As someone posts, say, a recipe online for the first time, the collective (or at least those who find that information relevant) will be able to recall it using its prefrontal cortex known as "Google" whenever they want. I think that we have much more access to knowledge now. That doesn't mean we're smarter, but that we can allocate our memory for what we feel is more relevant. In the process, we leave the (subjectively) less important material online where we can search any time we want.
That's my point. Ceramics break. Even a "baby quake" would shake the ground.
You are wrong. Free will and proof are not mutually exclusive. Free will allows us to seek proof. Without free will, we would have no use for proof.
You'll have to explain this: by your own premise, the fact we were "given" free will means that proof can't exist? Why exactly? I would assume that if there WERE something who "gave" us free will, then the free will would be used to seek out proof. Why else would I be given the ability to ask questions if I couldn't use it to find answers?
Please enlighten me. Where is seismic activity not a threat?
One could argue that it already is: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html (halfway down the page, look for the text that starts: "As a by-product of this same view, I received a telephone call one day..."
hmmm.... that sounds a lot like coolwebsearch...
This is my theory:
Cake, in this sense, is used as a verb. "To cake:" v. The process of not only having your cake, but eating it too.
So, by saying "the cake is a lie" is much like saying "the eating is a lie." The noun (cake) may exist, but the act of eating it is only promised, but never given.
You mean, "Quit thinking of putting your stinkin' ROBOTIC paws ON me, you damned dirty ape!"
Then might I suggest trying Firefox 3. It's in RC1 now, and works like a charm! My only problem is that I prefer Adblock over Adblock Plus, and it doesn't work correctly (ie: imeem.com playlists won't load even if it's disabled)
Better yet, wait a month and download it with the rest of us.
It wasn't sarcastic, because that would imply you had a point outside the flamebait. It wasn't a joke because it wasn't funny...at all. You are completely wrong, it is not "minorities" but single, white women, and here are my sources:
US, 1996: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n21_v90/ai_18744024
UK, 1999: http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/2/269
US, 1999: http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html
http://mail.slipperyfish.net/ : Now you don't have a login but I do. In fact, I have 25 and I don't pay a dime...
Evolution at work. Wear a condom.
Wait, yahoo owns babelfish?! Since when?!!? It's always been altavista since...since...it was digital.com!!!!
BTW: You are already better than 99% of all DBA's I've ever worked with. You at least ALLOW custom queries in the first place, and even take the time to write them yourself. Your co-workers don't know how lucky they have it...
I read this on AICN earlier this week. If you read the reviews coming in (there are now at least 3) the first seemed to slam the movie. It was supposed to be an executive who saw the movie, and just wasn't impressed. Personally, I felt he was just trying to review it to sway the tide. The next two reviews that came in were both fairly positive. The second said that it was basically "just like the first two, just add 20 years to the characters." The third said "seems hollow, but still true to the Indiana Jones universe."
Basically, I feel that the first review was some guy either pissed off at the studios, pissed at GL or SS, OR, knew that a crapload of people who have been hanging on the edge of their seats for any word of this movie would hear HIS first, and for whatever reason he decided to hate on it.
Personally, I'm going to see it. I am too young to remember the others in the theater, though I have seen every one multiple times, and it just seems like the theater experience is the REASON to see a blockbuster like this.
---my 10 cents
If you look at his pic (grabbed here from here, he looks like an "if they mated" with Tom Hanks and Bill Nye the Science Guy.
And this is why I stick to bittorrent and Peer Guardian.
I suggest reading up on some Richard Feynman or some Paul Davies. They are both WONDERFUL at "dumbing down" science with metaphors and models so just about anyone can read and understand it.
Richard Feynman
Paul Davies
To paraphrase Feynman (as it has been a few years since I read "Surely You're Joking"):
--"If you cannot teach a subject, ANY subject to elementary students, then you do not understand the subject."
I see one nerd...two nerds...three nerds...fou...ah fuck it, AH, AH AH AH AH!!!
</the_count>
...did you just say "Kremit?"
Exactly. It seemed less about controlling what was read and more about controlling what was said. At least, those were my impressions. IANC (I am not Chinese)
Because I made it so
--God
Put the address of where you want to send the letter as the return address. Then put your own address as the recipient. Don't put postage on the letter and mail it out.
Again, don't do this as it's called mail fraud and will plop you in federal prison for an extended vacation.