kamykazee

The amount of money asked to enter a US college/university is ridiculous, especially since i'm looking at it from a country where 1. Higher education and Masters degree's are free for a great deal of people 2. Minimum income is only about 2k US $/year, and average is 1 or 2 K more. The sums put forth are just impossible to look at and not facedesk... The problem, as mentioned before, is that alot of jobs are listed as requiring bachelor's degrees, when in reality you might only need short-term training course to be fully prepared for it, or perhaps not even that. For comparison purposes, here's how it used to go 22+ years ago in my country: When we were under the communist regime, there was no such thing as pay for education; you either got into University/college for no cost whatsoever, or you you didn't. Those who didn't were sent to vocational training, where they actually prepared you hands-on for what your future job was going to be like. This was also free. Then again, this was a time where virtually no one was unemployed in our country, and of course this system led to different problems. But on the education side it was alot better than it is today and there was no such thing as debt. As for me, I'm currently a 4th year student in maritime studies. It's not vocational and i'll become an engineer in the maritime industry at the end of it. Luckily, i didn't pay anything for the actual University studies, but i had to undertake a series mandatory, short-term courses, which amounted to about 2k US dollars (remember not to think in US wages, and you'll notice it's a significant sum). I was lucky to find a stable job but the vast majority don't.

Well, with the diamonds i'm not sure. But in quantum mechanics this strange occurence has been proven to exist for about 40-50 years, that is to say: If two very small objects or pieces of matter (even one on the moon and one on earth) are in quantum entanglement, they affect each other in various ways. A good example to imagine this would be two spinning wheels: you spin them and when they stop spinning they lannd on either blue or red. Place one on the moon and one on earth. By spinning the one located on earth, let's say you get blue. Now, IF the two are in quantum entanglement that means you are guaranteed to get red on the wheel located on the moon. And vicerversa, if you get red on the wheel located on earth, you will without doubt get blue on the other. So, despite them being that far apart, whatever happens on one wheel instantly affects what happens on the other. That is what quantum mechanics says; it has been predicted since the 1930's and proven since the 1950's or so. Weird? Yes. Does it actually exist? Undoubtedly. That's why Einstein called it Spooky action at a distance and refused to believe in it. The uses of such a thing have been successfully tried out for the past years in teleporting light from one island to another. By teleporting, we understand going from one place to another without crossing the distance between them. That is to say, in this case, they would destroy the light particle on one island and recreate and identical copy on the other, which effectively ment teleportation. All of this i got from watching the Nova documentary 'Quantum Leap', lol. It also details some other things that just don't make sense, but which are true.

I had actually seen a documentary narrated by Brian Greene on this about 2 weeks ago. It's a Nova documentary called 'Quantum Leap', i'm sure those really interested will find it. It explains the idea in a way that is easy to understand with no need for any knowledge in physics. I was aware they were conducting experiments on particles i believe, successfully even, but something the size of diamonds? wow....

I'll have to agree with you on those, you reminded me of them. I guess books are usually better than movie adaptations because they let you imagine what you want them to look like. I think this is also credit to the author's way of wrapping the whole thing in terrific wording. [spoiler=Spoiler]Yes, they are dirt poor but they look nothing like it in the movie. They just look like kids out on a hiking trip who fell with their faces in the mud. I also expected them to be a bit, well thinner, especially since starvation was a big issue in their day to day lives. Oh well, i'll still probably go see the movie - atleast it will give me 'ohhh, i remember that' moments, though i suspect it might give me something more along the lines of 'wait, i don't remember that', or give it the feeling of just being fragmented bits put togheter. Bummer the second installment won't be until autumn 2013. Off topic: Finished 'Catching Fire'. Have to say, the ending with District 13 coming in to save the day with their hovercrafts to fly Haymitch, Katniss and Finnick away - it's a kind of 'the cavalry is here' feeling :P. Districts in full rebellion, last book sounds as promising as ever. I'm really worried about Peeta though - i can't imagine Katniss being with Gale after all this time, especially since she does like Peeta so much she would die for him. I can only imagine Katniss being with Peeta now. I'll have to temper myself in reading the last book, though. As much as i can't put the book down, i know i'll enjoy it more if i spread my reading time out a little more.

Well, i've finished 'The Hunger Games' about 2 days ago or 3. I should finish 'Catching fire' in an hour or so, and i must say i'm really impressed. The first book is very good, but what struck me especially was that about half way through the second one, i found the sequel to be better than the first! (and that's alot in itself, considering the first was just fab) [spoiler=Spoiler]The moment when i read President Snow's announcement that for the Quarter Quell they will be reaping from the previous winners is what really set me ablaze - i simply wasn't expecting it, i was still anxious as to what he had in store for them (like a child opening presents on Christmas day, not knowing what they are), but this had never crossed my mind! I really got excited at the chance of seeing Katniss and Peeta perform in the games once more! :D I'm also looking forward to the Hunger Games movie, but i can't say i agree with the actors they've chosen. [spoiler=Spoiler]Of the actors that tried out to play Katniss, i would have either liked Hailee Steinfeld or Lindsy Fonseca. And that's not because i've ever heard of them before, but just by looking at their picture they are closer to the mental image i had of Katniss. Hey maybe Jennifer Lawrence won't do that badly, but from the trailer she didn't struck me as a Katniss. The trailer i saw first was linked on tip.it (can't find the thread nor the trailer i saw at first) but that's the one i really didn't like. The trailer with them going through the woods, saying stuff about the Capitol also didn't impress me much. I don't know exactly why, it's just wasn't the way i had pictures them. Neither Prim, Katniss, Peeta or others i've seen in the trailer struck me as even up to the characters in the book. They just hit me as wanna-be-cool pretty-boys, meh. Maybe it's just me.

When dealing with such matters, you need to first define what you would like the end-result to be. Is the child's good upbringing what you most want? Would you rather just get on with your own life and neglect the child? Should you try to balance both, even if it means you will do a half-assed job at both if you choose this option? If what you want is for the child to have a good upbringing: fit into society, be able to be independent at a certain age, have beneficial habits, and so on, then two parents are prefered. I won't rely on statistics to say that is 'statistically the better option', but i do think that it you have both parents, and they are themselves actually preocupied with the child and take the time to lead him in the right direction, it will be better instead of having just one.

Motivation to do something does help if not even being the main reason for trying to become "better" at something. If we could just litter as much as we want and emit as much CO2 as we wanted, with hardly any negative effects, there would barely be any reason (and rightly so) to try to reduce them, wouldn't there?

Finished reading 1984, by Orwell, about 2 days ago. I remembered seeing a documentary about it a few years ago, so i had a vague idea of the plot, but i must say the book did impress me. Currently reading Animal Farm. Oh and, i think i found a new way of looking for books to read: On a site about typing speed, they give you a quote of something (usually a book), and if the quote interests me i look into the book it comes from, and voila, hopefully there's a good book :D

In the 60's i would say, but i've scored 80's on the Enchanted Typewritter. The Wizard of oz really bugs me out. Edit: That racer game is great. I enjoy it a whole lot. Party because i enjoy competition when it's something i'm fairly good at (such as in this case), and also because after the race, it it says where the quote you just wrote is from. Hence, i get more book recommandations :D Win-win as far as i can see it!

You're stressed as hell, oh no, that can't be good. Maybe in a conversation you can try to tell her about how you're always running around doing stuff and then go into the funny little details of everyday life - what happened at the gym, your computer blew up while you were doing your assignment - there's bound to be something special that happens to you everyday while you do these tasks you call mundane :P

As much as i would like to not depend on others for friendship, i am afraid i would go insane without atleast a few.

I read God's Debris and then the sequel to it, 'The Religion War', in 3 days or so. Both are short books at about 190 pages each but i found them very good. Especially God's Debris - i liked it the most. It's free to download in pdf format (not pirated) from a google search. I don't know if others have read it and what they're background is but i found it very thought provocative :)

I hope you won't find it offensive, Vezon, that i found what you said very amusing. I mean, he just kicked the dog and it died, poof, like that! Quite an interesting dream :)

Oh noes, i've watched the first episode. Day will never come again! (I guess i'm pretty backwards compared to the long-term fans of the show :P). I'll keep my opinions on it to myself until i watch a few more (whenever that will be). What i will say is that i am very surprised that full episodes are available on youtube. I thought i would have to torrent them or something a tiny bit more elaborate. And also: why are there only girl ponies! it's not fair :(

I have never watched the show but i enjoy reading this thread - it is especially amusing when someone reaffirms their skepticism to grown-up folks liking the show. It's quite funny, although it tended to be more amusing in the first few pages of the thread when critics were more abundant and criticism was more elaborate and funny :D I also enjoy reading others talk about ponies and the episodes they liked :P

Ooooh, that sounds really profound! I'm reading the complete sherlock holmes novels, all fit chronologically :P

From my experience it knocks them down. I would say if you're getting bullied severely that will instill a 'shy and reclusive' attitude. I know this because i was bullied in middle school, which caused me to be reclusive all through highschool, and only starting with University did i begin to recover.

I don't smile often. The only time my face gets into the smilling position is when i laugh, which in itself isn't often. I have a neutral face most of the time, i do however smile on the inside more than i do on the outside! I smile on the inside when i watch simpsons episodes, read an interesting tip.it topic or comment, see a trollface, and that's about all i can think of.

I had noticed you had a picture in your signature related to him, lol. Then when i saw on tv that they would release them i only knew of him because i saw your signature! Seems funny to me, and i saw you removed him from your signature now, leaving only the COD Cat

I agree with this. The entire belief in a higher power seems to heavily rely on the assumption that there must be some higher meaning/purpose for everything that happens. If you take it that there isn't one and things are just the way they are for no apparent reason other than chance, then some of the proposed arguments in favour of good, spirituality, and all that, fall.

Mentally ill? I'm sorry if i sound too inconspicuous or rude, as that is not my intention at all, but what illness are you talking about?

But that's just it, maybe it shouldn't be because of fear that children do something - maybe there's a way in which they realise that a certain way is better than the other or a certain behaviour is better and they KNOW for themselves and understand why it is better. In the instance of learning, perhaps they could actually find joy in learning different subjects (gasp), so there would be no need for punishment Instead of making up punishments we should look to see WHY kids don't want to do something and find a way to improve it. I think we rely too much on 'you're not supposed to like it, just suck it up - or else you're punished'. That just embeds a fear of the punishment rather than an understanding of why it's better to do that thing they tell you. Sure, as you grow older you might start to understand it, but i think you'll still be left with the feeling of 'i was forced to do that, hence i won't pursue that activity ever in my free time, i hate it'.

I remembering hearing a pod-cast once. It was between the two owners of a company that sold a 3d software package worth thousands of dollars. They said that at one point they spent six months devising and implementing anti-piracy safeguards into their software (time which they themselves readily said could have instead been used to provide more useful updates for the product), only to have it cracked within the first week of release. After that, they decdided to not put as much effort into preventing their product from being pirated, and just focus on updates. As i read on a pirate forum - the ones who actually crack the expensive software do it for the challenge.

I wouldn't ever want to be a parent. I want to do things for myself instead of dedicating my life to someone else. Yes, we are probably genetically engineered to view raising our own children as the supreme goal in life, but that ticks me off for some reason.

Because in our current society the view is that we SHOULD keep people from being ignorant and trying to educate and inform them so as to make (hopefully) the best choices. That's why there are (supposedly) safe-guards on banks to limit how much advantage they can take of you, that's why you have to put labels on food products with ingredients and other key information and make commercials saying 'too much this is bad, dont do it'. Going by this logic we should also offer people a better range of alternatives and give them the means (information and knowledge) so as to pick the one that would best suit them for their needs, whatever those may be (and i don't just mean the technical specifications of the product). Now i'm not saying i subscribe to this, or that i'm against it, but wouldn't you agree that, since we have safe-guards in place for other above-mentioned areas of our society, we should also adopt similar measures in the technology industry? It would be sound logic, no? As for Steve Jobs, i don't know much about him and i would like to refrain from making comments on that. Yet i will say that i view his death with indiference at the present time.