It appears to me, as a person who takes a lot of notice of women (being single), that often women go about relationships perfectly just about coming out of the gate.
But you just can't expect to find right people falling into your lap, it takes years to really find the right person, it has to. You can't just put your hands in a bowl of jellybeans and expect to come out with a blue one, you'll have to look and sift first.
At 20 you need the patience to self govern and save jumping full into the deep end until 30 but 20yr olds don't do that.
So going about it right, just with the wrong one(s), just impatience.
Then, spent like a savings account, you second guess yourself forever, get cynical, "readjust priorities" and look for "something more".

From this end it just looks like women are often a lot nicer when they were younger.

You didn't do it wrong, you just picked the wrong one(s) to do it right with. Best you can do now is try to clean out any baggage and reinvent yourself not as someone "more evolved", but just mentally undone enough to get your head back to where it was before you started.
Then pick better. And throw it all in just like you did when that didn't work out.

The lesson is not: don't be a sap or a social victim, be savvy and do for you....because all that really means is be pretentious and judgemental, superficial, arrogant, etc. People rarely see what they beocme.
No, the lesson is: be exactly who you were to start with, just pick better.

With the right person, whom you actually are was always just right the way you did it.

A successful LTR is not about changing who you are, it's about finding the right person for you.

Let me put it this way, same point.

The US1990Y$1,000-million spent on technology development alone (not including aircraft development cost or unit cost or deployment cost), that wound up in the F117 was recuperated by invading Iraq.

That's how it works.
Now just follow the bouncing ball from there.

As long as you can play the spoons and refer to violins as a fiddle nobody can tell you're not from dixie.

Couple of other pointers, if someone asks if you'd like some icecream for desert say no you want beef jerky.
If you want people to listen to you mention a moose in your story.
Never buy or drive a car made after 1936.
Refer to all guns as flintlocks.
Apparel should include at least one animal hide.
If asked to provide directions point to landmarks and preface with "them thar...(hills, signs, bridge)" and spit.
Entering restricted areas is okay when hotly pursuing a headless turkey.


:D

Just kidding, I've no idea what dixie is like.

We're actually having a current problem in Australia with price undercutting ruining earnest business people.

Major supermarkets have used a loophole in the state fuel price regulation by buying up service station franchises and offering fuel discounts at those outlets for shoppers who spend more at their stores.

All the independent service stations can't compete with the prices of the discounted stations the supermarkets own, since the supermarkets are floating it with their large corporation turnovers. It's causing a monopoly on the fuel market, you basically need to own a large corporation to own fuel stations now, so you can discount fuel for spending at your other business, or you can't compete with consumer fuel prices.

But without small business having a chance at equitable operation, we all become slaves to a government of greedy rich people, and that's much worse than being ordered around by elected liars that at least don't really care one way or another if you get rich being honest. Rich business people, they don't the honest or anyone else getting rich, they want it all for themselves, all the power and all the money and slaves to feed them grapes.

Both "emotional intelligence" as an intrinsic term, and the misrepresentation of IQ as "booksmart" or in any way academically related are products of pop science and pseudoscience.

IQ is a measure of cognition, or task problem solving, eg. negotiating a visual maze can represent a contributing measure to IQ rating by comparing the time it took to accomplish under a standardized condition.
Answering a question based on academia is not a measure when out of context.
Answering an academic question and comparing the answers between two people who just read the same book (such as high school students in a standardized curriculum), is a cognitive measure.

Social skills are a cognitive measure, but again the condition of the test for comparison must be common, and a control body used.


What this means is when you were in high school and other students seemed smarter about the same material, you didn't have "emotional intelligence to their academic intelligence", they simply put more effort into that than you.
And if they were less socially developed than you in the playground, they didn't have a higher IQ than you, but only because they put less effort into this area than you at the time.

IQ is 100% about effort and condition, all it measures is cognition.
But pretty much everything involving task accomplishment is cognitively based.


Basically the premise that people with high IQs are socially awkward is pure fiction based on a stereotype featured by pop culture, like Revenge of the Nerds movies.
It's infantile in its clear wrongness. Professionals have excellent social skills as a grouping, and feature higher IQ ranges as a grouping than semi-skilled labourers, whose high incidence of mental illness by comparison is often likened to undeveloped social skills such as self governing emotions and behaviour in public.

I think the difference here is having a bunch of swearing, violent people claiming the fact only hardened criminals want to give them the time of day is really a social statement and not their behaviour, whilst all those peaceful happy professionals with their tea parties and patio barbeques lack emotional intelligence and social skills o_O
And the answer to that is clearly somebody has a low IQ there...

I think you'll find the ruling wasn't pushed by politicians in a fit of aristocracy, but by other dentists claiming loss of business by undercut.

It's actually illegal in the Commonwealth, there is a price regulation on businesses to prevent monopolies, eg. if you open a gas station the price of fuel is set by a state board and can only vary by a few cents, so that a super-rich person can't enter a business at a short term loss by undercutting everybody else to make the business successful, then sell it off at a net profit with an established name in an attempt to use fraud and lack of ethics to serve greed. It hurts other proprietors and the business industry in general.
Being morally criminal, basically makes it actually criminal.


Now this dentist was doing something he felt was of social conscience and community welfare. I say more power to him.

But I do think it was probably other dentists who pushed for this move to ban him from doing so, since they're the only ones really threatened by it. And as our Commonwealth legislation proves, a bunch of angry business people can make legislation happen.

War is inevitable because the United States hasn't been at peacetime military production since 1940.

Materiel war production was used to become the dominant force alongside the Soviets by the end of WW2, and then the Cold War continued this perpetual military arm up for the next forty years.

But then you never stopped. The Soviets collapsed in 1990 and experienced a period of military delapidation which left the US the primary world superpower, but the United States just didn't stop the military arm up, as if still preparing for war.

International policing actions then a framed argument of 'war on terror' later and you've managed to force the CIS to simply become the old Soviet Union militarily again, and pushed China and India to concentrate on military arm up for the last twenty five years since the Soviet collapse when everything basically should've been okay, the world at peace and we could all have rested easy.

It's like when Germany was rearming in the thirties. France and Britain had to follow suit, because when you arm up for war, you're going to war.

Now the US has been playing the role of interwar Germany for the last 25 years. You've been arming up for war. China had to steal Flanker production and India had to license produce newer MiGs taking over from where the Soviets left off in technological development, eg. HAL MiG-35 is more advanced than last Russian MiG-29, and their Flankers are newer 3.5 Gen with vectoring thrust; meanwhile China bought Russia's obsolete ASW carriers and redecked them for fixed wing operation (like the Admiral Kuznetsov).

They're basically playing the role of Britain and France to your Germany from their point of view.

And now by the 21st century the CIS (based in the Kremlin, so obviously pro-Russian), has had to recreate the soviet military war machine by any means, like the current Ukrainian issue, the previous war in Georgia, these are the old soviet military frontiers and production centres.

If the US had called it quits on military arm up during the 90s, the Russian military degeneration would've been no major issue, puppeterring Georgia wouldn't have been necessary from '98-'03 and this situation in Ukraine wouldn't have had to involve military invasion now. But the Pentagon is still playing military hedgemony all around the Black Sea strategic region (ie. asia minor through the middle east and the balkan states through the mediterranean), and those boots on the ground is exactly like putting missiles in Cuba, they don't care if you tell your people it's a war on terror and the enemy is some afghani hermits you're all scared of, they see with their eyes what you're really doing, what the pentagon is really doing.

Through the 1990s the Russians managed only to replace obsolete helicopters in their much reduced armies, the bulk of the CIS experienced a schizm, half their surplus was lost outright to panicked black marketeering, the rest wound up in the hands of rogues and independents. It was only at the end of the 90s the Kremlin even managed to bring any centralization back to the eastern region defence network.
But their standing army, air force, navy, it just got left to rot for the entire decade.

During that time the US commissioned whole new supercarrier battlegroups.

You've been arming up for war for half a century. It is ingrained in the American culture by now and I don't think you can function without doing so anymore.
But you're still doing it, and when you're the instigator of arming up for war you're obviously intent on going to war.
The economy requires it. Can't afford military dominance unless it is also economic dominance. That's how the soviets collapsed, it's how Germany didn't. To pay for the big arm up, you need to invade. You have to go to war to afford a wartime economy.

That's why war is inevitable. You intend it.

metalwing, if you can't show math for navigation of time independent of other physical dimension then I suggest it is your lacking rather than mine. I have a copy of Einstein's 1922 combined publication, all the math in which time is mentioned involves the others. There is no math for one without the others, in fact he goes to length stipulating precisely this, and that is what the math shows.

Challenge the statements fine, but show the math, not argumentation bud. I'm not into fights on the playground, they're for kids. Show the math.

? O_o

Time is just a physical dimension like the other three. You need all four for anything to exist.

eg.
A one dimensional object has length but no breadth or width. It is just an imaginary line between two points, it is not an object.

A two dimensional object has length and breadth but no width. It has no physical substance with absolutely zero width so it is just an imaginary area and not an object.

A three dimensional object has length, breadth and width but does not exist in time, it is just an imaginary object and not real as yet.

A fourth dimensional object has length, breadth and width, and time is passing for its existence. It exists.

Hence what Einstein did was accentuate the fact that earlier beliefs in only three dimensions were inherently incorrect, and that what we thought was three dimensional was in fact fourth dimensional spacetime, because without time it doesn't exist.

Now, talking about time travel in real world physics is exactly like talking about 2nd dimensional travel. It's nonsensical to start with, and the first question is, what about the other 3 (dimensions)? If you don't have them all together as one, it just plain doesn't exist anywhere but inside your head.

Or to be pedantic, more correctly, if you think of "time travel" as fourth dimensional travel, then it is identical to mundane relative velocity vectors, and subject to special relativity, meaning all regular movement is already time travel. And it is, it really is. The muon experiment proved it. Time dilates because lengths contract.

You can spacewarp literally using regular everyday technology we have on this earth today right now, and travel a distance that at the speed your spacecraft goes would take you 2 lifetimes and yet you would experience only 1 lifetime of travel to get that same distance. Just like in Star Trek or Star Wars or any other scifi rendition of spacewarping, hyperjumps, subspace drives, etc.
That's just regular everyday technology, because that's just how regular everyday physics actually works and is proved to work.
GPS actually relies on the theory to be correct or it wouldn't be accurate, because GPS uses special relativity to adjust results for accuracy (satellites travel at a velocity vector some 30,000 km/h more than us here on earth so special relativity comes into play).

The only thing stopping us visiting nearby stars is expense and the fact there's nothing there anyway.
The cost, think decades worth of national debt just to send astronauts to a dead star. But the physics is no problem, we can do that right now if you want.

Nobody wants. Kind of reasonable I think.


Oh, bringing it back from the detraction there, what I'm saying is time isn't a constant. Speed of light is the constant. Newton and Euclid thought time was a constant, it's not. Speed of light in vacuo is the universal constant. Time is just relative.
Time only exists when it is passing. The rate is irrelevent. The fact it is passing means something can exist. That's all there is to know about time intrinsic.

Short answer, nope.

Only very limited, as in dozens of markers of what is a very long strain of billions of markers can be found in fossil remains. It's a bit like having 3 pieces of a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle. Those 3 pieces certainly give some accurate information, but nowhere near the amount required for something like genetic engineering.

The way the films dealt with this was using a fictional and unrealistic suggestion of using a frog's DNA to substitute all the missing parts.

Doing that in reality would propose engineering entirely new species based largely on frogs. The results would've most closely resembled new types of frogs, perhaps feathered frogs and frogs with scales.

But what is most likely to happen is you'd just make some organic sludge that never survived the test tube.

So how does this relate to a little old lady who just wants to light some incence and pray to mecca?

She caused this?

Honestly it's just a vitamin pill?

o_o

dude, seriously, wtf do you care? Is this really worth the time you took to write? Do some housework kid, get a job, all that stuff. This is wack. Like literally wacking off.

You do realize when we don't have cosmetic differences to differentiate us whiteys find differences between ourselves to differentiate, like white-americans are arrogant, white pommies are thugs, white frenchies are dirty, white belgians have low morals, white germans are megalomaniac, white czechs are greedy, etc.

So if you've been buying into the whole whitey racism theory to start with, well you've a long way to go because the bigotry just doesn't stop there...

O_o

It's literally impossible to beat stan's post.

Living off other people male or female doesn't make you a man. Quite the opposite in fact.

Try picking up after yourself to learn how to live independently you infant. Be a man. Not the role you invented for yourself and others to compensate for the fact you just can't be bothered growing the f'k up.

deja vu is a neurological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one.

It's to do with a mixup in brain regions about where signals are being processed, when sensory data is filed in memory regions you get deja vu even though your certainty of foreknowledge concides with the event itself, to the extent that you're positive you were just walking around thinking about this and then it happened. Except that's not what happened, the event occured and then you were sure you knew of it prior, or else you'd write it on a sheet of paper before the fact as a party trick and show people you predicted it before it happened.

ie. you simply believe you have a memory of it because that's the way your brain is functioning at the time. This foreknowledge seems completely real, because the way you perceive reality is by what your brain function tells you.

It's a bit like a temporary dyslexia, instead of jumbling words your brain jumbled sensory data.

Do you do drugs? Marijuana and hallucinagens can excaserbate it. Maybe don't drink so much coffee.

Or maybe you're right, you're a witch. I'd like a pot of gold please, magick me up one.

Between all the extremist americans protesting sex education in public schools and availability of contraception for young teens, and the right to lifers, the results are predictable.
International studies have consistently shown teen motherhood pro rata drops with sex education, available contraception and legalized abortion.

The same studies also show that 50% of all girls in public schools have had full sexual penetration by age 15 and 75% by age 16. Meanwhile although numbers are diminutive, it's hardly uncommon for girls to have had full penetrative sexual intercourse at the beginning stages of sexual development, around 13. This is reportedly similar statistics to anywhere in the world, in any civilisation, at any historical period, but the studies are in the modern major developed nations including Canada, the US, UK, Australia, Japan, France, Spain, Germany, etc.

If your fight is against human nature, you've already lost. It's not a question of how you can turn children into robots and control them, it's a question of how best to compensate for given behaviour that simply cannot be controlled.

Birth licensing? Every scifi enthusiast can tell you that doesn't work. Beating the kids back into the closet to be seen and not heard, to act the way you dictate? History proves they'll just have sex in that closet.

You can't change it. So it's about what you're going to do.
Complain is a bit of a retarded answer.

He was playing with his toy soldiers in the sandbox at the time?

I'm sure his context made sense to him at the time but they're chalk and cheese.

I think the commercialised 'boogyman' explanation confuses the situation. What you have is a bunch of violent, armed criminals who've taken hostages and predictably, they're psychologically torturing the hostages. They're not particularly bright as their demands are unrealistic at best and cannot be met. Invariably then they will slave-trade or kill the hostages, probably a mixture of both.
They should be hunted as criminals and dealt with as violent, armed criminals. No more, no less.

But where an international agreement on expansion of Interpol threat response, such as an international domestic special operations consortium could be the kind of reform the modern world needs at this time, it appears the media is playing out a competition by NATO military functionaries to act as domestic peacekeepers internationally by framing every radical armed criminal group in largely muslim regions as part of the great islamic evil clandestine terrorist empire named al qeda (in fact a small extremist group of hermits in northern afghanistan and not really found anywhere else except in name).

Perhaps they also funded and controlled jack the ripper. Obviously their mind control powers are extreme.

Violent criminals are like the scorpion and the frog, if there was no such thing as islam they'd be an extremist hindu, christian or buddhist sect or any other ideology they adopted to change into something they can rationalize themselves with. It wouldn't change what they do.
It's not about ideology, it's about violent criminal behaviour and the kind of individuals which run to it with any excuse.