iglak

personally, i can see myself switching depending on what i want my habits to be. lots of most kids my age seem to be able to switch also. so, i think it mostly depends on conditioning, which, i guess, is imprinted into your subconscious at a certain time along your circadian rhythm.

A major factor in this is the rescource of available space. Oceans are fairly empty, because animals in oceans require lots of open space to grow and live normally. Whereas on land much less space is required, and thus more space is available, especially at the time of the evolution onto land in a species. And as was already said, predators would pose a large threat to any species evolving into the ocean.

i don't think it's possible to completely get rid of a fear without facing it. if you are afraid of what others think of you, doing something about your appearance will only make you afraid to go back to your normal self. that is a very bad idea. if you are afraid of an event that will happen tomorrow, the only things you can do are avoid the event, or face the event. the best thing you can do is understand your fear, then you can make a rational decision on what to do about it. the only real way to make a fear go away is to stop caring (making it irrational is a way to do this). i personally prefer the robust method of simply stopping the fear, and being courageous. unless you were directly afraid of the absence of light, that can't be all to the story. normally children are afraid that a monster will attack them at night, this is because it is harder to see at night, and you have more blind spots, and shadows where monsters can hide. although this can definitely cause a fear of the absence of light. in the process of realizing that things were just about the same in the dark and the light, you must have also realized that monsters don't automatically appear at night, and that since you've never seen a monster, there is no reasoning behind the fear of a monster coming out at night.

i can't even think of a way for the 2nd person to get it wrong and die. if the first person sees 2 red hats, he'll guess white, because it's the most probable. if he sees 1 white hat and 1 red hat, he'll guess red, because it's the most probable. if the first person guessed red, the second person knows that he has the opposite color that the blind man has. if the first person guessed white, the second person will know he has a red hat. then the blind man can deduce his own easily from that. there's no reason for the people to be stupid, this is a life and death situation. and if you do only consider the blind man to be smart, then he has no way to know unless the other 2 both pick red.

mousepad = fabric elastic

tall = big oil rig

and if it is linear, it is still possible, as my conjectures show.

oh yeah, they only have a certain number of scholorships available per district, or something, but usually it's enough to fill the top 10% or more. and i got the scholorship both as a sophmore and as a junior, so that isn't a requirement.

yeah, i'm taking them tomorrow also. i am not entirely positive of the information below, i encourage you to ask your college counselor about this information as well. as a sophmore and a junior you can take the PSATs, these are not only practice SAT I tests, but they are competition to get a $1000 scholorship for college tuition. if you get in the top 10%, you get the scholorship. these tests also show you what scores you are likely to get on the SAT Is. during the second half of your junior year and the first half of your senior year in highschool, you should take the SAT Is and the SAT IIs. both tests are available starting in March of that calander year, and are available once a month until the last one in December, not including summer vacation months of July, August, and September. the SAT IIs can usually wait until after you send in your preliminary college applications, but the SAT Is can not. college applications are usually due in the month of November, but depend on the college and sometimes your desired major. as for which scores are used, i first heard that only your most recent SAT scores are used by colleges, but i've also heard that only your highest score is used. i have also heard that all of your scores are seen, but i doubt that as the colleges have no way of weighing the scores accurately. i do not know which is correct, but the safest bet is on the first possibility. most people take the SAT Is two or three times. taking it any more than four times might be dangerous, as i am fairly sure colleges do see how many times you have taken the test, and you don't want to make it look like you have to do something a lot before you get it right.

YES!!! COME MY PERFECT BRETHEREN!!! RID THE EARTH OF THE INFERIORS!!! hahahahahahahaha!!!!! seriously, if these kids read this article, they would be laughing pretty hard. "After a few moments, she says that Jake probably feels she's betrayed his trust" "Because they're so advanced, the kids don't feel like they have to obey." no, they don't feel like they have to obey because all adults are constantly underestimating their abilities, and they react to that by ignoring adults so that they can keep their abilities at their peak for the longest time possible. "'They don't know how to process all the energy that's coming through, so they overload and react fairly badly to it.'" i'd say that the adults in their lives are the ones that don't "know how to process all the energy that's coming through", and the adults, judging from the article, seem to fear the kids' power. so they react in a way that allowes them to use as much of their power as they can, and stay as powerful as they can, because the adults keep trying to make them do things too slow. the "past life" excuse these kids are using seems to be the only thing the adults will believe, whitch is why they use it. if they use it, the adults stop questioning for the moment and let them stay at their fast pace. i don't believe that they really did live any "past lives" "To help, Brahm suggests including the children in the decision-making process, even allowing them to determine the punishments they should receive for infractions." NO, you idiot! if the parents want their childrent to be the best they can be, they have to think of their children as their equals. "allowing" and "including" will not help if the parents do not trust that their kids can actually make such decisions on their own. "Krull agrees that teaching kids they are capable and special can be positive, as long as they are not taught they're better than anybody else." again, "capable" and "special" are bad. they shouldn't be taught that they are better than anybody else, as was said, but they should never be though of as worse than anyone else either. "'Children don't have the ability to take all of the knowledge of life into account.' For that, they need parents to guide them." precisely. guide, not control. "Krull has seen many parents complain that their kids aren't reaching their full potential because they're bored in school. But he says this is often because children might decide that not doing homework is better than doing their best and getting only average grades." ok, this is like me. it has nothing to do with "deciding that not doing homework is better than doing their best". it's ALL about trust. if the parents don't trust their kids, the kids don't trust their parents. then it's the kids' job to make the parents realize this, without spoiling their parents. by not doing homework, they are showing their parents that grades don't determine intelligence. by disobeying their parents on many other accounts, and still functioning normally (or pretending to), they are showing their parents that their way is more right for them than their parents' way, even if it's not. so i say, go my perfect bretheren, never allow others to make you imperfect. go do as much as you can until you can't do any more. don't wait until college as i have, do everything you can while you have the chance, before someone else does. *edit* and if you haven't noticed, this is exactly what i was saying in half of my "fear, the source of all evil" thread

i believe that paradoxes are not possible.

well, my opinion is posted a bit below this thread, here similar to the "space and time would not allow you to meddle with something like free will." type of theory, but still very different. i assume that the past is indeed the past, and the future is indeed the future. nothing more, nothing less. and if both of those assumptions are true, then they cannot be changed. this does not mean that free will does not exist, however.

Penn & Teller did an experiment where they had someone in a resteraunt give some tables a "water list" (like a wine list). the person asked if they wanted to taste some to decide, and he brought out a plate of different water bottles, and had them taste them. when he poured some samples into their glasses he said things like "now this one is supposed to have an orange taste to it" or "i think this one actually tastes a lot clearer than the others". the tasters always agreed with him, and said they could really taste the differences. all of the water came directly from the hose out back.

hence why i said "potentially" and "i am doubtful" what does that mean precisely?

umm... ok, if you want them here and here i ddin't post links because there is some stuff in those entries that aren't entirely relevant to the subject, and i don't know what other effects there might be of me posting links to my livejournal, if any.

here you go, enjoy thx, hehe

ok, really we know that the AAH is obviously false and impossible. and if it was true, we would be very different from what we are now. however: we theoretically evolved in africa, right? hunting migrating animals, right? many primates are also constantly migrating animals, and construct of find shelter in a new place quickly every time they move, right? (yes, those "right?"s are there because i am unsure of whether or not they are true) africa is full of rivers that all migrating animals must cross at one or more points in their migration. these rivers are filled with crocodiles waiting for the right moment to grab prey. these rivers are very violent and often drown a couple migrating animals that were either trampled or slipped and can't swim well enough, or are too short to reach air. would it be likely that those pre-humans crossed the same rivers to follow the migration paths, so that they could have much easier access to food? primates generally live in small colonies that hunt, gather, and move together. following logically, the pre-humans would cross the rivers with the migrating animals. since they are so small in number, they have to be aware of the crocodiles and can't easily use such a "shotgun" strategy to crossing the river. since they are crossing the river, anyone too short will be unable to breathe unless they can swim extremely well, but the rivers can get very fast sometimes. i imagine having too much hair would let the water push you around much easier. i'd bet that the slowest crossers would be grabbed by the crocodiles. thus, they were required to be able to swim and walk through water.... how likely is it that that is the main contributor to our standing straight, being tall, being relatively hairless, having relatively webbed hands and feet, and being able to swim as fast as half-aquatic mammals, such as otters, in peak condition (although we aren't nearly as agile in water)?

another of my recent LiveJournal entries, which i will just quote because it's easier and more structured than if i wrote it out again. this is also indirectly related to my fear thread that i just started here so any thoughts or criticism on chaos theory? i admit that i do not understand quantum theory currently, nor relativity, and that those theories could potentially change my theory/conjecture, but i am doubtful of that.

so yeah, any thoughts, criticism, or even flames?

these are two of my recent LiveJournal entries. these are somewhat disconnected thoughs because i wrote this a day after i thought of it, and i sort of think in a disconnected order, but it should be readable. the second entry is in my next post on this thread.

hehe, found a good one in the news a few weeks ago: even the most noble ends do not justify any means. The article was about the prevalence of religion in politics, and the specific quote was Bush trying to say that research on stem cells taken from human fetuses is not justified, but he ended up saying that one shouldn't do anything for noble reasons.

so yeah, i left these forums a few months ago unannounced. i don't know why, but i go through phases of wanting to think and not wanting to think, and i think it correlates with the school year. well, i'm back, for a while anyway. sorry for leaving without saying anything... oh well