One of the best shots of that entire movie. Love the pun.
Screw girls tonight. Let's just dance!
He also lacks in the dressing department.
Sweet Chili Heat Doritos or Spicy Thai Curry.
I ****ing love this song!!!!!!!
Idle Handssssssss!!!!!!!
I sooooooooooooooo wann taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalks about the mangos and comac buuuuuuuks!!!!11111
Mine is better.
I think you'd be ****ed up too if you were a genetic clone that inherited all of the originals' unstable issues. Kadaj wasn't emo, he was a sensitive psychopath bent on becoming whole. Hence reunion.
They were interesting when they first started out, and I have to hand it to the fact that their sound has gotten much better since their starting work. But now they're just mediocre. Plus they aren't that good live, just noisy.
The game was really enjoyable. Playing as Vergil was a much welcomed bonus, but the only downside was lack of new cut-scenes and point of view in his story. Still, it's the best game of the series in my opinion.
Of course we aren't able to control or fathom the number of possible variables that can contribute to anything like a product or experiment. I was simply framing things within the context of of PandW's statement- what works fine in a controlled environment doesn't always do the same in the real world. We do the best we can to control for how much weight something like a chair can hold. And infinite number of variables can effect how much weight a chair can hold in the real world. What if a heavy storm caused water damage? What if a worker fell asleep on the job? For all we know aliens could've come down and screwed with the product. some are more likely than others. When we test products for certainty that they work, we accept a 95% chance of success. Referring to your chair example, that means if we test from a population of 100 chairs we run the risk of choosing 5 chairs that are working when in fact the rest of the 95 chairs do not work. We essentially have a 5% chance of making the error that all the chairs are of good quality when in fact they are not. Testing usually involves multiple assessments; if we've found that the chairs we sample are able to hold the required weight, we can assume that the next 5 chairs we pool and test will also be able to hold the required amount of weight, and so forth. If all the chairs in your example proved to be bunk there are two most likely reasons: 1) the company jumped the gun on a sample of working chairs from an overall population of flawed chairs (i.e. did one test and cleared all of the product-- which is something that happens with most drug tests performed and funded by drug companies) or 2) that the exact testing conditions were not administered to break the chair when it was broken outside of a lab. There's a very high chance that more was to blame for the flaw of so many chairs. We're only able to test for things we can readily prepare for, and we can't control every possible variable that may cause trouble with the product. If we knew everything we'd design products that wouldn't fail. Logic is designed to fail certain arguments and propositions based on the information we're given. It is infallible so that it can contribute to itself. The more information we receive about something, the more we can use logical reasoning and inference to update our current knowledge about the world. You're searching for a more superior alternative to deduction, when as of now there isn't one. If we didn't need to deduce information from what we observe and make inferences about the world around us there'd be no need for logic or reasoning because we would know everything. Since we don't know everything the best we can do is use logic and deduction about the world around us. Now granted, human beings are far from being 100% rational and logical. Our emotions and other flaws and ticks in our perceptions and cognitive processes result in obvious mistakes.
I laughed at the photo of him biting his lip while trying to admit to it. Really, this makes Clinton look like a saint, obvious "office" discrepancies aside.
A lesser form of "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray. I'd most likely spend the day hitting on attractive women and learning about them so as to make our meetings much smoother next time around. Or study much of my campus library.
Optimus Prime and Jesus.
The "dead twin" theory is still something that has no empirical grounds. There are plenty of of more cases where it has been proven wrong as opposed to right. as of yet we still haven't been able to find a viable image of two entities that vie for birth.
The book offers an insight into the social attitude of the time. It simply depicts how people of African-American heritage were thought of in the Southern States at the time. Huck's take on the matter is simply a reflection of how Whites (rich or poor) thought of themselves and slaves-- it was the generally accepted mentality of the time. It's a little piece of history, albeit not a proud piece, but crucial nevertheless.
You secretly want to worship me, but are afraid that praising my abrupt way of thinking will make you an outcast amid others on this forum.
Chances are you just dosed off without realizing it. It's a common phenomenon that everyone experiences at least once. I've often thought that an absent-minded "dose-off" was simply a blink. I've literally fallen asleep from exhaustion and then opened my eyes a few minute later thinking I had just blinked.
A noble claim. While attitudes and self-portrayal certainly contribute to a general definition of what we would consider "attractive", physical beauty still holds a great deal of the cards and it always has. You could be Jessica Alba with the personality of a ******ed gopher and people would still think you're beautiful.
