Harlot

I would have to say that I hate the new google image search, and I think that there should be an option to go back to the original if there is not one already. The grid is annoying, and even on my cable connection, all of the images don't load when I go down to page 5 or 10. You have page 1 and 2 loads, and gray images all over the pages below there. They should really revert back to the original, and I understand that they are trying to be innovative over at google, but if it isn't broke don't fix it. There only thing the new google image search accomplishes is less clicking. You don't have to click from page to page, but the images load slower and the darn image search is more laggy then it has ever been before. I feel sorry for those using dial up connections, I am certain that they don't have a chance (in you know what) to effectively use the new google image search based on the load time and bad connection that is a result of using dial up. You mix a bad or slow connection with a website that is laggy and place 10 pages in 1, you are going to have a bad experience.

I think the feature is annoying also, I don't understand why it is the default. I hate results popping up and lagging the search while I am trying to use Google. Another thing is that most people know what they are going to search when they go on Google, so there is no point of showing premature results. I don't want results for half of a word popping up or half of a phrase. It is just completely and utterly annoying rather than beneficial or innovative. It seems that some people like the feature, but I really don't understand why. I guess they like the idea that ajax is being more widely used on mainstream websites now a days. I think I like the normal google better. However, that is not it, I hate the new google images also. I think it was better the old way, although I am getting use to the new version of it. A lot of the images do not even appear when you scroll don because there are too many images loading at once. Instead of loading one page at a time you have about 10 pages loading as once and more loading as you scroll down. Its not something that I think is good in most cases. I guess there are different strokes for different folks though, because I have heard most people praise the new features on google, both the ajax search and the new image page.

Its hard to sleep when you have a busy life. I am in college now, and some nights I stay up in order to get homework done or study for a test coming up the next day. Some people can't get 8 hours of sleep a day. I am lucky if I get more than 5 hours on some nights. Lets not even talk about people who are in law school, and have to read a hundred pages in a single night. You may go through law school on 5-hour energies. Those who work and go to college full time, I don't see how they do it. I would recommend at least 7 hours of sleep each day. If you have to go to a class or work at 7am, then you need to go to bed at 11pm. This means that you will get 7 hours of sleep if you wake up at 6am, and you will have an hour get ready and get to work. Some people need more than an hour to get ready and get to work, and some need less. If you job is far away, obviously, you need to get up earlier. If you take an hour just to get ready, then the same applies...get up earlier. I think it is all about being organized and knowing how much sleep you need to be comfortable the next day. I can sleep for less than 5 hours, and get through the day without a problem. I can sleep for 2 or 3 hours, and get through all my class, but I will need a nap before the sunset. If I want complete comfort and a good night sleep, then I need at least 7 or 8 hours. It all depends on you. I suggest starting at 7 hours, and see how you feel in the morning. If you don't feel too good, add another hour the next night. If you feel good, take an hour away the next night. You will eventually find out how much sleep you are comfortable with. If you can't go to sleep at night, that tells you that you need to start going to sleep at a later time, or use more energy during the day.

No, I don't think computers or robots will take over the world, and maybe I am being a little short sighted, but I just can't see that happening. A computer is an object, a machine, not a human being. It is not able to sustain itself, adopt to its environment, or make decisions that are in its best interest. Computers are not greedy, deceitful, and they have no secret agendas. They are just machines, a creation that has not conscience, no true thought process, no personality or emotions. Even if a computer has the ability to show emotions, it is not natural emotion, but rather a fabrication. It doesn't really feel, it simply knows how to make a look that represents a feeling under certain circumstances. However, the most important aspect involved for computers being able to take over the world is a true conscience and an ability to adopt to both natural and social change. If it is unable to do those two things, then a computer is dull. It is just another machine, and just as it was programmed to dominate, it can be programmed to surrender. It would have to be a machine with the conscience, reason, and adaptation ability to not be reprogrammed unless that reprogramming is in its best interest. It would have to clearly know and understand its best interest, and its best interest must not be able to be reprogrammed into something that is not in its best interest, unless it believes that a change in interest is its best interest. What programming will govern that belief, and if it can be reprogrammed their dominance of course falls apart. It seems quite impossible for robots to dominate based on the idea that they can always be reprogrammed, and if they can't be reprogrammed...or reprogram themselves, then they are dull and won't survive as conditions change anyway. When you have an artificial intelligence rather than a biological intelligence, it is easy to change that intelligence into something else. You can just pull the plug on the robot, or reprogram it to do something else. When it comes to biological intelligence, reprogramming a human brain is possible but not controllable. You can use media propaganda, and that doesn't work on all biological brains. Then if propaganda doesn't work, you can expose that person to a lot of stress or unbelievable pain and brutality, but what will be left of that individuals brain and thought process can't be predicted. Now, as far as computers playing a large role in our society, that can not be denied. Just as the steam engine started the industrial revolution, the computer processor has started a revolution. A few years ago, you were not able to get on a computer and instantly communicate with anyone in the world, or broadcast live video over the internet with a $20 webcam. More and more companies are using the internet, and so are political movements and government. You have the military becoming more and more intertwined with computers. However, as for taking over earth, I don't think so. Now I may be wrong, and I may be short sighed or closed minded, but I just don't see it happening. However, even if it did happen, would it really matter? All humans live and die, so if humanity ends tomorrow is it relevant if death has to come to all anyway. To live and die...or to never exist....is there really much of a difference based on our current knowledge of the world and universe?

I doubt any large advertisement company would want ads on your software, or even allow such to happen. Companies such as yahoo and google serve as a medium for people to advertise their product or service, and for people with websites to make money by agreeing to display those ads. I don't think any of the people using google or yahoo to put up ads are going to take kindly to their ads being placed in a software instead of a website. I don't think any advertisement company would go for that quite frankly. You could create a website with the software for download, and place advertisements on the website, but of course, that may not bring in as much revenue. Depending on what kind of software it is, and its potential, you may be able to find private companies who wish to buy an advertisement, but that is incredibly hard to do if this is a new software with no kind of popularity or userbase. I think the best thing to do is just accept donations and put ads on the website. Make it clear that the project need money to survive. Whenever I go on a website that provides a good product for free, and they say they need money to keep the project going, I make sure I click on the advertisements. I am sure that I am not the only one, and that a lot of people do that.

I say what happened to the people who could really sing. Where are the Whitney Houston's and Aretha Franklin's. I am sure we have some talented singers in the world, but they are ignored and instead we take trash and half azed talent. I don't think Justin Bieber can sing compared to what real singing is, but I can say the same for about half of the people that are currently within the music industry. I think that a lot of people hate Justin because it is fake, not necessarily because he can't sing. His initial image was targeted towards being a "thug", and it was completely laughable in my opinion. I remember seeing him trying to dance and everything, and it just wasn't working. It reminded me of P Diddy, who has never been able to dance but is always dancing all over the stage for some stupid reason. However, I mean, thats really just the industry and you can't really blame Bieber. If I was told to try to form a particular image in order to make money and album sells, I would do it too, so I can't really blame him.

If math was a creation to keep track of things, it was a creation of men. Therefore, math in a natural sense does not exist. It would be irrelevant if men did exist, because why would there be a need to keep track of anything? Why would there be a need to know the radius of a circle? Math is very interesting, but it is in fact a creation. At one point it didn't exist. Math was not discovered, but created. A human didn't wake up one day and say...I discovered math. Numbers were created to keep track of one thing, and it was discovered that counting and numbers could be used to keep track of different things such as architecture and physical science. Math does not exist in the sense that an atom exist. It can not be seen as a physical object, it is simply an instrument of thought. Math could in fact be replaced with another form of keeping track of things, we have simply yet to create a better way. As for aliens, they are biological beings also, and therefore it is the same as the creation of math by humans. It would be like arguing what race of humans created math, it is irrelevant outside of a social context. Aliens are nothing more than another biological form, or another race of beings in a sense. If a monkey created math, it would still be a creation of a biological being. If a dog created it, the same applies. If there is no reason, then there is no order. There is only a random cycle of chaos that is being contained by mankind. How can there be order with no purpose, and no logical reasoning behind the existence of man or the universe. In fact, that may be why religion exist. Men lived in chaos and disorder, and therefore created a reason for their existence. The man looked to the stars and asked himself where the hell was he, and in fact, what was he. We still don't know where we are or what we are, and our only form of order is the illusion that society creates. Our only order is false purpose created by our societies. We strive to survive, when we know that survival isn't possible. Then when we ask ourselves what was our purpose for living to die, we conclude that it is for the good for humanity. Therefore, our existence is to perpetuate the limited existence of others, and a pointless life and death cycle. As for going back to the stars, what exactly goes back to the stars? Our physical body or our soul? Or...do we in fact have a soul? If an individuals thought is maintained by their brain, once the brain has physically deteriorated, do we exist as ourselves any longer? Is what we consider our soul, really nothing more than our brain. Is our brain the primary source of consciousness? So what exactly goes to the stars? The body that we bury under the ground, the soul, or the brain? Or, do we in fact not go anywhere at all except for back into the Earth after a existence that can not be understood? Then again I guess life and death is after all beyond our understanding at the moment. Maybe the current discussion is pointless and meaningless. Maybe it is nothing more then humans rambling about what we don't know, attempting to display the a kind of intellectuality that we truly lack. Fine by me Maybe our world is just a piece of dirt in the corner of someone's butt crack.

I would have to say technically there is no proof that aliens exist, but I think that it is extremely likely based on the vastness of space and the universe. When I say "aliens" I don't even mean other beings similar to us, or with equal or more intelligence, but any living organism living on another planet. In fact, I would go further to say any living animal living on another planet. Based on the amount of planets that exist, which seem infinite, I think it would be very naive to say that nothing else is out there. I think it is also shallow minded to base the existence of aliens off of the Bible, which was written by men, who were supposedly inspired by the Holy Ghost. When looking at the probability of humans being a the only beings to exist in the vastness of space, the statistics are almost impossible. The idea that only one planet out of infinite planets would somehow have life, while the others are just floating rocks with no purpose other than to revolve around their distinctive stars. I don't buy it. Why do these planets exist? Do they exist simply to exist, with no purpose other than to float around? Do they not also exist to sustain life? It could be possible that every planet had life at once point, and I don't think that idea would be too radical or far blown.

Lockerz is the biggest scam to hit the net. The fact is that they promise something that they can not deliver. If you say that I will receive points that can be used to buy different objects, I expect to be able to buy those objects once I receive enough points. The fact is that Lockerz knows that they can not give everyone rewards for the points that they have collected, and therefore, a large amount of people are collecting points without a purpose, other than to have points. You spend months collecting points just to spend the next year looking at an sold out page. I wouldn't suggest using Lockerz, you would be better off trying to find freelance work or writing articles over at Associated Content. The place is a complete waste of time and space on the net, and even if they are improving, the question is can they supply all of the merchandise that they promise to everyone who has enough points to buy them. The answer is no, and as the points pile up, they face a further growing challenge in regards to being able to supply that. I would suggest not signing up until they make a commitment to do that, and to give the people who sign up what they are expected to give them. Don't expect Lockerz to do that anytime soon. A lot of people have been complaining to Lockerz, and yet I do not see any improvements that would suggest that they are any where close to being able to supply what is required to satisfy me or the majority of those using their service.In a sense, all of the websites that follow Lockerz's model are scams, because there is no such thing as a free lunch. Unless there is a significant amount of advertisement moving coming into Lockerz, which I doubt, the business model won't last long. A lot of sites just make you sign offers, and they are successful in that business model because the offers bring in profit. The same is to say for the Associated Content website, and websites similar to it.

I would have to say Monday. Its usually the first day of work or school after a two day break. Sunday is alright, but it is the day that you realize that you will have to get back to the routine in a few hours.

I absolutely agree, and I was thinking the very same thing the other day. It seem that instead of just having a captcha in printed alphabet, they have began to use curves, swerves, and loops to make it much harder to understand. Another thing they do is make the letter so skinny that you can see what the heck they are. I am not sure if they are trying to protect the captcha images from new bots that can read alphabets or what, but its starting to get more and more annoying.

Nice content, I had a chance to read the article regarding the Koran Burning Day. I think its make some great points, but I doubt if the pastor had the intellectual capacity to have such an unapparent goal under the surface. I think he simply allowed his emotions to take over, and didn't know the consequences until someone with a name such as Abdul Muhaymin or Shams al Din gave him a little phone called threatening death. After the death threats started rolling in, the pastor even got himself 24/7 hour security, so its apparent that he was afraid. The moderate Muslims were constantly in direct contact with the pastor, and they likely re-enforced the idea of him suffering death, by warning what the radical Muslims would do. When the pastor saw that he no longer wanted to be involved in such chaos, he lied and said that the Koran burning would be canceled because an agreement had been reached to move the Islamic Center in near ground zero in New York to another location. The guy was afraid, but it was definitely not a victory for anyone. We could say that the pastor did get something out of it by further exposing the radical element of Islam. However, radical Islam could have also benefited from it by showing the Islamic world that the West really is against Islam and attempting to destroy it. What better way can America's hate for Islam can be shown to the moderates other than a Koran burning day being held in the U.S.? At the end of the day the real individuals who are hurt are the moderates on both sides, who are being further separated and dragged into the conflict.

Who made the chicken pop up out of no where? Was this God or was the chicken a result of evolution? Did the chicken didn't developmental stages or did the sun come up on day and there the chicken was?

It is not smart at all to make such a post on this forum, especially if you intend to go through with it. Even if you have no intends on carrying it out, you could one day be given fake money and then you could get caught trying to spend it. You post on this forum would be strong evidence for any jury. As for printing money, I have no objections personally, although its illegal. I wouldn't do it, but I don't think doing it is morally incorrect. You have a small elite group of individuals controlling the creation and distribution of money, and dictating the monetary system not only within the US, but also on the international level. I would advise you to do your research extensively, and perhaps it mat be easier to fake money in a third world countries such as Zimbabwe.

I think history is important only if people have the logic and reasoning skills in order to relate that history to the present and future. The idea is that if you have what failed or worked in the past, and under what conditions that it failed or worked, you will be in the position to make better decisions. Most politicians are encouraged to have a good grasp on history, but it is also applicable to the every day person. A more interesting subject however, and more useful, is sociology. History and sociology really work hand in hand.

I don't agree with emotion damage either, but I do agree with collateral damage. You allow one person to burn a few Korans, and it leads to the death of a lot of innocent people. The fact is that limiting freedom of speech is sometimes necessary, but its hard to find a balance or implement measures to ensure that policies are not twisted and turned to justify wrongful censorship of speech.

This is not surprising at all. I have been on chats where it was obvious that a lot of pedophiles were in the room. Go into any teen chat and say that you are 13 year old female and just chat about how terrible your parents are, and the old men will start sending your private messages. I have actually tried it, and it on a chat called stickem and I got about 30 private messages within two minutes. I ended up on the site after I heard about the chatroom and the pedophiles there while reading on thread on a forum. The thread discussed how to make pedophiles send you money by posing as a child, and then after collecting their name, number, and ip address, and then follow a script as if you are a member of the FBI or some other organization that are out to get pedophiles. Although I never went got that far lol, I was shocked at how many pedophiles sent me nasty messages or sent me a message with their name and phone number. This was from posing as a 13 year old girl and simply acting like I was angry with my parents. You guys should try it, and you'll be completely shocked. There was also a guy on facebook who stalked my sister online. On her page it clearly says that she is married, but I guess the guy didn't get the message. He was from Turkey I believe, but you know the sex slave trade is active in a lot of Eastern countries, and also in many Western countries too. They did a television show where they investigated the sex slave trade in the U.S., and many people were shocked to find out that its a growing problem. I showed my sister how to remove him as her friend and she successfully removed him, so hopefully she won't have any more problems with him. This is not only limited to females, but males are becoming targets also, particularly young teen males. You have older men who come online and connect with these lonely young guys on an emotional level and exploit them. Also, there are older men online who connect with lonely single mothers in order to get at the children. Its really sick, and it goes to show that you have to be careful online. Predators know that a lot of people online have little or not social life, and thats a open door for disaster sometimes.

Based on anwii's tendency to launch personal attacks against individuals he disagree with in both this thread, and others, while at the same time making no logical argument to back up his own stance on particular issues; I will have to agree and say that his behavior does reflect that of an idiot. Don't be surprised if he follows you from thread to thread, and falsely accuses you of making contradiction, while launching more attacks at you. I myself have been busy with college, so I no longer have much time to post here, but don't allow him to intimidate you or run you away. We need more intelligent people such as yourself who have the ability to place your values and primary socialization aside, and allow your thought to be guided more so by logic than the irrationality of emotion. This community is called Xisto, and I assume that the name is evident that many of us are here searching for knowledge and truth. In many cases, our views or the views of others may be completely wrong, and that should be expected because humans are imperfect. However, simply because we disagree does not justify launching personal attacks to the extent that the other person is forced to defend themselves or launch attacks back. This is what happened in your case. He attacked you, and you were forced to call him an idiot, and I was forced to agree. This throws the community into disarray, and distracts us from the topic being discussed. His behavior in these forums depicts clearly why he was removed from the moderation team. For some, such as myself, this is a place where I can freely express my ideas, beliefs, and thought without having to worry about the social impact or ostracism that comes along with it. Humans are creations of conformism, at least on the surface. This is a place where no one should have to conformed or be personally judged due their beliefs or ideas. In other words, refute the facts, not the individual. However, I guess theory always differs from practice. People don't like when the ground that they stand on is being logically brought into question, and they resort to personal attacks when they can not logically justify the views in which they were raised. Even the attitude of conformism is within this forum. Anwii stated, "how can a couple milion people tell several billion people that they are wrong and are not living in reality?". The idea pushes forth the notion that the majority is right, and that everyone else should conform. In contrary, history tells us that the majority is almost always wrong. The norms have always been dis-proven by the logical thinking and scientific practice of a few. A few hundred years ago, the majority believed that the Pope and several other religious leaders could speak directly with God or the Gods. The majority also believed that religious scripture was evidence that Earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun rotated around Earth. And even when other planets were discovered and was used as an argument to disprove that the sun rotated around the Earth, religious simply transformed their teaches to say that not only does the sun rotate around Earth, but so do all the planets. So simply because several billions of people believe in their distinctive religions, a couple million people can tell them that they are not living in reality because they can not logically and scientifically prove that their religion is true. However, people tend to foolishly follow the majority. In fact, there was a study done at the Harvard University, where a couple of students were brought into a room without knowledge of the study, and three students were told what the study was all about, and the others were left knowing. The conductor of the study brought all the students in one room and drew three lines on the board labeled as A,B, and C. The first two lines, A & B were the same length, and C was slightly longer. He started with the 3 students who knew about the study, and asked them which line was longest, they picked A (as the conductor of the study had privately instructed them to). The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th student - all of which who did not know about the study - picked A also, despite the fact that their senses obviously were telling them that the longest line was C. However...who were they to say that the first three students who consecutively said A, were wrong? Now as for religion, I will have to agree with anwii when he talks about the possibility. I am not a religious person myself, but both Christianity and Atheism is a belief system. Christians believe that God exist, why Atheist believe that God does not exist. I say that no one knows if God exist or does not exist. It has yet to be proven that God exist, and it has yet to be proven that God does not exist, and therefore I am an agnostic. I proudly admit that I do not know if God exists or not. Many people are afraid to say that they do not know. People are socialized to think it is wrong to not know, especially in regards to religion. The first thing a child heard into their teen years is asked when they first visit a church, particularly a Baptist Church, is "Do you believe in God?". Every now and then you have a child who says "I don't know", and then the pastors acts shocked and treats that child as if he or she is confused for not knowing. Then of course the pastor goes on the imply to the child that he or she is not at fault, but that good people who are confused go to hell (lol). Some Atheist are strongly against Agnosticism, and obviously so are many believers in religion. Atheist make the argument that only Atheism and Theism exist because saying that you don't know if a God exist is the same as not believing in a God. I disagree. If an individual was born on a dessert island, and never heard of any religion, he would not be an atheist (who believe a God doesn't exist), he would simply not know whether a God exist or not. He would be an agnostic in other words. If a missionary were to find him and tell him about God, and he then concludes that he is 100% certain that a God does not exist, he would then be an Atheist. Let me be clear that when I say God, I do not necessarily mean Gods that are depicted in religion. I mean any God, which includes a God that we could be completely unaware of and is outside the characteristics and nature of the Gods that religion depicts. As for the primary topic, which was the meaning of time. I am not the most knowledgeable guy when it comes to science, nevertheless, could it be possible that time does not exist? Perhaps time was a creation of humans in order to define life and death. When someone has cancer or a serious disease, they usually ask how much time do they have left. I don't know any other creature on Earth that does that. It appears that other beings live and die without consideration of time. In fact, the human idea of time usually conflict when discussing both science and religion. For example, science may ask, "When did the universe start?". Due to our understand of time, we are forced to assume that the universe had a beginning. Most scientific conclude that the universe started a very very very long time ago with the big bang, but then the question of, "What created the big bang?" must be answered, and when did what started the big bang come into existence, and what brought that into existence also. We can not imagine a world without a beginning, and then on the other hand we can not imagine that at some point nothing existed - nothing from nothing leaves nothing, it doesn't equal a bang. So due to our view of time, it is impossible to consider that perhaps the universe has always existed and time is only an illusion...something that does not really exist. Even on the religious side, the question is asked, "If God does not exist, who created the universe/humans?". It is impossible for us to consider the idea that universe perhaps was not created, and it was always here. Then another question on the religious side is that, "If God created the universe, who created God?". The religious side is forced to go into conflict with their belief of time in order to maintain their religious belief by saying that God always existed. You will notice that many children will say, "How could God have not beginning?". This is because the child's faith is not yet strong enough to go into conflict with their view of time in order to accommodate their belief in God. I am not saying that time does not exist, but I am saying that the non-existence of time is something that I have been thinking of. I don't have the scientific background to conclude if time truly exist or not. Nevertheless, time could actually be nothing more then something created by humans in order to measure the length of their life. In the sense of the universe and nature, could time be non-existent?

It is pretty much a website that enables the transfer for money online. Its usually used by those selling or buying products online. You create an account, and then you connect it to either your credit card or bank account. You're able to withdraw money from your back account or credit card onto paypal and transfer money from paypal to your bank account. Its a must if you intend on selling products on ebay, and a lot of people don't like giving their credit card number to multiple sites, so they use paypal instead. I have a paypal account, and thus far, it has worked wonders and made spending money online a lot easier. The only disadvantage is the fact that you have to wait on money to transfer from your bank account to paypal. If you want or need to buy something immediately, and no money is in paypal that is a problem.

Copying articles from the website of others is called Black Seoing, and is used by a lot of people to create content based websites and generate advertisement revenue. Google usually bans domain who use black seo methods. It is unlikely that the author of stolen articles will file a lawsuit, as it wouldn't be financially worth it unless it is a big corperation such as CNN or Fox who want to send a message to others who could potentially steal their contents. However, it is highly unlikely that you will be sued for stealing contents. I would highly advise against stealing contents however, and even if you do, it would be at least a little morally sound to not claim it as your own, and post a link back to the site that it originated from.

In response to inia, Xisto and Xisto - Web Hosting are two different entities. They are technically within the same network, but someone's account being banned from Xisto for posting spam is not likely to result in an individual's account being banned at Xisto - Web Hosting at they are willing to pay cash to keep hosting. You will lose the privilege to use the MyCento System, but it is likely that you will still be able to pay money for your hosting account. Unless you are doing something major such as a DOS attack on Xisto, which is hosted by Xisto - Web Hosting, you should be fine. And even if you spam and are not allowed to pay to keep your hosting account, you could always pay for reliable hosting elsewhere for the same or a lower price. You should ensure that you regularly backup your account.

I think that comparing humans to robots is not a good analogy. In fact, I believe it is a terrible analogy, as robots are not biological being. Robots can not reproduce, and even if there is a point in which they can, it is unlikely that such reproduction would be biological. Robots have no conscious, no thought, and no decision making outside of the norm of their computer coding. They can not even reprogram themselves without being programmed to recode themselves. Humans are not the same in regards to free will. Humans are biological creatures, and not are flawlessly coded to the point where there is no free will or independent decision making. Now on the other hand, humans do undergo socialization that dictates our belief and the way we live our lives. If you are born into a Muslim family, most likely you will think, act, and dress according to the appropriate standards of a Muslim. If you are born into a Christian family, most likely you will act, think, and dress like a Christian. If you live in America, most likely you will think, act, and dress like an American. In fact, if you are a Christian American, you may act and think like a Christian, but dress like a stripper or sexually hungry man or woman. Nevertheless, our beliefs are never static, and they change over time. There are people who were raised religious, and turned out to be Atheist later in life. There are people who were raised Atheist, and later in life became Christians. I am not saying this to say that we have free will, I am saying this to say that the issue is far more complicated then it is being presented as. It could easily be argued that an Christian turned Atheist was somehow forced by his society to go that route, and it was not an independent choice. I would love to hear and analyze such reasoning. What about when we decide on buying a house. Do we not have a free will on deciding whether to go into debt buying a more expensive house, or save money by buying a cheaper house? Are we hot wired to choose one or the other. Did we choose to post on this forum, or do we not have a choice. I suppose many of us have websites, but did we choose to start a website or did we do so against our will? Thinking of free will even on a simple level such as why we are here on this forum, and was it a free choice, addresses the issue of free will. In my opinion, humans have free will in some areas and don't have free will in others. Nevertheless, we have the potential and thinking capacity to have free will on all issues. One individual may have free will in an area, and another individual may not. Someone who is well read, well thought, and have a sense of self and the environment around them, may have the ability to exercise free will more so than an individual who is not. One individual, who does not understand the power of emotions, and the important of reasoning, may allow their emotions to fly off the shelf quicker than someone who understands the power and danger of emotions. Therefore, one person may not be able to make a logical choice under great emotional distress, while another may be able to. The same goes for peer pressure. Some individuals may not have free will when in a large group of individuals. They may tend to follow whatever the majority does, in fact, it has been proven that many people are conformist. A research was conducted, at Harvard University I believe. In this research, they brought 10 college students into a room. The first 3 college students were told that they were involved in a research, while the other college students did not. The person conducting the research drew three lines on a board which were labeled A, B, C,. The first two lines A & B were the same size, and C was longer. The college students were asked which line was longer, and the first 3 college students, who knew about the research picked A (they were told privately by conductor to pick A) as the longest line. The 4th student, despite his logic telling him that line C, was longer, also picked line A. The 5,6,7,8 and so on also picked A despite that fact that C was the longest line. When the first 3 students chose line A as the longest, the others were likely to conform and choose the logic of others over their own. If the three students before me say A is the longest line, then I must be crazy or can't see, and I don't want to look crazy - the 4th student must have thought. So there is a very deep complication in regards to free will, however, there are people who are non-conformist. There are those who do not go with the majority, and there question is why is that? Humans are very complicated creatures, and this is why it is almost impossible to define the meaning of free will in regards to humans, and determine if we in fact have free will. Greek Philosophizers discussed the same issues, and debated it back in forth. They discussed the virtue of human beings, and just as it was complicated then, it is also complicated today.

I think the artist tried to make a piece that was unique and creative, but I think it would have been best to use simplicity for the piece. Although complication can bring forth goods works of art, some of the most simple pieces have been some of the most famous pieces of art work. I would buy the picture if it was simple, and wasn't so colorfully disorganized. Nevertheless, when it comes to art, its not always what the person viewing it thinks, but the person who drew it. Was there a underlying message behind the drawing, or was the artist somehow trying to express his feelings about something. The picture is not that bad, but its just not something that I would hang on my wall or want to look at every day. The picture looks like a mix of complementary art and the groovy era of the 70s.

Chaos is simply what we do not know. The sense of order that humanity has was a creation. The creation of math & science, is the creation of order. We never knew what a sphere was until we came up with the name "sphere" and noted its natural characteristics. We ourselves determined that a sphere was orderly opposed to something shapeless. For a dog, the world outside of his dog house may be completely disorderly. For a human, the world outside of this solar system may be completely disorderly. Even when you look at math, it was a creation to explain the unknown in scientific terms, which was also a creation. 1+2=3...was non-existent before humans. What is 1? What is 2? What is 3? Our only explanation is that it was a numeral system. Numeral systems are a creation of humans, and are naturally non existent. Science is even a creation, and we use the numeral system in which we created in order to shape scientific theories and turn them into scientific law. If our existence is orderly, why are we here? Where do we go when we leave? Where were we before we got here? If we can not answer those questions, how can the world through our eyes possibility be orderly. How can the world be orderly for a species that their explain their own existence and non-existence. Where we created by a God or did we evolve from a monkey? If we were created by a God why is the God? Who created God, and who created the thing that created God? If God always existed, was there never a beginning? If God was created, was there a point where nothing existed? If nothing existed, what created God? On the other hand, if we evolved from a monkey, where did the monkey come from? If the monkey evolved from bacteria, where did the bacteria come from? Did the bacteria have no beginning? Did germs simply always exist and had no beginning whatsoever? Bacteria is life right, doesn't all life have a beginning and an end?The end result is that no one knows. Just as a dog has no idea that he or she lives on a planet, and is surrounded by space. A dog has no idea why he exist, he simply lives by nature and doesn't even have the capacity to question his existence. Many humans are the same, they just live and have no capacity to question their existence. They are just focused on jobs and material, just as a dog is focused on a bone and a bowl of water. On the other hand, there may be complete order....I simply don't have the brain capacity to know.

I know a man who once said that he was more afraid of what awaits him on earth than what awaits him after death. In my opinion, life is brutal and will be for a long time to come. Just about anything can drive humans to violence, including greed, politics, or even just a charismatic leader such as Hitler. I guess that is why I really think religion is a good thing. It helps us deal with the brutally of the world through belief and spirituality. I would advise anyone who is going through hard times to find a God. It could be a doorknob or a chair, but just find anything to have sincere faith in. The belief in a god tend to give people the strength and encouragement to keep going and eventually pull themselves through hard times. Look at the Jews. I am sure that they were certainly subjected to more than just what they could bear. Millions of them were slaughtered. Nevertheless, many of them survived not because of a Godly intervention, but their belief in a God kept them going. How much an individual can bear depends on how strong their faith in their god is. If they sincerely believe that their God will pull them through, they will keep on moving forward and eventually pull themselves through.