salamangkero

One of the easiest meals is fried rice. I do have a tasty but unhealthy version which never tastes the same Essential Ingredients Steamed rice, loosened or un-clumped a bit A bit of oil (sesame is good but canola or corn is much cheaper) Garlic, minced or powdered Onions (preferably white ones) Unripe Calamansi (our local lemon) Juice Soy Sauce (I recommend Kikkoman) Salt and Pepper Non-Essential Ingredients Chopped Ham or Luncheon Meat Bacon Bits, cooked Ground Beef, cooked Chicken Strips, cooked Crab Fat (this one's good) Crab Sticks or Crab Meat Shrimp or Prawns, cooked and shelled Corn Kernels Green Peas Carrot, diced Cucumber, diced and de-seeded Tomato, diced and de-seeded Bell Pepper, diced and de-seeded Cheese (diced) Margarine (NOT butter) Vetsin (Monosodium Glutamate) Whatever your mind (or inner doctor) tells you Instructions 1. Heat oil in a large frying pan on high heat. How large "large" is depends on how much rice and extras you have. 2. Add garlic. Let it cook a few seconds. 3. Add onions. Let it cook until it is somewhat clear. 4. Add rice. Let it cook for a few minutes, mixing all the time to keep it from sticking. Switch to medium heat. 5. If you have margarine, add it now. Mix it until the rice is an even yellowish mixture. 6. Rule of thumb: those that cook quickly go in last. Cheese, cucumber and the already-cooked meats go last. Tomato and corn go in the middle. Remember to stir all the while, to prevent the mixture from sticking. It's an arm workout 7. Salt and pepper to taste. Add vetsin, if you feel like it. 8. Mix soy sauce and calamansi juice. Season with this mixture to taste. 9. Serve warm. It's less tasty when cold, although a dash of the soy sauce-calamansi mixture livens it up anytime It is, for most people, a meal in itself but for someone like me or my sibs or majority of the people in this rice-eating country of ours, it is just fried rice: the carbohydrate part of the meal. For us, it needs another dish, a viand but, in times of extreme laziness, yeah, I do consider it a meal I think I'll post a few more later

Wow, you don't happen to be from the Philippines, do you? Y'see, I'm a Filipino too I do remember my psychology professor telling us that death due to dreams, or bangungot is a phenomenon localized in south-east asian countries. To loosely translate it, it is a bad dream, a nightmare although, unlike westerners' nightmares which are no more than bad dreams, bangungot is of a particularly fatal kind. By superstition, it is said that consuming large amounts of food before sleeping, or sleeping practically immediately after a sumptuous meal, is a trigger for a person to experience bangungot Although we could all agree that people with frail heart or other cardiac problems might begin dying due to a particularly stimulating dream, victims of bangungot are not always those with heart problems. In fact, it can claim the life of just about anyone, although here, when someone is old enough and dies in his/her sleep, we simply say it's due to old age and not bangungot Oh yeah, one other thing, I think nightmare was a, err... "female" word. I remember listening to our professor that the Filipino's bangungot is, well, traditionally, male: an entity that uses certain... appendages... male appendages... and accessories to prevent a sleeping person from breathing through the mouth or nostrils. Uh, imagine as you will, mortals. All in all, I do think it is possible to die from dreams. It's kinda like that Matrix-stuff, ne? Whatever happens to you in the Matrix also happens to your real body

I don't know if there are any room escape-only games for PC. I mean, room escape games have been integrated with other game types like RPG or 2D-scrollers. Still, there are a few (short) games online. This link here has, at the moment of writing, three rooms to escape from: the Crimson Room, the Veridian Room and the White Chamber. It's made by Japanese people so the English might not be... 100% correct. Still, they're good games

I used to believe in Newton's deterministic, clockwork universe: that if the velocity and position of every particle in the universe were known, we could determine the fate of everything. I used to believe that there exists an absolute equation that can predict the motion of everything and, ultimately, the destiny of everything. Much as I hate to admit it, it also implies that there is sometruth to astrology. However, Einstein virtually broke Newton's universe, that is, Newton's laws can only apply to objects in everyday life but for explaining extremely large phenomena like Mercury's orbit or infinitesimal particles like electrons, Einstein's relativistic theories made much more sense. Indeed, science says that our universe is rather probabilistic than deterministic. In other words, we cannot really extrapolate into the future and predict anything accurately. Now, the issue at hand: is astrology really a math/science related to astronomy? Personally, I don't think so. Yes, we can say that astrology is the parent of astronomy. However, astronomy is the systematic study of the cosmos. Talking about equinoxes, solstices and time zones or determining exactlky where in the sky is the moment you were born is astronomy. Using charts and graphs, computing degrees, minutes and seconds, that is math. Applying the result to the prediction of human personality or even fate, that is astrology and, especially now, universally impossible. I'll have to agree with marekdurek: just because something is systematic does not necessarily mean it is a science or math. Apart from that, science or math also requires accuracy or, at the very least, significant correlation. Now, indianpartner mentioned that science is still incapable of explaining the complete functionality of a human brain nor resurrect the dead. I'd say this is irrelevant and illogical reasoning. Pointing out the flaws in science does not necessarily strengthen the defense for astrology. Besides, despite those two flaws mentioned, science is still capable of satisfactorily explaining how much of the universe works. From where I'm standing, though, I can see that astrology cannot explain the workings of the human brain either. More importantly, there is still a lot more than astrology cannot explain. For example, it cannot give the reason why a plant generally heads towards the light, how diseases are cured or how information can be transmitted across vast distances. Also, another thing is that the stars in the sky are not constantly in the same position forever. New ones are born, old ones die out and the rest drift about in the vast empty space. In other words, the configuration of the stars now is not the same as the configuration of stars tomorrow. The stars would have moved, albeit slowly to the Earthling's eye, but still moving. This has led to certain confusion. Allow me to point you to an older post of mine here. Basically, today's astrology is terribly inaccurate, calling people Aries when they technically are Pisces and Leo when they should have been Cancer. In the end, having all that system and pomp does not necessarily make anything a science. Especially if it is not even 90% accurate

Quite regrettably, I, like everyone else, cannot contribute anything else that is not mushy to this thread.Personally, I believe music is based on individual judgment. It is quite relative, really, and there are a lot of quotes that basically say so:One man's trash is another man's treasure.One man's meat is another man's poison.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.Why not extend it a bit more and say music is in the ears of the listener? It's really a matter of opinion; a personal judgment. I don't think music has an actual definition or template that can be deemed universal. It really is that specific per listener. However, music, as a lot of humans know now, is more like a consensus or what majority in a particular locale deems to be "musical". It is, rather, a lot like a survey. Lemme put it this way, the president does not really define or outline what a leader is. Rather, it is what majority deems to be capable of exhibiting leadership qualities. Same with music. It's not what is pleasing to everyone, it is what majority, or almost everyone, finds pleasing. Again, this is the popular (but inacurate) definition of music.Personally, I like hyper-upbeat music. What is rock to other people is pop to me. Pop music is easy listening while mellow, well, it's almost a sedative to me

I am seriously peeved by this attack on Darwinism. Lemme give a brief overview. Natural selection, the theorized driving force behind evolution, works on the premises that those who equipped with the capabilities that enhance their chances of survival tend to survive longer to breed more of their kind. Simply put, in a forest, giraffes with longer necks can reach higher branches instead of competing with other shorter-necked giraffes for the lower ones. This increased its chances for survival and, statistically speaking, enabled it to breed more like it, that is longer-necked giraffes. IMHO, it all boils down to genetics. Those with the genes that determine better survival, like webbed feet, fins, a tail or what not, usually survive longer to give birth to progeny with similar genes. Another thing, evolution is (usually) a long, drawn-out process so don't expect to pull a human child out of a monkey's vagina. Also, it is not voluntary. Say, I am an okapi and I'm competing with the rest of the herd for all the bushes and the low branches. I couldn't very well just say, "Oh, I wish I could get at the higher branches!" and wake up the next day as a giraffe. It takes generations for there to be any pronounced difference. As such, your arguments are clearly non-sequitur. It assumes that the environment is identical elsewhere. There is a general notion that humanity started from Africa. What you are expecting is that all monkeys, from the Asian islands to the Americas, will evolve the same way as the African apes did when, clearly, the conditions for evolution is not the same globally. In other words, it is perfectly possible for monkeys and humans to exist at the same time. In Africa, there was a need for a tribe of monkeys to evolve to humans; clearly, there are other places where there was no need to evolve. I'd like to point out that this is inductive reasoning and what you are presenting is not actually proof but only facts that further support the theory of evolution. It is, as any sane scientist knows, audacious to presume that a certain evidence is the proof of something as widely debated as Darwinism. True, true. One really shouldn't be quick to dismiss a possibility simply because of a belief or a mountain of inconclusive evidences

I've been two weeks without my phone now. And it's not intentional, mind you. I got pick-pocketed.It's not really just about the phone. A week before that, my watch died. When I lost my phone, I had almost no knowledge of time between computers :PIt was quite a liberating experience, really. Not being hounded by time close on your heels is a relief I didn't know I could afford. I mean, I used to feel rushed and as though there isn't time for everything. As a matter of fact, there is, as I found out. Only, with a constant reminder of the time, it doesn't feel like it.Other things about being phone-less, though, is that you tend to lose contact with people. I do have some acquaintances I've only known through phone and, with the loss, I feel only a severe stroke of fate or serendipity will cause us to meet again. If you think it's painful to lose a friend, there also is pain in losing what could have been a friend.It's also harder to coordinate events. In our country, people a considerable distance from each other usually communicate through texting. Without that privilege, I don't usually get word of emergencies until its too late; by that time, someone had taken over for me. In a way, it's good, but not when you're thinking of your career's future.All in all, I'd say, a phone is essential for communicating and I really miss being buzzed ever and anon. It makes me feel needed :DWell, for now, I just bought a new one. Quite spartan, monochrome LCD, no games or music. I think this will do

I don't know what doublewides are, but I suppose this ignorance won't hurt much. I did happen to watch a movie on a bus once, I think it was Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or an imitation/ parody that runs along the same lines. Basically, the plot is that somewhere in Texas, there's a morbid family so grisly, Addam's family pales in comparison. The mother is a wheelchair-bound woman. The father is a menacing truck driver (menacing is the truck, not the driver) One of their sons is a dashing gentleman, the "bait" for the people lost in the area. Another is an violent, perverted, gun-firing axe-wielding retard. Still another son is an abnormally large ball of fat wielding a chainsaw; this one, the family lovingly calls "Junior". The youngest child, a daughter, is also a murderess in the making. She plays with voodoo dolls and shrunken heads. She seems to have no problem stabbing strangers' hands. One last member is grandma, a chair-bound corpse-like corpse they feed with blood. Yes, the entire family practice cannibalism. Anyway, that's it. Lost people drive up to their gas station. Handsome gent flirts a bit, asks for the favor of hitch-hiking to the next town then, in a sudden rush of events, defends the lost lady from the perverted, violent, gun-firing gas station owner and ends up getting "shot". Suddenly it's night. Behind them, Daddy is tailing them in an unlit truck. A jolt or two and then, dun-dun-dun, all the lights come on to reveal the "evil" truck. Anyway, it all ends in a wild chase. They come upon a loony woman. The loony woman has been hiding in the bush for a week now. They started as a sorority or something. Then the murdering family came and started chasing them. One by one, her sisters fell; she's the only one left now. Why isn't she leaving? It's flat ground out there. You could spot a person a mile off. She's hiding by day and cautiously moves from woods to woods at night. Anyway, the lost girl's hubby gets caught. Poor woman spots some lights in the distance, rushes towards it, enters house, goes, "Hello? Hello? Anyone here?" hears little girl crying upstairs. She goes up, hears little girl's story then little girl stabs her hand with a pair of scissors or something. "They never learn do they?" says a masculine voice. The handsome gent is at the door. They bound and gagged poor lost woman and she learns they're cannibals. It's a terrible movie; at this point, I am only glad to disembark at my bus stop. It's all gore, blood and intestines, but not horror. Quite a cheesy flick it makes me wanna barf. Still, if you could do something about it, I mean, if you could do a better movie (I think the plot needs some work) then by all means, go ahead. Wish you luck There's the Scary Movie series

Oookay, I'd like to point out that Chinese Kungfu, methinks, is hardly the appropriate term. I'll assume you meant those theatrical stunts involving high-flying kicks, powerful punches, agile dodges or the dexterity with which they used just about anything as a weapon. I'll be first to admit that I have very a limited notion to what kung fu is, aside from the fact that, literally translated, it means hard work. Anyway, from what I've seen in movies, I really liked the way they move with grace and ease, almost anticipating their opponent's move such that when the opponent attacks, the attack is usually blocked, parried or returned. Okay, that was demeaning; I admit movies are not exactly the most accurate source of information on Kung fu. Anyway, I have also read an article (feature article in a newspaper, mind you) that Kung fu has two components. "Hard" Kung fu is composed of what I've just mentioned. It is mostly about strength, force, agility, speed, dexterity and fortitude. I'm afraid that, unlike most RPG's, luck does not figure anywhere in there; you certainly don't see Kung fu practitioners carrying a bag of horseshoes, four-leaf clovers or rabbit paws. The other part, "soft" Kung fu is rarely taught to just about anyone. A very limited number of monks actually know these; being a practitioner does not necessarily guarantee that this will be taught to you. The reason for this is that it is particularly dangerous. It is quite lethal, capable of killing people without even injuring them. I've also read about a guy who consented to a scientific experiment. He "laid" his hands gently on his son and predicted that the boy would die in 24 or 48 hours. Anyway, the boy did begin to start dying the next one or two days and it was only in the nick of time the kung fu guy was able to undo the "spell" and revive the boy. Anyway, it is quite awesome because, more than death, it also teaches about life, how it flows within our body or how it can be harnessed. I guess I might have the audacity to say that "soft" Kung fu is where the martial art stunts end and the "magic" begins. Oh well, I think I've bastardized Kung fu enough with my lack of knowledge on it so I'll shut up for now

It might be helpful if you first define the key terms of your question: Allopathy and Homeopathy. Not everyone has the patience to search Google or Wikipedia just to understand what you mean. Also, between you and me, explaining unfamiliar terms do tend to generate more hosting credits for you From your implied contrast between the two, I infer that you are referring to Allopathy as Heteropathy. Allopathy, or Heteropathy (allo: different; pathos: feeling) is what is usually considered conventional medicine. It is a medical philosophy where cures are effected by administering agents that produce, in healthy individuals, symptoms opposite those of the disease, or illness. A simple example is using cold water to help a fever subside. Similarly, analgesics and painkillers work by countering pain. Laxatives combat constipation by inducing bowel movement. Again, most, but not all, of conventional medicine is somewhat allopathic. Of course, this makes perfect sense. After all, whoever said that you fight fire with fire must probably be an arsonist who seeks a bigger conflagration. You don't quell a raging inferno by intensifying it but by the application of something opposite: a cooling agent, such as water. Or liquid nitrogen. Homeopathy (*person*: same; pathos: feeling), on the other hand, is effected by using agents that duplicate symptoms similar to that of a disease. In some books I've read, it is used in the treatment of allergies. Say that a person is allergic to pollen. In classical homeopathy, a small amount of pollen will be gathered, dried, ground, mixed with 100 parts water, shaken, stirred, the flask pounded on the table, distilled, filtered, aerated, boiled, mixed with alcohol, frozen, left alone for hours, et cetera. I'd have to say, it does resemble how alchemists work, only homeopaths seek a much more down-to-earth substance than the philosopher's stone or gold: a cure for a specific illness. In any case, the objective back then is to dilute the causative agent of the disease. When administered to the poor guy who had allergy to pollen, there would be slight redness on his arms or a warming of the skin at the back of his neck but not an outbreak of rashes induced by undiluted pollen. This is repeatedly administered until the fellow is able to take the treatment with no more adverse effects. The solution is then made stronger and the cycle, repeated, until, finally, the chap can literally stop and smell the roses without keeling over. Today, homeopathic treatment is available, not anymore in alchemical apothecaries, but in pharmaceutical drugs. Yea, we do have placebo pills that contain trace amounts of the allergen of your choice. It's not available worldwide, though, in the same way Starbucks coffee is not available to the impoverished. Political, commercial and humanitarian sentiments aside, I'm sure you can see that, even in modern world, homeopathic treatment has a splendid example: inoculation/vaccination. Vaccines are, essentially, "deactivated" viruses: strands of genetic material for your defense system to recognize and create an immunity. In general, homeopathy seeks to prevent unwanted symptoms from a future exposure to pathogenic agents, a prevention, if you will, while allopathy seeks to eliminate the unwanted symptoms of an ongoing illness, cure if you will. In this case, however, I'd like to point out that, in my opinion, the saying, An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. In the case of vaccines, yes, I'd definitely urge everyone who can have access to vaccines to have themselves inoculated. However, for homeopathic remedies to allergies, I think it would be, at the present, much better to avoid the allergens or take antihistamines than rely on homeopathy, which is, at best, still a largely unexplored, unproven and untested field of medicine. At the present, I would recommend everyone to carry on with their their allopathic treatment (not that I am condoning hypochondriacs) I would still like to point out that a clean and healthy lifestyle still beats allopathic or homeopathic treatment

Here's what I do:1. Sort out whatever junk I want to put in my site. For example, if I want to upload fiction, I make a library section. If I plan to upload random musings, I make a blog section. Of course, the others usually fall into place: Home for, well, just home; Links section for other people's sites; About page(s) for stuff about you; an Updates/News section, to use whenever you make changes to your site. I'm not implementing these sections but you might wanna use them: Gallery for pics and photos, a Games page, if you're a programmer of Flash or Java games, a Downloads section, if you happen to have music, video clips or software you wish to share (mind your intellectual property rights )2. When you have sorted them out. Make a checklist. You can't do them all at once; live with it. Prioritize which sections you'd like to have.3. Update your navigation buttons/panel/link whenever you "launch" a new section. For example, I wanna have a Gallery section someday so I'll be adding that link to my navi someday. However, as of now, I won't be adding a link to a non-existent Gallery section. As a matter of fact, as an extra precautionary measure, I won't build up other people's anticipation by mentioning anything about a Gallery section in my blog, or in my updates. Here's the thing, don't promise, or even hint at, a feature unless you are absolutely sure you can deliver on time.4. Speaking of time, be specific. I find it foolish to announce something that has yet to be. However, if you really must, don't say, "I'll have a Gallery section sometime," or worse, "Gallery section, coming soon!", or the worst of all, "Gallery section is under construction!" If you must announce it to the world, be specific enough to say, "Gallery section opens on July 5, 2008" or "Gallery section to be launched before year-end"5. Stick to a theme. It's difficult enough to build a site with a consistent theme. It is far much harder for you to build it if you're constantly adding new stuff to it. Yeah, that feature might be cool but is it essential? Will it help in enhancing your whole site and not just a page or two?6. Think of the underdogs. Let's face it, not everyone is on a broadband connection. (I don't have to explain myself, thank you) Sure, Web 2.0 is the hype now, it's the "in" thing and I don't find anything too wrong with rounded buttons or pastel colors. However, take the time to ask yourself if you really need all those plugins. Do you really need a hyperlink previewer? How about a thumbnail enlarger? Is it necessary for people to know how many have visited your pages? (You gotta admit, that last one's egoistic, boastful and pathetic, all at once) There is a principle called KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)7. Lastly, I probably should tell you that, if you take our advice seriously enough, you'll never finish your site. Fact is, a worthwhile site is never finished but is constantly a work in progress. If you reach a point where you stop updating your site and could think of nothing else to improve on, it's not a sign of perfection but a sign of dwindling creativity and spark.Best of luck with your site

I like Bleach and Naruto but, somehow, Bleach's filler episodes are a bit... lackluster, Naruto's even doubly or even quadruply so. I personally like Hoshi no Koe (translated as Voices of a Distant Star) It's just one short clip but it's really... touching. Such a lovely anime that blooms shortly, explodes with euphoric cheesiness (yes, I never thought there was such a thing but, apparently, there is) and gently fades away. Haha, nah. It's a good anime; either that or I related so intensely with the lead characters

Oookay... is it just me or is that hamrochitwan site down or "comming soon"? Seriously, there used to be times when the Internet was all about information. The websites are there to serve the people, to offer them the information that they seek. Now, it disgusts me that it's all about ranking higher in Google or getting more visitors who, for all we know, may just be passing through, or increasing the number of sites that refer to yours or... the list goes on and on. Personally, I really think that, to attract users to register to a site, the site must offer something worth their while. True, it will only take a minute or two to register but not all of us have the luxury of time. Take porn sites, for example. Why should I register with a credit card, or even if it free when I could just as easily get the same content elsewhere without the need to register? I'd have to agree with rvalkass; online registration is a give-and-take transaction. Sure, registration makes it easier for webmasters to track their audiences or monitor traffic or earn something though (unsolicited, and, sometimes, intrusive) adverts. However, it is also the webmasters' (or content providers') obligation to give something back to their registered members. People don't normally register simply because you want them to. Anything that requires registration should, somehow, give sufficient content, ideally, exclusive ones, to their registered members. Otherwise, a lot of people will realize just how pointless it is and stop re-visiting your site. Sure, you may have lots of registered members but I doubt any of them really would come back

Wokies, I think I saw where the fallacy is. (I already did a long time ago but it took me a while to get back to this thread) No conflict here. I'll just repeat, each angle gets infinitely closer (but does not actually become) 180°. This is impossible. It never hits 179.9-repeating. It just keeps on going from 179.9, 179.99, 179.999, etc but it is perfectly impossible to actually hit 179.9-repeating, that is an infinite number of 9's. How so? Well, how do you reach infinity? How do you count up to infinity? Infinity is, by nature, an exceedingly large and unattainable number. Besides, you said it yourself. Therefore, 179.9-repeating is exactly 180, right? And, as we said before, each angle gets infinitely closer (but does not actually become) 180°. In other words, it will never hit 180, 179.9-repeating, 179+1 or any other representation of the same number. If it were true, which, as we have seen now, is not the case. Circles cannot be equal to lines. I believe your teacher must be thinking of Zeno's paradoxes of motion. Yes, it is quite similar

Wow. It's been more than a year since I last posted on this thread... and it surprises me that a lot of posts are extremely off-topic. Okay, let's review: 1. This thread is about blackholes. Swarzchild blackholes, to be more specific, that is, an absolutely dense celestial body. Not rifts in space-time, wormholes, Einstein-Rosen bridges, portals, gateways to another dimensions or any of such stuff. Simply put, an amazingly small yet heavy object. 2. I am perfectly aware that nothing is supposed to escape a black hole. I mean, holy $#!+ even d@mn light cannot escape, ya, ya, ya! And I ask, is that sufficient proof that there is no escaping a blackhole? 3. I am merely pondering that maybe, just maybe, there is a possibility that something that has entered a blackhole will be expelled from it, albeit torn and tattered into sub-atomic particles. I do not dispute that no object can escape a blackhole unmodified. Now, some new insights. I have a friend who once told me that it is impossible to actually reach (make contact with) a blackhole. While in the accretion disk, matter accelerates towards the center but never actually reaches it. The explanation is, supposedly, one of Einstein's equations regarding time dilation. The closer an object gets to the speed of light, the slower time goes for it. I gathered that he is of the opinion that the nearer an object is to a black hole, the faster it goes yet, as a side effect, the slower its descent. She also hypothesized that, when the object in question finally reaches the speed of light, it will stand stock-still, at least, relative to the blackhole. I'm a bit sleepy now, though so I haven't put much thought into it. When I wake up tomorrow, I'll think about it some more and, hopefully, either understand or debunk my friend's theory. Anyway, I still think it is possible for particles to escape a blackhole with the following assumptions: 1. It is a blackhole, not a gateway or rift or... y'know what, you should know what I mean by now 2. It is rotating about some axis 3. Its accretion disk is also rotating in the same direction around the same axis. So... after a year and two months, what do you guys think?

Wow, Alex, you're evil. You totally beat me to it; I was just gonna advise that I doubt it will work though, but it's evil nonetheless. In any case, don't you think couples who go for a divorce have already mulled over its effects on the kids? Also, his dad is a male and, far be it from me to be a traitor to my own sex, males generally tend to be jerks. His dad might reply, "Well, you're gonna have to find some other way to deal with it," or, "WTF, you have a problem with my girlfriend?!? Huh?!?" or, "Oh, lemme guess, squandering my electricity is supposed to make my girl better for you?" I dunno, though. Honestly, why do you stay up late on the computer? Is it something you can't just tell them?

When I was in sixth grade, I started a "Magician's Club" which was mostly a flop because everyone in there wanted to learn the secrets but didn't want to perform so I had to be the one who gets to perform every time so basically, everyone else knows how it is done but they don't know exactly how to do it.The most basic sleight of hand trick I knew was, as Seidhrith said, misdirection. It is diverting the audience's attention away from the trick, hopefully, giving enough time for you to complete the trick. One way of achieving this is raising an object on one hand while the other completes the trick. The audience will, depending on the supposed importance of the object being raised, instinctively follow the object with their gaze.Another way to achieve this if by a false blunder. This is where you seem to have failed to complete the trick seamlessly the first time. On your second "try" the audience will anticipate that you'll do the same trick when, in fact, you are doing another.Some ways of giving misdirection, on the other hand, are completely lame. "Oh, look at that!" while pointing your finger skywards is a kinda lame way of saying, "I'm gonna be doing something fishy so I want you to look there" Indeed, a lot of anim? series have implemented this, with geeky looking characters screaming, "Look! A crow with <insert object here> in its mouth!" ;)There are times when misdirection is not a sleight of hand per se rather a sleight of head technique. For example, if you speak with your audience in an engaging manner then ever-so-slightly twist your neck and shift your gaze to the side as though you were abruptly interrupted by something that called your attention, you, depending on your skills, might be successful enough in luring your audience's attention away from the trick long enough.I'm sure some of you might want to know some sleight of hand tricks. For the most part, misdirection is an acquired skill, one that requires constant practice to perfect, or, at least, master. This one I'm gonna give, however, falls under False Shuffling, as said by Seidhrith:1. From a deck of playing cards, get the King, Queen, Jack and Ace card of every suit.2. Put down the King cards of every suit. Follow it with the Queen cards, making sure that the suits remain consistent, that is, the Queen of Hearts is laid down on top of the King of Hearts and the Queen of Spades is on top of the King of Spades.3. Do the same with the Jack cards, then the Ace cards.4. It might be better if you arrange every suit's heap in a column, in pretty much the same way they are arranged when playing Klondike Solitaire. That is, you can see that every suit's heap/column has the king, as the bottom-most card (the top most in the column) and the ace is at the top of the pile (and at the bottom of the column) This is the starting position of the trick. Talk to your audience and note that the cards are sorted by suits.5. Pull each column back into a heap, ensuring that the order is maintained. Pile each suit's heap atop each other. You'd end up with a deck of 16 cards. Lay it face-down on the table.6. Invite the audience to cut, I repeat, cut the "deck". To do this, have them split the deck into two and place the lower group on top of the top group. Repeat as many times as you want.7. Invite the audience to deal the cards, face-down, in four groups. You'd end up with four piles of face-down cards.8. If you did it correctly or you had instructed your audience to do it correctly, wen you turn the piles over, the cards would have been sorted by rank. The fact that you did not touch the cards during the trick should lend credibility to your prowess as a magician, that is, for exceedingly average people.That, again, is an example of false shuffling. I'm also exceedingly lazy; anyone mind posting the pics for me? I might do it, but at a later date

If that is not a dead-giveaway on how completely silly and fabricated this spell is, I'm a monkey's uncle. I seriously doubt that any of those *ahem* deities ever existed. As the first commandment goes, "I am Fluoxetine, your god. Thou shalt not have other false gods before me." Seriously, though, there are some "spiritual" things that are, indeed, curative. It's something well beyond science but, beats me, they really work... well, most of the time. In our country, we have this concept called bati. Loosely translated, it means "to greet" Somehow, in our culture it usually seems to apply only to small children, as opposed to those huge children lolz Anyway, when someone (or something) takes a fancy to a kid and the child falls ill shortly afterwards, the child is said to be nabati ("had been greeted," again, loosely, very loosely, translated) The "greeter" can be anyone or, like I said, anything. It could be your well-meaning next-door neighbor, a close relative eager to squeeze your cute baby's little cheeks, a nuno[/b] (dwarf or elf or earthbound faerie), a dog, a tree, anything. The concept is, I guess, similar to the West's "evil eye" If it has been "diagnosed" that the greeter is human, the cure would be to smear his/her saliva either on the baby's tummy (just a bit above the belly button) or forehead, depending on the version you know. Strangely enough, the baby gets well within a day or two, most of the time. Yes, I know, it's disgusting but the few times I've seen it, it works. In any case, when it comes to spiritual healing, there are many different esoteric arts out there such as Tai Chi, acupuncture, pranic healing, acupressure, Yoga and Qi Gong, along with a plethora of their derivatives (Power Yoga or Dynamic Tai Chi, psh!) When it comes to magical healing, on the other hand, there is, almost globally, a pretty much underground community of practitioners of witchcraft (or magic, in general) calling themselves witches, wizards, druids, sorcerers (like moi, heheh) or, for those wishing to be more arcane, mages, etc. I can't speak for them; every practitioner of "magic" probably has his own curative spell that works only on him/her lolz Oh yeah, we also have faith healers here. Basically, take the dominant religion (here, it's Roman Catholic) and twist a bit here and there, say you have had an apparition, stick mostly to the bible and invent your own doctrine when stuck, well, yeah. That's basically the pattern of a lot of faith healers/cult leaders over here. Strangely enough, there are some, I repeat, [some, not all[/b], people they may or may not have healed. Personally, I'd say the patients healed themselves; it is their innate desire to be cured, their overwhelming, blind, yes, yet still overwhelming faith that they would be healed that made things happen. Oh yeah, I feel particularly nasty so I'd also like to point out that some of these faith healers/cult leaders used to be leaders of the church, that is, they used to be priests. How about me? I personally know that humans are perfectly capable of healing themselves, most of the time, when ill. As much as possible, I avoid taking meds and deal with it on my own; don't ask me how. Anyway, I believe that taking any medicine for prolonged periods increases one's dependency on the drug and lowers one's immunity upon withdrawal. It is a scenario I'd like to avoid as much as possible so I take meds only when absolutely urgent (I have a headache and a deadline to meet or I have a fever and a meeting this afternoon, etc.) Seriously, who would want to be identified with those hypochondriacs who gobble down quantities of Prozac or Aspirin daily? Oh yeah, sometimes, it doesn't have to be anything spiritual. A glass of milk and a glass of juice a day boosted an immunity that once saved me from poison

Hmmn... far be it from me to be a religious fanatic, devotee, or even a believer, I'd like to quote something from "God" in the file Bruce Almighty. So, for me, I would, tongue-in-cheek, call something a miracle not if it was an extraordinary phenomena but if it is something that, despite all the "evil" in the world, defies the ordinary by being an oases of "good" in a desert world where faith is scarce. To the original poster, if your kid is good, go ahead, pamper her. Call her a miracle and say how much you love the miracle God gave you. If, on the other hand, you child is a horrid screeching seagull screaming, "gimme this," or, "I want that," then it's up to you. Maybe you could tell her that your neighbor, Jones' son/daughter, is a miracle. When she asks why, well, I leave that to your imagination. Oh yeah, I've read somewhere that Moses was one of the world's greatest magicians, that is, in the same group as mages, witches and wizards, not street performers or masterful picaroons. Reading that, it does make sense that, if you remove the prophetic identity, his acts are no more than mere magic. I say, miracles are, or, for the religious people, should be, more of a spiritual thing than petty magic tricks

Before Google, I was using altavista. However, I've only managed to use it less than twenty times back then (I wasn't an Internet junkie back then, much less a real search engine user) Three years later, when I started becoming addicted to the Internet (porn, actually. It was so novel back then ), it only seemed natural to use Google, since it's what everyone's talking about; I think it was already used as a verb back then.

I'd like to point out that this is a bit too hostile... What you just said was irrelevant. First, I'd like to clarify what RedAlert was trying to prove "There is no such thing as the largest prime number." Hope we're clear on that? Next, his premises were outlined as "If we multiply all prime numbers up to P, and add 1 to the product, the resulting number would be prime," which, as far as I know, is correct. If you meant reduction ad absurdum, I think you are also aware that it is, for all intents and purposes, a valid way to prove something. It is not, repeat, is not deliberately choosing a wrong premise and by proving it wrong, effectively supporting the veracity of the opposite premise. Au contraire, it is proving some theorem right by assuming the opposite (false) outcome (repeat, outcome and not premise) and proving that, given the premise, it is impossible to arrive at that outcome. So, what is the opposite outcome? "There is such a thing as a largest prime number P." Now we work on the premise to try and achieve that opposite outcome. "If we multiple all prime numbers up to P and add 1 to the product, the resulting number would be prime." Now, given that the premise was true, the resulting number would be greater than P and, undoubtedly, this reduces the argument "P is the largest prime number" to an absurdity. I hope you do understand how reductio ad absurdum works, as any sane person who actually studied logic should. First off, one is not a prime number. Any high school student should already be aware of that. Here lies your mistake. You add 1 to the product, not the last factor. You should learn to read other people's posts well before screaming out to the world they're wrong. See what I mean? Product, man, product! You add 1 to 6469693230 not 29, 'ayt? Dude, have you ever considered that there's something wrong with the small "program" you "wrote"? 'coz I've already tried dividing 6469693231 by 3 using the calculators of MS Windows and Casio and, surprise, surprise, it is so, most definitely, not divisible by 3. Yes, you are, m'friend

*sweatdrops* This was not quite the effect I had intended; it's my fault, though, for bringing in something as irrelevant as a bottle of cooking oil into an already-overcrafted analogy. It was meant only as a bureaucratic means of exterminating the female, not that I'm being sexist; mosquitoes are just like that. For all intents and purposes, let's remove the bottle of cooking oil from the scenario and assume that people are brave enough to squish a mosquito between their fingers without fainting, vomiting or screaming, "Eeyw!" That is, of course, assuming you, or your underlings, can reach the location within three hours. What I do remember is that a certain Mr. Nobel has invented a type of explosive that does not require electronics to detonate. I'd have to point out that an E-bomb or EM pulse is not a sure-fire way to disable the bomb At this point, I've already discounted the bottle of cooking oil. However, I'd also like to point out that this is hardly the best way as well. I do hypothesize that drowned mosquitoes have a tendency to die soon, as drowned *anything* are wont to do. At the mildest, what you might be proposing is that we gas the town, then take our time picking out the Al Qaeda operative. Err... terrorist. I meant terrorist. I'm afraid it's not the case. It is not a tracking system; it's a capture and detect system. Also, the mutually exclusive choices are not the system or cooking oil. The choices are the system and the flamethrower. Hmmn... I appreciate having a flaw in my analogy pointed out. It's not emotionally uplifting but, at least, it's intellectually satisfying I'd like to clarify that you already have the general location of the terrorist, though not specific enough for a sniper to solve the problem (unless the sniper uses nuclear warheads for ammo ) The bomb, or bombs, on the other hand, are located somewhere in the world but you really don't have a clue. Given three hours, I don't think the citizens of your country will agree that the top priority is locating the bomb before eliminating the actual threat. Then again, the last statement is just my opinion and I'm not a citizen of your country So... what exactly would you have done? (God, I hate nothing more than explaining my stories. Second to that, I hate myself for having come up with a story full of holes and gaps) >_<

I'm rather in a hurry now so details will come later. First, I appreciate the, uh, creative literature. Next, I don't think it really answers the question of where life came from. If anything, it just moved the question to a different planet; where did that life on Mars come from? Third, more than just moving the question elsewhere, it also spawned an identical question elsewhere. Where did those "beings of pure evil" come from? How did their life begin? I like this, a lot, really, but only as a bedtime story. Or an RPG. No offense but it's not really a seriously well-thought scientific theory, though

This is something I've thought of while riding a bus traveling along a not-so-well-maintained road so pardon me if my thoughts seem a bit bumpy Suppose you are locked in a room. You are informed, through a disembodied voice, that within three minutes, a set of holes, too small for any part of your anatomy to enter, will open to allow entry to 501 mosquitoes. You are assured that 500 of those mosquitoes are clean, lab-grown males (Male mosquitoes suck nectar, not blood) However, due to a grave c'est la vie error called L.I.F.E. there has slipped, into the population, one female mosquito carrying the fatal dengue virus. You have, with you in the room, two boxes. One contains a mosquito-catching device, a fantastic machine that analyzes mosquitoes one at a time and determines if it carries the dengue pathogen and, for the bureaucratic ones, a mosquito drowning kit that looks suspiciously like a bottle of cooking oil. On the other box, you have... a flamethrower. After the creepy announcement, several holes open along the walls and you heard the distinct humming caused by mosquito wings flapping rapidly in the air just a few yards from you. You have mere seconds to decide what to do. Do you analyze mosquitoes one by one and risk getting infected in the meantime? Or do you torch the whole lot, solving the problem quickly? Sounds like an easy one, don't you think? Now, suppose, this time, you are the president of a nation. You were informed that, in a certain desert city, there is exactly one terrorist holding a detonator. It is scheduled to activate three hours from now; should he press the button anytime from then, the explosives will go Kaboom! The whereabouts of the explosives are still unknown and you also have no information on the the type of explosives. Simply put, he can potentially destroy any country in the world. The trouble is he's hiding in a city with 500 other people. Your humanitarian secretary tells you that they have, in custody, one defector that can identify the detonator's holder. He does, however, need to carefully scrutinize the subject before he can determine whether it is his comrade or not (he has a poor memory for faces) Your secretary of defense, on the other hand, presents you with the latest warhead. It can decimate 501 people in an instant. Its programming is impeccable, you just point your mouse to any city in the world then click and it will hit, it will detonate and, most importantly, it will kill 501 people So now, back to the mosquito room, do you choose the capturer-analyzer-extinguisher combo? Or do you use the flamethrower?

I've been gone for quite some time so forgive me for selecting this post to dig up but I really do find this... double-standard appalling. So if we just stop treating minorities like dogs, the problem will go away? Despite the fact that they are, in almost all aspects, below us as a result of previous oppression? Is it a forgive-and-forget thing? Do we not have the responsibility to reimburse them for the damage our race had inflicted before? You say you're against quotas, but you are also pushing for education schemes that give minorities a fighting chance. What gives? It's not just early education, y'know? Over here, minorities often can barely afford to send their children, even to a school that gives equal treatment to majority and minority students. Can we blame them for seeking aid from minority agencies? Is it their fault that, in this "completely level" battleground, they cannot perform well due to the injuries of an earlier war? Are we to fret that they get spears in a quarterstaff battle simply because they are wounded? Are we to insist that they perform as they are for the sake of this supposed "equality"? I just don't get it. Of course, when I talked about war, battle and violence, I trust y'all know I'm just speaking in metaphorical terms