Seeker

Hello Timothy. I greet you in my own name, but wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else. Welcome! I mostly play acoustic these days, so no pedals, but with my electric and bass I swear by Boss for effects pedals. I use a digital delay, chorus, sometimes a flanger and a multi-band equalizer. I have a nice little digital reverb which usually sits in the effects loop at the end of the chain. I have built-in compression on the bass amp, I don't use it for guitar. I generally prefer an octaver to using distortion, but mine went walkies a while back and I haven't replaced it. I also have a Zoom multi-effects box, but I've never really felt comfortable with it. Too many options and it's hard to see how they hang together. If I were to add anything (other than a new octaver) I think I might go for an envelope shaper if I can find one. They're out of fashion but can do a lot of nice things: auto wah, auto swell, triggered filters, etc.

I find all this rather confusing. When I think of speaking in tongues, it is as in Acts 2:6 - Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. The gift of tongues allowed the apostles to speak to everyone without any need for interpretation. The idea of speaking incomprehensibly seems to run completely counter to that.

The ignorant or mentally deficient may have expectations which are not reasonable. That doesn't make them unfair. I think keystrikr is close to the mark. Another way of putting it would be that there is a lack of bias. My definition was slightly broader in that it allows for a rigged game provided it is openly rigged. (There is a different kind of unfairness involved if you are forced to participate in a rigged game.)

Light coloured hair? Good looking? To attempt a more serious answer to what I think Panpareil was asking: An outcome which corresponds to reasonable expectations given the disclosed starting conditions.

I think I still have some 8" floppies lurking somewhere!

I waste time each day polishing the small grey box where I keep my soul

Playing doctor Lub-a-dub, lub dub Can you hear my love, my love through a stethoscope?

Welcome. Blessed be.

Like the ULC, the Quakers are very open to a wide variety of beliefs. They are also generally a very supportive community. I hope it works out for you.

I believe there were some studies done on historic data from the industrial revolution when patent control was patchy. These broadly supported your point. Unfortunately I don't have a reference - if anyone else does, I would welcome a link.

"Intellectual property" is a neologism which conflates several conventions which evolved separately and under different circumstances. Copy right derived from the days when a copy was made by hand. The right to access the original for the requisite extended period was valuable and could be controlled. It derived from possession of the physical book. Once the copy had been made, the owner of that copy could grant a copy right on his physical book. There was no claim to ownership of the thoughts contained in the book. Patents are much closer to the "intellectual property" idea, but are in essence a restriction imposed by the state on the exploitation of an idea, and usually make the idea itself public domain. Trade marks are intended as a fraud prevention measure. Like patents, they are a state-enforced protection against the use of a particular recognised marking in order to allow the public to have confidence in the provenance of an item. None of these are what I would consider natural rights. Nor do they match the current rhetoric of the pro-IP lobby who claim increasing jurisdiction over the ideas or "content" itself.

Nice story, but I'm not really understanding this. I get that releasing the salmon was a good thing, but... Why so angry in the first place? Why the sudden change of heart? Why catch it if she was going to let it go? There seems to be a disconnect in the narrative.

I largely agree, and we are referring to the same experiment. I see a slightly different interpretation again. Where you say "conscious decision" I would say "consciousness of the decision". Consciousness is the brain's self-inspection function. It is both input and output for the decision-making function, which I believe is separate and more holistic. It allows us to modify our decision-making process, but is the view screen, not the film. As with the experimenters, this is an interpretation - the data remain the same.

If you accept that the definition of big which refers to physical space is the only admissible one then you are technically correct. On the other hand, the old phrase "that was big of you" was not generally intended to imply a vast bulk.

That's not quite how I read it. There is an internal monitor, which is how we are aware of our thought processes, which naturally operates after the fact. That does not mean that the decision was not made by your brain.

I don't think it's incredibly informative, but it seemed relevant to this debate... http://lifestylerejunevate.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/top-10-misconceptions-about-islam/

What some people find funny others don't. What is 'really' funny? You can probably retreat into a true Scotsman defence from anything anyone posts. To accept the challenge, though: I find this one funny - no suffering involved... Q: Why do cows wear cowbells? A: Because their horns don't work.

For me, the main draw is in the variety of opinions expressed. I have to think hard to get my head around what some of you believe, and I probably don't even get close. I think it's worth trying, though.

Leaving aside the question of whether the director is correct about the limitations, is there any reason why you cannot suggest to residents that this other church be thanked?

Please be careful Von. Addicts will generally do or say anything to continue. It is very easy to get sucked into the game in one way or another. Trying to help can end up hurting both you and them. I would recommend reading up on Transactional Analysis (Eric Berne) for some psychological insight. Here is a description (mostly Berne, but with some adaptations by the quoting site)

Good to hear from you Von. I agree with most of what has been said. One very specific thing to watch out for is the mother blaming the partner for the relapse. If she does, please help her to see that the partner's mother may in turn be blaming her son, and neither is right. Son and partner may be able to help and support each other in ways that outsiders can not.

I do hope you mean the originals, and not the chronologically first appalling prequels. Only Revenge of the Sith is last decade. I used to watch a lot of movies, but recently I've been finding less and less which appeals to me. My picks by year from a very small sample set... 2004 : The Incredibles 2005 : Batman Begins 2006 : 300 2007 : Stardust 2008 : Iron Man 2009 : Up / District 9 / Moon 2010 : Inception / The King's Speech 2011 : ? I can't think of anything I'd rate, but I didn't see many. 2012 : The Hobbit 2013 : The Hobbit 2 2014 : The Lego Movie

One sheep, many sheep One Haiku, many haiku Springtime for Basho

Hi, nice to meet a fellow Deviant and GIMP user. You have a nice free-flowing style. My main thing is fractals. Here's one which hasn't made it to DA yet...

Taking a step back, I have to ask: why? What are they hoping to achieve?