A little research I'll share with ya'lll;
wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrinx_(bird_anatomy)
http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Bird_Voices.html
http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/songs/index.html

Must take this guy ages to write an essay.

I don't like the second 'L'. Indifferent about the dot above the i.

But indeedy, great skill, and terrible music. But Yanni is a must-listen when doing calligraphy of Copperplate.

As this video strongly implies, Carl Sagan was a recreational marijuana user. From Wikipedia:

Sagan was a user and advocate of marijuana. Under the pseudonym "Mr. X", he contributed an essay about smoking cannabis to the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered.[47][48] The essay explained that marijuana use had helped to inspire some of Sagan's works and enhance sensual and intellectual experiences. After Sagan's death, his friend Lester Grinspoon disclosed this information to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson. The publishing of the biography, Carl Sagan: A Life, in 1999 brought media attention to this aspect of Sagan's life.

Also, I didn't notice anything "stagey" or otherwise about the video. I think that's just how she speaks...

The role of women in the 1950 was repressive and constrictive in many ways. Society placed high importance and many expectations on behavior at home as well as in public. Women were supposed to fulfill certain roles, such as a caring mother, a diligent homemaker, and an obedient wife. The perfect mother was supposed to stay home and nurture so society would accept them. A diligent housewife had dinner on the table precisely at the moment her husband arrived from work. A wife was a "good" wife only if she carried out her man's every order and agreed with him on everything. In fact, even if she wanted to voice an opinion, he education, or rather lack of thereof would not allow it. Another reference is the 1950's American High School Home Economics textbook. An essay found in the book is entitled "How to be a Good Wife." The television shows aired at this time reflect the publics need for stability and conformity. The main character of the most watched show at the time, I Love Lucy, portrayed a woman as the stereotypical woman-in-distress, who always needed her husband, the man, to bail her out. She also was symbolic of the inept woman: the "woman driver," the "over-spender" who cannot budget, and the basic downfall of man.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/13216/a_womans_role_in_the_1950s.html?cat=41
This link includes the original version of the list.

The Russians. That's why they showed a Canadian and Russian hockey player when they mentioned the rivalry. Dig?>> ^legacy0100:

Canada has a historic rivalry? CANADA??? Against who?

I dunno how to feel about this. On the one hand, I respect that she has pride in what she does and tries to think deeply about it. On the other hand, I just can't respect her job. It seems to me that her job is to fulfill the misogynistic fantasies of a male-dominated industry. The vast majority of these movies fuel the stereotype that women are nothing more than sex-objects and that women enjoy being treated that way. I don't see her saying there's anything wrong with that.

I understand as males we have a strong biological urge to procreate, but I've never heard of there existing any biological need to objectify women. That's seems to me to be a purely cultural construct. I honestly hope a day will come when people feel they don't need porn anymore and this young woman can start exploring her potential as an actress as more than just a "sexual being" but as a human being.

EDIT: Just found this very interesting essay by Naomi Wolf for the case against porn. I agree with one of the comments after the article which states: "Porn isn’t wrong, a society that considers objectifying women to be the normal is what’s fucked up.

"before you quickly vanish forever into the singularity"

That's a shame, I was hoping the ride into the singularity would be a slow one so I could take some notes and perhaps come up with a short essay on the experience.

@peggedbea's story is how the industry should run.

Man, I hate dealing with health and dental insurance corporations. What I don't get about them is why are they medical plans instead of catastrophic insurance? In other words, why do we think basic checkups (GP, gynecology, etc.) need to be covered under insurance? And the doctors hike their prices to offset the amount of back-and-forth they've to deal with when trying to get reimbursed by the insurance companies.

Today, I've been with an exposed root in my mouth from grinding my teeth at night, and I need a gum graft. I've been waiting almost a year for my dental insurance to clear the procedure. They even asked the dentist's office for an essay explaining why I needed the procedure. Are you kidding me? But today what other options do you have? Almost every doctor and dentist accepts insurance, and because they have to hike their prices accordingly, the people without insurance cannot afford simple preventative care and simple procedures.

Depends, some profs allow you to bring sheets of paper in for tests, some allow you to use your book....etc. If they could bring the test questions and answers in for "helpful" material then it just becomes matching question to question and copying the answer over or selecting the correct multiple choice option.

Even if they couldn't bring the question and answers with them, if they ask essay questions. To explain why you would make the selection you would...no one who just memorized questions is going to be able to answer those reliably. My favorite professor in university was a very young guy, maybe 6 years older than the average student age at the time. He would ask essay questions and look for specific phrasing and words to evaluate your answer...so you were using meaningful terminology and used it in a way that showed you understood the meaning of the word in that context.

He said this test will be multiple choice, but if I were him I'd throw in a half dozen essay questions and make them worth 50% of the exam. Just because those bastards cheated to such a degree, anyone who actually studied would probably prefer cutting out half the multiple choice and finishing early to answer a couple short medium difficulty essay questions...it's easier to get them mostly right if you have the general idea. Versus being completely wrong if you check the wrong box.


>> ^Norrass:

I don't see this as that big of a deal.
They didn't know what questions would be on the exam, so they had to memorize all of them.
When they memorized all of the questions and their answers, would you not agree that they 'learned' the material?
I'd wager that the kids who 'cheated' on the first exam, will be better prepared for the 2nd (because of how they 'cheated'), and will actually do better on the test than the kids who didn't 'cheat' the 1st time.

[redacted]

Was long essay asking why this conversation occured in a video instead of the site's chat.

>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^Jinx:
Man, I wish so much that wasn't recorded with a fisheye lense. Kinda spoiled it for me tbh.

Are you for real? You live in an age where you get to see that and you're fucking complaining?

Yeah, yeah I am. Next time your computer crashes mid essay remember not to complain ok honey.

Oh, and its the fact its such an amazing sight that makes the distortion all the more frustrating.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Oh no she didn't.
She played the John Stuart, fucking, Mill card. Mill was a classical liberal among other things.
I believe she was referring to his Axiom:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

Basically what the above philosophy means, society individual or grouped has no right to tell someone he or she cannot do anything that doesn't involve the harm of the society individually or wholly.
She was stating, as I thought, that there needs to be a better way to differ what will truly harm someone and what is in the minds of those who think someone will come to harm. It's a difference between projection of thought versus what is real and demonstrable.
Just because you think it does not make it true, it must be demonstrable.


That makes perfect sense to me, and I agree was one of the problems I had with his logic. However I'm not about to condemn this guy in the strictest sense just yet. There's a lot more that should and will probably come out about this situation. I'm interested though in how his aspergers might have effected his decision making.

Oh no she didn't.

She played the John Stuart, fucking, Mill card. Mill was a classical liberal among other things.

I believe she was referring to his Axiom:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

Basically what the above philosophy means, society individual or grouped has no right to tell someone he or she cannot do anything that doesn't involve the harm of the society individually or wholly.

She was stating, as I thought, that there needs to be a better way to differ what will truly harm someone and what is in the minds of those who think someone will come to harm. It's a difference between projection of thought versus what is real and demonstrable.

Just because you think it does not make it true, it must be demonstrable.

I don't think it was supposed to. The visuals were great though.>> ^gorillaman:

For me, this video doesn't add anything to the original essay.

For me, this video doesn't add anything to the original essay.