JackC

I leave it on my resume under hobbies as "FAI licenced parachutist" buried after some more normal stuff. On two occasions the interviewer brought it up and I just said "I enjoy it" and that's about all. I got both of those jobs. On two other occasions, I brought it up in interview to demonstrate some point I though was relevant and I didn't get either of those jobs. In my experience, if you're going to put it on your resume at all, put it in some obscure place but for gods sake, do not mention it at interview unless they specifically ask and even then get off the subject ASAP. If they think it's a big deal to you, it becomes a big deal to them.

I'm sick of these assholes trying to foist their half-baked bullshit on us. They've been doing it for years and all sides of the UK political coin are busy finding ways to legislate us into mindless automatons. It's time we had a new political party in the UK. We need to pull out of the EU and set our own laws. A common market yes, ruled by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels no. We need to repeal the Human Rights Act and stop the crippling PC movement from forcing us to swallow whole swathes of pointless laws. I think we need a government that will agree not to introduce loads of new laws, but instead spend their term weeding out all the bullshit ones the last lot have introduced.

If a system isn't physical, it's unphysical which I suppose is quite fitting for the concept of spiritual "energy". But even so, I didn't make up my own definition of the word energy, the one I gave is the definition. The fact that you want to change that definition pretty much makes my point for me.

That depends on what you mean by the word energy (probably the most misused word in the English language). I doubt you simply mean the capacity of a physical system to do work.

Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman by Richard Feynman is a great read. BASE66 by Jevto Dedijer Simon Jakeman's Groundrush (if you can find it). You could always go with some classic Jack Kerouac, I liked The Dharma Bums.

^^ I reckon that about sums it up.

Good question. In my opinion, if your game is reporting current events to the public in any way, shape or form, you're part of "the press". The mainstream professional (quality) media did handle this particular situation with uncharacteristically good judgement. That is until someone let the cat out of the bag and then it returned to the regular scheduled chaos. In order to enjoy freedom of speech it seems we have to endure those people who just will not shut-the-fuck-up. People think the politicians run the show, but they don't. The press do; in all their ill-informed, blundering, purile, idiotic glory. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to silence the press or revoke freedom of speech or anything of the sort. I just wish people wouldn't use freedom of speech in order to avoid freedom of thought.

Yeah, it was nice of the Drudge Report to act as Al Qaeda informants. My already rock-bottom opinion of the press has been lowered some more. Still, well done Harry though for putting his neck on the line against the Taliban even though he's Afghanistans number one bullet magnet. It's a shame that he'll probably be pulled out as a result of this and not get to finish his tour like he wanted to.

That's what I love about playing, it's not a competition. If it sounds right, it is right.

Oh I can see how box systems like CAGED can be useful, I just never bothered with it. So long as you're having fun, who cares, right?

I agree with most of what you said but I could never see the benefit of learning boxes. As soon as you've learned to play in the box, you're ready to start playing outside of the box which is the ultimate goal anyway. Why put yourself in the box to begin with?

Under any circumstances... Kiss a monkey.

Wow, that's a very generous offer. Thank you. I tabbed about 3/4 of it out last night but the fingering is as mad as a box of frogs, which means I might have to work it into a more usable form and I'm not 100% sure it's right anyway.

By shear coincidence, I'm actually listening to Petrucci's Suspended Animation CD right now. That boy can seriously play. I reckon Suspended Animation and Guthrie's Erotic Cakes CD are the best intrumental guitar albums to come out in a very, very long time. Anyway, some more stuff I would like to be better at: strict alternate picking, hybrid picking, octave displaced licks... ...and that damn tapping lick.

Yeah, the tapping lick about 1 min into this. More seriously though, being more creative during improv is something I could do with working on. ...and that damn tapping lick.

It's true that mediums can be very convincing. But I've seen plenty of them growing up and they are predictable. They're friendly, chatty, smart as hell and have a knack of getting you into a rapport effortlessly. They're observant and study your face as they talk to you. They make you feel like your the only person in the room. They tease information out of you by asking leading questions, observing your reaction, reading your eye movements and trying another angle. The more responsive you are, the easier it is for them. If you clam up and don't give them any information, they're sunk. Check this guy out. He's faking it and he's as good as any genuine medium and probably a lot better than most.

If a laser rangefinder is no good, I doubt an infrared rangefinder will work either. After all infrared is still just a light beam, the dust will block it just like it blocks the laser light.

If you're talking about QED, why not start with Wikipedia (it's not as bad as people make out). If you're talking about the paranormal, then maybe Skeptical Inquirer. People regularly use quantum weirdness as an excuse to suggest that all sorts of crap is possible when QED says nothing of the sort. I have a PhD in this crap so it 's kind of annoying. Feel free to PM me about it if you want. More on topic, in my experience mediums read the real live person in the room, it has nothing to do with the "spirit world". Fake mediums are usually a good deal better at it then the ones who are genuine. I know this because I grew up with a medium (and astrologer) and I found that if I wanted to keep anything to myself, I needed to know how to stop people reading me. It's a useful skill, especially for poker. If you go to a reading with your poker face on, it will be crap. If you go to a reading with your heart on your sleeve, the medium will pick up on all sorts of stuff. Fakers and real mediums use exactly the same cold reading methods, the fakers just know they're doing it.

It saddens me that QED continually gets twisted like this. QED has got bugger all to do with the paranormal and anyone who suggests that it does obviously knows nothing about it. I would strongly suggest that you read "QED, the strange theory of light and matter" by Richard Feynman to avoid making the same mistakes again.

And astrology has been tested, exhaustively. It just doesn't work. You are clearly wrong. The following is from http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html#1 Perhaps the best known field of astronomical pseudo-science is the ancient idea that the position of the Sun, Moon, and planets at the moment we are born somehow affects our subsequent personality, career, or love-life. Astrology got a big media boost in 1988 when it was revealed that for a large part of his term, President's Reagan's schedule had been controlled by the predictions of a San Francisco astrologer (who had been on Nancy Reagan's payroll.) However, astrology is also the field in which the largest number of scientific tests have been performed and the evidence clearly demonstrates that astrological connections are no more than wishful thinking. Books Culver, Roger & Ianna, Philip Astrology: True or False. 1988, Prometheus Books. The best skeptical book about astrology, full of useful information. Benski, Claude, et al. The Mars Effect. 1996, Prometheus Books. A rather technical discussion of the statistical test of Michel Gaugelin's claim of a neo-astrology, showing it does not work. Biswas, S., et al., eds. Cosmic Perspectives. 1989, Cambridge U. Press. This anthology has an excellent review of the evidence against astrology by I. Kelly, R. Culver, and P. Loptson. Gauguelin, Michel Dreams and Illusions of Astrology. 1979, Prometheus Books. A critique of astrology by a French statistician. Jerome, Lawrence Astrology Disproved. 1977, Prometheus. A historical review. Articles Abell, G. "Astrology -- Its Principles and Relation and Nonrelation to Science" in The Science Teacher, Dec. 1974, p. 9. An early debunking article. Bok, B., et al. "Objections to Astrology" in The Humanist, Sep/Oct. 1975. A special issue devoted in large part to this subject. Carlson, S. "Astrology" in Experientia, vol. 44, p. 290 (1988). A clear review. Carlson, S. "A Double Blind Test of Astrology" in Nature, vol. 318, p. 419 (5 Dec. 1985). A technical paper describing a good experiment examining whether astrology works. Dean, G. "Does Astrology Need to be True?" in Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 86-87, p. 116; Spring 1987, p. 257. An important examination of tests about astrology. Dean, G. & Kelly, I. "Does Astrology Work: Astrology and Skepticism 1975-2000" in Kurtz, Paul, ed. Skeptical Odysseys. 2001, Prometheus Books. Dean, G., et al. "The Guardian Astrology Study: A Critique and Reanalysis" in The Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1985, p. 327. Dean, G., et al. "Astrology" in Gordon Stein, ed. The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal. 1996, Prometheus Books, p. 47-96. Long readable introduction. Fraknoi, A. "Your Astrology Defense Kit" in Sky & Telescope, Aug. 1989, p. 146. An introductory article with some basic skeptical questions about astrology. (Available on the web at: http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/ astrology3.html#defense) Fraknoi, A. "Astrology Versus Astronomy" in Astronomy, Jan. 1999, p. 102. Concise note. Kelly, I. "Modern Astrology: A Critique" in Psychological Reports, vol. 81, p. 1035 (1997). An excellent review. (An expanded version can be found on the first web site recommended below.) Kelly, I." Why Astrology Doesn't Work" in Psychological Reports, vol. 82, p. 527 (1998). Kelly, I. "The Scientific Case Against Astrology" in Mercury, Nov/Dec. 1980, p. 135. Kelly, I. "Astrology and Science: A Critical Examination" in Psychological Reports, vol. 44, p. 1231 (1979). Kruglak, H. & O'Bryan, M. "Astrology in the Astronomy Classroom" in Mercury, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 18. Kurtz, P. & Fraknoi, A. "Scientific Tests of Astrology Do Not Support Its Claims" in Skeptical Inquirer, Spring 1985, p. 210. Kurtz, P., et al. "Astrology and the Presidency" in Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1988, p. 3. A good summary of the controversy concerning astrology in the Reagan White House. Lovi, G. "Zodiacal Signs Versus Constellations" in Sky & Telescope, Nov. 1987, p.507. Mc Gervey, J. "A Statistical Test of Sun-sign Astrology" in Skeptical Inquirer, Spring/Summer 1977, p. 49. Nienhuys, J. "The Mars Effect in Retrospective" in Skeptical Inquirer, Nov/Dec. 1997, p. 24. Good summary of the current research on what seemed to be one lone test confirming astrology. (see also, Dean, G. "Is the Mars Effect a Social Effect" in Skeptical Inquirer, May/June 2002, p. 33.) Rotton, J. "Astrological Forecasts and the Commodity Market" in Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1985, p. 339. Web Sites: A long analysis of the history of and problems with sun-sign columns: http://www.astrology-and-science.com In general the most useful site for information on testing astrology is http://www.astrology-and-science.com The Real Constellations of the Zodiac: http://www.griffithobs.org/IPSRealConst.html A 1977 article by Lee Shapiro discussing when the Sun actually passes through each constellation. The Astrotest: http://home.wxs.nl/~skepsis/astrot.html Dutch skeptic Rob Nanninga describes an experimental test of astrology done with the help of astrologers. The Real Romance in the Stars: http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/ Work/Articles/1995-12romance_in_stars.htm Biologist Richard Dawkins wrote an angry column to a British newspaper flirting with astrology and you can it here with a few later notes. Horoscopes Versus Telescopes: http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/11/11.html An issue of the ASP's newsletter for astronomy teachers devoted to debunking astrology.

You haven't looked very hard. There are many studies on astrology and several scientists who have made such studies a large part of their career. Dr Susan Blackmore, the well-known paranormal researcher finally called it quits after 30 years of study. She finally admitted that she could no longer maintain an open mind because in 30 years of experiments and research she never once found one single claim that could withstand scrutiny. Not one. Here is a more complete list of skeptical scientists who have done research in astrology and other assorted paranormal quackery. For whatever it's worth, I'm a PhD qualified scientist. I also know an astrologer with over 25 years experience who regularly complains to me that "The trouble with all you scientists is you don't have an open mind". I did have an open mind, but like Dr Blackmore I discovered what astrology is and how it works; and whichever way you look at it, you cannot disguise the fact that astrology is grade-one bullshit.

Best fact I've learned this year. In Edinburgh, Scotland, before indoor plumbing was invented, the towns people used to poop in a bucket and throw it out of the window into the street. Apparently the town council passed a law to say that you couldn't throw your "slops" out of the window before 10pm and when you did you had to give fair warning by shouting "gardez l'eau" (French for 'watch out, water') before heave-ho into the street. It just so happend that 10pm was kicking out time at the pubs so many a scotsman was wandering home half-cut after a few pints of McEwans export. Obviously, the more switched on folk would hear "gardez l'eau" and make a dash for the nearest doorway. However, the ones that were too drunk or to dumb to hide, tended to hear the words "gardez l'eau" and wondering where it came from, pointed their faces skywards looking for the source of the utterance. At which time, slopping out would commence and the poor Jock got a "real taste" of the city. And, I shit ye not, that is the origin of the phrase "shit faced" meaning falling-down drunk. So there you go.

Agreed. Rowan Williams is indeed, a twat.

If Hillary did win, I reckon we could power a small country by installing steam turbines in republican's ears. Vote Hillary... save the planet!

This could be the only explanation for around 30% voters going to "heroes". Well, ask a stupid question...