“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
Tuesday, August 26, 2025
Tech Dreams Run Amok...
...as American government legitimacy declines
Can the Deep State be reformed? It's looking doubtful. All bets currently lie in the vain hope of an AI-based Technological Singularity
Don't Be Deceived "...as soon as it pleases them, they will send you out to protect their gold in war, whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until, with a flick of a finger, they can tear a million of you to pieces."
The "non-duped" are those who believe they have seen through the illusion and are therefore not fooled by it. However, by clinging to their perceived enlightenment, they deny the fundamental truth of this symbolic deception, thus making a greater mistake and "erring".
I already have revealed to you that Shiny Truth of Lem -- that even our own bodies, created by Evolution, lying to us.
But you prefer more false and/or outdated notions.
//This energy input doesn't increase the substance's temperature, but instead, is used to overcome the intermolecular forces holding the liquid molecules together, allowing them to transition into a gaseous state.
And who really tested that? ;-p
That idealization, that temperature iis a trait of not individual atoms/molecules... but, incomprehensible amount of em.
So? Who really tested that. Measured temperature of every individual atom... and then given averages
Are you doubting the chemistry of elements and calculations of moles? The efficacy of a reversed process that starts with an "average"?
In chemistry, a mole (symbol: mol) is the SI unit for the amount of a substance, defined as the number of elementary entities (atoms, molecules, ions) in 12 grams of isotopically pure carbon-12. This number is Avogadro's number, approximately 6.022 × 10²³ entities per mole. The molar mass is the mass in grams of one mole of a substance and connects the atomic/molecular weight to laboratory measurements, allowing calculations between mass and the number of particles.
. It is not directly "calculated" in the sense of a single calculation, but rather determined through highly precise experimental methods like x-ray crystallography of silicon crystals and watt-balance experiments, which measure macroscopic properties to deduce the fundamental constant.
PS Anyway... grave worms -- are on the top of ANY food chain. Yawn. August 25, 2025 at 3:51 PM -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew I hear that there's still lots a bat guano to mine. You should try inventing a tech for that. August 26, 2025 at 9:00 AM
Computers don't have emotions. They experience no interplay between nous and emotion that leads to "intuitions" or "morality"...
Google: In Plato's philosophy, the soul is divided into parts, with nous as the highest, rational part that should rule over the lower, more emotional parts.
Nous (Intellect): Enables humans to grasp the eternal Forms—abstract concepts like Truth and Beauty.
Emotions: Reside in the lower parts of the soul, representing the more mortal, transient aspects of human experience.
Interplay: The cultivation of nous through philosophical contemplation is key to controlling and transcending disruptive emotions to achieve wisdom and virtue.
Aristotle
Aristotle saw nous as the intellect or the mind's ability to think rationally, but it was distinct from other parts of the soul associated with desires and emotions.
Nous (Intellectual Virtue): Aristotle classified nous as an intellectual virtue, the capacity for apprehending fundamental truths and first principles.
Emotions (Moral Virtue): Virtues related to emotions or desires, like courage or temperance, were considered "moral" virtues. The proper use of reason (nous) and habituation were necessary to moderate these emotions.
Interplay: Unlike Plato's strict opposition, Aristotle's ethical system involves using the intellectual faculty of nous to correctly judge a situation and guide one's emotions toward a virtuous mean.
//Same as there is ONLY ONE way to count things --- use numbers.
August 26, 2025 at 12:43 PM -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew Monkeys count with numbers?
Counting without numbers can be done through subitizing (instantly recognizing small quantities), one-to-one correspondence (using a separate object for each item, like pebbles for coconuts), or approximate terms (like "a few" or "a lot"). Some cultures have limited number words, relying on these methods for quantity.
Numbers are simply symbols. Not all brains operate symbolically like ours. So why do we call non-Arabic numbers, numerals (ie Roman Numerals)?
It's a product of RAM memory allocations. Man, as opposed to animals, dedicates more of his to "serializing" and developing "work flows". Chimps can store more "individual objects and their locations" than humans (Chimp experiments). Numbers inherently "serialize/order". Chimps don't care about that. Just what and where... not "order".
Do you know what a PERT network is? I spent over 40 years calculating and interpreting them. Forwards and Backwards. Series and Parallel. Creating "Work Flows' (the middle step of an AI). A "chimp" trying to build the correct order/ sequence.
Yes, PERT was developed for the Polaris Missile/ Submarine Program. My first use was on the ROH of the USS Kansas City (AOR-3) in the early 80's. The Navy like "standardized" products. It was provided by McAuto and we ran it on an IBM mainframe out of the McDonnell-Douglas offices in downtown San Francisco once a month. Paper print-outs and punch cards. Old School.
No, not all Turing machines are the same; they differ in their states, symbols, tape alphabet, and transition functions, and can compute different functions. While all standard Turing machines are Turing-complete, meaning they can compute any computable function, their specific implementations can vary, resulting in machines with the same capabilities but different internal configurations or machines that are inherently more powerful. How Turing Machines Differ Components: Each Turing machine is defined by a specific set of components: a finite set of states, a finite tape alphabet, a transition function, an initial state, and accepting/rejecting states. Functionality: Different combinations of these components lead to Turing machines that compute different functions or recognize different languages. For example, one machine might compute n+1, while another computes n*2. Behavior: Even with the same initial conditions, two different Turing machines may exhibit different behaviors on the same input, leading to different results or halting times. Turing-Equivalence vs. Turing-Completeness Turing-Equivalent Machines: Two Turing machines are considered equivalent if they compute the exact same function, but this equivalence is not guaranteed between any two arbitrary machines. Turing-Complete Machines: A machine is Turing-complete if it can compute any function that any other Turing machine can compute, and can simulate any other Turing machine. This concept applies to the model of computation, not necessarily every individual Turing machine. More Powerful Models Beyond standard Turing machines, there are more powerful models, such as: Oracle Machines: These are Turing machines with an oracle for the halting problem, giving them the ability to solve problems that standard Turing machines cannot. Infinite-Time Turing Machines: These machines operate with a more powerful concept of time, enabling them to solve problems beyond the reach of standard Turing machines.
This sounds more reasonable. And the "collective" intelligence of these machines when joined together, that is the extent of its' cognitive light cone. Consciousness as the culmination of IIT
//-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew Linear progress... the modern superstition that ends in a nuclear furnace. August 26, 2025 at 8:54 AM
Yap. Traditional culture way thinking can come up only to such bad ideas... August 26, 2025 at 12:44 PM -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew Not all trad cultures. Most struggle to keep their grip on power. August 26, 2025 at 1:12 PM
That's exactly the reason of their erroneous modus operandi
The late-modern form of monopoly capital cannot acknowledge its fatal flaw... bigness... that eventually smothers the market as it absorbs ever larger proportions of available capital.
Maybe that is why they call it "intelligence" (ala William James).
As for me, "Our intelligence cannot wall itself up alive, like a pupa in a chrysalis. It must at any cost keep on speaking terms with the universe that engendered it"
""Let us assume that there are Turing machines of arbitrary cardinality, by that I mean they can have input tapes of any arbitrarily high cardinality and compute for a number of steps also of arbitrarily high cardinality. Those machines are, in principle, much more powerful than Hamkins infinite time Turing machines. Basically what I mean is, assume we are not limited by any kind of finiteness so we can construct sets and verify their properties without any cardinal limitation. Assuming we are gods that can watch the results of those computations, it is still not clear to me if questions such as the existence of 0# (or V=L ) would be answered by such a machine or if those questions are for ever undecidable (Gödel?) and so you will be always able to define two consistent theories, one in which V=L and one in which V≠L ). In the latter case, what makes our hypothetical machine unable to answer the question? (I mean, what makes a property not being able to be tested as either true or false if you are allowed an arbitrarily high infinite number of cells and time steps?)""
""There are two ideas here which should be treated separately. One is the distinction between things that can be computed by a Turing machine and things that cannot (i.e. those things that are formally undecidable). In that sense, there are a number of models that are stronger than Turing machines, as mentioned in other comments: this includes the Blum-Shub-Smale machine, also known as the "real computer", that can operate on real numbers of unbounded precision in finite time. Another conceptually simple machine that is able to decide formally undecidable problems is a Turing machine equipped with an "oracle" for the halting problem (which I'll call Turing+HP): since the halting problem is formally undecidable, this is pretty intuitive. An interesting structure emerges from this construction: in fact, no Turing+HP machine can tell for all Turing+HP machines whether it will halt! But if you give a Turing+HP-halting problem oracle to a Turing+HP machine, you get an even stronger machine... we see a hierarchy of levels of undecidability! This level is referred to as Turing degree and the structure of the Turing degrees has been investigated by logicians. Collectively, computation beyond the Turing machine model is referred to as "hypercomputation", and as also mentioned by other comments, we are not certain there are ways to hypercompute within the physical universe (but others studying the intersection of logic and relativity are having lots of fun ("fun") bashing black holes and various structures of spacetime in which it may be possible).""
The operative word appears to be "decidable". By who/ what?
Sounds like the rational/irrational numbers problem of the Pythagoreans. When an irrational number (sq root of 2?) was finally proven, then threw the discoverer overboard.
//-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew
ReplyDelete...and this a moot court.
August 26, 2025 at 8:33 AM
Here is no knowledgeable moderators/jury. Yawn.
Peers? We could try and go to Charenton Asylum.... ;)
DeleteDon't Be Deceived
"...as soon as it pleases them, they will send you out to protect their gold in war, whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until, with a flick of a finger, they can tear a million of you to pieces."
:P
Delete//If there is a "woke right" it consists soley of white nationalists, who are openly racist.
ReplyDeleteAnd how do they answer to that same question "Is Chinese White Supremacists"? ;-p
"No, they're Yellow ones". They take their colour shades very seriously. Especially that of "white".
DeleteThat's it)))))))))
Delete//The "non-duped":
ReplyDeleteThe "non-duped" are those who believe they have seen through the illusion and are therefore not fooled by it. However, by clinging to their perceived enlightenment, they deny the fundamental truth of this symbolic deception, thus making a greater mistake and "erring".
I already have revealed to you that Shiny Truth of Lem -- that even our own bodies, created by Evolution, lying to us.
But you prefer more false and/or outdated notions.
Shame on you. ;-p
Had I a systemic knowledge of Lem's entire oeuvre I might not require their use. Regretfully, I have not such command.
DeleteThat was ONE short novella. Translated in English. Explained by me at length.
DeleteI have not read that, either. And your explanations perhaps not as all encompassing as required for my slow and limited wits???
DeleteYou was not interested. That's all.
DeleteI don't deny it. I'm not a very good listener.
DeleteNobody are. Yawn.
DeleteOnly crooks. And spies. Are.
Just that moment somebody start showing "genuine interest" to your words -- watch out for your wallet.
*checks his back pocket*
DeleteNo need. ;-p
DeleteAs I am genuinely disinterested in you. ;-p
Kidding.
//This energy input doesn't increase the substance's temperature, but instead, is used to overcome the intermolecular forces holding the liquid molecules together, allowing them to transition into a gaseous state.
ReplyDeleteAnd who really tested that? ;-p
That idealization, that temperature iis a trait of not individual atoms/molecules... but, incomprehensible amount of em.
So? Who really tested that. Measured temperature of every individual atom... and then given averages
Are you doubting the chemistry of elements and calculations of moles? The efficacy of a reversed process that starts with an "average"?
DeleteIn chemistry, a mole (symbol: mol) is the SI unit for the amount of a substance, defined as the number of elementary entities (atoms, molecules, ions) in 12 grams of isotopically pure carbon-12. This number is Avogadro's number, approximately 6.022 × 10²³ entities per mole. The molar mass is the mass in grams of one mole of a substance and connects the atomic/molecular weight to laboratory measurements, allowing calculations between mass and the number of particles.
Yeah. But who counted that, really.
Delete(just using your tactic, yawn)
Who do you think?
Delete. It is not directly "calculated" in the sense of a single calculation, but rather determined through highly precise experimental methods like x-ray crystallography of silicon crystals and watt-balance experiments, which measure macroscopic properties to deduce the fundamental constant.
You still preaching to a choir. Yawn.
DeleteYou like reverse arguments. There's always some truth to be found in them.
DeleteI like *rational* arguments. Be they reverse, or straight forward. Yawn.
DeleteBut that is... endangered species kind of game. Nearly extinct.((((
So, I forced to gring meat from much more scravny things. With no intellectual fat. And almost no proteine.
Nearly indistinguishable from mindless vegitables. Yawn.
Thin gruel indeed... :(
Delete//All of President Obama’s appointments, in/after 2015, were essentially through the prism of assisting Hillary Clinton to win in 2016.
ReplyDeleteYeah... it's such a strange thing -- to try to facilitate your team winning...
Yawn.
Perhaps we did not emulate the Athenian sufficiently? But the again, the motives of our founders were likely more "transactional".
Delete//After that gouse eaten and only bones remains?
ReplyDeleteBut bones... have a lot of calcium.
And hienas -- love bones, able to digest even em.
PS Anyway... grave worms -- are on the top of ANY food chain.
Yawn.
August 25, 2025 at 3:51 PM
-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew
I hear that there's still lots a bat guano to mine. You should try inventing a tech for that.
August 26, 2025 at 9:00 AM
What an emotional reaction. ;-)
In Chicago's meat packing industry I've heard that they even harvest the moo and the squeel...
DeleteComputers don't have emotions. They experience no interplay between nous and emotion that leads to "intuitions" or "morality"...
DeleteGoogle:
In Plato's philosophy, the soul is divided into parts, with nous as the highest, rational part that should rule over the lower, more emotional parts.
Nous (Intellect): Enables humans to grasp the eternal Forms—abstract concepts like Truth and Beauty.
Emotions: Reside in the lower parts of the soul, representing the more mortal, transient aspects of human experience.
Interplay: The cultivation of nous through philosophical contemplation is key to controlling and transcending disruptive emotions to achieve wisdom and virtue.
Aristotle
Aristotle saw nous as the intellect or the mind's ability to think rationally, but it was distinct from other parts of the soul associated with desires and emotions.
Nous (Intellectual Virtue): Aristotle classified nous as an intellectual virtue, the capacity for apprehending fundamental truths and first principles.
Emotions (Moral Virtue): Virtues related to emotions or desires, like courage or temperance, were considered "moral" virtues. The proper use of reason (nous) and habituation were necessary to moderate these emotions.
Interplay: Unlike Plato's strict opposition, Aristotle's ethical system involves using the intellectual faculty of nous to correctly judge a situation and guide one's emotions toward a virtuous mean.
meden agan!
Damn those emotions! Our bodies are always LYING to us!
DeleteEasy Stanislaw!
Yap.
Delete//Same as there is ONLY ONE way to count things --- use numbers.
ReplyDeleteAugust 26, 2025 at 12:43 PM
-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew
Monkeys count with numbers?
Counting without numbers can be done through subitizing (instantly recognizing small quantities), one-to-one correspondence (using a separate object for each item, like pebbles for coconuts), or approximate terms (like "a few" or "a lot"). Some cultures have limited number words, relying on these methods for quantity.
Numbers are simply symbols. Not all brains operate symbolically like ours. So why do we call non-Arabic numbers, numerals (ie Roman Numerals)?
Intelligence finds a way.
Yep.
Already found.
"All Turing machines are the same"™
Are they? They operate on symbols, not actual chemicals and energies produced from their admixture?
DeleteProtein folded shapes?
DeleteYou mean... They not faithful slaves of Evolution?
DeleteNumbers? Nature is very careless with numbers. Just look at all the coal and oil... How many billions died in THAT evolutionary factory?
DeleteFrom anthropocentric POV. Yes.
DeleteIt's a product of RAM memory allocations. Man, as opposed to animals, dedicates more of his to "serializing" and developing "work flows". Chimps can store more "individual objects and their locations" than humans (Chimp experiments). Numbers inherently "serialize/order". Chimps don't care about that. Just what and where... not "order".
DeleteHe figures that out after memorizing the what/where. Human are always trying to do both processes at the same time (in parallel).
DeleteOh, that technological geniuses... chimpanzees.
Delete"Intelligence is a fixed goal with variable means of achieving it.
Delete-William James
Do you know what a PERT network is? I spent over 40 years calculating and interpreting them. Forwards and Backwards. Series and Parallel. Creating "Work Flows' (the middle step of an AI). A "chimp" trying to build the correct order/ sequence.
DeleteI more accustomed to SCRUM, Kanban and other from programmers world
DeleteYes, PERT was developed for the Polaris Missile/ Submarine Program. My first use was on the ROH of the USS Kansas City (AOR-3) in the early 80's. The Navy like "standardized" products. It was provided by McAuto and we ran it on an IBM mainframe out of the McDonnell-Douglas offices in downtown San Francisco once a month. Paper print-outs and punch cards. Old School.
DeleteNo, not all Turing machines are the same; they differ in their states, symbols, tape alphabet, and transition functions, and can compute different functions. While all standard Turing machines are Turing-complete, meaning they can compute any computable function, their specific implementations can vary, resulting in machines with the same capabilities but different internal configurations or machines that are inherently more powerful.
ReplyDeleteHow Turing Machines Differ
Components:
Each Turing machine is defined by a specific set of components: a finite set of states, a finite tape alphabet, a transition function, an initial state, and accepting/rejecting states.
Functionality:
Different combinations of these components lead to Turing machines that compute different functions or recognize different languages. For example, one machine might compute n+1, while another computes n*2.
Behavior:
Even with the same initial conditions, two different Turing machines may exhibit different behaviors on the same input, leading to different results or halting times.
Turing-Equivalence vs. Turing-Completeness
Turing-Equivalent Machines:
Two Turing machines are considered equivalent if they compute the exact same function, but this equivalence is not guaranteed between any two arbitrary machines.
Turing-Complete Machines:
A machine is Turing-complete if it can compute any function that any other Turing machine can compute, and can simulate any other Turing machine. This concept applies to the model of computation, not necessarily every individual Turing machine.
More Powerful Models
Beyond standard Turing machines, there are more powerful models, such as:
Oracle Machines:
These are Turing machines with an oracle for the halting problem, giving them the ability to solve problems that standard Turing machines cannot.
Infinite-Time Turing Machines:
These machines operate with a more powerful concept of time, enabling them to solve problems beyond the reach of standard Turing machines.
This sounds more reasonable. And the "collective" intelligence of these machines when joined together, that is the extent of its' cognitive light cone. Consciousness as the culmination of IIT
DeleteOf course it is.
DeleteBecause it said by AI set to emulate Traditional Stupidity... artifically.))))
Normal Science, not Extraordinary or Revolutionary Science.
DeleteThere's only one Science. Yawn.
DeleteAnd it revolutionary and extraordinary. By need.
Delete...by competition. No utopias, the world is full of assholes trying to take your stuff.
DeleteAnti-fragility. Use it or lose it. What does not kill me makes me stronger.
Delete"Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own," - Bruce Lee
DeleteYap.
DeleteTo B.Lee
I sure wish that Yanitsaros' 2 YouTube video's on Achilles hadn't been taken down. Bruce Lee in a nutshell.
Deletehttps://framewalk.blogspot.com/2013/03/yianitsaroi-and-bules.html
DeleteI don't think so. This guy was all things Greek mythos and philosophy.
Delete//-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew
ReplyDeleteLinear progress... the modern superstition that ends in a nuclear furnace.
August 26, 2025 at 8:54 AM
Yap. Traditional culture way thinking can come up only to such bad ideas...
August 26, 2025 at 12:44 PM
-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew
Not all trad cultures. Most struggle to keep their grip on power.
August 26, 2025 at 1:12 PM
That's exactly the reason of their erroneous modus operandi
Not radical (root cause centric) enough. That's why I'm a radical progressive. ;)
DeleteThe late-modern form of monopoly capital cannot acknowledge its fatal flaw... bigness... that eventually smothers the market as it absorbs ever larger proportions of available capital.
DeleteYap. THAT exactly mode.
Delete//Yet more scifi.
ReplyDeleteYawn.
August 26, 2025 at 12:45 PM
-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew
Isn't that your thing?
August 26, 2025 at 1:09 PM
But you claimed not yours. ;-p
My light cone goes backwards in time... history... psychohistory... Epimethean. It's only "Promethean" when I attempt to reverse this process.
DeleteYes, I AM Capt. Hindsight!
Hardly...
DeleteYou're right. A blind Tiresias, having seen Athena in her bath condemned to inactive impotence.
Delete...or Cassandra, shouting her warnings of the Greeks within the horses body, falling upon deaf ears. :(
DeleteYeah.
DeleteHi Cassandra...(Russians.... Russians...)
DeleteYawn.
Delete//My light cone goes backwards in time...
And turns to the Left... somehow omitting Reality of Cold War...
Really? What do you know of George Kennan? Architect of the Cold War. Philosophical Founding Father of the CIA.
DeleteBen Franklin (the real history?)
//Hi Cassandra...(Russians.... Russians...)
DeleteThat sounded like there was NO USSR. And it NOT created thousands of nukes directed on USA.
I know, I know... you prefer only that facts that ALREADY happened.
But to ignore such Reality would brick on the head... of whole USA.
And not all people ready to die.... just yet... there.
Well, Golden Dome idea screaming opposite. Same as too accentuated preconscience toward RFia.
Yep, chasing the "tech saviour" myth/ dream. We'll just "tech" our way out of a confrontation with Russia.
DeleteTwo choices. Hamlet or Ophelia (Station 11). Choose. As an engineer I do know one thing. Better is often the enemy of "good enough".
DeleteMaybe that is why they call it "intelligence" (ala William James).
DeleteAs for me, "Our intelligence cannot wall itself up alive, like a pupa in a chrysalis. It must at any cost keep on speaking terms with the universe that engendered it"
;)
""Let us assume that there are Turing machines of arbitrary cardinality, by that I mean they can have input tapes of any arbitrarily high cardinality and compute for a number of steps also of arbitrarily high cardinality. Those machines are, in principle, much more powerful than Hamkins infinite time Turing machines. Basically what I mean is, assume we are not limited by any kind of finiteness so we can construct sets and verify their properties without any cardinal limitation. Assuming we are gods that can watch the results of those computations, it is still not clear to me if questions such as the existence of 0#
ReplyDelete(or V=L
) would be answered by such a machine or if those questions are for ever undecidable (Gödel?) and so you will be always able to define two consistent theories, one in which V=L and one in which V≠L
). In the latter case, what makes our hypothetical machine unable to answer the question? (I mean, what makes a property not being able to be tested as either true or false if you are allowed an arbitrarily high infinite number of cells and time steps?)""
""There are two ideas here which should be treated separately. One is the distinction between things that can be computed by a Turing machine and things that cannot (i.e. those things that are formally undecidable). In that sense, there are a number of models that are stronger than Turing machines, as mentioned in other comments: this includes the Blum-Shub-Smale machine, also known as the "real computer", that can operate on real numbers of unbounded precision in finite time. Another conceptually simple machine that is able to decide formally undecidable problems is a Turing machine equipped with an "oracle" for the halting problem (which I'll call Turing+HP): since the halting problem is formally undecidable, this is pretty intuitive. An interesting structure emerges from this construction: in fact, no Turing+HP machine can tell for all Turing+HP machines whether it will halt! But if you give a Turing+HP-halting problem oracle to a Turing+HP machine, you get an even stronger machine... we see a hierarchy of levels of undecidability! This level is referred to as Turing degree and the structure of the Turing degrees has been investigated by logicians. Collectively, computation beyond the Turing machine model is referred to as "hypercomputation", and as also mentioned by other comments, we are not certain there are ways to hypercompute within the physical universe (but others studying the intersection of logic and relativity are having lots of fun ("fun") bashing black holes and various structures of spacetime in which it may be possible).""
ReplyDeleteOuch! You're hurting my head.
DeleteThe operative word appears to be "decidable". By who/ what?
DeleteSounds like the rational/irrational numbers problem of the Pythagoreans. When an irrational number (sq root of 2?) was finally proven, then threw the discoverer overboard.
That decided it... for a while. ;)
DeleteStage 1 Turing degree... achieved.
DeletePower to the people!
DeleteMy emotions often get the better of me. Call me hyper-emotional.
Delete...but unlike the Universe, my time is valuable (to me, at least).
DeleteAnswer timed out at 3:18 pm EST.
Delete//Ouch! You're hurting my head.
ReplyDeleteThat's Reality to you... it's like hiting head with a brick. ;-p
But well... if it harts, it means that you have brains. ;-)
ReplyDelete