Hehehe, tah's funny:
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, what did you think of the play?"
Freitag, Mai 26, 2006
Donnerstag, Mai 18, 2006
Just something random we noticed today at work: female singers from the 30s don't seem to smile in pictures. Do a Google Image search for "Zarah Leander" (one of the more famous German singers of the time..."Kann denn Liebe Sünde sein") and you'll see tons of pictures like this:
Well, guess who else doesn't smile in pictures? Oh-so-cool hip hop people, that's who. Do a Google Image search for "Snoop", and you'll see pictures like this:
Anyone notice any resemblances? :)
Well, guess who else doesn't smile in pictures? Oh-so-cool hip hop people, that's who. Do a Google Image search for "Snoop", and you'll see pictures like this:
Anyone notice any resemblances? :)
Dienstag, Mai 16, 2006
Whoa. Just whoa.
Skype offers free calling to phones in U.S., Canada | CNET News.com
You read that correctly, phone calls to phones(!) in the States now cost me zilch when I use Skype. Nothing. Nada. Anyone want a call from me? Let me know your phone number. :)
Skype offers free calling to phones in U.S., Canada | CNET News.com
You read that correctly, phone calls to phones(!) in the States now cost me zilch when I use Skype. Nothing. Nada. Anyone want a call from me? Let me know your phone number. :)
Donnerstag, Mai 04, 2006
This is a *great* article by "Answers in Genesis" (a Young Earth group, BTW) listing a bunch of arguments creationists should NOT use, because they are either completely false ("moon dust thickness proves young moon") or at least completely unsubstantiated by evidence ("light speed has decreased over time").
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
A few from there:
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
A few from there:
- ‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon’
- ‘Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe’
- ‘The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall’
- ‘No new species have been produced.’
- Canopy theory
- ‘There was no rain before the Flood.’
- ‘Evolution is just a theory.’
- ‘The speed of light has decreased over time’
- ‘There are no transitional forms.’
Oh my gosh this rocks:
What is intense is that if Darwinian evolution was true, there really would be no convincing logical reason that comes to mind why this isn't a great idea. For that matter, the whole "human rights" thing should also be in question - who, no, what gives humans any "rights" in the first place? :)
Found at The Spain Herald via Uncommon Descent.
One more addition: Here's the official page of "The Great Ape Project."
The Spanish Socialist Party will introduce a bill in the Congress of Deputies calling for "the immediate inclusion of simians in the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The PSOE's justification is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans.
The party will announce its Great Ape Project at a press conference tomorrow. An organization with the same name is seeking a UN declaration on simian rights which would defend ape interests "the same as those of minors and the mentally handicapped of our species."
According to the Project, "Today only members of the species Homo sapiens are considered part of the community of equals. The chimpanzee, the gorilla, and the orangutan are our species's closest relatives. They possess sufficient mental faculties and emotional life to justify their inclusion in the community of equals."
What is intense is that if Darwinian evolution was true, there really would be no convincing logical reason that comes to mind why this isn't a great idea. For that matter, the whole "human rights" thing should also be in question - who, no, what gives humans any "rights" in the first place? :)
Found at The Spain Herald via Uncommon Descent.
One more addition: Here's the official page of "The Great Ape Project."
Mittwoch, Mai 03, 2006
Check this out:
Paycheck for Mom's job
The article takes a look at how much full-time Moms theoretically should be earning salary-wise for their work, taking typical overtime into account as well as the various necessary skills. They come up with around $100,000-$140,000 a year. :-)
Found at the Spiegel article about the article: here
Stephi, Mom, full-time Moms everywhere, I salute you. You are totally underestimated by our culture, and you have the inner strength to choose to go against the flow.
Paycheck for Mom's job
The article takes a look at how much full-time Moms theoretically should be earning salary-wise for their work, taking typical overtime into account as well as the various necessary skills. They come up with around $100,000-$140,000 a year. :-)
Found at the Spiegel article about the article: here
Stephi, Mom, full-time Moms everywhere, I salute you. You are totally underestimated by our culture, and you have the inner strength to choose to go against the flow.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)