Home |
Listing of all comments
Ben wrote:
I was just thinking of something like this, specifically how 2 losses in the SEC are treated like 1 loss anywhere else
Carl Banks wrote:
Ben: this chart is actually about realignment. I.e., when a conference expands what conference does is grab new members from. That's why the Big East is shown feeding off the Big XII; it's poised to grab what's left of the Big XII North but it certainly doesn't have better teams. As for who's better, it changes every year, despite the assertions of SEC fans who think time began in 2006. Remember, in 2005, zero losses in the SEC was treated like one loss in the Pac Ten and Big XII. [Note: I've since changed the title.]
reader x wrote:
your more substantial entries require a starting comment to get a conversation going. your vociferous readers probably are in your inner circle and are hesitant to comment as it may be fairly easy for you to discern who they are. Reach a wider audience, and you give each reader more anonymity. Include social networking, and you will have crowd-based rankings which will bubble all noteworthy comments to the top. I'm not a big fan of facebook, but their "discussions" is extremely successful in that regard. allowing a combination of both (wider sharing and ranking) seems to me to be best.
by the way, I found your blog through the wikipedia article on "quine" -> "obfuscated C".
don't know what voci wrote:
obviously, i meant more along the lines of "your faithful readers."
even i can take a lesson from George W.
jonimethfan wrote:
Many Worlds clearly sucks because it requires a single quantum event to be exothermic enough to 'create' a whole new universe like our own. I understand that wave functions experience all possible actualities continuously, but that the cardinality of those possibilities is not even countably infinite and that consequently the possible energy release is likely to be small and finite rather than cosmically enormous.
jonimethfan wrote:
In any 'Many Worlds' infiniverse, Each universe would consist of a single quantum event (Think it through!) This is contradicted by the macroscopic reality of human consciousness.
To paraphrase Descartes:
'I think therefore 'Many Worlds' is bullshit'.
Christina wrote:
You're an idiot.
Celebrity or not.
Scarlett is gorgeous.
If she is a "butt-ugly horse-face beast," then why is she so famous for her looks?
She is beautiful.
Your views on beauty are so ridiculous.
Mark wrote:
I dont understand how a woman, that is looking like this can be famos for her looks...hmm perhaps for the horseface look. I'd realy put a bag over her head, then shed be okay to ....
Agreed wrote:
I think she's an ugly opportunist who was quick on showing her tits after she played the only role she could in Lost in translation...the same role as in ghost world basically...and then she started dressing as a Bay watch has-been
Alex wrote:
She's fameous for her boobs, not for her looks in general. If she didn't have huge boobs, she'd be nobody. Come on, let's get real here. Take away all the makeup and she looks like your average soccer mom. Which is pretty darn bad, considering she's in her 20s and not a soccer mom in her 40s-50s.
I'm not talking about celebrity standard, the girl is just an average looking girl, can't act and hasn't said or done anything worth the attention. No wonder she's best known for provocative photoshoots...
Evs wrote:
she's hideous. she looks like a big fat olive.
Shizon wrote:
She's fugly!
sara wrote:
I totally agree with you!
Kevin wrote:
You are all fucking retarded! Scarlett is beautiful.
Cheryl wrote:
I agree, Scarlett can look okay in some pictures, but most of the time she is just nasty. Her boobs are great though.
Me wrote:
She is a fugly ham beast. Bless her heart.
Random Dude wrote:
Duuuddeeee.... Scarlett Johansen is seriously one of the most beautiful women ever!
she is gorgeous ... Sorry to ruin your little hate club :i
Steve wrote:
I don't think she is ugly nor beautiful, she is just average in my book! I probly wouldn't even notice her if she passed by me on the street.
Marc wrote:
Agree, she is not beautiful.
NotASheople. wrote:
I agree. She is dull. And she thinks she's all that. She does have a horse-face and a big nose and without make up she is so dorky looking.
Have you seen her in ghost world? Jeez! Awful. Thora Birch is so much prettier.
I think it's because the press call her pretty everyone thinks "Oh yeah, she is!".
And I know girls that are a lot prettier than celebs. Just normal girls. And "Sexiest Woman Alive"??
No one has seen every living woman??
clover wrote:
I would have to agree. There are standards of being a celebrity that is known for their looks, which she certainly does not meet. She has awkward big lips, a big nose, and dull eyes. The only reason guys say, "She's so hot" is because in her photo shoots she cakes on so much makeup that it doesn't look like her at all. As well as she does the sluttiest poses to get attention. Scarlett Johannsson is not hot. She's not even slightly good looking for the average person... which is bad. Everyone, please get over her because she is not that great!
Laura wrote:
Wow you people are pretty harsh on her, I think she's beautiful. If you guys think she is so hideous let's see a picture of all of u and see how much better you guys can do. Nature made her that way and she is perfect. It is because of people like you that so many young girls have eating disorders and self esteem problems. Even if you held her to your high standards or w.e she is beautiful. There is such thing called universal beauty and she is a universal beauty, meaning that to a high percentage of population she is beautiful therefore it makes it almost a fact. You guys are the small teeny percent that doesn't think she is. Majority wins, shes appealing to the rest of the world. Your view of beauty is distorted. Not everyone has to look like a barbie with small lips and a button nose to be beautiful. Just saying.
Holly wrote:
Damn Laura, I like your style! I get told I look like Scarlett alot, and I take it as a compliment, but I also think the blonde hair and blue eyes have something to do with it. I never thought that she was the most gorgeous person ever, but I don't think she looks like an effin horse either!! I mean she's easy on the eyes and I cannot imagine her face ever makin someone cringe! I think that she's a young, cute, slim yet curvy actress who has gotten some great roles and is successful for acting and beauty, and deserves it! Find someone who is legit ugly to dedicate a hate page towards!
Andrew szczurko wrote:
shes hec
hihihihihiihi wrote:
she's hot, fuck you guys.
Alex NotOnlyOne wrote:
Tnx god, you people! I thought i'm only one who thinks that way, and that the world just gone crazy in sense of beauty standards! Nice job becoming famous, though)) Boobs'll always do the trick ;-)
The one who is right wrote:
People are too stupid to realize when they are tricked by the media. With enough exposure, makeup, and camera tricks, alot of average (pr even weird) looking women can appear like beautiful celebs.
Scarlett is no beauty, and really a C-lister in looks in celebrity circles.
But keep barking, like dumbass sheeple, otherwise. "Stupid as Fuck" is reserved for certain peoiple for that very reason.
EdwardScissorSperms wrote:
Wow, I'm so glad someone has the same opinion as me! The thing with her and a lot of other "hot" celebrities is she is sexless. She just seems neutral. Not sexy, not pretty but not insanely bad looking. Just kind of stuck in the middle. That's my opinion anyway.
I think the same thing about Meg Ryan who is also supposedly hot. I don't understand it. It's that blonde hair, goody goody type personality I suppose. It just drains any personality and mystery away so you end up with this neutered, bland person.
Stle wrote:
She's beautiful, she's not ugly at all
Extreme Makeover wrote:
The truth here, is that Scarlett was ugly as hell. She really looked depressing and ugly as a TEENAGER (if u want go search for one of her earlier photos). But you know what they say "Time heals everything". Same with Scarlett. She's now one of the most beautiful women in the entire world, and even if u don't agree with me, it's impossible to consider her ugly as "#@$. C'mon she truly is gorgeous.
wongeragon wrote:
I'm a chick.. and I think she's ugly. All chicks I know think she's ugly guys seem to love her ass and tits.. much prefer keira knightly or olivia wilde.
tellitlikeitis wrote:
I agree she's not that great looking in the face, I'd take her body in a heart beat. But keep my face, because it definitely is better than hers.
Jennifer wrote:
Nature made her that way? Please look at her before and after pics. The girl has had several surgeries just to look mediocre but with big t!ts. she's had a nose job and the obvious tata's. Lights and select angles do magic. She does have a great body thanks to surgery and some good genes, but her face is anything but beautiful. Her face is long, narrow and smushed - ergo, the horse face comments. And her teeth...looks like a prison riot! The only reason she is famous is b/c she was/is Woody Allen's latest muse. He may be a perv, but the dude is still one of the biggest influences in Holywood. He said she should be a star and the others followed like sheep. Mila Kunis is beautiful. Natalie Portman is beautiful. ScarJo is average with a lot of studio magic and backing. Nuff said.
Sumthin2say wrote:
I read the comment about Meg Ryan and cracked up! Thank you! Yes, you hit the nail on the head. Meg Ryan was the 'nice girl-next-door' but she isn't/nor ever was beautiful. You'll notice in all her movies, she does not wear anything that excentuates her behind b/c she doesn't have one. I notice that about several celebs - Faith Hill, Meg Ryan, Taylor Hicks, etc. There is one celeb who does wear clothes that supposedly excentuate her rear, but she doesn't have one either and I just don't get it - Cameron Diaz! She is svelt and lean, but she has not butt!
Kronos wrote:
Fist of all: Thank you! I thought I was the only one not brainwashed by the standards of beauty shove down our throats by the mainstream press. I don't think that Scarlet is but ugly but rather really average, plain looking, pretty perhaps by redneck trailer parks in the middle of Arkansas standards but not for international cinema. I find her talentless as an actress and her voice is so annoying!!!
ceres wrote:
THANKS YOU!! I thought i was the only one who finds her extremely unatractive!! Everybody calling het beautiful.. I hounestly don't see it.. She is ugly as hell
jenn wrote:
i so agree with you-- i never found her that attractive and used to think...wow if shes a celebrity..im much hotter than her!! shes not hot at all...she looks SORT Of hot in iron man b/c of her body or outfit but other than that..shes so average...and if shes famous for her looks then people need to change their standards...most women i know personally are better looking than her-- she is so average im surprised shes even famous...
carol wrote:
i don't know how i got here, or if anyone will ever read this..
scarlett johansson isn't disgusting.. but she's not what everyone makes her out to be either. She's pretty much a tomboy that is told how to dress, act, & has people painting her face on. In regular candid pictures, you can see she pretty much looks like shit. There are way more attractive females that are not celebrities.. & her boobs are not that amazing either. I don't understand it. Just watch the stupid zoo movie, that's what she looks like. Most beatiful woman in the world? Yeah, I think not. Money, the media, slutty outfits can make a woman appear "hot" to most men.... But if you grab that chick.. stick her in the shower.. & whipe off all that crap off her face you'll see she's just some average lady. & no i'm not hating, i personally think i look 10 times better than she does.... with or without makeup.
Hazel wrote:
I agree! O_o
Jack wrote:
you are all jealous fucks, ahahaha.
Tyler Cox wrote:
Sad that you had to spend a career where no engineer got excited about what they were doing. My experience as a product development engineer (BSME and MSME) has allowed for alot of excitement. Perhaps your problem has more to do with the industry you come from versus the industry you are trying to change to
it's obvious. wrote:
panda's are popular because they are exclusive.
why are socialites treated like celebrities? it's because they have immense wealth. although not deservedly earned, without it they would be overlooked. Money is the exclusivity factor for humans while endangerment is the exclusivity factor for animals. if there were only 200 rats left on the planet, people would not view them as vermin (in fact, few people would ever encounter one) and all of a sudden saving the rat population is a huge deal.
Conversely, dogs can be rather useful pets but their numbers make them indispensable, on a universal level.
btw, the current captcha I see below is interesting:
http://tinypic.com/r/k4zbkn/7
ob wrote:
i should add, although many wealthy people do not stand out from the crowd, the very fact they are wealthy makes them exclusive. i would argue being exclusive and anonymous is a trait rather unique to humans.
Alex Rider wrote:
Thanks! Your'e opinion really heped me on my Time Travel essay!
easy wrote:
quite easy to circumvent. instead of "my sister's friend" just say "friend of my sister."
"niece of my coworker." "psychiatrist of my mom."
it's awkward English, but clearly understandable.
Carl Banks wrote:
easy: If you're thinking about circumventing the rule, you're missing the point. This rule is about one spouse communicating boundaries to the other. It's not a challenge to see if they can circumvent it.
|