DragonMaci

I just found out that Chrome has 23 addons. But that isn't many, especially considering that many of them are actually themes. Even IE has a hell of a lot more than that let alone, Firefox, which has the most.

Fair enough. I myself only use a handful of basic add-ons, the most complex being Google Toolbar. What i would like is for Chrome to have a powerful add-ons system so that those that want some of the features Chrome lacks but other browsers have can have those features.

As some of you may already know from this thread, I have already read Eragon and Eldest, books 1 and 2 from the Inheritence Trilogy. I have yet to read Brisingr though. Has anyone else read it? If so is it worth reading? I am sceptical about it given a statement Paolini made in the official email newsletter for the series. In the email he stated that This makes me reluctant to read the book.

Chrome is severely lacking in features. And without a proper extensions system like Firefox, it isn't good enough for me to bother with. So until they make an updated version that at least has a proper extensions system, I won't use it. Actually, does it even have an extensions system at all?

I think this was purely created as a balancing mechanism so that there would be suspense rather than Richard being able to easily destroy enemies at any time, like would be the case if he had full control of his gift. Also, bare in mind that he is doesn't know how to use his gift. Remember no one, not even Zedd, Ann, Verna, Nathan, or anyone else, know how his gift works and thus cannot train him. How can he use it rationally considering that? I also suspect Goodkind, like many people, misused the word "instinct" by using it when either the word "intuition" or the term "auotmated knowledge" should of been used. This is indeed the case, which is why i argue despite what i just said, he was more rational in his use of the gift than many give him credit for. THAT was interesting! Actually, Goodkind has Richard (and other characters such as Kahlan) do that in every single book. Goodkind never use a purely magical solution. In fact in many cases he doesn't use a magical solution at all (the best example is book 6). But even in the case of magic solutions he still has Richard use his mind to figure something out (the best examples are the 3 books in the Chainfire trilogy, but book 5 is also a good example). As for the Third Rule, it doesn't mean, "I should act by instinct and not concern myself with proof, because if I think I'm letting my feelings control my reason, then I'm breaking Wizard's Third Rule." It means, as the clarifiaction in the book says, that many people wrongly act on passion rather than reason, and that they should do it the other way around. That is a good message and true. As for prohpecy, right from book 2 Richard hates prophecy and Nathan tells Richard that free will is the balance to prophecy. And Zedd says in book 1 some prophecies are self-fillfulling because the people that read them make them happen. So right from the beginning Goodkind doesn't give prophecy much credence. This is fleshed out much more in Book 6 and Book 10 or 11 when first Kahlan, then later Richard blame Ann for causing a lot of the horror of the prophecies happen by making them possible by bringing Richard to the Old World and that had she not done that they never would of happened. Finally, like many people have already said, Richard grows out of these mistakes. Some don't happen for a while (eg, the aforementioned not eating meat thing). My guess (based on his style) is that Goodkind had those mistakes there on purpose knowing they were mistakes so as to have character development. Several years. My guess is that Richard is nearly 30 by then given he started book 1 in his mid-20s. As I recallhe doesn't mention them again. However, Denna did tell Kahlan that he may never fully recover. By remembering what Denna said to Kahlan. The quote, "Blade be true," is about the accuracy of his swings and thrusts of the sword. It simply means he hopes he is accurate in his use of it. It does not mean he trusts its "judgement." Also, bare in mind that until later books (book 5 onwards) where Richard starts intellectually oustripping even Zedd and even in some of the things he thinks about magic, Richard is still learning about reason, especially from Zedd. This was a clearly intentional part of the series, especially given that with exception of the rare cases of Richard figuring out one of the Rules on his own (Rule 6 and Rule 11, which even Zedd didn't know) he was taught the Rules. Not really given that, as I said, Nathan says it to richard in book 2, which you have already read.

They don't get the money. Star Trek has stated many times that money was abolished a long time ago. This is mainly said by Picard in The Next Generation, but I am sure he gave a timeline for the abolishment of money that predates The Original Series. As for Vulcans, they are socialists as has already been stated. And the Federation are communists. Although in saying that the new movie does have some Nokia product placement, and one reason the Federation seemed communists before hand was the way the government seemed to provide and control everything with no private companies. Nokia product placement seems to change that. Do you mean the writers of the original canon or the new movie? Because the latter had to stick with the name Enterprise; they couldn't go and change the name of the ship. Thatis because the actor intentionally went away from Shatner's Kirk and tried to bring a bit of Han Solo into Kirk. I don't think they were all that predictable. I saw none of the unarmed combat prowess I have come to expect from Kirk. They were conastructed in massive spacestations orbiting Earth in other series and movies. Even the Enterprise NX-01 was built in such a station, though one much smaller than seen in other Star Treks. Because of this I was surprised to see the Enterprise being built on Earth. Yes, but that was kirk not Spock and he said only "sometimes." Voyager's Tuvok certainly suggests that the culture hasn't changed in that regard by then even if Spock has. Personally I loved this new film and the way it changed Star Trek while staying true to what made Star trek so great, ie, its theme of hope and optimism towards the future and techology. Star Trek has always had technology improving people's life as a main part of it. That is not to say I liked every change they made. However, the changes I disliked were small enough not to change my overall opinion of the film.

From what one of my tutors tell me Harness Racing New Zealand's website hs more information than I thought, but it's just that it isn't easy to navigate. I will try that as well as the links West said. I hope it has general information. For now I want to know generals about the sport not specifics relevant to any particular country.

That sadly isn't too far out for NZ as you know. I am glad harness rcing hasn't been banned for harming carnivorous snails like that mine was

Yes, it is. At least if you mean the one with the mare that doesn't do very well at first, but then new owners and a new trainer get her and she eventually becomes one of the greatest champions ever. I think it would work better with a harness horse. The problem with a gallops horse is that I couldn't get enough story given how short their careers asracers are (though sometimes they have different careers afterwards), but with a harness horse I can get more career and more story.

That and maybe I used worse search terms than West did. I am actually considering changing my story about the galloper to one about a harness racing (probably a pacer and not a trotter; pacers go slightly faster). Harness racing horses tend to race till an older ages than gallopers (standardbreds have stronger bones than thoroughbreds, which have weaker bones than other horse breeds).

I will look into them. Hopefully they have general information that is useful regardless of one's nation. Thanks. I failed to find anything useful to me using it.

I was wondering if anyone here knows anything about harness racing. If you do, can you please post that information here? I am considering harness racing as a career and cannot find much useful information on it.

Meh, not all that useful to me. Just more eye candy really. I don't bother with eye candy.

I was the same even though the only sport I played was social rugby league at luncetime. I also agree with what Tenzing Shaw said.

EDIT: Somehow my stupid computer got the idea to send the message before I typed anything. Here is what I meant to say: Firstly, that sarcasm is silly. Second, you are blatently ignoring a much better solution that, as I said, has already been offered. No one said otherwise. Futhermore, it'd be wrong to sacrifice that kid to those other kids, especially when an option that involved no sacrifice is available.

I know. I just wanted to make your implication explicit.

No, it is the fault of your opposition teams and their coaches (as I am sure you are aware). That is why I made my 1st reply to Punk.

That analogy is not relevant. No one is asking the kid to play with only part of his potential. Besides, I think to play at anything but your best is wrong. I think it is wrong to play at half your potential (or some other non-100% proportion) just to placate the less skilled and play them. ADDITION: A solution that results in everyone winning has already been mentioned: trial the kid in a higher league.

You think it sounds reasonable to sacrifice this kid to the majority so they can have fun? It doesn't to me. To sacrifice any individual to the majority's desires is evil, especially when you sacrifice the best.

Did they back that up with science? If not then it is an assertion with no backing and thus hard to take seriously.

Well, it isn't alone now is it? It is accompanied by Rand's books, Piekoff's books, Tara Smith's books, various other books by Objectivists, and other Objectivists efforts. And more will be added (eg my cousin's upcoming TOR project, his books, my books (and maybe essays too one day), and much more). It all adds up.

I can give you a good reason for why it could change eventually: the activities of the ARI (eg: such as handing out over a million copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead to teachers to teach).

He mafde an error there. He suggested that a heirachy of values is exclusive to having one set of values. This is false. Objectivism is one set of values with a hierachy. He made a few errors here. First was to suggest that doing that would make you a hypocrite; it wouldn't. You never syggested two things couldn't be valued equally. Second was to suggest that even if you had said two things cannot be valued equally that saying that would neccesarily make you a hypocrite. It could do so depending on context, but not neccessarily. You could of changed your mind. Changing your mind doesn't make you a hypocrite, especially if changing your mind to what is correct. His third error was to say the taking the hypocrite route is probably best. That simply is not true. To take that route is bad. This is another error. Every person is different. Even if their philosophy is the same they will still be different; they will have different optional values (eg I highly value horses while many Objectivists and Students of Objectvism do not). Because no two people have the same values they will not meet equally with your values. For example I am going to value a rational horse lover for more than a rational engineer or a rational author, or a rational artist, etc. This is a strawman; you never said it had to have a particular number. Wrong, it doesn't have to do anything of the sort. It doesn't have to hold anything. No belief system does. Belief systems are free to hold anything their creator wants, even false ideas. There are no limits on what a belief system "has" to hold. Of course there is one limit on what it should hold, ie, reality. But that is a seperate issue. I am nit entirely sure, but I think this may be another strawman. This is a baseless statement with nothing to back it up. It isn't worth a cent. And just what are you basing that on? I don't think Rand ever intended to sustain things as they were.

With a different kernal no doubt, but otherwise, yes I agree with that. Afterall Linus Torvalds would mostly likely still of created his kernal. It would of been different if he had had to start from scratch, but I am sure he probably still would of done it.

Yes, others. That is why I said me and him were examples. And I second your thanks. Without those knowledgeable this thread would of been of no value at all. So thank you to the knowledgeable people for saving this thread and making with worthwhile.