LG

Looking for something not so commercialized looking and feeling but still nice. Not so crowded but not so isolated that you never see anyone. Seems like most of the "out of the way" places are geared towards couples. I can do something on the pricey side but I can't drop 5 grand a night. Any ideas?

Sometimes the whole concept of startdom, especially in Rock n Roll, seems to draw people into it purely for that aspect of it, because they want to be stars or be worshiped, rather than for the more pure enjoyment of the music itself.

But then the popularity draws many people that may not have been drawn in otherwise, puts more money and resources into it etc.

Your thoughts?

It's a mellow and laid-back song. Sounds very Thompson-Twins-ish(mostly like "lay your hands") but I don't see it under their name in I-tunes. Don't know the actual words, but it sounds like "can we get, love love love" in the chorus. But I may be way off in the lyrics.

For the musician's out there, the "love-love-love" sounds like a F-E-D progression.

Any help appreciated.

Thanks

I've noticed that along with entitlement comes the message that the world has rejected me or thinks I'm a bad person if I don't get what I'm entitled to. And I think this is why so many become enraged then their demands aren't met.

But is it always this way? Is it possible to be disappointed but not insulted?

The Sun God getting into his fiery charriot and riding across the sky every day. This is often looked upon as a stupid explanation. But is it? Go back to like the year 10 B.C., No internet. No airplanes. No telescopes. No one has journeyed around the world. The less information we have the more hypotheses fit the data.

For example, if I travel back to earth in the year 1900, it's not really 1900 as it was written in history right? Something is different. I'm there. So I didn't really travel back into time. I traveled to some place that's almost like 1900.

I'm just thinking the whole concept of traveling back into time isn't even conceptually sound, independent of how well the concept applies to reality.

That and "travel" refers to distance per time, not time per time. Time per time is a meaningless scalar. And since time isn't constant throughout the universe, we have to talk in terms of traveling to a certain space-time.

I don't want to buy another rifle(I love my Mark V and can't afford a rifle of similar quality at this point in time) and want to hunt pigs in California. 300 WBY mag is too much for this but I was wondering if I could do some handloading and tone it down a bit, less meat damage and managed recoil. So how far can I go without sacrificing accuracy and/or risk getting a bullet stuck in the bore?

Independent of whether one really IS in control or not, which is a whole discussion in itself.

I'm looking for something decent, not a cheesy, piece of crap. What is the price-independent best? And what is a good value if I'm somewhat budget conscious? Just looking for a 6" dial caliper. Doesn't even have to be digital necessarily.

Thanks in advance

I always hear that the media's obsession with youth is why we have trouble with this. But there's some things that really do suck about it, like every single organ in your body doesn't work quite like it used to. Yes, at some point we get to acceptance. But there's a lot of heartache getting there.

I have a 11MP Cannon 1Ds and am considering taking a scenic shot that I'm going to blow up to 40x60 and want it to be well detailed. One option is to take 4 shots with a 1Ds and an 135mm f2.0l and stitch them together with photoshop(locking the exposure of course). The other option is to rent a Hasselblad 40MP setup(I'm assuming it's a 645 format) to the tune of $250. I know the former option is more work but I want to save the $ if I can. But I'm wondering if the Hasselblad setup would offer any advantages.

I found a job now. So I don't need this anymore. But I can't figure out how to turn it off. Anyone know?

Thanks in advance.

I've heard the argument that women want men who are going to stick around because it'll ensure that babies will be provided for. But from an evolution/genetics standpoint, don't men have just as much interest in the children they father surviving? And if they bolt, the child will be much less likely to survive?

Do we really need shame of this type to control behavior? To bond people together under common beliefs?