I am a foreign doctor (originally from Iraq) who was laid off several years back by my employer who sponsored my J-1 visa (I won the lottery fortunately that is how I got the residency) I remember it very well how hard it was to find employment - any type of employment - I guess it was because of my language skills that I got a job to survive during those hard years (I was employed by a contractor in need of translation services from Dari to English - Dari is the name given to classical Persian poetry and court language, as well as to Persian dialects spoken in Afghanistan. Various dialects of Dari are also spoken by a few people in Iran and by many in Pakistan.
[...]When this threads asks was is "one still glad?," it assumes that the question can be answered from emotion or experience or reason, but in reality none suffice, since the question can only be answered from one's will.When a person's will is strong, there surroundings bend to it, even feelings of being glad or sad hold no sway ovr their choice. [...]In essence, this question is asking what type of will do you have -- a strong one, a herd-like one, a special one, a bright one, a dark one? I have observed each answer is nonsensical, but a small few address the root of the question.
Quote from: Becky on April 03, 2008, 12:57:55 PMInteresting avatar as well! The question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg? It points out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. The predestination paradox (also called either a causal loop or a causality loop) is a paradox of time travel that is often used as a convention in science fiction. It exists when a time traveller is caught in a loop of events that "predestines" him/her to travel back in time. Because of the possibility of influencing the past while time travelling, one way of explaining why history does not change is by saying that whatever has happened was meant to happen. A time traveller attempting to alter the past in this model, intentionally or not, would only be fulfilling his role in creating history as we know it, not changing it. The predestination paradox is in some ways the opposite of the grandfather paradox, the famous example of the traveller killing his own grandfather before his parent is conceived, thereby precluding his own travel to the past by canceling his own existence.A dual example of a predestination paradox is depicted in the classic Ancient Greek play 'Oedipus'. Laius hears a prophecy that his son will kill him. Fearing the prophecy, Laius pierces Oedipus' feet and leaves him out to die, but a herdsman finds him and takes him away from Thebes. Oedipus, not knowing he was adopted, leaves home in fear of the same prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Laius, meanwhile, ventures out to find a solution to the Sphinx's riddle. As prophesied, Oedipus crossed paths with Laius and this leads to a fight where Oedipus slays Laius. Oedipus then defeats the Sphinx by solving a mysterious riddle to become king. He marries the widow queen Jocasta not knowing she is his mother.A typical example of a predestination paradox (used in The Twilight Zone episode "No Time Like the Past") is as follows: A man travels back in time to discover the cause of a famous fire. While in the building where the fire started, he accidentally knocks over a kerosene lantern and causes a fire, the same fire that would inspire him, years later, to travel back in time.A variation on the predestination paradoxes which involves information, rather than objects, traveling through time is similar to the self-fulfilling prophecy: A man receives information about his own future, telling him that he will die from a heart attack. He resolves to get fit so as to avoid that fate, but in doing so overexerts himself, causing him to suffer the heart attack that kills him. In both examples, causality is turned on its head, as the flanking events are both causes and effects of each other, and this is where the paradox lies. In the second example, the person would not have traveled back in time but for the fire that he or she caused by traveling back in time. Similarly, in the third example, the man would not have overexerted himself but for the future information he receives. In most examples of the predestination paradox, the person travels back in time and ends up fulfilling their role in an event that has already occurred. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, the person is fulfilling their role in an event that has yet to occur, and it is usually information that travels in time (for example, in the form of a prophecy) rather than a person. In either situation, the attempts to avert the course of past or future history both fail.
Interesting avatar as well! The question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?
HAHAHA follow me, I know what ya mean
Quantum Ten? Does your handle stand for Quantum Ten, Q10?
Ah, cause and effect! We have perfected images of how things become what they are -- sperm, egg, embryo, etc -- but we have not gotten past an image, or behind it. For example, we describe a cause as producing and effect, but this is a crude duality. Cause and effect probably never occurs -- in reality there stands before us a continuum of which we isolate a couple of pieces... we do not see cause, we infer it. So, if we chop up the endless continuum of the world into manageable pieces for our digestion, let us not imagine that the menu we prepare for ourselves is the only, or even the tastiest, one. Yet the hubris of science insists that it is!We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we are able to live -- with the postulation of bodies, lines, surfaces, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content: without these articles of faith, nobody could now manage to live!
Quote from: tidbit on August 25, 2008, 05:08:57 PM[...]Cause & Effect: Logical Reasoninghttp://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/IJCAI99/ijcai-99.pdfBefore the effect one believes in different causes than one does after the effect.
[...]Cause & Effect: Logical Reasoninghttp://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/IJCAI99/ijcai-99.pdf
Well, libo, internists are sometimes referred to as the "doctor's doctor," because they are often called upon to act as consultants to other physicians to help solve puzzling diagnostic problems. While the name "internal medicine" may lead one to believe that internists only treat "internal" problems, this is not the case. Doctors of internal medicine treat the whole person, not just internal organs.Although Internists may act as primary care physicians, they are not "family physicians," "family practitioners," or "general practitioners" (whose training in certain countries includes the medical care of children, and may include surgery, obstetrics and pediatrics). General Internists practice medicine from a primary care perspective but they can treat and manage many ailments and are usually the most adept at treating a broad range of diseases affecting adults.Internists can choose to focus their practice on general internal medicine, or may take additional training to "subspecialize" in one of 13 areas of internal medicine, generally organized by organ system. Cardiologists, for example, are doctors of internal medicine who subspecialize in diseases of the heart. The training an internist receives to subspecialize in a particular medical area is both broad and deep. Subspecialty training (often called a "fellowship") usually requires an additional 1-3 years beyond the standard 3-year general internal medicine residency (residencies come after a student has graduated from medical school). The following are the subspecialties recognized by the American Board of Internal Medicine: CardiologyEndocrinologyGastroenterologyHematologyInfectious diseasesMedical oncologyNephrologyPulmonologyRheumatology
I'm not entering into a philosophical discussion here, Mina, but I'd like to point out this: the Will is source of suffering, since willing never brings contentment, but only further desire. People are, in fact, condemned to the endless pursuit of impossible desires: we blow out a soap-bubble as long and as large as possible, although we well know that it will burst. We are all in front of a portal inscribed "The Moment." An eternity lies behind us, and an eternity yet again lies before us; an unending chain of events in which we are inextricably involved. Like the punishment of Sisyphus in the Greek myth, we are condemned to a terrible repetition of events for all eternity. This lack of purpose or ending -- a form of meaninglessness is nothing else but the "endless desiring" mentioned above. We are, obviously, to put an emphasis on "the moment" -- on our present action and will -- and whatever follows is tied to this for all eternity.
Quote from: jason1114 on June 16, 2006, 12:08:48 PMYeah, we're going to have f-in' babies... hahaDon't take the babies thing lightly! Take a look here,http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,33732.0.html
Yeah, we're going to have f-in' babies... haha
Page created in 0.6 seconds with 19 queries.