Along the same line.. it's pretty much a running joke among friends how bad I am picking objects out of a visual field. I scan right past people in FPS all the time (it's at an epic fail level, friends just stand still, wait for me to run by, and bash me in the back of the head). I can't find Waldo without doing a systematic grid search. I can't pick out friends in a crowded environment without a grid search. I seem to be close to incapable of learning to identify things solely visually- cars are cars, but without something far more specific to look for, like the BMW kidney grille, I have no clue what brand any normal looking car is (VW Bug, jeep, sure). Playing team sports, when somebody I don't know on the other team has done something, I can talk about the play perfectly, but if you ask me which person did it, unless it's like "the one giant black guy who hits it 50 feet over the fence a lot", I'd have no chance of picking the player out of a lineup.

Playing a racquet sport, I have an extremely quick read on where they're hitting the ball, but playing a video game, I'm incapable of getting reacting to the entirety of a boss's actions. Once I develop some specific read on some specific part of him, my reaction time to it is fine, but before I do that, I'll basically never learn what his flailing around means if I watch all of him.

My eyesight itself is more than ok, and I have no problem recognizing people I know, etc. Once I know who somebody is, I know they're the person who did something.. but before I "know" the person, it's just a generic person doing it, and I have to form that person's "identity" by something other than general visual appearance for it to stick- but once that's formed, I can add a face or other characteristic to it no problem.

Any of you medical/psych types run into something like this?

The specific program is probably the most important thing since Princeton is not exactly a random school nobody has heard of.

Harvard connections could be a little better, just because a higer percentage of Harvard alums seem to have an undying obsession with all things Harvard and meeting other Harvard people. Not that that doesn't exist at other schools, but Harvard seems to take it to another level.

Does that statement come from your rational mind, your subconscious mind or a rationalization of your subconscious thinking?

I have the same thing, I think I'm pretty good with narrow focus, but being aware of everything all at once seems impossible and kind of foreign to me.

I guess if there are a bunch of gray circles and one red circle, I'll be able to spot the red circle. But most of the time I have to look at each element in order to rule anything out.

Then again, I'm so absent-minded it probably counts as a terminal illness. It will eventually get me killed somehow.

Harvard is #1 in what she's doing, but I don't know by how wide a margin. But yeah, non-Harvard people seem unlikely to turn down Harvard people, whereas the seriously Harvard-obsessed will look down on Princeton people. So it seems like Harvard is necessary to open all doors.

I know she considers Harvard ideal in terms of strict ambition/pay/etc, but she just doesn't care that much. I don't understand her motivations.

No idea. I think the basic reasoning is that I know she lacks the negative personality traits I associate with prostitutes, so if she were to go that route it would be all good.

Scary. I find it strange you are so willing to trust your sister to strangers.

Splendour, who does the most good in the world? A Princeton grad or a hooker? In terms of suffering relieved, rapes prevented, loneliness overcome, etc, I think the hooker wins hands down.

I realize it's an uncomfortable question but if you're going to look at outcomes, it seems the hooker is a better person than the Princeton grad. Make it Harvard and it would be closer, though.

LOL I think you mean 'facilitated, unreported and/or uninvestigated'.

Due to prohibition, sure, but still.

I am of course assuming upscale callgirl type of thing. I wouldn't be okay with my sister being a streetwalker.

You should prefer her to be a well-supervised streetwalker in a regulated industry than an 'upscale' call girl on the black market, IMO.

Madnak doesn't seem to have a proper business plan or cash projections. I'm beginning to suspect he hasn't thought this through very thoroughly.

I wouldn't think a thinking individual would need a hooker for any of those things.

Marketing is going to be a real pain in the ass.

"Pimp My Pride"?

'Pride' as in 'family', geddit? Jokes that need explaining are of course the best kind.

It's like Don Draper is right here in front of me.

http://www.futuretimeline.net/

This is somewhat entertaining.

Just another Kurzweil fanboy. They even use his exact dates (i.e 2029). I'd take any of their "analysis" with a huge grain of salt.

Of course, it's all nonsense.

Wow...interesting.

Imagine there really was such a technology.

It would preempt a person's ability to change their mind and the preemption of individual choice would be justified on the basis of public safety.

Reminds me of the end of the movie The Edge I was watching recently.

In it Alec Baldwin is holding a gun on Anthony Hopkins about to kill him and Hopkins is saying he won't do it when an accident occurs forestalling Baldwin...Later on Baldwin tells Hopkins that he's crazy for helping him that he would have killed him but Hopkins insists he wouldn't.

It leaves you with a big question in your mind...Would he or wouldn't he of done the deed?

In it Alec Baldwin is holding a gun on Anthony Hopkins about to kill him and Hopkins is saying he won't do it when an accident occurs forestalling Baldwin...Later on Baldwin tells Hopkins that he's crazy for helping him that he would have killed him but Hopkins insists he wouldn't.

In it Alec Baldwin is holding a gun on Anthony Hopkins about to kill him and Hopkins is saying he won't do it when an accident occurs forestalling Baldwin...Later on Baldwin tells Hopkins that he's crazy for helping him that he would have killed him but Hopkins insists he wouldn't.

In it Alec Baldwin is holding a gun on Anthony Hopkins about to kill him and Hopkins is saying he won't do it when an accident occurs forestalling Baldwin...Later on Baldwin tells Hopkins that he's crazy for helping him that he would have killed him but Hopkins insists he wouldn't.

In it Alec Baldwin is holding a gun on Anthony Hopkins about to kill him and Hopkins is saying he won't do it when an accident occurs forestalling Baldwin...Later on Baldwin tells Hopkins that he's crazy for helping him that he would have killed him but Hopkins insists he wouldn't.

In it Alec Baldwin is holding a gun on Anthony Hopkins about to kill him and Hopkins is saying he won't do it when an accident occurs forestalling Baldwin...Later on Baldwin tells Hopkins that he's crazy for helping him that he would have killed him but Hopkins insists he wouldn't.

If humans were asexual, would we look androgynous or have features of both sexes? Like imagine a big, muscular brutish guy with working tits and a vagina giving birth.

I'm telling you all, in a ****ed up kind of way it could work if our genes evolved at an accelerated rate in response to our surroundings.

I'm moving soon. Can't wait until it's all over.

This week on Grammar Nits:

None of them are vs None of them is

To me this seems like a slam-dunk; None = Not one, and you would never say (or hear) "Not one of them are," so clearly None of them are is wrong. But you see it everywhere, constantly, and (it seems) you never see None of them is. So am I wrong?

Heh, don't worry about it -

... is enough to force my shamefaced resignation from the Grammar Gang.