Funniest mindless movie of the last few years. McLovin is the best, and the other guys grew on me. 
In his job he needs to undervalue the suffering of others in order to make more money. Then there’s the smell, the ass and the eye. The degree of objectification of desire is in direct proportion to the self-debasement of the indulger. By degrading the other, he nullifies himself. The very indifference to the overjealous ones, the suppressed recalcitrant losers of the world, is what causes their victims to exist. Great disturbing movie.
A lost science fiction PBS movie with Taoist undertones is a real find, right? A guy discovers his dreams change reality—when he wakes up he finds himself in a world where the content of his dreams have actually happened. He of course gets scared after a couple of nightmares, seeks relief in drugs, and then, because of them, is lead to a psychiatrist. 
Here's for all the sissy Apple lovers out there... This is the ultimate design for my old Duron, which faithfully downloaded well over one terabyte (mostly movies, 1300+) always on 24/7/365 over the last four years. It also runs Apache and is a file and printer server, as well as a router for my home network (with four, also damn old and beautiful computers). Sometimes I dust it off with a vacuum cleaner.
I really enjoyed 
I have read the article on 
In imdb a user commented: "Annoying little transition into some sort of regurgitated independent film values finds this shallow project from Brad Silberling offering little and providing less in this embarrassingly exploitive work." I agree, yet it is still watchable — even more so if you understand how clichê is the fabricated spontaneity in it. It is as if independent movie has aquired its own hollywood-like formulaicism. So it kind of becomes an interestingly consumated aesthetic portrail of so many cult-status fabricated stylishness examples we see around. Many people liked 
2005.09.17 • 08:42 • 1 com
The guy just wanted a good definition of number, and then that vicious Russell came and destroyed everything.
But anyway, when you check that he started the definition of number by the number zero you see he was insane. This is probably the most difficult one to define.
In it's definition you see the paradox already — at least if you don't give a clear definition of class.
"The class of all objects that aren't equal to themselves"1, this is zero. But then, if this class is equal to itself, it isn't, and if it isn't, it is. Poor Frege. Then Russell suggested that classes are not objects or something like that, and Plato got sad2.
Moral: Logicians are obsessive-compulsive.
But anyway, when you check that he started the definition of number by the number zero you see he was insane. This is probably the most difficult one to define.
In it's definition you see the paradox already — at least if you don't give a clear definition of class.
"The class of all objects that aren't equal to themselves"1, this is zero. But then, if this class is equal to itself, it isn't, and if it isn't, it is. Poor Frege. Then Russell suggested that classes are not objects or something like that, and Plato got sad2.
Moral: Logicians are obsessive-compulsive.
Shares tags with:
1. ^ This is maybe Frege's fifth axiom of the Grundegesetze der Arithmetik, but I don't know for sure and will never know probably. I'm still not sure if this has anything to do with the definition of zero in particular.
2. ^ "Oh no! Everything must be a thing!" Poor Plato.
05.09.17 • 11:32
Poor, poor Frege. Have you got around to studying "Function and Concept" and "Sense and Reference" yet? I've taken a look at the former and will take a look today at the latter. But it's all very sad indeed.
