Coral and Survival
Steve Jones on the "paradox of enrichment."
Steve Jones on the "paradox of enrichment."
For now, at least. First, a nice summation from <A HREF="http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/music/features/article2316883.ece"><… Independent</I></A>. Then, follow the external link to Denis Dutton's conclusion that Barrington-Coupe's "I did it for love" defense just doesn't wash. His conclusion: "Based of a reading of her letters to critics and her radio interviews, it is my considered opinion that Joyce Hatto, in addition of being a lively, chirpy, witty, bright and positive person, was also a pathological liar."
Bagheera calculates a trajectory.
Huckleberry just looks calculating.
"if arm falls off, reattach and play much slower."
I always knew that (and on the heart, too). What I refuse to believe is that anyone who has actually <I>read</I> Shakespeare could write like this:
<BR>
"This interdisciplinary work is good for brain science because it offers permanent scripts of the human mind working moment-to-moment. It is good for literature as it illustrates primary human thinking. Through the two disciplines, we may discover new insights into the very motions of the mind."
Sounds like a country song, no?
Gerald Edelman tries to explain consciousness. But doesn't Gödel's Law tell us that we can't use consciousness to define it?
<b>A $279 Speaker</b>