229 karma · joined March 15, 2015
Looking inward is basically not focusing on the outside world. You're not supposed to sit and stare at a chair, but focus on something that is "inward", which could be for example your presence or your breathing.
Unclear terminology sometimes comes from either not having a deep enough grasp of the topic at hand. Sometimes on the other hand, the thing you're trying to explain is just hard to put into words.
So, this article says there's no water on the surface of Mars, rather than underneath it.
Though it looks like this suggests that water beneath the surface is unlikely to be there as well?
It's most likely not true though.
Meditation is more than just relaxation. It's about a state of mind. About being in the present moment, letting go, looking inward and reflecting about oneself. I don't think you do any of those things when just relaxing while listening to music.
Also,
> I am perfectly capable of relaxing and unburdening my mind, but it just ain't happening during a normal workday with deadlines and badly defined business processes.
That means you are not perfectly capable of relaxing your mind.
Good bye, you will be missed (not).
> After the operation the brain has much more difficulty sending messages between the hemispheres. Although the corpus callosum is the largest white matter tract connecting the hemispheres, some limited interhemispheric communication is still possible via the anterior commissure and posterior commissure.
Also, from https://www.greatagain.gov/meet-president-elect.html
> "Donald J. Trump is the very definition of an American success story, continually setting the standards of excellence for real estate, sports and entertainment"
How humble.
Also, it hasn't yet been proven that the treatment itself is completely safe for the brain.
Could you point me to a quote from the article that tries to make us believe that there is a disaster after disaster?
As far as I know, the article seems to have an objective opinion. It mentions that it's bad, but it's much better than it used to be. Which is basically your point.
Or was your opinion unrelated to the article?
> Jimmy Yu has shown that self-immolation cannot be interpreted based on Buddhist doctrine and beliefs alone but the practice must be understood in the larger context of the Chinese religious landscape. He examines many primary sources from the 16th and 17th century and demonstrates that bodily practices of self-harm, including self-immolation, was ritually performed not only by Buddhists but also by Daoists and literati officials who either exposed their naked body to the sun in a prolonged period of time as a form of self-sacrifice or burned themselves as a method of procuring rain. In other words, self-immolation was a sanctioned part of Chinese culture that was public, scripted, and intelligible both to the person doing the act and to those who viewed and interpreted it, regardless of their various religion affiliations.
Other self-immolations were political protests, and they weren't performed only by buddhists. ( examples here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation#Political_prot... )
Of course, as the wikipedia article says, "Since 2009, at least 120 Tibetans have self-immolated, more than 40 have died". But later on, you we read, "In 2013, the Dalai Lama questioned the effectiveness of self-immolation as a demonstration tactic. He has also expressed that the Tibetans are acting of their own free will and stated that he is powerless to influence them to stop carrying out immolation as a form of protest".
Even still, It takes some insight to comprehend their self-mummification practices. I suppose it weren't just a bunch of pointless suicides.
That said, there aren't such practices in Hinduism or most, as it turns out(?) Buddhist philosophies (such as tibetan buddhism).
Why not just create a separate google account if one's so eager to play?
This. Honestly after C++11 the stuff they're adding is scarcely useful, it mostly just complicates the language itself even more than it currently is. They're trying to change the way you write C++ code without removing support for the old ways. I feel like they should make a new language instead of adding mostly useless things/stuff that barely anybody will use (could be also because barely anybody will know of that feature's existance)
But unifying those makes no sense to me.
I tend to think that having it be a scripting language (eg. one that's ment to be used as, for example, creating quests / scripting events. Like old Gothic [I and II] used to have) justifies creating it (and potentially could be useful, since the main contenders as far as I am aware are AngelScript, LUA and Squirrel - so there's not a plethora of choices to choose from).
Though you could find any other field where the language could be used for.
Perhaps processing data, or maybe analyzing human language. Whatever you can come up with.
Then it kind of makes sense :D