Christopher

One of my Eyes has Astygmatism.

It is -0.75, Astygmatism -0.5, Axis 10.

However, when I am trying to find it online,

I only have the following options

Sphere, Cylinder and Axis.

So is my sphere -0.75, Ast -.5 and Axis 10?

However, I couldn't find any contacts with Ast -0.5 and the closest I can find for Cylinder is -0.75.

Can you help me find the right contact lenses for my eyes?

Also, should I get contacts weaker for my eyes or should they be the same as the prescription glasses?

For example, the Edward Snowden case and there may be many others that came to be true, we would have just labelled everything as lies upon lies. However, when it was proven to us, we say that we have known all along that these things were true. So how can you tell what is true and what isn't?

When does the evidence become truth?

When I look at conspiratorial websites, I have no idea what's true and what's not. I can't know. I can't know if it's made up or not. Do these people lie? They have no reasons to lie. It's not like creationism.

Only if it becomes the 'official story' in the mainstream news, does it become mainstream official truth? Is this when we have real proof? Such as the Snowden case? However, conspiracy theorists knew this all along, so they were right!

So you see my dilemma here, how do you know truth from fiction when it comes to conspiracy theories such as the UFO disclosure or that the government is conspiring with Aliens (paul hellyer). These have credible people, but we don't believe them because it's not 'official truth?'

If you have a look at the UFO conspiracy, for me, objectively, I have no doubt in my mind that it must be true (I don't believe it though, I am an agnostic). Why? because if it were things like crime, and all the evidence was there, it just seems too foolish to not to make the conclusion if all the evidence is pointing towards the one conclusion.

However, we don't believe conspiracy theories because they are just labelled as that!

I have two DUIs that I have received in the course of five months, in New Zealand.

I was suspended for 6 months from driving and yet I did it again and now I have two DUIs.

Note, I was never arrested.

Will this stop me getting a work visa, as a NZ citizen?

I have not caused any harm to any property and people/s it was just a breath test at a police checkpoint.

I have two DUIs that I have received in the course of five months, in New Zealand.

I was suspended for 6 months from driving and yet I did it again and now I have two DUIs.

Note, I was never arrested.

Will this stop me getting a work visa, as a NZ citizen?

I have not caused any harm to any property and people/s it was just a breath test at a police checkpoint.

I have two DUIs that I have received in the course of five months, in New Zealand.

I was suspended for 6 months from driving and yet I did it again and now I have two DUIs.

Note, I was never arrested.

Will this stop me getting a work visa, as a NZ citizen?

If not, how about a travel visa?

I have not caused any harm to any property and people/s it was just a breath test at a police checkpoint.

I really wonder if, when your brain gets damaged from a fight because you lose your brain cells or a part of your brain gets damaged, will you be able to think of logical things ever again? For example, if you are thinking of logic, because your brain's logic faculty is damaged, will your brain be in a state of paranoia because you cant think of logical things? For example maybe you believe that you are afraid of god. However, without reason, maybe you wont be able to think of logical arguments against god and you may be stuck in that loophole of thinking where you cant solve anything because your brain cannot use reason.

I really wonder if, when your brain gets damaged from a fight because you lose your brain cells or a part of your brain gets damaged, will you be able to think of logical things ever again? For example, if you are thinking of logic, because your brain's logic faculty is damaged, will your brain be in a state of paranoia because you cant think of logical things? For example maybe you believe that you are afraid of god. However, without reason, maybe you wont be able to think of logical arguments against god and you may be stuck in that loophole of thinking where you cant solve anything because your brain cannot use reason.

Does it become meaningless?

I tried this with a non-living thing and it was meaningless. Why doesn't gym equipments such as barbells need no electricity?

Because it just doesnt and it doesnt need it. Why? because to work, requires no electricity at all.

What about if you ask something about a living thing such as, why does the body heal itself and you keep asking questions, does it go all the way back to abiogenesis? Please try this on your own and pick out anything about your body and ask questions about it. Where does it lead you?

It always leads to abiogenesis to me..

So is it meaningless to ask, why is reality the way it is and not another way? Why is it that all questions lead to, because IT JUST IS. I am not satisfied with IT JUST IS. Why not another way?

Descartes Demon deceives you.

Logic/rationality could be a deception.

There is always a reason for a traffic jam. However, thats what you think.

Demon could have deceived you and there could have been no reason at all it was jammed. However, that statement was using logic so I couldnt use it.

Seems to me that the only way of escaping this is to be illogical/irrational. However, even that solution used logic to determine how to escape it.

So, we cant know anything for certain. However, i just used logic again so it cant be valid, to infinity.

Mind=blown

The important thing to understand about finding a job with an economics degree is that employers are less interested in whether you have a specific skill, like being able to find the intersection of the supply and demand curve, than they are in the package of skills that people with economics degrees have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LNTsle7UtM

Go to 4:42 till 4:58.

He thought it corrupt. does this sentence make sense?

If not how can bbc make such simple errors

http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/news/article/-/9265868/...

I do not know what the journalist is referring to here about clubs songs

Club's song- 1 song of the baseball club

club songs- many songs from dance clubs

clubbing songs- more accurate than 2nd (club songs)

clubs' songs- many baseball club's songs OR many dance club's songs

club's songs- many songs of the baseball team's songs or many songs of the dance club's.

clubs songs- WTF does this mean?

BTW am i right about my description of everything?

"So instead of enjoying the game, the fan spend the rest of the half-inning wondering why her phone was ringing off the hook."

It should read spent(since its past tense), or if it was present tense, spends. Am i right?

Traditionally i have been learnt that x is independent of y and y is dependent of x

However, what about scenarios where x and y are independent of each other, or you dont know

Ie, to find out correlation between usage of computers and usage of cars(both are independent)

So you could fit both of them in either X or Y. Is this graph even mathematically feasible?

I suppose so but why is the rule that X must be independent and y is dependent. Can this rule be broken? What don't i know?

Year Date DST Begins Date DST Ends

2007 March 11 November 4

2008 March 9 November 2

2009 March 8 November 1

2010 March 14 November 7

2011 March 13 November 6

2012 March 11 November 4

2013 March 10 November 3

2014 March 9 November 2

2015 March 8 November 1

2016 March 13 November 6

2017 March 12 November 5

2018 March 11 November 4

2019 March 10 November 3

2020 March 8 November 1

2021 March 14 November 7

2022 March 13 November 6

2023 March 12 November 5

2024 March 10 November 3

2025 March 9 November 2

It is inconsistent. It should only have a margin of one or two days each year. Why so much change?

Concerning the philosophy of mathematics,

I came across Fermat's Last Theorem which by mathematicians said it was unsolvable? or there was no proof? until Andrew Wiles came along with proving it.

Is our current understanding of mathematics growing? I mean, is maths like science where it is "discoverable"? Because how can previous mathematicians say that it couldn't be done but it was done? I don't think in mathematics, there would be any arguments as such. People who say there is no proof and people who actually found the proof. Why is it this way?

Mathematics is absolute certainty so it is either yes or no, not in between.

Concerning the philosophy of mathematics,

I came across Fermat's Last Theorem which by mathematicians said it was unsolvable? or there was no proof? until Andrew Wiles came along with proving it.

Is our current understanding of mathematics growing? I mean, is maths like science where it is "discoverable"? Because how can previous mathematicians say that it couldn't be done but it was done? I don't think in mathematics, there would be any arguments as such. People who say there is no proof and people who actually found the proof. Why is it this way?

Mathematics is absolute certainty so it is either yes or no, not in between.

I think so. I think that we must exist in order to even think we doubt our existence means we must doubt. But what are these philosophers saying??

How does nietche and others say that even this does not prove with absolute certainty that we exist?

of course we exist. Could you elaborate on what these people are saying?

I think i really exist. i dont know if my body is real, but my cognition is real therefore i must exist. can something not exist but still exist to think/doubt? Can another realm of existence defy logic? is this what they are saying??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

Please read the "Critiques" section

I think so. I think that we must exist in order to even think we doubt our existence means we must doubt. But what are these philosophers saying??

How does nietche and others say that even this does not prove with absolute certainty that we exist?

of course we exist. Could you elaborate on what these people are saying?

I think i really exist. i dont know if my body is real, but my cognition is real therefore i must exist. can something not exist but still exist to think/doubt? Can another realm of existence defy logic? is this what they are saying??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

Please read the "Critiques" section

I mean it is illogical to have both a person sit down and stand up at the same time. But i was wondering, maybe we live in a reality where the rules of logic apply but there may be another reality where our logic is useless? Could god be illogical? People say that god works in mysterious ways and is not of this world. But is it possible that logic does not apply to god?

Why should it?