wat women T shirts tell us

http://www.1funny.com/tshirtswomen.shtml

born free

ffrrreee

Go away, she is fine

sssshhhhh !

DAMN OLDIES ..

he is ancient
but he gott the hottz for young girls


keep your daughters locked

Damn oldies ...

there is dis guy who flashes on the net
He is a creep
reminds me of my dad

keep your daughters safe

an indecent proposal

A young boy went up to his father and asked, "What is the difference between potentially and realistically?"

The father considered the question, then replied, "Go ask your mother if she would sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars.
And ask your sister if she would sleep with Brad Pitt for the same.

When they've told you, come back and we'll talk."The boy went to his mother and asked, "Would you sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars?" The mother replied, "Of course I would! I couldn't pass up an opportunity like that."

The boy then went to his sister and asked, "Would you sleep with Brad Pitt for a million dollars?" The sister replied, "Oh my God! I would just love to do that! I would be in heaven if I had that chance!"

The boy pondered this for a bit and went back to his dad. His father asked, "So could your mother and sister help you understand the difference between potentially and realistically?"

The boy replied, "Yes, potentially we're sitting on two million dollars, but realistically we're living with a couple of sluts."

http://deepinmymind.blogspot.com/

the majority are damn fools

Failures of crowd intelligence

In order to make his case, Surowiecki studies situations (such as rational bubbles) in which the crowd produces very bad judgment,

and argues that in these types of situations their cognition or cooperation failed because (in one way or another) the members of the crowd were too conscious of the opinions of others and began to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently.

Although he gives experimental details of crowds collectively swayed by a persuasive speaker, he says that the main reason that groups of people intellectually conform is that the system for making decisions has a systematic flaw.

He thinks that what happens when the decision making environment isn't set up to accept the crowd is that the benefits of individual judgments and private information are lost, and that the crowd can only do as well as its smartest member, rather than perform better (as he shows is otherwise possible). Detailed case histories of such failures include:

Too centralized: The Columbia shuttle disaster, which he blames on a hierarchical NASA management bureaucracy that was totally closed to the wisdom of low-level engineers.

Too divided: The U.S. Intelligence community failed to prevent the September 11, 2001 attacks partly because information held by one subdivision was not accessible by another. Surowiecki's argument is that crowds (of intelligence analysts in this case) work best when they choose for themselves what to work on and what information they need.

(He cites the SARS-virus isolation as an example in which the free flow of data enabled laboratories around the world to coordinate research without a central point of control.)

Too imitative: Where choices are visible and made in sequence, an "information cascade" can form in which only the first few decision makers gain anything by contemplating the choices available: once this has happened it is more efficient for everyone else to simply copy those around them.