ellauri156.html on line 100: 9 The Lord said to Egad, David’s seer, 10 “Go and tell David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.’” 11 So Gad went to David and said to him, “This is what the Lord says: ‘Take your choice: 12 three years of famine, three months of being swept away[a] before your enemies, with their swords overtaking you, or three days of the sword of the Lord—days of plague in the land, with the angel of the Lord ravaging every part of Israel.’ Now then, decide how I should answer the one who sent me.”
ellauri159.html on line 1141: You Want your writing to serve a practical purpose, such as explaining how to solve a problem. You tend to be a good troubleshooter (actually, a good troublemaker and sharpshooter too) with broad, specific knowledge that they can apply in high-pressure situations. Choose topics that allow you to draw on this ability. Then, jot down your ideas while conducting your research, rather than writing in your head. That´s way too hard, it´s like shooting with blanks. This will help you focus your ideas early so you don’t waste time gathering extraneous information.
ellauri159.html on line 1161: You do your best writing when they feel personally invested in the topic. Use your wrong sense of empathy to immerse yourself in the subject, much as actors immerse themselves in a character. (Choose a subject you really fancy to immerse yourself in.) To stay inspired, look for ways to connect the writing to your ideals. If you’re a technical writer, create a human mental avatar of your technology and use your writer’s voice to “speak” to it.
ellauri181.html on line 382: Additionally, ipsative measures may be useful in identifying faking. However, ipsative measures may, especially among testing-naïve individuals exhibiting high levels of conscientiousness and/or neuroticism, decrease test validity by discouraging response and/or encouraging non-response. For example, a test's authors may force respondents to choose between "a) Animals chase me in my dreams" and "b) My dreams are nice" in an effort to see whether a given respondent is more inclined toward "faking bad" or toward "faking good." When faced with such a question, a child frequently terrified by nightmares that rarely if ever involve animals, and especially one whose parents have foolishly taught him/her/it strict rules against lying, may simply refuse to answer the question given that for that respondent nearly all of the time both descriptions are inaccurate. Even a previously presented guideline "Choose the answer that [best/better] describes you" may be unhelpful in such a situation to responders who worry that endorsing one item or the other will still involve stating it to be accurate or "well"-descriptive to some positive degree. Only if the guideline is presented as "Choose the answer that more accurately or less inaccurately describes you" and the above-described responder is sophisticated enough to reason out his/her response in terms of "Despite the infrequency with which I have nice dreams, I have them [more frequently / less infrequently] than dreams in which animals chase me" (or, in theory, vice versa) will such a responder be willing to answer the question—and phrasing the guideline in this way bears its own cost of making the question reveal less about the respondent's propensities because the respondent is no longer forced to "fake" one way or another.[citation needed].
ellauri285.html on line 222: Why are norms like Choose the best! and Believe p just in case p is true! inadequate? Note at the outset that the problem does not essentially assume a consequentialist way of thinking. Se australian jutku, personisti Peter Seeger oli tollanen konsekventialisti. Samaa porukkaa on jenkkibiljardöörit joka puhuu efektiivisestä altruismista. Kaikki massi mulle niin siitä riittää teillekin jotain roippeita.
ellauri353.html on line 270: Miltonin kanssa hän kirjoitti kaksi taloustieteitä ja julkista politiikkaa käsittelevää tympäisevää kirjaa, Free to Choose ja Tyranny of the Status Quo, sekä heidän muistelmansa Two Lucky People, jotka ilmestyivät vuonna 1998.
xxx/ellauri123.html on line 630: Make your choices. Choose a path. Be determined. Commit. But, once you have, let the chips fall where they may. You’ll know when to take a different fork in the road. Zig when you ought to zag, hit a tree like Goofy, that´s the chicken way, trial and error. There´s gotta be a hole in this fence.
xxx/ellauri123.html on line 638: If not, it’s not fuel or oxygen that’s missing. Only you can refill that fire hose because it rests limp inside your Calvin Kleins. Choose to fondle that lame thing. Erect it. Hold it tight. And let it shine for everyone to see.
8