Love karma no matter how many years in the making!

Kathryn Bigelow who was married to James Cameron (Avatar) in the early 1990's.

Now James Cameron's is one of the all time waywards. Married 5 times (or at least 3 affairages).

He left Kathryn for his next affair (lead actress in the Terminator movies, married her and then left her for another actress that had a bit part in Titanic)

Tonight was the British version of the Oscars. His x-wife was the director of the Hurt Locker and he was up against her for Avatar for best picture.

Guess who won...Kathryn Bigelow. They kept panning from her to the sour look on James Cameron's face and also the look of his current wife.

She went up and made her short acceptance speech and she said I admire the work of the other nominees (snicker snicker).

A true karma moment. She looked 20 years younger than him and carried herself with grace.

Bet she Tivo that moment over and over again!

Toot toot karma bus.

Love it

I watched the Oscars, which is very strange for me, as I rarely go to the movies and really have no interest in Hollywood patting itself on the back.

That said, I have to say that the major winners were all my favorite choices (I did see The Hurt Locker).

Jeff Bridges - Best Actor: I want to see Crazy Heart. I understand this is his "performance of a lifetime."

Sandra Bullock - Best Actress: Say what you will, I have always liked Bullock. This too, was apparently her crowning movie.

The Hurt Locker - Best Picture: I haven't seen Avatar, but everything I've read says that if you strip away the 3D and special effects, it's a pretty simplistic plot and politically naive bit of nonsense.

Kathryn Bigelow - Best Director: As this thread suggested, this was a Karma moment for Bigelow, who was up against her former husband James Cameron, who apparently cheated on her and finally ended up in divorce.

I guess I do not understand this karma stuff.

It appears his marriage to Bigelow was an affairage too. From Wikipedia: Cameron has been married five times: Sharon Williams (1978�1984), Gale Anne Hurd (1985�1989), Kathryn Bigelow (1989�1991), Linda Hamilton (1997�1999, one daughter), Suzy Amis (married 2000�present, one son, two daughters).

So anyway, why is Cameron receiving the just desserts of a bad karma while Bigelow, his apparent OW, is reaping the joys of a good karma? Is karma some sort of zero sum game? What is taken from Cameron goes to Bigelow? And that leads me to ask just what kind of karma bus his original (real) wife Sharon Williams is riding? Does she now get a karmic increase in her alimony, perhaps?

All things considered, I am sure Cameron is crying all the way to the bank regardless his load of karma.


Color me confused.

This is a very complicated case. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder's head.

5 times married isn't commitment.

It's a hobby.

-ol' 2long

Exactly. (Sez Fred as he stands back and watches his soon-to-be ex-wife line up number five...)

Wow!! I agree With Aphelion!

dang!

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'll try not to make a habit of it.

As opposed to a clock that is losing or gaining time and is there fore only right every few days

If we were to be precise, as opposed to karmic, we would need to say a broken 12 hr clock is right twice a day. A broken 24 hr clock, as they use in Europe, is right only once a day.

Broken is generally taken to mean stopped. However, a slow clock can be correct more than twice a day on some days. And not at the same time every day. This works for slowness right on down to stopped at which it is right exactly twice a day every day.

A fast clock is right twice (or once if the 24 hr kind) a day up to the point at which it is so fast it overtakes a twelve hour period. Then it is congruent (that means it lines up with the correct time) its actual rate modulo 12 times a day.

Remindes me of the old saw, a man who has two clocks never knows what time it is. (I don't know what a woman who has two clocks doesn't know.)

----

Allow me to clean this up a bit. It�s an interesting little analysis. I remember having this very question on a calculus test as a sophomore in HS. Ahh, the memories...

A constant but slow running 12 hour clock will always match correct time twice a day. The correct times will phase lag (advance in time) each day.

Of course, this sort of depends on what one sets as measurable precision. A clock running a femto second behind, well, who but NBS could even tell for a few centuries. There are also resonances for which a correct time of three times per day exist. But see note below.

A fast running clock will vary the number of times it matches correct time on sequential days. For example a 12 hour clock running six minutes fast will be correct three times the first day, but only twice each of the next eight days. Then the cycle starts over again.

A 12 hour clock running 12 minutes fast will be correct three times the first day, twice the next four days and then three times the day after that with the cycle starting over again.

A 30 minute fast clock will be correct 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, � times on sequential days.

A clock running, say, 100 times too fast will be correct something like 200 times per day, give or take a time or two, depending on which day.

Note: There are slow and fast clocks for which a correct time lands exactly on midnight or so close it�s hard to measure so one has to pick a standard for which day it is called.

And this all depends on when the defective clock is started. The sequences can be slid back and forth with different synchronized start times.

Ignoring the occasional leap second, of course.

A rigorous analyses is facilitated by Fourier decomposition, or the use of phasors (little rotating dangly things engineers and physicists use.) It's cool, but I am winding down already.


Anyone up for sidereal time?

Anyone still awake?

Ok - I'll make it easy on you - it's a broken 12h clock.

Nuf said.

OK, OK. I admitt I get carried away at times. But it�s just such an interesting universe we live in. I can�t help myself.

Perhaps we should have started with an old saw common around where I grew up: Even a blind hog finds some corn.
:
:
:
argh...
:
It is interesting to note a blind hog is only slightly disadvantaged in the finding of corn department. Their noses are their world. A pig nose is generally much more sensitive than a dog nose. They also have a second sense organ called vomeronasal. (Well, same goes for dogs but dogs' are not as good � humans also have a vestigial vomeronasalpatch but we don�t seem to use it much.) It�s a second kind of smell capability that concentrates on large molecules, like pheromones. Signals don't go to the same place in the brain as regular smeller signals either. Hmm. Maybe adulterers use their vomeronasal organ more than the rest of us for locating other smell-of-adultery emitters�

OK, OK, I�m going away now�sorry, but this place in which I find myself living, this entire place, is too, too interesting for words.

It all just happened yanno!

Oh yeah - I agree with you again. Dang - this is becoming a habit...

well that appeared to cover the basics.