Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.

From Dundee in Scotland and have moved around a bit for work (Edinburgh, Plymouth, Dublin) but now back home in Bonnie Dundee. People put it down but it has one of the most beautiful river fronts in the world.

www.flickr.com/photos/64409517@N00/134341326/

I have my own photography site website

féileacán (pronounced feh-la-kan) in case your wondering is irish for butterfly !

www.flickr.com/photos/pamilne/1031984604/in/set-721576012...

Using a Mac Book Pro with Aperture, Canon EOS 5D with the following lenses

70-200mm f2.4 (my baby...)

24-70mm f2.4

17-40mm f4.0 wide angle

100mm f2.8 macro

Nemo me impune lacessit

Nemo me impune lacessit is the Latin motto of the Order of the Thistle and of three Scottish regiments of the British Army. The motto also appears, in conjunction with the collar of the Order of the Thistle, in later versions of the Royal coat of arms of the Kingdom of Scotland and subsequently in the version of the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom used in Scotland. It is often translated as No-one provokes me with impunity, or rendered in Scots as Wha daur meddle wi' me? ("Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh" in Scottish Gaelic).

i love this

Occam's razor

The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

and another...

Curry's Paradox (or the Santa Paradox...)

Curry's paradox is a paradox that occurs in naive set theory or naive logics, and allows the derivation of an arbitrary sentence from a self-referring sentence and some apparently innocuous logical deduction rules. It is named after the logician Haskell Curry.

Claims of the form "if A, then B" are called conditional claims. It is not necessary to believe the conclusion (B) to accept the conditional claim (if A, then B) as true. For instance, consider the following sentence:

If a man with flying reindeer has delivered presents to all the good children in the world in one night, then Santa Claus exists.

Imagine that a man with flying reindeer has, in fact, done this. Does Santa Claus exist, in that case? It would seem so. Therefore, without believing that Santa Claus exists, or that this scenario is even possible, it seems that we should agree that if a man with flying reindeer has delivered presents to all the good children in the world in one night, then Santa Claus exists, and so the above sentence is true.

Now consider this other sentence:

If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists.

As before, imagine that the antecedant is true - in this case, "this sentence is true". Does Santa Claus exist, in that case? Well, if the sentence is true, then what it says is true: namely that if the sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. Therefore, without necessarily believing that Santa Claus exists, or that the sentence is true, it seems we should agree that if the sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists.

But then this means the sentence is true. So Santa Claus does exist. Furthermore we could substitute any claim at all for "Santa Claus exists". This is Curry's paradox.