Moderator: Chloe
BAN___KAI wrote:Da li je iko procitao 'How to win friends and influence people' Dale Carnegie ? Kažu da je to jedna od najboljih knjiga u svijetu
nacho_ wrote:Vilijam Folkner - Krik i bijes
BAN___KAI wrote:Da li je iko procitao 'How to win friends and influence people' Dale Carnegie ? Kažu da je to jedna od najboljih knjiga u svijetu
I da li je iko možda procitao 'The Tao Of Badass' ?
I šta misliš o njoj ? Da li ti je mnogo pomogla u životu ?Mudrov wrote:BAN___KAI wrote:Da li je iko procitao 'How to win friends and influence people' Dale Carnegie ? Kažu da je to jedna od najboljih knjiga u svijetu
I da li je iko možda procitao 'The Tao Of Badass' ?
Procitao sam ja 'How to win friends and influence people' Dale Carnegie
Kakva je?artime wrote:Mile Stojić- Wien, Vien
BAN___KAI wrote:I šta misliš o njoj ? Da li ti je mnogo pomogla u životu ?Mudrov wrote:BAN___KAI wrote:Da li je iko procitao 'How to win friends and influence people' Dale Carnegie ? Kažu da je to jedna od najboljih knjiga u svijetu
I da li je iko možda procitao 'The Tao Of Badass' ?
Procitao sam ja 'How to win friends and influence people' Dale Carnegie
Nisam oduševljena kao ona, pristojan roman. Ovdje mi je smetalo plitko predstavljanje svijeta derviša i tajni ezoterije. Posebno me je iznervirao Ellin (inače komparativistica književnosti) mail u kojem pita pisca je li on zapravo lik iz svog romana?! 
1 x 2 wrote:oduševljen sam ovim romanom.
roman je odštampao Zlatko Crnković kompanija. sve što oni objave je prva liga tj. prva klasa. premier league
Nisi jedini, Pamuk je jedan od rijetkih pisaca koje čitam s mukom, uopće mi ne leži njegov stil i više ga i ne čitam,Grean wrote:
Ovo ću pročitati. Kao maloj mi nisu davali čitati stripove, samo knjige, tako da su mi uzrečice fore i fazoni iz alana forda koja su raja znala, jako nedostajala. Onda sam već kao odrasla nešto čitala od Alana Forda, ali nije to to. I stalno imam taj osjećaj nedostatka znanja o tom stripu. O stripu uopšte. Tako da ću ovo baš potražiti.Eborg wrote:Zavrsio Lazar Dzamic - Cvjecara u kuci cveca. Knjiga je o stripu Alan Ford i ocekivao sam vise informacija o stripu a manje filozofije no dobro. Vrijedi procitati koga interesuje tematika.
It appears to be a pretty silly question. Two doors are available — open one and you win; open the other and you lose — so it seems self-evident that whether you change your choice or not, your chances of winning are 50/50. What could be simpler? The thing is, Marilyn said in her column that it is better to switch.
Despite the public’s much-heralded lethargy when it comes to mathematical issues, Marilyn’s readers reacted as if she’d advocated ceding California back to Mexico. Her denial of the obvious brought her an avalanche of mail, 10,000 letters by her estimate. If you ask the American people whether they agree that plants create the oxygen in the air, light travels faster than sound, or you cannot make radioactive milk by boiling it, you will get double-digit disagreement in each case (13 percent, 24 percent, and 35 percent, respectively). But on this issue, Americans were united: Ninety-two percent agreed Marilyn was wrong.
Almost 1,000 Ph.D.s wrote in, many of them math professors, who seemed especially irate. “You blew it,” wrote a mathematician from George Mason University. From Dickinson State University came this: “I am in shock that after being corrected by at least three mathematicians, you still do not see your mistake.” From Georgetown: “How many irate mathematicians are needed to change your mind?” And someone from the U.S. Army Research Institute remarked, “If all those Ph.D.s are wrong the country would be in serious trouble.” Responses continued in such great numbers and for such a long time that after devoting quite a bit of column space to the issue, Marilyn decided she would no longer address it.
The army PhD who wrote in may have been correct that if all those PhDs were wrong, it would be a sign of trouble. But Marilyn was correct. When told of this, Paul Erdos, one of the leading mathematicians of the 20th century, said, “That’s impossible.” Then, when presented with a formal mathematical proof of the correct answer, he still didn’t believe it and grew angry. Only after a colleague arranged for a computer simulation in which Erdos watched hundreds of trials that came out 2-to-1 in favor of switching did Erdos concede that he was wrong.
