Sentences with phrase «something means nothing to»

Not exact matches

You look at a painting and that can mean nothing to you or something to you, or you walk down the street and you hear that wind rustling through the trees.

[01:10] Introduction [02:45] James welcomes Tony to the podcast [03:35] Tony's leap year birthday [04:15] Unshakeable delivers the specific facts you need to know [04:45] What James learned from Unshakeable [05:25] Most people panic when the stock market drops [05:45] Getting rid of your fear of investing [06:15] Last January was the worst opening, but it was a correction [06:45] You are losing money when you sell on corrections [06:55] Bear markets come every 5 years on average [07:10] The greatest opportunity for a millennial [07:40] Waiting for corrections to invest [08:05] Warren Buffet's advice for investors [08:55] If you miss the top 10 trading days a year... [09:25] Three different investor scenarios over a 20 year period [10:40] The best trading days come after the worst [11:45] Investing in the current world [12:05] What Clinton and Bush think of the current situation [12:45] The office is far bigger than the occupant [13:35] Information helps reduce fear [14:25] James's story of the billionaire upset over another's wealth [14:45] What money really is [15:05] The story of Adolphe Merkle [16:05] The story of Chuck Feeney [16:55] The importance of the right mindset [17:15] What fuels Tony [19:15] Find something you care about more than yourself [20:25] Make your mission to surround yourself with the right people [21:25] Suffering made Tony hungry for more [23:25] By feeding his mind, Tony found strength [24:15] Great ideas don't interrupt you, you have to pursue them [25:05] Never - ending hunger is what matters [25:25] Richard Branson is the epitome of hunger and drive [25:40] Hunger is the common denominator [26:30] What you can do starting right now [26:55] Success leaves clues [28:10] What it means to take massive action [28:30] Taking action commits you to following through [29:40] If you do nothing you'll learn nothing [30:20] There must be an emotional purpose behind what you're doing [30:40] How does Tony ignite creativity in his own life [32:00] «How is not as important as «why» [32:40] What and why unleash the psyche [33:25] Breaking the habit of focusing on «how» [35:50] Deep Practice [35:10] Your desired outcome will determine your action [36:00] The difference between «what» and «why» [37:00] Learning how to chunk and group [37:40] Don't mistake movement for achievement [38:30] Tony doesn't negotiate with his mind [39:30] Change your thoughts and change your biochemistry [40:00] The bad habit of being stressed [40:40] Beautiful and suffering states [41:50] The most important decision is to live in a beautiful state no matter what [42:40] Consciously decide to take yourself out of suffering [43:40] Focus on appreciation, joy and love [44:30] Step out of suffering and find the solution [45:00] Dealing with mercury poisoning [45:40] Tony's process for stepping out of suffering [46:10] Stop identifying with thoughts — they aren't yours [47:40] Trade your expectations for appreciation [50:00] The key to life — gratitude [51:40] What is freedom for you?

i mean, when you want to buy something with you $ if you go to FED with you money you get nothing!

God's causing all that is does not mean that God changes «nothing» into something; rather, were God's not causing a thing to be, that thing would not exist at all; it would be absolutely nothing.

if they are atheist why are they even celebrating christmas, they should be working, no presents no special meals its a religious event, if it means nothing to them, they can be the ones to volunteer to be at work that day so the ones it does mean something to can take the day off

All of this doesn't mean that emotions have nothing to do with racism but that racism is something more pragmatic than senseless, wanton emotion and violence.

If by God is meant the Ground of Being, the Essence of Being, the Absolute, the Weltgeist, and all similar expressions, the reply is still No, for according to Schweitzer such terms «denote nothing actual, but something conceived in abstractions which for that reason is also absolutely meaningless» (The Philosophy of Civilization [Macmillan, 1949], p. 304).

Certainly the word «Paris» means something to me when I read it and, as it happens, the word «Wuspib» means nothing at all.

For it has nothing to do with the verb «to be,» and derives rather from the Latin, «substantia», denoting something «standing under» another, although, as we shall see, this is in a crucial sense not what Aristotle meant by ousia!

Athiest, means nothing to me because whether they believe or not, there is always something about them to love.

I mean, if i don't believe something, I don't spend any time worrying about it because there is nothing to worry about.

1) Either you haven't shown this to be true or it is a «rhetorical tautology» around a «contingent enti.ty» and means nothing, i.e. if a contingent enti.ty is defined as an enti.ty which is dependent on something else, or has be caused, then by definition there would be no uncaused «contingent enti.ties».

There is no thought of resort to dishonest means to escape effort, no subterfuge, and no bypassing aimed at getting something for nothing, since the whole motive for work is not getting but giving, making, serving, creating.

The Thing that used to mean nothing has become something, perhaps everything.

«Power» means it can «do» something, («doing» means it starts to «do» something, does it, and then stops doing it, (unless you are really saying it was «potentially powerful», but doing nothing), Wise means it thinks something, (starts thinking it, thinks it, stops thinking it).

a wooden cross means nothing in the world to me, but i understand that it means something to others.

We reduce it to insignificance and remove its ontological and theological sting, by construing it as though it said that man's body was taken from the earth and in doing so we think of «body» as meaning just what fits into the framework of our standard and superficial ideas, and as something that has nothing to do with the «soul».

Because although most Christians think «saved» means «get forgiveness of sins and receive eternal life so you can escape hell and go to heaven when you die» (or something like that), the truth is that the vast majority (99 % or more) of the times the word «saved» is used in the Bible, it has almost nothing to do with such an idea.

Something in the spirit longs for meaning — longs to believe in a world order where nothing is purposeless, where character is more than chemistry, and people are something more than a random chaos of mSomething in the spirit longs for meaning — longs to believe in a world order where nothing is purposeless, where character is more than chemistry, and people are something more than a random chaos of msomething more than a random chaos of molecules.

You really are a jerk your opinion means nothing, If what was said is wrong what is your backup to prove its wrong or do I need to lead you by the hand and show you how to really disprove something.

Smart, well meaning scientists are pulling the wool over your eyes by trying to sell books to the mediocre masses that don't recognize their convoluted definition of the existence of «something» vs. «nothing».

The man who believes in works thinks consciously or unconsciously that he can do something to save himself, something to put himself right with God; faith means the acceptance of the fact that a man can do nothing except humbly and trustfully accept what God offers him.

We all have wacky impulses that turn out to be nothing but we cling to the ones that seem to mean something.

Creation is normally taken to mean that something comes to be out of nothing (ex nihilo).

No... if by ambition we mean having some goals or a reason to exist (to do something) then no one will come to «nothing».

That simple fact says lots about us and means that we have NOTHING TO SAY about those things, not until we get some information about them and start to understand something about theTO SAY about those things, not until we get some information about them and start to understand something about theto understand something about them.

Pray means that, while others are actually doing something to improve a situation, you are on your knees pretending to do something and accomplishing nothing but you own self - glorification.

Sure, there's nothing like a big traditional bowl of white pasta with red sauce, but ever since I've been introduced to lentil pasta, I can't bring myself to cook regular white pasta anymore... I mean, I probably could if it's all I had in the pantry (LOL) but my body prefers it to be lentil or chickpea or edamame pasta, because I'm selfishly getting something more out of it... protein!

I mean there's nothing unusual or exciting about each ingredient but something about the way they all decided to play nice together just really makes me happy.

For one day and one series, Tony came in and from the first play seemed to say, «Okay kiddies, Daddy's back and it's time to show you how the game is meant to be played» And still, Dak should probably start, because how can you justify busting up something that is doing so well???? Unless they win the SB, the whole offseason is going to be nothing but one huge QB controversy.

It either means nothing or it means something, pick one and stick to it people.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

Nothing like one underachiever blowing smoke up the ass of another... we know that Ozil has some incredible technical gifts, but to be considered the best you have to bring more than just assists to the table... for me, a top player has to possess a more well - rounded game, which doesn't mean they need to be a beast on both ends of the pitch, but they must have the ability to take their game to another level when it matters most... although he amassed some record - like stats early on, it set the bar too high, so when people expected him to duplicate those numbers each year the pressure seemed to get the best of our soft - spoken star... obviously that's not an excuse for what has happened in the meantime, but it's important to make note of a few things: (1) his best year was a transition year for many of the traditionally dominant teams in the EPL, so that clearly made the numbers appear better than they actually were and (2) Wenger's system, or lack thereof, didn't do him any favours; by playing him out of position and by not acquiring world - class striker and / or right - side forward that would best fit an Ozil - centered offensive scheme certainly hurt his chances to repeat his earlier peformances, (3) the loss of Cazorla, who took a lot of pressure off Ozil in the midfield and was highly efficient when it came to getting him the ball in space, negatively impacted his effectiveness and (4) he likewise missed a good chunk of games and frankly never looked himself when he eventually returned to the field... overall the Ozil experiment has had mixed reviews and rightfully so, but I do have some empathy for the man because he has always carried himself the same way, whether for Real or the German National team, yet he has only suffered any lengthy down periods with Arsenal... to me that goes directly to this club's inability to surround him with the necessary players to succeed, especially for someone who is a pass first type of player; as such, this simply highlights our club's ineffective and antiquated transfer policies... frankly I'm disappointed in both Ozil and our management team for not stepping up when it counted because they had a chance to do something special, but they didn't have it in them... there is no one that better exemplifies our recent history than Ozil, brief moments of greatness undercut by long periods of disappointing play, only made worse by his mopey posturing like a younger slightly less awkward Wenger... what a terribly waste

I mean I guess something is better than nothing but if we have to sign no names can they at least be 25 and under.

You say friendlies mean absolutely nothing but I bet you would have had something to say if we had lost.

The fact that this story appeared on the eve of City's game against Chelsea, and was splashed across the back pages of The Independent by United apologist Ian Herbert (which in turn meant that United's defeat at Stoke was pushed onto the inside pages) tells us all we need to know — that this was mischief making in order to deflect the embarrassment of yet another defeat for the football genius that is David Moyes so anyone attaching any real importance to it is getting giddy over something and nothing.

I look like something out of mean girls when just wearing the tank, but it works well and costs next to nothing if you pick up the tanks on sale.

Favorite topics of mine: where I want to travel alone in five years, what I should wear tomorrow (answer: nothing particularly attractive since I haven't shopped in years), what to make for dinner (answer: something my kids will criticize), how to guilt trip my husband for not having to deal with this shit all day - I mean how to be pleasant and loving on the phone with him.

If it means something for the families of dead service people to hear their names read in parliament, I would suggest that the Speaker should do this — and so should the Speaker of the House of Lords, which currently does nothing.

However, saying something is often better than saying nothing, and simple gestures like offering practical help with day - to - day activities can mean a lot.

Our intentions, no matter what they are, mean nothing unless we are willing to DO something about them.

When you hold it up to the light, it's starting to look similar to a Swiss cheese Wearing vintage can be very fun, but it also means taking a chance on wearing something that has perhaps seen better days; after all, nothing lasts forever, even if it has been taken care of.

Having everything in one place is really handy because it means nothing will get lost or stored in a random place, and there's only one place where things needs to be updated or uploaded, so you can be confident you're always working off the most recent version of something.

This comment went straight to my heart because something like pizza means nothing to young people in general, but when you live alone and work in addition to going to school, it takes on a whole new meaning.)

Though they mean something to me they may mean nothing to them and that is okay with me.

They beat them on average with a small margin and you want to own a ton of them and be underweight or short a ton of the expensive ones because something like this for one stock means almost nothing.

I asked them to either link the card to the original account, or register me and delete the old account (so I can make sure it is done right, as their website is defective on something so fundamental), and they all said they could not, as it was my fault I did it wrong — one of them even kept saying «there is nothing wrong with the card», whatever that means.

i mean since the ps3 came out there's been nothing but garbage coming out for that system and now you finally have something to cheer for.

I agree with you on that one Raven.Its like saying COD took from MOH back in the day but you do nt hear any bitching about that.I mean COD would be nothing if it wasnt for MOH.The difference between the two is that one wasnt milked and the others utters are completely dry.MOH is is going to be what it should be and COD will be what it always has been.Just because MOH is going modern everyone automatically thinks oh my god is a COD rip off or oh my god its a BFBC rip off.All Dangerclose are trying to do is see how well MOH can handle being in a tank full of sharks by trying something new other then WW2.I do nt hear people complaining about how WAW was or how black ops is leaving WW2 and going into the 70s earlier 80s.

The sad state of copyright law is that even if you have the right to make something, that right means absolutely nothing until you're capable of defending yourself in court.