Can’t really seem to see a difference between them. But brilliant is used more like a compliment and intelligent is usually just used as an adjective to describe someone/something.

which coaching institute for engeeering is the best in vidymandir,fiitjee,bansal,brillant,aakash,amity?

All are equally good. The result depends on the effort you put.
Brilliant tutorials has a long reputation.

Of Torres completing a move to Chelsea he would say no, and reject.

I hope Torres will reconsider but it looks too late now.

Torres is being very disrespectful towards liverpool and shows he only cares about himself an dis not loyal to Liverpool at all

Yes, I think that he should have stayed at Liverpool as well, but to be fair, there’s been talk about him going for ages.

Cheers.

Do tell me about ur experience with them.

Alternatively you may also consider ACE. You may find more details on their website.

i am going into class XI this year and have decided of taking up science . But i am really confused between the coaching institutes as i have no idea…..!!!!!
Guys please help me out…

fiitjee is better. study material is actually gud of FIITJEE rather than brilliants. bt you have to study they can only guide you.
beside for material you can also go 2
www.visionnotes.com
a very good website for this type of material. beside goiit.com and targetiit.com are also good

Blaise Pascal was one of the greatest mathematicians who ever lived. And he came up with something as stupid as his Wager.

CS Lewis was a brilliant writer of allegorical fiction and an eminent literary scholar, and he popularized the ridiculous Trilemma Argument.

What is it about religion that makes even geniuses silly?

Lewis’ version of the trilemma isn’t ridiculous. Lewis addressed it to an audience which he knew was mostly made up of people who believed the bible and claimed to have some respect for Jesus. He never proposed it as any sort of proof of the existence of God, or proof of Jesus’ divinity. It has been taken up by many self-appointed apologists since Lewis’ time, and is widely addressed by them to a very different audience. With fairly unsurprising lack of result.

You could equally welll ask, why does Stephen Hawking think that because he is highly-regarded theorist in physical science, he can get away with ill-educated waffle when he talks about metaphysics. The same question applies to Dawkins.

I think the problem is that people who reach an advanced level of work in one discipline tend to think of themselves as people whose minds operate at that level, and therefore their thoughts on other subjects or disciplines must be equally impressive. It’s a fallacy, but one we probably all fall into to some extent. I think when you’ve worked your way up in a discipline, through Ph.D work, university teaching, publishing, and so on, you begin to forget how much you’ve taken on board along the way, and how much your current ideas depend on having been shaped in a collegiate environment where people, in seminars and in response to papers and so on, very quickly expose the weak areas in your reading or thinking. People can easily look very silly when they wander into other disciplines - even adjacent fields - where they haven’t had the benefit of years of exposure to the main issues.

A trivial example, but I’ve recently been reading a book by two of the leading authorities on archaeology in ancient Israel, about the relationship between the archaeology, and the biblical histories. Because in recent years there’s been (at last!) something of a crossover between studies of the Levant and studies of the Aegean, with some interesting evidence of a ‘Homeric’ influence on the David narratives, these two very eminent scholars talk briefly about Greek military history. And make, in the course of a few paragraphs, a string of fundamental blunders which would fail a sixth-form essay, let alone an undergraduate essay. They’re not stupid, they just don’t have thirty years of Greek history under their belt.

Personally I think you’re unfair to both Pascal and to Lewis, in that you’re reading them through the lens of a culture that has shifted dramatically away from the presuppositions they assumed in their audiences. Neither of them is remotely silly.

It depend on the type of subject and course

I went to a shop today to buy an engagement ring, I saw that the number of round brilliant cuts are higher then any other cuts. What do you think, why it is?

The round brilliant cut is now considered the “traditional” diamond shape, having been around since at least the mid-17th century. The ideal modern round brilliant has a total of 58 facets. In some cases, additional facets may be added in order to conceal the diamond’s flaws.

http://easydiamondguide.com/diamond-ring-shapes/round-brilliant-diamonds/