Slashdot Mirror

You basically just said that males must stop pursuing females.

No no, I didn't say that. There is "pursuing females "and "chasing females". These are two different things

Unfortunately both those words are subjective - they are just shades of grey, and ask five different people what they mean in this context and you'll get five different answers.

and what I advocate is that we should change the way we pursue females. Of course we will never stop pursuing females.

Also, and I'm not sure you disagree with me on 100% of this argument, I don't think the way things work right now are 100% biological.

I think it mostly is. "Evolution" is more than simply cell mitosis or beneficial mutation; it's the effect of environmental pressures weeding out the failed experiments. As such, society as it exists today (which was independently evolved) is largely the product of evolutionary pressures.

Society's construct is very much at play here and we can most certainly influence this.

We can try, but I doubt that it will get you very far when you are addressing the prime reproduction strategies for humans. They are the successful ones, and no amount of talking will get people to change their strategy as it is built-in to them. The strategy can only change as a result of environmental pressures, and a society that successfully regulates how people may mate is not going to be a successful one.

And I think we should. What is the part of society's construct on our behavior remains to be determined and if I read you correctly you think it is negligible while I think it is important.

You do read me correctly.

To sum it up, I don't have time to read all the stuff you've thrown at me right now so I'll leave it there for the moment until I've had some time to do so. Any pointers for a first read?

Thanks for the insightful conversation.

The best place to start reading about men and women would be at this link over here. He covers a lot of ground with very few words and he does so in a way that the layman can understand. For example, you say that men should be less aggressive when pursuing a mate, but as he says that over the history of men only perhaps 40% of all men who existed ever reproduced, while over 80% of women who existed reproduced. As we currently have much more than 40% (closer to 75%) of men who are alive today who will reproduce, it seems that the male strategy paid off in the long run, hence it is now so popular. The other strategies (like the ones you no doubt have in mind) were presumably tried and failed, in that the males who attempted them never reproduced.

Other than that paper, do a scholar search for "mate attraction and mate retention strategies" (Diane something or the other is one of the more published authors in those results - can't quite remember now what her full name is), and another for "game theory in courtship rituals"/"game theory in mating strategies". A scholar search for "competitive strategies and tactics for mating".

Reading all that literature took me over three years, so you go ahead and have fun now :)

Hurricanes numbers since 1972 haven't really changed much. http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg

Agilent (Varian) has a system that is up to 16T and Bruker has systems up to almost 12T. Technically, the highest field MRI is at the NHMFL (21T at 900MHz), but it cannot accept live samples so it doesn't count...

The comments made me think of this: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm . The changing roles of the sexes and modern technology are causing people to honestly ask the question, what are men FOR? As I look back on 50 years of life and 35 years of dating/interacting with females, I wonder too.

We go to work day in and day out and pay the bills while our wives stay at home, watch daytime TV and talk us into getting a housekeeper to come over twice a week.

You know, because we are the smart ones.

The comments made me think of this: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm . The changing roles of the sexes and modern technology are causing people to honestly ask the question, what are men FOR? As I look back on 50 years of life and 35 years of dating/interacting with females, I wonder too.

The Russians have these abilities, and will be able to develop their own ideas where the Chinese can only copy.

Like they "innovated" during the Communist Era?

VAX: When you care enough to steal the very best.

You might find this lecture interesting:

    http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

This passage in particular presents a different way at looking at the correlations in the Kane and Mertz study:

"Creativity may be another example of gender difference in motivation rather than ability. The evidence presents a seeming paradox, because the tests of creativity generally show men and women scoring about the same, yet through history some men have been much more creative than women. An explanation that fits this pattern is that men and women have the same creative ability but different motivations.
                        I am a musician, and I’ve long wondered about this difference. We know from the classical music scene that women can play instruments beautifully, superbly, proficiently — essentially just as well as men. They can and many do. Yet in jazz, where the performer has to be creative while playing, there is a stunning imbalance: hardly any women improvise. Why? The ability is there but perhaps the motivation is less. They don’t feel driven to do it.
                        I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. But I don’t think this stock explanation fits the facts very well. In the 19th century in America, middle-class girls and women played piano far more than men. Yet all that piano playing failed to result in any creative output. There were no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how to play, or anything like that. All those female pianists entertained their families and their dinner guests but did not seem motivated to create anything new.
Meanwhile, at about the same time, black men in America created blues and then jazz, both of which changed the way the world experiences music. By any measure, those black men, mostly just emerging from slavery, were far more disadvantaged than the middle-class white women. Even getting their hands on a musical instrument must have been considerably harder. And remember, I’m saying that the creative abilities are probably about equal. But somehow the men were driven to create something new, more than the women."

As for biological factors, It seems to me the distribution curve for men is flatter than for women in most things. You get more insane/evil/retarded men than women. You also get more "ultra genius" men than women.

And there are more men trying to excel in stuff that's at best a "peacock tail" when you look at it from an evolutionary perspective. Some of these "peacock tails" end up eventually being useful (indirectly - becomes popular, or directly - actual usefulness). But some may never be useful.

For an interesting read about the men's flatter curve, as well as the tendency to practice "peacock tail" skills, I recommend Is There Anything Good About Men? by Roy F. Baumeister, American Psychological Association, Invited Address, 2007.

Just to pitch in let, me pick the above part and let someone do the same to this text below
Same exact movie? No. Different atoms used. :) So both car and digital file are recreations. Of course you can argue about different scales of accuracy. When does a thing become a copy of a thing? no idea
The bit that got me was having to put a ton of effort in to copy a car. It took a ton of effort to make the the digital internet. Understanding the the electric need to run the thing goes back to 600 BC. http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/timeline/600bc-1599.html So being able to copy a file took ages! A good watch of the history is on the bbc http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00kjq6d.

Also, there is ton of unseen effort to keep the power and net running. It's going on right this second.
If you give 3D printers 2000 years to mature. I'm sure we'll be able to print cars. Will it be a copy right issue when I print myself a Ferrari? I've not taken a Ferrari from anyone; but I'll have one. I'll have downloaded a file from the internet and printed it. Very easy. I'd have bough all the right car making "ink" and paper so nothing is stolen. I'd not paid to 300k rights to have the file and I'll be 2000+ years old which is very impressive. / No point to any of the above really.

That's a nice anecdote you got there, but it isn't hard data. What more people need to realize is that they don't need to go to Harvard. Go to a school in your state, and your tution will only be about $5000 a semester. Now if you go to an out of state school, be prepared to pay. However, a school in your state is very affordable. I paid about the same in Tuition 10 years ago in Canada. If you work in the summers, or the school has a co-op program, you should be able to make a fair amount of money while going to school such that you don't need $100,000 in student loans. I know people who paid similar tuition, had no help from their parents and worked part time jobs during school. Combined with co-op education, they were able to graduate debt free.

Remember that even 1 T is already a ridiculously high unit of magnetic flux density... In order to achieve the claimed effects you'd still need a pretty strong magnetic field, probably at about 100 T,

Not sure. You can wave a bit steel around near a 15T magnet (not at full field, with the metal about 1m away) and feel it. Not sure if the effect of a rotating hard drive would be enough to degauss it in that field though.

still not small potatoes (given that the world record for a continuous magnetic field is only 45 T, and a non-destructive pulsed magnetic field is 91 T),

Non destructive to what? They've reached 97.5T for a magnet which survives the pulse http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-los-alamos-world-record-pulsed-magnetic.html and the single turn has reached 240T http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/usershub/training/summerschool/documents/Monday/0840%20Boebinger%20Betts%20Intro%20to%20Pulsed%20Magnets%20rev.pdf. The single turn does destroy the coil each time, but since the Lorentz forces cause it to fly outwards, the sample survives.

Well, most of the time. Sometimes it goes spectacularly wrong but that just adds to the fun :)

FSU has pretty nice research and education in some areas, in particular scientific computing: http://www.sc.fsu.edu/

OTOH, the political science faculty used to be a wingnut asylum of the worst kind. Seems to have improved, though.

I'm an engineer.

Me too

The issue is how to deal with global warming - just ask the people in Texas experiencing extreme drought with a record number of days with temperatures over 100 degrees if they care about scientific theories on why it's happening. Just ask the polar bears who are losing their habitats. Just ask the people of Africa who are seeing their lakes dry up. Just ask the people of Pakistan experiencing record floods. Just ask the people of the southern USA who have seen record numbers and severity of tornadoes and storms in the last few years. There are many more examples from all over the world. Contrary to your apparent belief, politicians didn't cause any of these disasters.

Drought in Texas, look no further than ENSO and what effect La Nina has on that region.

This is a newspaper article, so take it with a grain of salt, but polar bears: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868
"The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s."

Record numbers and severity of tornadoes and storms: have a look at the actual accumulated global cyclone energy graph. http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg It paints a very different picture than the one of killer storms due to CAGW.

There are many examples of predictions from the CAGW hypothesis that have been falsified, and yet the hypothesis has never been revised.

If the predictions of CAGW are falsified, we as engineers, maybe potentially far over-designing things, or worse, designing to a factor of safety for one threat, which isn't a threat at all, while ignoring a real threat. Fact is, without the solid empirical evidence that that we require, we can't know what results to expect, and that is the situation we are currently in. There is a great deal of empirical evidence which does not support the theories which are predicting the expected results.

Working link to Maue's graph on the COAPS site. The graph is of cyclonic energy accumulated over the Northern Hemisphere and Globally. Meaning that each data point represents the average for the month over very large areas. Since by definition an increase in extremes does not affect the estimation of centrality of curves, this graph does not support your point. It is meaningless. A car analogy: in a conversation about how fast various cars can go, you use the rated MPG to support your position.

Working link to NOAA's graph of strong tornados on the National Climatic Data Center web site. The first link provides no clue as to the context in which the graph is meant to be read. Eyeballing the graph itself, it does appear that while the mean number of nasty storms may be declining, there is more variablity from the mean in later years than in earlier ones. Which supports the premise that there is an increase in extremes.

I have other things to do and cannot take the time to walk through the third failed link, especially as I think it is highly likely that it, like these two, will provide only smoke but no new light on the discussion.

I have no idea why I and so many other persons can use links on Slashdot while you cannot, but I am confident it is not something that Slashdot is doing to you alone. It looks like PEBKAC.

As to user id numbers:

I was active on Slashdot from June, 2002 to about a month ago as MysticGoat, account #582871. I am continuing from this time forward with this account, under a nickname that is very close to my name in real life.

That was my first journal entry on this account, in 2009. So the Slashdot presence I am willing to admit to is not that much younger than your own. I honestly do not recall what my first account or user id was: all that got irretrievably lost in some personal chaos during the 2001 - 2002 era.

more extreme weather

Really? It's not visible in the data:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg
http://www.norman.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/ustornadodeath2000_26874_image001.png

( I have no idea why Slashdot messes up the links, sorry - copy/paste)

H. L Mencken you figured out back in 1924.

-jcr

originally published in the NY Times on November 22, 2001

"There was a closeness, but I would not go as far as saying bin Laden was the de facto defense minister," a Western diplomat said. "The Taliban and Al Qaeda were not one and the same." ...

Documents showed that Al Qaeda was closely integrated with the Taliban Ministry of Defense in the field. For instance, maps of front-line Taliban positions across the country were found in Al Qaeda houses, and neighbors said the men who lived in the houses regularly traveled to the front lines.

While not a direct link to a quote stating he was officially declared the defense minister (sorry, I don't have decade old news links bookmarked), this does give evidence pointing to the talk at that time of Osama being the Taliban's Defense Minister plus backs that up with the Ministry of Defense and Al Qaeda directly working together. I'm almost positive I read the original association in 1999 or 2000, before Clinton left office, but I could be wrong and it's possible it was in the first few months of the Bush years. It was definitely before 9/11.

No, in fact you've quoted a source that says "I would not go as far as saying bin Laden was the de facto defense minister,".

So not only was he not the defense minister he wasn't even considered the defense minister.

Under the tutelage of his guest, Mullah Omar began to see his goal as more than the liberation of Afghanistan and he progressively signed on to the idea of a worldwide jihad against the United States.

Still, differences remained. "There was a closeness, but I would not go as far as saying bin Laden was the de facto defense minister," a Western diplomat said. "The Taliban and Al Qaeda were not one and the same."

Some of the evidence left behind in the Defense Ministry house indicated the gap between Mr. bin Laden, the guest under fire, and Mullah Omar, the beleaguered protector.

In an exchange of letters full of theological reasoning, Mr. bin Laden asked Mullah Omar not to turn him over to the Americans, and the Taliban leader granted his request.

But items left in the ministry building and houses occupied by Al Qaeda members showed that the Taliban government aided the terrorist network's operations inside Afghanistan.

Documents showed that Al Qaeda was closely integrated with the Taliban Ministry of Defense in the field. For instance, maps of front-line Taliban positions across the country were found in Al Qaeda houses, and neighbors said the men who lived in the houses regularly traveled to the front lines.

While not a direct link to a quote stating he was officially declared the defense minister (sorry, I don't have decade old news links bookmarked), this does give evidence pointing to the talk at that time of Osama being the Taliban's Defense Minister plus backs that up with the Ministry of Defense and Al Qaeda directly working together. I'm almost positive I read the original association in 1999 or 2000, before Clinton left office, but I could be wrong and it's possible it was in the first few months of the Bush years. It was definitely before 9/11.

Don't like those tornadoes in New Year's Eve? Well then warm the planet, since apparently it does wonders for reducing tornadoes, hurricanes and cyclones.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

2010 is in the books: Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE] remains lowest in at least three decades, and expected to decrease even further. ...

Overall, since 1979:
**Global Tropical Cyclone ACE shows no upward trend.
**Northern Hemisphere TC ACE shows no upward trend.
**Southern Hemisphere TC ACE shows no upward trend.
**North Atlantic TC ACE has doubled since 1995, exactly compensated by a halving of Eastern Pacific ACE. It appears that in the context of global and NH ACE, the NATL increases are at the expense of the other basins, or simply within the common climate framework.
**Global TCs of Tropical Storm force show no upward trend in frequency.
**Global TCs of Hurricane Force + show no upward trend in frequency.

The Silicon Zoo website which shows what kind of artwork the layout engineers like to add to any unused area of silicon die..

There's not a lot published, but here's a good pointer:
http://www.cs.fsu.edu/research/reports/TR-071025.pdf

OK, I definitely know all the arguments and feelings about Rush Limbaugh, but seriously, please take a look at what he pointed out today:

He contends that NASA isn't moving the dates because of equipment issues, but to help protect the sea turtle hatchlings. Seriously!

There are efforts to move thousands of sea turtle eggs from gulf coastal waters affected by the BP spill to a location "somewhere near Cape Canaveral". There are also "lighting bans" in effect for many coastal areas to help prevent disrupting the migration habits of the sea turtles. An article I found titled "Coastal Protection Of Sea Turtles In Florida" states:

[225] See id. at R. 62B-33.0051(4). The nesting season is March 1 through October 31 for Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties, and May 1 through October 31 for all other counties. See id. at R. 62B-33.002(32).

The next shuttle launch is set for Nov 1, 2010, the day after the ban ends, and the second launch is scheduled for Feb 26, 2011, two days before the ban resumes.

So, is it really an equipment issue, is it to protect sea turtles, or is it just coincidence?

They do exist, and Macondo isn't unique as an oil field either. There is ample evidence for natural plumes of oil and gas seeping from the sea floor at many locations world-wide, including the Gulf of Mexico and offshore California where they have been well-studied. There are some details at this site, which includes a number of publications about California seeps. This site has more information, including a nice aerial photo of the natural oil slick produced by the seeps off the coast of California. This paper [PDF] is a good summary of the best known California locations.

here and here [PDF] are some examples [PDF] of seeps, gas plumes [PDF], and seep-related life [PDF] in the Gulf of Mexico [PDF]. The tube worms growing on asphalt [PDF] or "ice worms" in burrows in gas hydrate (!) [PDF] are particularly cool. Some life *likes* oil and gas leaking into the ocean.

The bottom line is, seeps of gas and liquid hydrocarbons into the water column happen all the time, and the ocean deals with them by bacteria eating the oil. On the sea floor there are flourishing biological communities associated with the release of hydrocarbons, like a little "oasis" of life in the deep sea, supported by creatures eating the bacteria that are in turn eating the hydrocarbons that are expelled. However, the rate of release at the BP well is several times the total output of natural seeps across the entire Gulf of Mexico, so the scale of the release is much bigger and concentrated in one gigantic point source. It would be like trying to feed on a volcano. There certainly won't be any seep communities setting up at the BP well any time soon :-) Anyway, the life in the ocean will consume this stuff as it spreads out, whether it is in a plume or on the surface, but it will take a while. Also, the plume they are talking about in the water column is extremely low concentration (ppb average). 99%+ of the oil is making it to the surface, and most of the gas is either dissolving in or venting to the atmosphere. The plume is interesting from a scientific perspective and probably will have some kind of environmental effect that could be important, but it's not the main part of the environmental problem. People are hyped about it because they are obsessed with the idea that the disaster could be 10x worse than the oil that is obvious on the surface. These studies show that simply isn't the case because of the low concentrations. A significant fraction of the oil is not lurking below, only a tiny, instrument-detectable amount is.

They do exist, and Macondo isn't unique as an oil field either. There is ample evidence for natural plumes of oil and gas seeping from the sea floor at many locations world-wide, including the Gulf of Mexico and offshore California where they have been well-studied. There are some details at this site, which includes a number of publications about California seeps. This site has more information, including a nice aerial photo of the natural oil slick produced by the seeps off the coast of California. This paper [PDF] is a good summary of the best known California locations.

here and here [PDF] are some examples [PDF] of seeps, gas plumes [PDF], and seep-related life [PDF] in the Gulf of Mexico [PDF]. The tube worms growing on asphalt [PDF] or "ice worms" in burrows in gas hydrate (!) [PDF] are particularly cool. Some life *likes* oil and gas leaking into the ocean.

The bottom line is, seeps of gas and liquid hydrocarbons into the water column happen all the time, and the ocean deals with them by bacteria eating the oil. On the sea floor there are flourishing biological communities associated with the release of hydrocarbons, like a little "oasis" of life in the deep sea, supported by creatures eating the bacteria that are in turn eating the hydrocarbons that are expelled. However, the rate of release at the BP well is several times the total output of natural seeps across the entire Gulf of Mexico, so the scale of the release is much bigger and concentrated in one gigantic point source. It would be like trying to feed on a volcano. There certainly won't be any seep communities setting up at the BP well any time soon :-) Anyway, the life in the ocean will consume this stuff as it spreads out, whether it is in a plume or on the surface, but it will take a while. Also, the plume they are talking about in the water column is extremely low concentration (ppb average). 99%+ of the oil is making it to the surface, and most of the gas is either dissolving in or venting to the atmosphere. The plume is interesting from a scientific perspective and probably will have some kind of environmental effect that could be important, but it's not the main part of the environmental problem. People are hyped about it because they are obsessed with the idea that the disaster could be 10x worse than the oil that is obvious on the surface. These studies show that simply isn't the case because of the low concentrations. A significant fraction of the oil is not lurking below, only a tiny, instrument-detectable amount is.

They do exist, and Macondo isn't unique as an oil field either. There is ample evidence for natural plumes of oil and gas seeping from the sea floor at many locations world-wide, including the Gulf of Mexico and offshore California where they have been well-studied. There are some details at this site, which includes a number of publications about California seeps. This site has more information, including a nice aerial photo of the natural oil slick produced by the seeps off the coast of California. This paper [PDF] is a good summary of the best known California locations.

here and here [PDF] are some examples [PDF] of seeps, gas plumes [PDF], and seep-related life [PDF] in the Gulf of Mexico [PDF]. The tube worms growing on asphalt [PDF] or "ice worms" in burrows in gas hydrate (!) [PDF] are particularly cool. Some life *likes* oil and gas leaking into the ocean.

The bottom line is, seeps of gas and liquid hydrocarbons into the water column happen all the time, and the ocean deals with them by bacteria eating the oil. On the sea floor there are flourishing biological communities associated with the release of hydrocarbons, like a little "oasis" of life in the deep sea, supported by creatures eating the bacteria that are in turn eating the hydrocarbons that are expelled. However, the rate of release at the BP well is several times the total output of natural seeps across the entire Gulf of Mexico, so the scale of the release is much bigger and concentrated in one gigantic point source. It would be like trying to feed on a volcano. There certainly won't be any seep communities setting up at the BP well any time soon :-) Anyway, the life in the ocean will consume this stuff as it spreads out, whether it is in a plume or on the surface, but it will take a while. Also, the plume they are talking about in the water column is extremely low concentration (ppb average). 99%+ of the oil is making it to the surface, and most of the gas is either dissolving in or venting to the atmosphere. The plume is interesting from a scientific perspective and probably will have some kind of environmental effect that could be important, but it's not the main part of the environmental problem. People are hyped about it because they are obsessed with the idea that the disaster could be 10x worse than the oil that is obvious on the surface. These studies show that simply isn't the case because of the low concentrations. A significant fraction of the oil is not lurking below, only a tiny, instrument-detectable amount is.

They do exist, and Macondo isn't unique as an oil field either. There is ample evidence for natural plumes of oil and gas seeping from the sea floor at many locations world-wide, including the Gulf of Mexico and offshore California where they have been well-studied. There are some details at this site, which includes a number of publications about California seeps. This site has more information, including a nice aerial photo of the natural oil slick produced by the seeps off the coast of California. This paper [PDF] is a good summary of the best known California locations.

here and here [PDF] are some examples [PDF] of seeps, gas plumes [PDF], and seep-related life [PDF] in the Gulf of Mexico [PDF]. The tube worms growing on asphalt [PDF] or "ice worms" in burrows in gas hydrate (!) [PDF] are particularly cool. Some life *likes* oil and gas leaking into the ocean.

The bottom line is, seeps of gas and liquid hydrocarbons into the water column happen all the time, and the ocean deals with them by bacteria eating the oil. On the sea floor there are flourishing biological communities associated with the release of hydrocarbons, like a little "oasis" of life in the deep sea, supported by creatures eating the bacteria that are in turn eating the hydrocarbons that are expelled. However, the rate of release at the BP well is several times the total output of natural seeps across the entire Gulf of Mexico, so the scale of the release is much bigger and concentrated in one gigantic point source. It would be like trying to feed on a volcano. There certainly won't be any seep communities setting up at the BP well any time soon :-) Anyway, the life in the ocean will consume this stuff as it spreads out, whether it is in a plume or on the surface, but it will take a while. Also, the plume they are talking about in the water column is extremely low concentration (ppb average). 99%+ of the oil is making it to the surface, and most of the gas is either dissolving in or venting to the atmosphere. The plume is interesting from a scientific perspective and probably will have some kind of environmental effect that could be important, but it's not the main part of the environmental problem. People are hyped about it because they are obsessed with the idea that the disaster could be 10x worse than the oil that is obvious on the surface. These studies show that simply isn't the case because of the low concentrations. A significant fraction of the oil is not lurking below, only a tiny, instrument-detectable amount is.

The Economist carried an article to that effect recently: "Hormones, not sexism, explain why fewer women than men work in banks"

Also, one should take note of the following considerations about how different variance in willingness to take risks can explain the effect and why we should start to also look at the bottom of the society.

I've also noticed that you can pretty much split the posters into two camps:

1) adult males, who generally responded with "Well, d'oh!" and
2) females plus juvenile males, who generally responded with "You just don't know how to estimate intelligence".

Both groups quite neatly reflect the conclusions in this insightful article, which someone above linked to:

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

I have heard my professors at my school tell us that women score higher on average, but tend to have less very high scores.

This is likely true. Numerous studies have shown that women have a very average distribution of intelligence, while men are alternately either very smart, or very stupid, with far fewer in the middle.

Their reasoning is that women tend to be less aggressive and declarative of their opinions in papers.

Their reasoning is wrong.

Current scientific consensus is that it's attributable to genetic differences. Specifically, men's genetic makeup is one of brinksmanship... They'll either be very good, or a spectacular failure. Hence high rates of men in jails, AND in top executive positions...

I recomend "Is there anything good about men?"
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough -- I'm going to clown college! As a UF alum let me say this is how FSU gets their students http://www.fsu.edu/~ringling/

What do you mean the situation is not tenable (i.e. maintainable). If you don't do anything, or if you do the wrong things, the situation will stay as it is---maintaining the status quo is easy as pie.

As to why you should give up, the answer is roughly that you probably don't have anything to offer to women. Firstly, note that only about 40% of men reproduced compared to twice that percentage for women (as inferred from mitochondrial DNA), so you're in a man's normal condition.

For some contemporary evidence that women don't need most men, just look around to notice that in general women don't hit on men sexually. Often women will only have sex with men for the first time after large amounts of alchohol. There's no culture where women pursue men instead of vice versa, so this is not merely a fact about western culture. There's also plenty of chemical evidence (e.g. women get testosterone treatment to increase their sex drive).

In fact, scientific studies (tracking eye movements) show that both straight women and straight men are more turned on by a naked women than naked men (see Matt Ridley's The Red Queen for a discussion).

Finally, studies usually find that married men are much happier than unmarried men, but married women are usually no happier once the financial contribution of the man is deducted (here for example). Furthermore, married men but not women live longer and are healthier.

So anyway, I can see why you want a woman, but in general that's usually a selfish decision for a guy. Why not come to terms with your condition and lead a meaningful life in another way?

There are more moderately-high paying jobs not requiring a BA/BS degree that men traditionally hold, rather than women. Building trades, for instance.

Nearly all of which have collapsed under competition from guest workers or foreign countries since roughly the '90s.

FWIW, since this is a relatively recent development, I think it's fine... it'll help undo centuries/millenia of male domination in Western culture.

Male domination my ass. Men don't dominate. The top men dominate.

• People with little ability tend to overestimate their own skill.
• People with great ability tend to underestimate their own skill.

Sorry, there are UF, FSU, FAU, and FIU, as well as universities of Central, North, West, and South Florida. But no FU. GP is safe wrt Floridian institutions.

Please play again.

Here's a chart of the global hurricane index. It's the lowest it has been in the last 30 years!.
That is probably because the globe's ocean heatcontent is dropping

you are clearly ignorant. this is not meant as a throwaway insult, but a qualitative judgment of your words on the subject matter

here's some intellectual charity:

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/electromag/java/faraday2/

start there. follow the links. read. educate yourself

THEN comment

the issue here has absolutely nothing to do with static electricty, or small electronics. it has to do with electromagnetic induction across long powerlines

why is it we have to live in a world where the dumbest amongst us are usually also the loudest?

Thanks for the thoughtful response. We're mostly on the same page.

The only words of yours I disagree with are "and achievement", at least when it comes to intellectual and not physical pursuits.

I was referring there to the tendency of men to have flatter distributions on a wide range of criteria, so there ends up being more men on both the top and the bottom. See here for more.

Women still love working in science, programming, number theory, mapping the human genome, designing space probes, every damn thing. Women have mathematical and scientific interest and ability. A hell of a lot of them do. You'd have to live under a rock to say that women have not made great contributions to STEM fields.

Absolutely. And the (unfortunately few) women I've worked with as a developer have all been very good; I'd guess that it takes a well above average amount of interest and dedication, and to overcome the cultural pressure against women being geeky. If that pressure went away I still don't think it would be 50-50, but it would be much closer than it is now, which would be good for everyone.

I support shortening the workweek for moms and dads with young children, while still giving full-time benefits. Yeah, it's understandable that workers without children would be pissed off. But they ought to realize that parents inherently have more work to do in any given day, and that raising well-adjusted, healthy children is legitimate work that benefits everyone in society.

Companies tried something like that with the "mommy track", and it caused major PR problems. I agree that we should try to make it easier to balance career and family (or really career and any outside activities); although I don't believe that it should be mandated that employees with family obligations receive the same compensation for less work. (And getting "benefits", which usually means health insurance, through your employer is a terrible system in general, but that's a separate rant).

But don't strong-arm people into jobs they aren't qualified for. Don't force employers to hunt around for applicants who simply aren't there and may never be interested in a given field, even in a totally fair system. Instead, empower people to become qualified for the careers they really want. Don't force niche employers to change the way they hire, until it has become clear that marginalized groups are receiving as much of the same training as everyone else and still being overlooked. Social change, toward equality, is good. But stupidity isn't going to help anybody.

Well said.

Oh yea... Check out this link: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/index.html

Yes, these are easter eggs on almost every single type of IC device known.

Sorry your job is so unfulfillable and you are unable to leave your mark on the world. For the above engineers, such is not the case.

What does it indicate, that jobs with any power attached to them are overwhelmingly male-dominated?

The same thing that the over-representation of men among prison inmates and the mentally retarded indicates: variance in many attributes is greater among men. See here for an expanded argument; in summary, it's a better genetic strategy for women to play it safe and men to roll the dice, thus you end up with more men at both extremes.

CS is still in it's infant stage. It's simple evolution that unaccepted men who don't get a spoose go out to explore new fields (loonies claiming that the earth rotates around the sun and simular heresies (Galileo/Kopernicus), outcast crazy dutch painters who have no chance with the ladies at all 'not finishing' their pictures and thus establishing new territories (Van Gogh), math-nuts with nothing better to do thinking up calculating machines, etc.) in order to gain better leverage towards the 'average' society.

CS/IT is still utter nerdterritory - which are outcast no-chancers by nature - with these exact traits with tons of brainwork to do and mostly eventually pointless things to try out and explore, and it will take another 80 years or so until that changes thouroughly. Then normal men and thus average women too will follow. It usually has been that way.

To emphasis the point: You don't really think that we'll still be hacking web developement frameworks 30 years from now, do you? Though so.

This essay sums this issue up pretty good and gives solid explainations for why it is that way.

WCF.. apart from my pet peeve with it: its sockets implementation is 'specially optimised for great ECF to WCF performance', ie it doesn't provide any interoperable tcp/ip socket, its a layer on layer on layer technology.

WCF runs on top of COM+, which was pretty poor for performance, which is layered on top of DCOM, on top of TCP/IP. Its queue connectivity - on top of MSMQ.

I think there's the potential for it to be good, and its webservices is better than running ASP.NET webservices (but not as good as gsoap :) ).

I'd prefer a nice, easy to use socket library with data transfer helpers, I think WCF will find its niche as a webservice provider, but no more than that.

Actually the evidence for warm blooded dinosaurs is slim at best.

According to this paper there might be a possibility for some number of warm blooded dinosaurs, but it is a more of a stretch to say that all (or even majority) of them were warm blooded. You should read that paper because it answers much of your points (with arguments/data).

I have pretty much no knowledge about dinosaurs but you can use a bit of common sense here. Size has its limits. It doesn't matter if the animal is cold or warm blooded, the bigger the animal, the relatively slower it is. So just to clarify, t-rex probably was relatively slow. If it were fast, its leg muscles should be bigger than whole its body, which is impossible. And you can always use elephants for the example. Elephants can't run. They can walk a bit faster. But to say they are fast is a exaggeration.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/pages/russians.html

Even in real (before Gorbachov) communist era, USSR was shipping 8086 compatible chips as far as I searched.

Guess what? They care about Windows, DirectX and millions of x86 centric developers. China has always been a realistic country and even Russia couldn't dare to ship a non x86 small chip. Their mainframes were also DEC/S360 etc. clones. There is even a DEC chip saying "Steal from the best" when looked under electron microscope ;)

Indeed there was: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/pages/russians.html

We already have zillions of MicroUniverses
Not too much about them.

What I've also seen is the standard deviation for boys is greater. Boys are usually at the bottom, the middle and the top with the girls usually clustered in the center. Admittedly, my sample sizes are small and I'm looking at a self-selected group.

Your observations are, in fact, consistent with significantly larger studies on the subject. Specifically, you might want to start by reading the transcript of "Is There Anything Good About Men?" by Roy F. Baumeister. http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

Due to this difference in spread, it only means that if the test is made more difficult, a higher percentage of boys than girls are going to "pass" the test.

However, if the test is made easier, the reverse happens - a higher percentage of girls are going to pass the test than boys.

Maybe it's a redundant link, but it's a good read:
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

I must agree more investigation should be carried out to see if it is the case.

Male performance (or anything about men, really) is theorized to have a way wider spread than female, who tend to aggregate near the average.

As a result, girls tend to perform better than boys as a whole when the overall bar of standard is lowered (you cannot distinguish the smart boys and the smart girls anymore, but the remaining boys can spread all the way to the bottom), while when things become really, really difficult, you'll find the brightest of boys on top - however, we're talking about maybe the top 5% here.

For more food of thoughts, read this article and thing about if it relates to examples around you. I find plenty.

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

Never did understand the fuss about GOTO... you need them everywhere in machine code, FORTRAN and (original) BASIC because that's the way the language works.

Perhaps you may be able to say you need them in Fortran 77 and before, but certainly not in later versions.

The fuss about GOTO is that people used them everywhere compulsively, making the code impossible to read. As an example, try to read the body of routine NL2ITR in NL2SOL and see how long it takes you to understand the flow of control. Good luck.

It reminds me a little of gSoap (only without having to piddle about with XML documents), in that it creates c++ classes to parse the data for you.

I think that's the least of the benefits though, the serialisation format would give it speed, the data format gives it smaller payloads. Both are benefits over XML, so this should be superior even if you read the data using a generic parser that worked through metadata at runtime only.