Digital cameras still don't have the gamut of film - at least not consumer level cameras. And very few digital displays can even come close to displaying the full gamut of which film is capable.
Yes but it isn't considered funny for a man to deck a woman.A little bit of a double standard there... I guess feminists have it on their list of things to deal with. After all it portrays women as more violent than men.
The "Feminist movement" actually does want equality.
Then that would imply that the feminist movement is as interested in those cases where men are "less equal" than woman as it is in those cases where women are "less equal" than men. Can you give a few examples showing that mainstream feminism actively concerns itself with the former? I mean more than just the occasional book by women like Sommers who, brave though she is for publishing, was then shunned by mainstream feminism?
And IIRC Sommers does quite a good job of showing that mainstream feminism is not about equality anymore, if it ever was.
Thanks for the ad hominem. And ignoring the vast majority of my post to try and distract by fixing on something minor you can try to pick at. As I've said - you're very transparent.
We of course have no history of the abuse of men and children by women because people don't want to look at that. Even the suggestion that it be looked at brings on posts like yours attempting to discourage and - quite evidently -blame men. Oh that darn patriarchy! And by the way being less effective" (another assertion) is not an excuse.
You're deciding to read my opinions as excusing of female violence, which I said nothing of the kind.
Really? It isn't the patriarchy (men's) fault? You haven't been saying it isn't worth looking specifically at women's violence?
It sounds like you have some sort complex, inclined to blame yourself while seeming to defend against the words of others.
Ahhh the tell-tale clue. Almost like clock-work when I see any public forum get a post that paints women as anything other than angels who are just total victims in every situation there's always the little ad hominem attack against the poster... that's when you know there is no actual dialogue possible because the other person isn't looking for actual discussion, they instead want to silence it or raise the noise level to the point where it is ineffective. I've said nothing but that the violence of women should be studied and made public (just like the violence of men) and pointed out some of the ways in which women are violent and the ways in which society excuses or ignores it... and your response is to make a personal attack, whacky arm-chair psychiatry and so on. You're very transparent.
It has within the past decades become OK for girls to not only protect themselves, but become bullies.
Women have been bullying since the beginning of society [cite not needed to anyone with a clue] it's just that is hasn't usually been physical (or obviously so) until recently. Just ask any girl who ever went to public school, or worked in a primarily female job, was part of any organization comprised mostly of females, or... but yes you are right it has been getting more and more acceptable for females to be openly physically violent. Those who deny violence by females - physical or non-physical - are helping to perpetuate it.
You're very right - the fact that it gets modded funny is tellingly symptomatic of the problem. Let's end the denial and take the blinders off for the sake of all. We could start by asking why the media (or the audience) considers it "funny" for a woman to kick a man in the genitals? Or just haul of and slap/punch him - with complete impunity. Even when it is clearly painful for the recipient it is somehow supposed to be funny. It's ok for women to lose control and hit - right? Because that is the message and very few people seem to see a problem with that.
There is nothing inherently good or bad about a gender.
No one said there was. Although you are just making an assertion - one which may or may not be true.
You know you seem to be making a big effort to excuse the violence women commit and perpetuate as not being worth examination. Unfortunately that is not surprising. Like I said society would benefit from taking the blinders off. Violence is only a concern if it is "effective"...? I don't think so. And of course it's men's fault... "learned behaviour from men"? "patriarchal society"? Again not very surprising - round up the usual suspects.
Ever see a woman lose it physically? That isn't something she learned from men. Ever see a female just haul off and slap a man (or kick or punch) while obviously expecting to be able to do it with complete impunity? That isn't something she learned from men either.
And even if you are right that it is a learned behaviour from "the patriarchy" (next meeting Thursday at 9 guys!) that doesn't mean it isn't worth studying and isn't a problem - but you can always try to sell that to the school kid who has been ostracised and emotionally brutalized by one of the girl cliques at their school.
However there's no cause to single out genders/races/ages/etc. because such categories only go so far in explaining what are ultimately individual motivations.
Since women appear to manifest aggression in very different ways than men (although increasingly exactly like men as an additional mode) it seems like a very worthwhile to single out the genders. For one thing female aggression largely goes unnoticed (or just plain denied) by society and consequently their victims are usually unnoticed as well.
I'd say even more than that. My 1st year of physics I found if painfully difficult to learn what the text was trying to teach... in large part because they special cased everything to keep the required level of math down (otoh at the very same time the Feynman Lectures seemed fairly easy to follow by comparison). Then I took a course in ODE's and PDE's and just about everything I had come across in all of 1st year Physics dropped/popped out as simple examples in this one course.
My advice to anyone wanting to study Physics: first go take as much math as you can; basic calculus of one and several variables, PDE's ODE's and numerical analysis courses, algebra, linear algebra, complex numbers, topology... then start taking the Physics courses... the Physics part will be way easier and way faster.
When I started university, the first time, the terminal was an ASR-33... 10cps tty... and a10cps paper tape punch. That or 80 col punch cards if you were using the mainframe. Of course there were machines you programmed by changing patch cords on circuit boards but they were starting to get old. And of course you didn't sort your data on a computer - you sorted it on a card sorter... made radix sorting very easy to understand:)
The second time it was IBM Selectric terminals, some no-name crt terminals hooked up to a front end to IBM MFT to give text editing and job submission to the batch stream... and one Tek 4013 (iirc) storage tube terminal driven by an instance of APL. Oh yeah, good days!!!
Hmm pointing out that what someone claims to have said is contradicted by the formal record of what they said is now considered a troll? Or was it pointing out that he first defined what would be a bigoted comment and then went on to make a comment that fell within his own definition of bigoted? Yep, sure want to silence anyone pointing out *those* kind of things! Today I love my sig especially so. Burn karma burn!!! LOL
Wow... pointing out the error in someone's claim and then backing it up with actual quotes that substantiate that analysis gets multiple Troll(-1) mods? Or was it pointing out how bigoted some things sound when you apply them to a different group? Or was it disagreeing with someone's opinion about what 40 and 50 year-olds have experienced. Or maybe just ageist's who don't like being confronted with their own beliefs? Cause it sure seems a pretty pathetic attempt by some people to suppress something they are uncomfortable hearing. Yep, good going in your support of free and open debate! Today I especially love my sig. LOL!
Well I see you gave up trolling in the other sub-thread and have taken it up again here.
So your insane conspiracy theory is just that. Batshit insane.
Hmmm, the only problem is that I haven't put forward any theory at all let alone a conspiracy theory. So apparently not only are you engaged in nothing but ad hominem attacks but you're also quite delusional as well. You sure do make the global warming camp look good!
And BTW the peer review process in general isn't all it's cracked up to be either.
You wouldn't know, due to your ignorance and all.
You're really rather pathetic. Nothing but chanting and ad hominems. And all against someone who hasn't taken either side. Wow you really do give your camp an interesting look. Oh... wait, I get it... tell the truth now, aren't you just pretending to be in the global warming camp so you can make them look bad by association?
Either way you are at the very best a troll so no more food from me - ta ta and have a life.
I think you should read what you wrote - you quoted it yourself so it should be easy. You said "a good portion of those people were old" - meaning a good portion of those tested, not a good portion of old people - and then you went on to say "and probably wasted a lot of time". In other words that sub-group of people - all the old people (if there were any) in the group - probably wasted a lot of time. It is basic English. You did not say "a good portion of old people". As for
No. Bigotry would be if I said ALL old people have difficulty learning new technologies.
Hmmm if you had said "Most Blacks have trouble learning..." - without a whit of evidence to substantiate that that was what was happening - it would sound pretty bigoted. You don't have to slam 100% of a group to be bigoted you just have to imply that the group as a whole, or on average, is inferior to the rest of us as a whole or on average... not that every single member of the group is inferior.
Woww the neurons literally fall apart... LOL... how many of the participants do you suspect had their neurons "falling apart"????
And wait a minute, you just said:
Bigotry would be if I said ALL old people have difficulty learning new technologies.
and then in the very same posting also said:
Also it's been proven by medical science that as the old brains [no qualification used, not some old brains so by default all old brains] advance, the neurons literally start to fall apart, which is yet another reason [all] old people have difficulty with new technologies.
So now you are referring to ALL old people which you yourself have said would be bigoted.
Of course it was an assumption. There was nothing in the argument to indicate that there was any age related correlations. He could have had any of a million different "suspicions" - there are lots of different "suspicions" one could come up with to explain the results - but he chose the one he did because it fit in with his own personal assumptions about things.
Let's see, he said:
Also I suspect a good portion of those people were old...
Which is nothing but an assumption - there is absolutely nothing in the article to indicate anything that would reasonably generate his "suspicion".
And then he goes on to show his opinion of "old people":
and probably wasted a lot of time saying, "Where's the damn next button on this newfangled gadget?"
Yeah... nothing bigoted about that. I suggest using the standard test: plug in another identifiable group and read the statement and see if it sounds bigoted. Hmmm
I suspect a good portion of those people were Black and probably wasted a lot of time saying "Where's the damn button..."
doesn't sound so good does it.
As for your other comments, really they aren't relevant to what I was saying but let me respond briefly to your comment about people over 40. Someone 40 would have been 20 in 1990... I think they had electronics then. Someone 50 would have been 20 in 1980... I'm pretty sure they had electronics then... even, gasp, game consoles were around in the 80's... yeah most people even those over 40 have had lots of experience with electronics and other "new fangled" devices.
You have ignored the entire point of what I was saying in order to inject your chant. Now since since I won't engage in the argument you want to have - an argument which has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I said - you're just posting childish drivel. I wonder if you think you are adding credibility to one side of the debate? No, don't answer, that was rhetorical.
And even if I were inclined to enter into the argument you wish to have there would be no point as you appear singularly unarmed for a debate. On the risky assumption that you are making accurate statements, if you think four purported exceptions to something establishes any pattern or serves as a refutation of a broad and general phenomenon - in any area not just this one - then you are ill educated or being disingenuous, possibly both. Apparently you're either a troll or a zealot or both so ta ta, have a life.
Slashdot Mirror
Digital cameras still don't have the gamut of film - at least not consumer level cameras. And very few digital displays can even come close to displaying the full gamut of which film is capable.
My dog says he would like to place an order for one of these!
Not to follow up to myself unnecessarily but I just wanted to say that yes I got your point and generally agree with it.
Yes but it isn't considered funny for a man to deck a woman.A little bit of a double standard there... I guess feminists have it on their list of things to deal with. After all it portrays women as more violent than men.
Then that would imply that the feminist movement is as interested in those cases where men are "less equal" than woman as it is in those cases where women are "less equal" than men. Can you give a few examples showing that mainstream feminism actively concerns itself with the former? I mean more than just the occasional book by women like Sommers who, brave though she is for publishing, was then shunned by mainstream feminism?
And IIRC Sommers does quite a good job of showing that mainstream feminism is not about equality anymore, if it ever was.
I didn't say you had - I just wanted to point out something.
Of course I said "or obviously so"
Thanks for the ad hominem. And ignoring the vast majority of my post to try and distract by fixing on something minor you can try to pick at. As I've said - you're very transparent.
We of course have no history of the abuse of men and children by women because people don't want to look at that. Even the suggestion that it be looked at brings on posts like yours attempting to discourage and - quite evidently -blame men. Oh that darn patriarchy! And by the way being less effective" (another assertion) is not an excuse.
Really? It isn't the patriarchy (men's) fault? You haven't been saying it isn't worth looking specifically at women's violence?
Ahhh the tell-tale clue. Almost like clock-work when I see any public forum get a post that paints women as anything other than angels who are just total victims in every situation there's always the little ad hominem attack against the poster... that's when you know there is no actual dialogue possible because the other person isn't looking for actual discussion, they instead want to silence it or raise the noise level to the point where it is ineffective. I've said nothing but that the violence of women should be studied and made public (just like the violence of men) and pointed out some of the ways in which women are violent and the ways in which society excuses or ignores it... and your response is to make a personal attack, whacky arm-chair psychiatry and so on. You're very transparent.
Women have been bullying since the beginning of society [cite not needed to anyone with a clue] it's just that is hasn't usually been physical (or obviously so) until recently. Just ask any girl who ever went to public school, or worked in a primarily female job, was part of any organization comprised mostly of females, or... but yes you are right it has been getting more and more acceptable for females to be openly physically violent. Those who deny violence by females - physical or non-physical - are helping to perpetuate it.
You're very right - the fact that it gets modded funny is tellingly symptomatic of the problem. Let's end the denial and take the blinders off for the sake of all. We could start by asking why the media (or the audience) considers it "funny" for a woman to kick a man in the genitals? Or just haul of and slap/punch him - with complete impunity. Even when it is clearly painful for the recipient it is somehow supposed to be funny. It's ok for women to lose control and hit - right? Because that is the message and very few people seem to see a problem with that.
No one said there was. Although you are just making an assertion - one which may or may not be true.
You know you seem to be making a big effort to excuse the violence women commit and perpetuate as not being worth examination. Unfortunately that is not surprising. Like I said society would benefit from taking the blinders off. Violence is only a concern if it is "effective"...? I don't think so. And of course it's men's fault... "learned behaviour from men"? "patriarchal society"? Again not very surprising - round up the usual suspects.
Ever see a woman lose it physically? That isn't something she learned from men. Ever see a female just haul off and slap a man (or kick or punch) while obviously expecting to be able to do it with complete impunity? That isn't something she learned from men either.
And even if you are right that it is a learned behaviour from "the patriarchy" (next meeting Thursday at 9 guys!) that doesn't mean it isn't worth studying and isn't a problem - but you can always try to sell that to the school kid who has been ostracised and emotionally brutalized by one of the girl cliques at their school.
Since women appear to manifest aggression in very different ways than men (although increasingly exactly like men as an additional mode) it seems like a very worthwhile to single out the genders. For one thing female aggression largely goes unnoticed (or just plain denied) by society and consequently their victims are usually unnoticed as well.
I think it would do society some good to take the blinders off and have a look at female aggression and it's consequences...
And for our communication the rest of us use... what? Non-concepts?
I'd say even more than that. My 1st year of physics I found if painfully difficult to learn what the text was trying to teach... in large part because they special cased everything to keep the required level of math down (otoh at the very same time the Feynman Lectures seemed fairly easy to follow by comparison). Then I took a course in ODE's and PDE's and just about everything I had come across in all of 1st year Physics dropped/popped out as simple examples in this one course.
My advice to anyone wanting to study Physics: first go take as much math as you can; basic calculus of one and several variables, PDE's ODE's and numerical analysis courses, algebra, linear algebra, complex numbers, topology... then start taking the Physics courses... the Physics part will be way easier and way faster.
When I started university, the first time, the terminal was an ASR-33... 10cps tty... and a10cps paper tape punch. That or 80 col punch cards if you were using the mainframe. Of course there were machines you programmed by changing patch cords on circuit boards but they were starting to get old. And of course you didn't sort your data on a computer - you sorted it on a card sorter... made radix sorting very easy to understand :)
The second time it was IBM Selectric terminals, some no-name crt terminals hooked up to a front end to IBM MFT to give text editing and job submission to the batch stream... and one Tek 4013 (iirc) storage tube terminal driven by an instance of APL. Oh yeah, good days!!!
But of course that isn't what you did and wasn't what you said.
Ummmm climate-myths-we-cant-trust-computer-models[newscientist.com] is not exactly a debunking, it is a series of assertions.
So how is the prediction for this year coming?
Hmm pointing out that what someone claims to have said is contradicted by the formal record of what they said is now considered a troll? Or was it pointing out that he first defined what would be a bigoted comment and then went on to make a comment that fell within his own definition of bigoted? Yep, sure want to silence anyone pointing out *those* kind of things! Today I love my sig especially so. Burn karma burn!!! LOL
Wow... pointing out the error in someone's claim and then backing it up with actual quotes that substantiate that analysis gets multiple Troll(-1) mods? Or was it pointing out how bigoted some things sound when you apply them to a different group? Or was it disagreeing with someone's opinion about what 40 and 50 year-olds have experienced. Or maybe just ageist's who don't like being confronted with their own beliefs? Cause it sure seems a pretty pathetic attempt by some people to suppress something they are uncomfortable hearing. Yep, good going in your support of free and open debate! Today I especially love my sig. LOL!
Hmmm, the only problem is that I haven't put forward any theory at all let alone a conspiracy theory. So apparently not only are you engaged in nothing but ad hominem attacks but you're also quite delusional as well. You sure do make the global warming camp look good!
You're really rather pathetic. Nothing but chanting and ad hominems. And all against someone who hasn't taken either side. Wow you really do give your camp an interesting look. Oh... wait, I get it... tell the truth now, aren't you just pretending to be in the global warming camp so you can make them look bad by association?
Either way you are at the very best a troll so no more food from me - ta ta and have a life.
I think you should read what you wrote - you quoted it yourself so it should be easy. You said "a good portion of those people were old" - meaning a good portion of those tested, not a good portion of old people - and then you went on to say "and probably wasted a lot of time". In other words that sub-group of people - all the old people (if there were any) in the group - probably wasted a lot of time. It is basic English. You did not say "a good portion of old people". As for
Hmmm if you had said "Most Blacks have trouble learning..." - without a whit of evidence to substantiate that that was what was happening - it would sound pretty bigoted. You don't have to slam 100% of a group to be bigoted you just have to imply that the group as a whole, or on average, is inferior to the rest of us as a whole or on average... not that every single member of the group is inferior.
Woww the neurons literally fall apart... LOL ... how many of the participants do you suspect had their neurons "falling apart"????
And wait a minute, you just said:
and then in the very same posting also said:
So now you are referring to ALL old people which you yourself have said would be bigoted.
Of course it was an assumption. There was nothing in the argument to indicate that there was any age related correlations. He could have had any of a million different "suspicions" - there are lots of different "suspicions" one could come up with to explain the results - but he chose the one he did because it fit in with his own personal assumptions about things.
Let's see, he said:
Which is nothing but an assumption - there is absolutely nothing in the article to indicate anything that would reasonably generate his "suspicion".
And then he goes on to show his opinion of "old people":
Yeah... nothing bigoted about that. I suggest using the standard test: plug in another identifiable group and read the statement and see if it sounds bigoted. Hmmm
I suspect a good portion of those people were Black and probably wasted a lot of time saying "Where's the damn button..."
doesn't sound so good does it.
As for your other comments, really they aren't relevant to what I was saying but let me respond briefly to your comment about people over 40. Someone 40 would have been 20 in 1990... I think they had electronics then. Someone 50 would have been 20 in 1980... I'm pretty sure they had electronics then... even, gasp, game consoles were around in the 80's... yeah most people even those over 40 have had lots of experience with electronics and other "new fangled" devices.
You have ignored the entire point of what I was saying in order to inject your chant. Now since since I won't engage in the argument you want to have - an argument which has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I said - you're just posting childish drivel. I wonder if you think you are adding credibility to one side of the debate? No, don't answer, that was rhetorical.
And even if I were inclined to enter into the argument you wish to have there would be no point as you appear singularly unarmed for a debate. On the risky assumption that you are making accurate statements, if you think four purported exceptions to something establishes any pattern or serves as a refutation of a broad and general phenomenon - in any area not just this one - then you are ill educated or being disingenuous, possibly both. Apparently you're either a troll or a zealot or both so ta ta, have a life.