The "you poor thing" comment is actually from something that happened the last time we went out together. I had a sweet tooth. So we bought candy (after unwrapping it of course so it was unsalvageable). But being the klutz I occasionaly (okay, often) am, I dropped it. "You poor thing" was from the guy behind the counter, in reference to me dropping my candy... as he stared down my shirt.
Hawking is the person with the only IQ close enough to come near that "twice as much" range, given he's got the highest IQ of anybody either of us can think of currently alive.
I suppose he could have said "nobody is twice as smart as we are" but using an actual person to illustrate works better.
Find me somebody with a 300 IQ and maybe we'll use them in the example instead.
*snickers* Ideas, sure.;) Hoping one of my "ideas" will "slip out"?:P
Though speaking of, there's apparently a movement going across the nation where women are trying to get the right to go topless, since men are allowed in most places to wander about without shirts and not get arrested. Now there's a fashion statement I'm sure some folks would love to catch on.
Smart women do not mate any differently from normal women, no. However you have to consider that biological drives also seem geared toward fitness. Humans evolved as an intelligent species because intelligence was a trait that assisted with survival. Therefore somebody smarter is now seen as a more fit mate, because smarter children will be more likely to survive long enough to mate and have more children and pass on the bloodline. If we look at pure biology, that's what life is all about: screwing somebody who will make babies that will live long enough to screw and make more babies.
Of course at the moment I'm ignoring the Idiocracy theory, since there are a lot of biological processes that have not quite caught up with the modern world. Just look at all the stress responses that have become maladaptive now that our stressors involve sitting at a desk instead of running from something that's going to eat us.
We talk science, politics, computers, and all else. We met in college for fuck's sake. No, not in a sorority.
Yeah, I sometimes have my cleavage showing and wear makeup... didn't really start that until after we were dating though. God forbid I want to look nice. What, we can't be both attractive and smart at the same time?
And yes, of the two of us, my IQ's higher.;) Naturally I have to pick on him about this now and then. Though to get a woman *twice* as smart he'd probably have to drink a hell of a lot of alcohol and kill a fair few brain cells since we're both rather high up on the scale.
(This would be bladesjester's girlfriend of... shit, how many years has it been now? are we up to four?).
As far as "to thine own self be true"... don't think I've ever met anybody truer to himself, quite frankly. There's more than enough posers in the world, I certainly don't want to be dating one.
I'll have to go with your judgement on that I suppose. I never saw it. It's one of those things I'd like to see at least once, though, if onyl to see what all the fuss is about.
he proper response should have been for your mother to sit down with you and explain what that word means, why some consider it offensive, and how it should only be used in the presence of people who find it acceptable - and if you do not obey those rules then you will be punished.
Kids are not as stupid and ignorant as some lawmakers and parents make them out to be. In actual fact they're usually ahead of the curve.
Definitely agreed on this. Especially if you've got a smart kid, they're usually going to ignore the rules if you don't tell them WHY they exist. But in general, a lot of kids are smarter than people give them credit for.
And in response to the parent (grandparent? I guess that's more correct since it's the parent of the person I'm replying to), I was reading the encyclopedia for fun when I was 6. I think even when I was 5. I learned to read pretty early... so I guess I would count as the exception to your rule? I was a freakishly articulate child...
Something seems to have happened to that between now and then. lol
Being of Scottish descent, I take offense to your offense at plaid! I demand an apology! =P
On a more serious note, I have to agree it's my job to censor myself. If I want people to think I'm an asshole, that's my right to do so. But they then have the right to snub me for it.
I will admit I tend to censor myself around kids and around my own family (I'd never hear the end of it if I failed to to the latter). But if it's just me and a group of friends, I'll curse up a storm. For the most part none of us care.
And sure, I understand parents wanting to keep their kids away from the less pleasant aspects of the internet until they're able to handle it/have the sense not to do something stupid. But for one, you can only filter so much (in other words, it's not an excuse for not parenting - gasp! who knew?). For another, the fact that this is being mandated on a government level is what reeks to me. Unless you're out in the middle of nowhere like I am (in which case if I had kids and wanted filters, I could just buy some software myself instead of relying on my ISP), usually you can choose between companies. And if companies find that parents are flocking to places that offer those filters, guess what, the market's going to dictate that everybody else offer those filters too. No government action needed.
But then, I always thought internet filtering was silly to begin with. My parents never had filters. They just taught me not to be an idiot by giving out my personal info to some stranger, they generally knew where I was all the time (hey wow they paid attention if I wanted to leave the house for something) and, probably the thing that would make most kids groan but you learn to live with it - our computer was in the kitchen. None of this every kid having their own machine in their bedroom thing. But then, my folks and I got along pretty well anyway. It was only AFTER I turned 18 that they would have been horrified by some of the things I do online, and by then I was out of the house. And I'll tell you, I don't like the thought of my porn getting blocked. I mean, I'm glad for now the government has decided this is an opt-in thing, but once they have their fingers in something it doesn't take much more to tighten it. How long before they decide that the kids still aren't protected enough, and find some more intrusive step to move in? I've noticed that people have this lovely tendency to lose their ability to think independently when somebody starts crying "think of the children".
Not saying that protecting kids is a BAD thing, just that people have a tendency to go about it in the wrong way, and lean toward paranoia more than anything. I think a big part of the problem right now is that the older generation is still not used to this technology, they didn't grow up with it, so it freaks them out or something. I mean, I guess it has come a long way in a relatively short amount of time. So they hear about something happening to some kid on the news, assume that's the norm, and start calling for a ban on MySpace or YouTube or whatever the latest online scapegoat is (nevermind blaming the creeps that just happen to be there, or the parents who obviously were paying attention when little Jessie or Jennie or whatever the cool thing to name your kids is now decided to hop a plane to see her 35 year old boyfriend - we blame the site instead!).
But as far as protecting the kids goes... seems to me like they're pretty out there before they ever hit the net. Man, the amount of kids I've seen online cussing like sailors and talking about porn and movies my folks would NEVER have let me watch... it's amazing. Heck the half of them claim to have already HAD sex (we're talking like preteens even, which is kinda creepy to me somehow). Where's mom and dad's filter for THAT, eh? I've had frigging ten-year-olds tell me to go fuck myself for kicking him out of some adult-only chatroom (what he was even doing there is utterly beyond me). Sorry folks, but your kids are already about as "damaged" as they're g
Oh, I'm not blaming anybody. Just saying, it can happen. lol I think somewhere else in my comments I mentioned the way to prevent this is to train yourself to look before you sit. Which actually answers my "scientific study" question in and of itself as I realized sometime after commenting that the reason women tend to fall in and men don't is because we EXPECT the seat to be down all the time. It's like, ingrained into us from childhood since our mothers always made our fathers put the seat down, and we always use it down. Since men use it both ways, they're probably more likely to expect it to be up, so they actually pay attention, unlike the average woman who doesn't bother to look.
Again, this changed for me mid-childhood after having cats for a while and keeping the lid shut. So I have broken the habit of just plopping down without a second glance.
Don't confuse aggression with anger. Aggression is, at its core, the intent to harm. Now, if you did not intend to harm somebody, you probably wouldn't be beating him to a pulp.
Yes, shooting a gun is an aggressive act. But think of it this way: if your target is farther off, you don't have to think of it as a person. The firing of a gun can be done mechanically. Your target can be seen not as a person, but as a thing. Supposedly this is often done in wars, the enemy becomes something not worth bothering with beyond just shoot 'em and move on. No more aggressive then stepping on a bug.
However, to fight somebody with a whip takes a bit more desire to go after them. Again, pulling a trigger is indeed aggressive, however the entire act comprises of a couple seconds. Aggression must only last this long. To kill somebody with a whip (ignoring the fact that they would have to stand a particular distance from you to be cut properly - I own a bullwhip, you don't have much range there so your aim has to be pretty good), it's going to take a long longer. The aggressive mood must be carried for longer than if you were using a gun. Strikes more than likely will have to be repeated. Blows can be deflected or dodged so they hit a less vital area. Overall, just plain takes longer to kill the guy. So it is a more aggressive act in that it takes holding that aggression longer in order to complete it.
Even from your damage perspective... a bullet creates one hole. A whip cuts the crap of of the guy before he dies. However, this all depends on what definition of aggression you are using. You must also remember not to confuse aggression with detriment. Aggression is posessed by the aggressor. So, for your nuclear example, while SOMEBODY had to intend aggression to set up the nuke and aim it or whatever it is one does with nukes, the person pressing the button may not even know what that button does till it's pressed (I mean, maybe it'd take a real idiot, but there ARE real idiots out there). Somebody just gives him the order "go over there and press that button." No aggression involved by the guy that pressed it, even though the harm caused is great. By the same token, a gun does the same damage when it misfires as when somebody pulls the trigger. Does that make it aggressive if the shooting was accidental? (Mind you I am not asking if it removes blame or not - simply whether you consider such an accident aggressive by your definition.)
As for running away... there is a vast difference between calculated retreat and "running away". "Running away" implies some state of panic, that you're just freaked out so you're going to turn tail. Mind you in this state, what's stopping the other guy from killing you from behind as you leave? A calculated retreat, however, would fall under your category of "even if it's only to buy a bazooka". Because that is planned, a falling back of sorts in order to decide what your next course of action should be. Having dealt with bladesjester in the past, he tends to be very specific about the language he uses (unlike me who has trouble with explaining things so I have this nasty tendency to trip over my own words). If he had meant RETREAT was stupid, he more than likely would have said that instead of using "running away". To requote:
"It only delays them from trying to kill you, because if they really want you dead, they *will* follow you and try again until they are stopped - one way or another."
In other words, don't expect that running away in and of itself is necessarily going to stop you. While your average schmoe may not give chase, if somebody has made you a SPECIFIC target you have to expect that they will try again, so you either get your ass to the police, or figure out how to get the attackers before they get you.
And for some reason this quote seems appropriate to the discussion (only here for the sake of amusement more than to make a point):
Ronald Reagan has a stack of three-by-five cards in his lap. He skids up a new one: "What advice do y
Switch? Why bother? When I was growing up we had a night light in the bathroom.
Besides, just because you switch on a light doesn't mean you bother to look before you sit (especially when you're walking around without your glasses on). If you're not used to having to alter the seat's position, it doesn't become automatic enough to check it in a half-asleep state.
As I've said, though, this changed a little later in my childhood since eventually we put the lid down to stop the cats from drinking out of the toilet. So since then I'm much more apt to pay attention even when I'm pretty much a zombie.
In case you haven't noticed the 4 or 5 other times I've said it, I'm female. And one that's not afraid to simply put my toilet seat down if it's up rather than act like it's the crime of the century.
And if I saw any woman fall in instead of putting the seat down I'd laugh my ass off.
And yes, this is a weird debate. Men, lift your seat. Women, put it down if it's up. No more bitching. End of story.
As for shitting standing up... see my other comment.
Why should it matter whether you're male or female, shitting or pissing? Just CHECK THE DAMNED SEAT and stop whining like a sissy if it's not already the way you want it. Duh. If you follow that, why should there even NEED to be a default position?
Slashdot Mirror
What, you mean you don't want a doctor with no more than a high school education? ;)
The "you poor thing" comment is actually from something that happened the last time we went out together. I had a sweet tooth. So we bought candy (after unwrapping it of course so it was unsalvageable). But being the klutz I occasionaly (okay, often) am, I dropped it. "You poor thing" was from the guy behind the counter, in reference to me dropping my candy... as he stared down my shirt.
Hey you only ever told me the score you got while you were bored and distracted. :P
Getting the point fail.
Hawking is the person with the only IQ close enough to come near that "twice as much" range, given he's got the highest IQ of anybody either of us can think of currently alive.
I suppose he could have said "nobody is twice as smart as we are" but using an actual person to illustrate works better.
Find me somebody with a 300 IQ and maybe we'll use them in the example instead.
9 points, dear. We're within 9 points of each other. :P You keep wanting to forget that extra 4. *giggles and pokes at you*
*snickers* Ideas, sure. ;) Hoping one of my "ideas" will "slip out"? :P
Though speaking of, there's apparently a movement going across the nation where women are trying to get the right to go topless, since men are allowed in most places to wander about without shirts and not get arrested. Now there's a fashion statement I'm sure some folks would love to catch on.
Smart women do not mate any differently from normal women, no. However you have to consider that biological drives also seem geared toward fitness. Humans evolved as an intelligent species because intelligence was a trait that assisted with survival. Therefore somebody smarter is now seen as a more fit mate, because smarter children will be more likely to survive long enough to mate and have more children and pass on the bloodline. If we look at pure biology, that's what life is all about: screwing somebody who will make babies that will live long enough to screw and make more babies.
Of course at the moment I'm ignoring the Idiocracy theory, since there are a lot of biological processes that have not quite caught up with the modern world. Just look at all the stress responses that have become maladaptive now that our stressors involve sitting at a desk instead of running from something that's going to eat us.
I do NOT act like that, thanks very much.
We talk science, politics, computers, and all else. We met in college for fuck's sake. No, not in a sorority.
Yeah, I sometimes have my cleavage showing and wear makeup... didn't really start that until after we were dating though. God forbid I want to look nice. What, we can't be both attractive and smart at the same time?
And yes, of the two of us, my IQ's higher. ;) Naturally I have to pick on him about this now and then. Though to get a woman *twice* as smart he'd probably have to drink a hell of a lot of alcohol and kill a fair few brain cells since we're both rather high up on the scale.
(This would be bladesjester's girlfriend of... shit, how many years has it been now? are we up to four?).
As far as "to thine own self be true"... don't think I've ever met anybody truer to himself, quite frankly. There's more than enough posers in the world, I certainly don't want to be dating one.
I'll have to go with your judgement on that I suppose. I never saw it. It's one of those things I'd like to see at least once, though, if onyl to see what all the fuss is about.
Supposedly "song of the south" isn't going to be released because some people think it's racist or something.
Another victim of the PC era.
Can't remember where I heard that though so I'd double check me on it.
he proper response should have been for your mother to sit down with you and explain what that word means, why some consider it offensive, and how it should only be used in the presence of people who find it acceptable - and if you do not obey those rules then you will be punished.
Kids are not as stupid and ignorant as some lawmakers and parents make them out to be. In actual fact they're usually ahead of the curve.
Definitely agreed on this. Especially if you've got a smart kid, they're usually going to ignore the rules if you don't tell them WHY they exist. But in general, a lot of kids are smarter than people give them credit for.
And in response to the parent (grandparent? I guess that's more correct since it's the parent of the person I'm replying to), I was reading the encyclopedia for fun when I was 6. I think even when I was 5. I learned to read pretty early... so I guess I would count as the exception to your rule? I was a freakishly articulate child...
Something seems to have happened to that between now and then. lol
Being of Scottish descent, I take offense to your offense at plaid! I demand an apology! =P
On a more serious note, I have to agree it's my job to censor myself. If I want people to think I'm an asshole, that's my right to do so. But they then have the right to snub me for it.
I will admit I tend to censor myself around kids and around my own family (I'd never hear the end of it if I failed to to the latter). But if it's just me and a group of friends, I'll curse up a storm. For the most part none of us care.
And sure, I understand parents wanting to keep their kids away from the less pleasant aspects of the internet until they're able to handle it/have the sense not to do something stupid. But for one, you can only filter so much (in other words, it's not an excuse for not parenting - gasp! who knew?). For another, the fact that this is being mandated on a government level is what reeks to me. Unless you're out in the middle of nowhere like I am (in which case if I had kids and wanted filters, I could just buy some software myself instead of relying on my ISP), usually you can choose between companies. And if companies find that parents are flocking to places that offer those filters, guess what, the market's going to dictate that everybody else offer those filters too. No government action needed.
But then, I always thought internet filtering was silly to begin with. My parents never had filters. They just taught me not to be an idiot by giving out my personal info to some stranger, they generally knew where I was all the time (hey wow they paid attention if I wanted to leave the house for something) and, probably the thing that would make most kids groan but you learn to live with it - our computer was in the kitchen. None of this every kid having their own machine in their bedroom thing. But then, my folks and I got along pretty well anyway. It was only AFTER I turned 18 that they would have been horrified by some of the things I do online, and by then I was out of the house. And I'll tell you, I don't like the thought of my porn getting blocked. I mean, I'm glad for now the government has decided this is an opt-in thing, but once they have their fingers in something it doesn't take much more to tighten it. How long before they decide that the kids still aren't protected enough, and find some more intrusive step to move in? I've noticed that people have this lovely tendency to lose their ability to think independently when somebody starts crying "think of the children".
Not saying that protecting kids is a BAD thing, just that people have a tendency to go about it in the wrong way, and lean toward paranoia more than anything. I think a big part of the problem right now is that the older generation is still not used to this technology, they didn't grow up with it, so it freaks them out or something. I mean, I guess it has come a long way in a relatively short amount of time. So they hear about something happening to some kid on the news, assume that's the norm, and start calling for a ban on MySpace or YouTube or whatever the latest online scapegoat is (nevermind blaming the creeps that just happen to be there, or the parents who obviously were paying attention when little Jessie or Jennie or whatever the cool thing to name your kids is now decided to hop a plane to see her 35 year old boyfriend - we blame the site instead!).
But as far as protecting the kids goes... seems to me like they're pretty out there before they ever hit the net. Man, the amount of kids I've seen online cussing like sailors and talking about porn and movies my folks would NEVER have let me watch... it's amazing. Heck the half of them claim to have already HAD sex (we're talking like preteens even, which is kinda creepy to me somehow). Where's mom and dad's filter for THAT, eh? I've had frigging ten-year-olds tell me to go fuck myself for kicking him out of some adult-only chatroom (what he was even doing there is utterly beyond me). Sorry folks, but your kids are already about as "damaged" as they're g
Oh, I'm not blaming anybody. Just saying, it can happen. lol I think somewhere else in my comments I mentioned the way to prevent this is to train yourself to look before you sit. Which actually answers my "scientific study" question in and of itself as I realized sometime after commenting that the reason women tend to fall in and men don't is because we EXPECT the seat to be down all the time. It's like, ingrained into us from childhood since our mothers always made our fathers put the seat down, and we always use it down. Since men use it both ways, they're probably more likely to expect it to be up, so they actually pay attention, unlike the average woman who doesn't bother to look.
Again, this changed for me mid-childhood after having cats for a while and keeping the lid shut. So I have broken the habit of just plopping down without a second glance.
Don't confuse aggression with anger. Aggression is, at its core, the intent to harm. Now, if you did not intend to harm somebody, you probably wouldn't be beating him to a pulp.
Yes, shooting a gun is an aggressive act. But think of it this way: if your target is farther off, you don't have to think of it as a person. The firing of a gun can be done mechanically. Your target can be seen not as a person, but as a thing. Supposedly this is often done in wars, the enemy becomes something not worth bothering with beyond just shoot 'em and move on. No more aggressive then stepping on a bug.
However, to fight somebody with a whip takes a bit more desire to go after them. Again, pulling a trigger is indeed aggressive, however the entire act comprises of a couple seconds. Aggression must only last this long. To kill somebody with a whip (ignoring the fact that they would have to stand a particular distance from you to be cut properly - I own a bullwhip, you don't have much range there so your aim has to be pretty good), it's going to take a long longer. The aggressive mood must be carried for longer than if you were using a gun. Strikes more than likely will have to be repeated. Blows can be deflected or dodged so they hit a less vital area. Overall, just plain takes longer to kill the guy. So it is a more aggressive act in that it takes holding that aggression longer in order to complete it.
Even from your damage perspective... a bullet creates one hole. A whip cuts the crap of of the guy before he dies. However, this all depends on what definition of aggression you are using. You must also remember not to confuse aggression with detriment. Aggression is posessed by the aggressor. So, for your nuclear example, while SOMEBODY had to intend aggression to set up the nuke and aim it or whatever it is one does with nukes, the person pressing the button may not even know what that button does till it's pressed (I mean, maybe it'd take a real idiot, but there ARE real idiots out there). Somebody just gives him the order "go over there and press that button." No aggression involved by the guy that pressed it, even though the harm caused is great. By the same token, a gun does the same damage when it misfires as when somebody pulls the trigger. Does that make it aggressive if the shooting was accidental? (Mind you I am not asking if it removes blame or not - simply whether you consider such an accident aggressive by your definition.)
As for running away... there is a vast difference between calculated retreat and "running away". "Running away" implies some state of panic, that you're just freaked out so you're going to turn tail. Mind you in this state, what's stopping the other guy from killing you from behind as you leave? A calculated retreat, however, would fall under your category of "even if it's only to buy a bazooka". Because that is planned, a falling back of sorts in order to decide what your next course of action should be. Having dealt with bladesjester in the past, he tends to be very specific about the language he uses (unlike me who has trouble with explaining things so I have this nasty tendency to trip over my own words). If he had meant RETREAT was stupid, he more than likely would have said that instead of using "running away". To requote:
"It only delays them from trying to kill you, because if they really want you dead, they *will* follow you and try again until they are stopped - one way or another."
In other words, don't expect that running away in and of itself is necessarily going to stop you. While your average schmoe may not give chase, if somebody has made you a SPECIFIC target you have to expect that they will try again, so you either get your ass to the police, or figure out how to get the attackers before they get you.
And for some reason this quote seems appropriate to the discussion (only here for the sake of amusement more than to make a point):
Ronald Reagan has a stack of three-by-five cards in his lap. He skids up a new one: "What advice do y
Now there would be a fun scientific study to waste our tax dollars on. Why women fall into toilets and men don't.
Maybe it's a difference in our center of gravity.
Or maybe our asses are just scrawnier. Though I don't know... do larger-assed women have this problem too?
(The fact that I'm actually thinking about this probably proves that I either need coffee or sleep. lol)
*snickers*
:P
Yeah, like YOU need beads to get a look at em.
Switch? Why bother? When I was growing up we had a night light in the bathroom.
Besides, just because you switch on a light doesn't mean you bother to look before you sit (especially when you're walking around without your glasses on). If you're not used to having to alter the seat's position, it doesn't become automatic enough to check it in a half-asleep state.
As I've said, though, this changed a little later in my childhood since eventually we put the lid down to stop the cats from drinking out of the toilet. So since then I'm much more apt to pay attention even when I'm pretty much a zombie.
Hey, this is slashdot, not Mardi Gras. :P
Actually you were the one who seemed to think I should listen to you.
Witholding sex doesn't exactly work on me. Not to mention it's a little petty to threaten it over something that ridiculous.
Besides, if you're that big a bitch, why would I want to date somebody like you?
I can get mine elsewhere, honey. Go find yourself another toy who actually WILL lick your boots for you. *smiles*
Blowjob does me no good without a dick.
In case you haven't noticed the 4 or 5 other times I've said it, I'm female. And one that's not afraid to simply put my toilet seat down if it's up rather than act like it's the crime of the century.
Nice try though.
However, since you seem to be so very interested in my bodily functions, yes, I do tend to shit immediately after pissing.
My this conversation is taking a weird turn...
*glances down pants*
Nope, still no penis.
Not since I was a kid, but I'm pretty sure at least once, yeah (I was a pretty big klutz).
And if I saw any woman fall in instead of putting the seat down I'd laugh my ass off.
And yes, this is a weird debate. Men, lift your seat. Women, put it down if it's up. No more bitching. End of story.
As for shitting standing up... see my other comment.
Why should it matter whether you're male or female, shitting or pissing? Just CHECK THE DAMNED SEAT and stop whining like a sissy if it's not already the way you want it. Duh. If you follow that, why should there even NEED to be a default position?
You're missing another important factor here: People piss a LOT more often than they shit.
And I don't know about other people (or if this is a male versus female thing), but even when I have to shit, I normally piss first.