The two are not mutually exclusive. Touche, Scrameustache.
I'm quite cynical, actually. To steal a line from a professional comedian friend of mine - I doubt that!
Kinda a PS to our other exchange...
I've seen both. There really ARE women who flirt without realising what they're doing, just like there are guys who apply sexual pressure without really knowing they're doing it. I think you're being balanced and fair in your assessment, and balanced and fair usually bespeaks the truth. Tip of the topper to you for that.
But - and there are buts - I just think you're wrong. My mileage varies, and I think that women not knowing they're flirting borders on a mental defect, if true - therefore, a true corner case because there is no certainty - but I think you're wrong. I think women know. I do want to be clear - I see absolutely nothing wrong with this behavior on their part. It's part of what makes them fun.
The part where guys are putting sexual pressure without knowing it is not the same in my book. Social pressure, when unknown, is ignorance and there's no excuse for that. I'm speaking from firsthand embarrassment and thankful that I've had friends to square me away on that one. But sexual pressure? Depending on how you define the term I may be way off on what I'm about to say - but as to how I define it, it's a form of emotional abuse - emotional violence, if you will - and I won't condone or excuse or forgive it. I cannot imagine it being done without knowledge. By definition, it is without awareness, but not without knowledge - as I've never seen abuse or violence of any sort done without knowledge.
These are biologically primitive behaviours. Perhaps. I suggest reading Piaget's work on educational psychology - quite an eye opener. God, I love wikipedia at times like this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget - that'll save you a bit of time if you're not into psych or have time to read / absorb.
But to your point about biologically primitive behavior (BPB) -flirting isn't a BPB. Modern flirting is BASED on BPBs, wouldn't you agree? IOW, if we allow something that we label animal attraction, that's a BPB - but the use of cosmetic makeup and complex language with nuanced meaning isn't a BPB, but driven by a BPB imperative - wanting to procreate, being horny, wanting acceptance both social and personal, all BPB drives. But modern flirting, however derivative of BPB(s), isn't itself a BPB or combination thereof - it's a socially taught and learned behavior in response to and derived from those BPBs.
As for your comment about the actresses - you've known better than you realize, per my milage. A good actress doesn't let you know she's acting - you're drawn in to the story in transcendence of the actress. I say to you that the ones you think are having no idea how the guy's reacting are the more accomplished, because they know very well. Does this bother me? No, not really, other than a mild objection to your use of the word actress while at the same time strongly liking that you put it in acting terms - because all the world's a stage, really.
We all have our representatives, and where sexuality is concerned, it gets extreme to the points of fun, intriguing, interesting, as well as tedious and boring.
I appreciate that you and Scrameustache are both speaking directly, rather than representationally, and hope you accept the personal quips from a stranger with that explanation in mind.
I said it with a straight face because I didn't sit around any drinking campfires a few million years ago, but I have been with Egyptians, Ethopians, Thais, Chinese, Japanese and Norwegians - to name but a few - at campfires and bars in their own countries as well as here.
Flirting is very cultural, that is, the rules are centric to the governing cultures. I speak from firsthand experience.
I can't believe you're countering firsthand experience with people with YouTubes of birds doing mating dances - with a straight face.
Admit it - you're just upset because you didn't know to lick the alphabet(*), did you?
(* - RIP, Sam Kinison and thanks for the roses a buddy's wife sent when I turned him on to that bit.)
First, I've known few 12 year old girls who weren't conscious of sex. Some were already experienced.
Second, I've been offering dick since I was at least 10.
Please don't use corner case anecdotes to argue your point - it just invites the same.
Also, some friendly advice if we ever meet in the RL - and you'll know by The Sisterhood - do not call them hen parties, it's offensive. They aren't hens.
I do find your idea that flirting is hardwired behavior intriguing. Please reconsider your position as there is really no evidence to support that point of view. I've traveled the world and interacted with many, many different cultures and I can assure that many of the things we think of - or have been subtly taught to think of - as hardwired behaviors simply aren't - they're very cultural. This is especially true of flirting.
Next, at what age do you think women have learned to get together in groups and discuss guys openly, at least self-consistently within their language rules? And to enculturate one another as to how to play the game? If you think it's after or near the time of life experience and marriage you are way, way, way off.
Finally, and this isn't a flame it's friendly, don't be so upset if you've simply learned too late how many times you almost got laid but didn't because you were clueless. We're all in that boat, men and women alike. Maybe not getting that fab tail was in your best interest and you have better karma than you know. I put this down because I never said that it takes women until they're older to admit to flirting - I didn't say, but it is true that I've been trusted enough to have heard this all my life. What I did say was that even if you know incredible holdouts, if you're clear, even they will eventually come clean. I say this in friendliness because I'm guessing at the nerve struck in you that comes from the place of justice when I did no injustice.
American society is the polyester K-Mart society. Women are just as confused as men and their programming is more extreme in the sense that for years women have been taught to nurture, men have been taught to achieve. Men are very natural nurturers (see ANY new daddy) and women are very natural achievers (see any civilization!) but in the Protestant and Catholic ethos everything's been turned upside down so Pilgrims could find Salvation.
Guys can say that like to lick pussy (BTW, just lick the alphabet if you don't know how), but babes get shit if they say they like to eat dick - this is but one non-corner case anecdote of what I'm referring to in the paragraph above.
Society's programming sucks. So do good girls - very good girls. Some since they were 12.
The study also probably revealed that the women's representatives were surveyed not the women themselves.
I know women who have denied to my face for more than a decade that they knew they were flirting - they were simply misunderstood. With enough time and trust, they've finally admitted this was all bullshit.
Representatives can be very stubborn.
Hopefully, I can let guys here in on a little secret. If you let a woman know you're conscious of her flirting, or point it out, you're liable to get denial, and it's not because of ditziness, deception or anything that complicated - you've spoiled their fun.
I can not imagine one member of The Sisterhood that hangs at my house answering any part of this survey directly - oh, they'll be specific in that they may focus on the worst anecdote in their brains that they can imagine - but honest, they will not be. Openly, they'll all agree on their answers and their honesty - I guess the best I could explain this behavior to most is that they'll flirt with the survey itself.
It comes to this - from a male point of view they're unclear in communicating intentions. From a female point of view, males are unsophisticated enough to listen. Much as I hate the Oprah Society's view of males as inferior, we are unsophisticated listeners for the most part (women are accomplished non-listeners, BTW - note the subtle difference).
My suggestion is honesty, as in, "Honey, I'm too interested in you to actually listen to you, but I like the sound of your voice. Besides, if you want to talk, try your girlfriends." You'd think that was poor behavior. After years of succeeding as Mr. Sensitive, I find I do much better as Mr. I_Tried_to_Listen_but_it_just_Encourages_You instead.
Right on. My shrink always told me that when actions and words disagree, go with the actions.
Shrink aside, it comes to this - you're not the least bit cynical, you're right. My wife (even if you/. you get one if you get a shrink first - I recommend single, BTW) has a LOT of girlfriends - I call them The Sisterhood. After years of trust they've let me in on a little secret - no woman at any time flirts without knowing about it.
Ever listen to Chris Rock's bit on what women are offered? They're offered dick - all of the time. They order a burger. "Here's your burger. You want some dick to go with that?" Men may be offered pussy more than they know (TRUE) but women are offered dick constantly.
They have forgotten more about the fine art of flirting by the time they're young adults than most men will ever learn in a lifetime.
Not surprising therefore that most guys are clueless enough to believe that women can flirt without knowing it.
This is the main reason that the survey itself is insanely flawed. Just because it's a survey, even if it's performed completely anonymously, is no reason to believe that you're not getting the answers from chicks' representatives instead of the truth.
It's all part of what I like to call the Oprah Society, complete with men are clueless and women are deep and misunderstood. Now, excuse me while I finish cracking up!
FWIW - I liked the USB port because I was able to recharge my iPod while listening. Very sweet feature for those very, very flight schedules. It's not uncommon that I'll need 28 hours to get from my door to my final destination. Kudos to Singapore Air for that USB port.
And from TFA:
"We're still clinging to the vine of music as a product," Griffin says, calling the industry's plight "Tarzan" economics.
"But we're swinging toward the vine of music as a service. We need to get ready to let go and grab the next vine, which is a pool of money and a fair way to split it up, rather than controlling the quantity and destiny of sound recordings." Pardon me for likening these guys to howler monkeys, but - Tarzan Economics?!?!?
BTW, forget the years of college math - I learned late in life that just about anything you'd need is in Cryptonomicon - http://www.cryptonomicon.com/text.html
Watch out for June 2 on this evenly-numbered year - that'll be Dick Tracy day!
I for one can't sort out the truth of it - and I admit to being heavily biased over the movie about Tucker.
Then again, we could say _almost_ the same about the DeLorean - but as it turned out, he was set up - that much is very clear from the fossil record.
Again, I wouldn't call these cars vaporware. That the original (eventually, only) few Tuckers had engineering problems - no intention of rudeness or disrespect, I just don't know what else to say, but "so?" There were engineering problems in pick-one-version of Windows, there were questions about funding for Apple (lately) but because of high production these are not vaporware.
My point is that if you engineer an honest product and then suffer from some production problem - funding, market forces, etc - I don't think it should be labeled vaporware.
Wish I'd had a better example - but an example is an example - Tucker produced 50 - for all I know, some of the listed products produced just one - but they weren't snake oil.
Yes, I'd say if a prototype were produced to garner attention or produce FUD - either (or similar causes for being made) resulting in no go to market - that's vaporware. If just a mock-up with no production intention, that's vaporware. If focusing on a feature that's not for real, vaporware.
But it's my contention that CNet is calling some things vaporware that shouldn't be labeled such and is just being typically sensationalistic.
I'd suggest that by their reasoning, they could just have easily called CP/M-86, MP/M-86 or even BeOS vaporware.
Rather than reading more CNet crap - which I've done to save you all a lot of trouble - and wading through 11 pages of ads, here's an interesting list, coincidentally including many of those listed by CNet, courtesy of Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaporware
Furthermore, given Wiki's definition and write-up of what constitutes vaporware - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware - I'd like to suggest that most of us think of as vaporware doesn't really match CNet's or Wikipedia's broad definition of it.
I don't think it is at fair, accurate or reasonable to take a prototyped product, whose prototype is on time, meets its design goals, is reasonable for the target it tried to achieve, but failed due to external market forces and call that vaporware. The best example in my mind is the digital film to convert ordinary 35 mm cameras to digital.
Was the Tucker automobile vaporware? I think not. Based on that logic being correct, I think a lot of what CNet is saying is being pulled from a nether region.
But then, I'm on record for hating CNet - so today, I'm choosing to be polite about it.
Even though they fucking suck and serve a brane-dead demographic.
Again, his line generated a massive cheer from the crowd.
By now, Lacy was becoming aware of how she was losing the crowd, and said, "Anybody who's seen my (TV) show...has seen me throw a whole glass of water on (Techcrunch founder Michael) Arrington."
With a sly look, Zuckerberg grabbed her water glass and moved it out of her reach.
She then tried to follow up the line of questioning about the journals, saying that one of the interesting things about his process was that he burned the journals when he was done with them.
"I don't do that," Zuckerberg said. "You made that up."
Shocked, Lacy called out to the back of the room where someone who had apparently sat and talked with Lacy and Zuckerberg the night before was sitting in an attempt to get confirmation that he had said he burned his journals. Much as I dislike CNET, the above link seems to tell more than most sites, I recommend it, FWIW. In any case, the rage sounds justified.
This is a format war that was won by the studios because I really don't think the consumer won. Absolutely correct - but for the part where the studios do not live in the real world, the victory itself isn't real. It's their version of moral victory - had the consumers won, the consumers would be spending more, and the studios would be getting more. Don't ask me how studio distribution thinking works - my wife worked in that industry for years, I've met these people at conventions - they defy anything you would think of as logical.
One of the best ways to combat crazyness is to ignore it. Fuck - so my plans 8000 mg doses of Thorazine for the creationists is going to be a non-starter? Fuck!
On a confusingly really serious note - you do get that that they have raised their head and are consistently trying more - not less - to force these views down the throats of US schoolchildren, yes? Perhaps this link will be helpful because I neither overreact nor am I making that up: http://nmsr.org/
You know what? I've changed my mind - I'm going for the Thorazine, you go for ignore. I'm not petty enough to pretend to claim I'll get better results - I'm just man enough to admit that I'm petty enough to get better results for me - I hate living on the same world in the same universe as creationists/IDers. Our educational system is in worse trouble than the Scopes days.
I agree with your central point - wish everyone got it, stop mentioning it, it's not cute, yes they'll go off anyway, but yes - that acknowledgment absolutely encourages them. I go a step further to say out loud - anyone smart enough to get evolution should be smart enough to know how this works and to not encourage them.
"...the trip to Mars should be one-way, and have a crew of only one person." 1) Work sucks. 2) Now people on slashdot argue about Microsoft virtues and why Apple is no good because it lacks market share. 3) My wife disapproves of my girlfriends.
WHERE DO I SIGN UP FOR THIS ONE WAY TRIP OF WHICH YOU SPEAK?
OK, MS is evil, but not everything they do is part of a grand conspiracy. That's exactly what they want us to think. It's all so clear if you take the time to look. The truth is out there.
I felt like I'd really fucked up, but after calming down, reading what I wrote and what you wrote, you're just wrong.
No where was I ever on board the you'd be speaking German train. All I did was slag some fool that made wild claims about the US not being necessary to victory and try to offer perspective. I wrote specifically, aside from the Battle of Britain, because I couldn't figure out what's being referring to - and you lecture me about the Battle of Britain. (This post or my one right next to it - naturally, you did take the time to read both and didn't just jump to conclusions about me out of context, yes?)
Bozo claims snorkel detection defeats the U-Boats, I refute it, and you lecture me that it was due to defeating crypto - which it was. By the British. Yes, Bletchley Park was fabulous and how about that Turing? If you were mention anything on-spot for the UK, you might have mentioned the HMS Petard, history buff that you are. Oh - did you forget the Polish contribution to Bletchley Park - no, probably not.
And thank you, I am quite familiar with El Alamein.
I'd like to rail further about resupply and your other views, but it comes to this. Someone else was slagging the contribution of a country, the US, who gave a half-million men dead to help liberate Europe - but according to you, I somehow said that we saved you - which I never did.
As far as the "blinkered" view of two fronts, it was only something Hitler used to refer in general to the problems he faced from the Western Democracies as well as the Communists, very well documented in The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich - perhaps you've heard of it? Well, I've either studied it as well as a number of texts, primarily by European authors - or I lack the skills to see the compass points and just have no knowledge whatsoever of what I'm talking about.
Thanks for lumping me in as ignorant.
Try to be a buff at reading comprehension. Good job at your most excellent reference to knee jerking. I was upset because I'd thought you were talking about me, but you were apparently just looking in the mirror.
Yes, the British had a large and effective fighting force. I'm just ignorant. I cheapen the sacrifices of all by sticking up for the US in the original discussion, while you continue to point out that you don't have this problem - and D-Day would have just taken a little longer without the US.
I'm a bit of a buff on this, and I like the "what if" component of the discussion, but people who argue either case seriously are stupid. The American soldiers and manufacturers were all heroes,as were the british, french, australian, canadian, soviet, polish, yugoslav, african, indian and fighters from all other nationalities who fought so hard. These arguments cheapen their sacrifices. We are one and the same. If my lack of communication skills made it seem otherwise, I don't know what to say, other than many thanks for your clear words, and namaste. My intention was to illustrate the wrongness of one-sidedness, not to drum-beat a side - any side. Maybe my other response in the thread backs this up as true - hope so, anyway, sure thought so, and presume you've read it as well. If not, bad writing, not bad thinking. I take your criticism personally, not for ego, but because I lost a lot of family in that war, so how I screwed up trying to give credit to all (and by extension, thanks) for not losing more somewhat shames me.
I think highly of the British and recognize her many achievements during WWII even if American history texts are lacking in that respect.
I'm not on about who was better (and I recognize you're not, either), but you may be making my point - and you have a few inaccuracies.
The Japanese won a moral and military victory over the British Navy in the Pacific before the US involvement. Wish I could remember the names of those ships lost or the Japanese admiral who devised the plan. Point is, the east colonies were largely out at that point, leaving those you mention. The only protection for such shipping would have the US and British Navies - no disrespect, but the other countries didn't have sufficient size Navies for surface force escorts.
1. I don't know if it's true that the Spitfire (a marvelous airplane) won the air war or not, but I'll accept the statement at face value. That being said, and given you're not referring to the Battle of Britain, to which particular aspect do you refer? Ground support? Where was the UK going to get the men to double its effective fighting force for these ground battles, if not the US? Bomber escort? The Spit lacked the range, and that's assuming that the Lancasters, et al, would have been able to take to the air without US resupply. In addition, those Spitfires didn't do the job themselves, as the top three fighters in sheer numbers alone were all US - the P-47, P-51, and P-40. http://www.chuckhawks.com/p40.htm
2. Resupply. Had the US not entered the war, where would those supplies come from? The US and US Merchant Marine would have stayed out of harm's way. Snorkel detection did not allow Britain to win the sea war, neither did Britain win the sea war, neither would it have even it did without re-supply from the US. I guess for your argument to work, the US would have had to have been a den of mere shopkeepers, willing to supply the UK with Liberty Ships without any interest in the outcome (or something - the self-references become tangled at this point, but the historical inaccuracy in such a viewpoint alone would be worth a book - that no one would read). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_ship Those 2751 Liberty Ships weren't used to sail between the British Isles or Canada or India - they were bringing materiel with them - from the US. The production capacity of the UK was seriously threatened and would have diminished beyond your theory's basis had there been no US resupply, and without that resupply, the UK's ability to fight this hypothetical protracted war stretches the imagination to the breaking point.
4. It was not a war of attrition in 1942 when the US arrived in the European theatre. It was a war of bold strikes and new tactics for mechanized warfare.
I suppose in the US, Hollywood generally ignores the British in telling the story of the war; I find a lot of people think of the Brits like a Ladies Auxiliary or something. But you're doing the same thing in reverse. From the simplest (and not unreasonable) reading of statistics, then according to your version of history, the UK was going to win on its own, taking longer time,
If it weren't for the US, the Germans would still have lost the war. I don't follow your logic or one of us has misread the facts. I am, however, intrigued so help me understand.
The Brits did quite a bit of damage with Bomber Command, but the US Army Air Force effect was quite substantial. Prior to D-Day, it was Hitler's Fortress Europa, as I recall. How was that to fall without the US? No question the Corporal fucked up royally in his Soviet invasions - but are you saying he wouldn't have been fighting a war on two fronts had America not been in the war? As far as the Soviets losing another 5 million without the US - well, maybe - but have you taken into account the aircraft America provided to the USSR in that assessment? The Wolf Pack was sinking GB's supply shipping at an alarming rate before (and for sometime after) the US involvement. However, except for one (published) secret U-Boat sinking before the US entry into the war, Roosevelt maintained strict orders for the US Navy to not engage U-Boats, per US law. How was GB re-supply shipping to work out without the US Merchant Marine and the US Navy? GB may have been safe, established after Fighter Command's outstanding performance in the Battle of Britain, and GB may have been safe from invasion - re: Hitler's famous statement, "On land, I'm a lion, but at sea, I'm a coward" - but what else was supposed to overturn the Wehrmacht's control of Europe in your assessment? Wasn't Rommel's recall from Africa due to Hitler not wanting to lose his favorite general - because he was fighting a war on two fronts? What if Rommel had taken the Suez instead, as he'd fervently planned? GB's war machine would have ground to a halt without oil. The Nazi war machine would have had that oil instead of focusing on synthetics and Czechoslovakia's fields, neither of which was sufficient for their needs.
Hitler's plan was for room to live - Liebensraum as he referred to it - and he was looking to the East, to the USSR. He may have ended up losing that part of his war without the US - although, again, I'm not sure, see above questions on that - but are you saying that Stalin would have pushed Germany all the back to France?
Slashdot Mirror
But - and there are buts - I just think you're wrong. My mileage varies, and I think that women not knowing they're flirting borders on a mental defect, if true - therefore, a true corner case because there is no certainty - but I think you're wrong. I think women know. I do want to be clear - I see absolutely nothing wrong with this behavior on their part. It's part of what makes them fun.
The part where guys are putting sexual pressure without knowing it is not the same in my book. Social pressure, when unknown, is ignorance and there's no excuse for that. I'm speaking from firsthand embarrassment and thankful that I've had friends to square me away on that one. But sexual pressure? Depending on how you define the term I may be way off on what I'm about to say - but as to how I define it, it's a form of emotional abuse - emotional violence, if you will - and I won't condone or excuse or forgive it. I cannot imagine it being done without knowledge. By definition, it is without awareness, but not without knowledge - as I've never seen abuse or violence of any sort done without knowledge. These are biologically primitive behaviours. Perhaps. I suggest reading Piaget's work on educational psychology - quite an eye opener. God, I love wikipedia at times like this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget - that'll save you a bit of time if you're not into psych or have time to read / absorb.
But to your point about biologically primitive behavior (BPB) -flirting isn't a BPB. Modern flirting is BASED on BPBs, wouldn't you agree? IOW, if we allow something that we label animal attraction, that's a BPB - but the use of cosmetic makeup and complex language with nuanced meaning isn't a BPB, but driven by a BPB imperative - wanting to procreate, being horny, wanting acceptance both social and personal, all BPB drives. But modern flirting, however derivative of BPB(s), isn't itself a BPB or combination thereof - it's a socially taught and learned behavior in response to and derived from those BPBs.
As for your comment about the actresses - you've known better than you realize, per my milage. A good actress doesn't let you know she's acting - you're drawn in to the story in transcendence of the actress. I say to you that the ones you think are having no idea how the guy's reacting are the more accomplished, because they know very well. Does this bother me? No, not really, other than a mild objection to your use of the word actress while at the same time strongly liking that you put it in acting terms - because all the world's a stage, really.
We all have our representatives, and where sexuality is concerned, it gets extreme to the points of fun, intriguing, interesting, as well as tedious and boring.
I appreciate that you and Scrameustache are both speaking directly, rather than representationally, and hope you accept the personal quips from a stranger with that explanation in mind.
Cheers,
Teh EarlyMon
Another PS - http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=504424&cid=22913384 expands on some of my view on acting/representing, though you make think less of me for the content, I spoke directly.
I said it with a straight face because I didn't sit around any drinking campfires a few million years ago, but I have been with Egyptians, Ethopians, Thais, Chinese, Japanese and Norwegians - to name but a few - at campfires and bars in their own countries as well as here.
Flirting is very cultural, that is, the rules are centric to the governing cultures. I speak from firsthand experience.
I can't believe you're countering firsthand experience with people with YouTubes of birds doing mating dances - with a straight face.
Admit it - you're just upset because you didn't know to lick the alphabet(*), did you?
(* - RIP, Sam Kinison and thanks for the roses a buddy's wife sent when I turned him on to that bit.)
Boookay.
First, I've known few 12 year old girls who weren't conscious of sex. Some were already experienced.
Second, I've been offering dick since I was at least 10.
Please don't use corner case anecdotes to argue your point - it just invites the same.
Also, some friendly advice if we ever meet in the RL - and you'll know by The Sisterhood - do not call them hen parties, it's offensive. They aren't hens.
I do find your idea that flirting is hardwired behavior intriguing. Please reconsider your position as there is really no evidence to support that point of view. I've traveled the world and interacted with many, many different cultures and I can assure that many of the things we think of - or have been subtly taught to think of - as hardwired behaviors simply aren't - they're very cultural. This is especially true of flirting.
Next, at what age do you think women have learned to get together in groups and discuss guys openly, at least self-consistently within their language rules? And to enculturate one another as to how to play the game? If you think it's after or near the time of life experience and marriage you are way, way, way off.
Finally, and this isn't a flame it's friendly, don't be so upset if you've simply learned too late how many times you almost got laid but didn't because you were clueless. We're all in that boat, men and women alike. Maybe not getting that fab tail was in your best interest and you have better karma than you know. I put this down because I never said that it takes women until they're older to admit to flirting - I didn't say, but it is true that I've been trusted enough to have heard this all my life. What I did say was that even if you know incredible holdouts, if you're clear, even they will eventually come clean. I say this in friendliness because I'm guessing at the nerve struck in you that comes from the place of justice when I did no injustice.
American society is the polyester K-Mart society. Women are just as confused as men and their programming is more extreme in the sense that for years women have been taught to nurture, men have been taught to achieve. Men are very natural nurturers (see ANY new daddy) and women are very natural achievers (see any civilization!) but in the Protestant and Catholic ethos everything's been turned upside down so Pilgrims could find Salvation.
Guys can say that like to lick pussy (BTW, just lick the alphabet if you don't know how), but babes get shit if they say they like to eat dick - this is but one non-corner case anecdote of what I'm referring to in the paragraph above.
Society's programming sucks. So do good girls - very good girls. Some since they were 12.
Cheers,
Teh EarlyMon
Women are simpler than men. If they look back or talk back, they're interested, too.
What? You think that women don't get you're interested? You think they lack this insight?
Dude - the reason you can't get women to say yes and grab your dick is because women don't say yes - they only say no.
You had them at hello. After that, YOU talked your way out of the deal. You think THEY want to talk to you if their not interested?
It's really that simple. Sorry to be the one to break the news to you - but look at it this way: now you know.
The study also probably revealed that the women's representatives were surveyed not the women themselves.
I know women who have denied to my face for more than a decade that they knew they were flirting - they were simply misunderstood. With enough time and trust, they've finally admitted this was all bullshit.
Representatives can be very stubborn.
Hopefully, I can let guys here in on a little secret. If you let a woman know you're conscious of her flirting, or point it out, you're liable to get denial, and it's not because of ditziness, deception or anything that complicated - you've spoiled their fun.
I can not imagine one member of The Sisterhood that hangs at my house answering any part of this survey directly - oh, they'll be specific in that they may focus on the worst anecdote in their brains that they can imagine - but honest, they will not be. Openly, they'll all agree on their answers and their honesty - I guess the best I could explain this behavior to most is that they'll flirt with the survey itself.
It comes to this - from a male point of view they're unclear in communicating intentions. From a female point of view, males are unsophisticated enough to listen. Much as I hate the Oprah Society's view of males as inferior, we are unsophisticated listeners for the most part (women are accomplished non-listeners, BTW - note the subtle difference).
My suggestion is honesty, as in, "Honey, I'm too interested in you to actually listen to you, but I like the sound of your voice. Besides, if you want to talk, try your girlfriends." You'd think that was poor behavior. After years of succeeding as Mr. Sensitive, I find I do much better as Mr. I_Tried_to_Listen_but_it_just_Encourages_You instead.
Right on. My shrink always told me that when actions and words disagree, go with the actions.
/. you get one if you get a shrink first - I recommend single, BTW) has a LOT of girlfriends - I call them The Sisterhood. After years of trust they've let me in on a little secret - no woman at any time flirts without knowing about it.
Shrink aside, it comes to this - you're not the least bit cynical, you're right. My wife (even if you
Ever listen to Chris Rock's bit on what women are offered? They're offered dick - all of the time. They order a burger. "Here's your burger. You want some dick to go with that?" Men may be offered pussy more than they know (TRUE) but women are offered dick constantly.
They have forgotten more about the fine art of flirting by the time they're young adults than most men will ever learn in a lifetime.
Not surprising therefore that most guys are clueless enough to believe that women can flirt without knowing it.
This is the main reason that the survey itself is insanely flawed. Just because it's a survey, even if it's performed completely anonymously, is no reason to believe that you're not getting the answers from chicks' representatives instead of the truth.
It's all part of what I like to call the Oprah Society, complete with men are clueless and women are deep and misunderstood. Now, excuse me while I finish cracking up!
FWIW - I liked the USB port because I was able to recharge my iPod while listening. Very sweet feature for those very, very flight schedules. It's not uncommon that I'll need 28 hours to get from my door to my final destination. Kudos to Singapore Air for that USB port.
And from TFA: "We're still clinging to the vine of music as a product," Griffin says, calling the industry's plight "Tarzan" economics.
"But we're swinging toward the vine of music as a service. We need to get ready to let go and grab the next vine, which is a pool of money and a fair way to split it up, rather than controlling the quantity and destiny of sound recordings." Pardon me for likening these guys to howler monkeys, but - Tarzan Economics?!?!?
I seem to recall the www phenomenon began because some guy thought that exchanging physics info would be a good idea.
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/About/Web-en.html
I publish. I get the copyright and blog quality arguments ad infinitum - but I think the real issue is simply being missed here.
I think this representation will help - http://www.cryptonomicon.com/images/p15.gif
BTW, forget the years of college math - I learned late in life that just about anything you'd need is in Cryptonomicon - http://www.cryptonomicon.com/text.html
Watch out for June 2 on this evenly-numbered year - that'll be Dick Tracy day!
Many thanks for the great link.
I for one can't sort out the truth of it - and I admit to being heavily biased over the movie about Tucker.
Then again, we could say _almost_ the same about the DeLorean - but as it turned out, he was set up - that much is very clear from the fossil record.
Again, I wouldn't call these cars vaporware. That the original (eventually, only) few Tuckers had engineering problems - no intention of rudeness or disrespect, I just don't know what else to say, but "so?" There were engineering problems in pick-one-version of Windows, there were questions about funding for Apple (lately) but because of high production these are not vaporware.
My point is that if you engineer an honest product and then suffer from some production problem - funding, market forces, etc - I don't think it should be labeled vaporware.
Wish I'd had a better example - but an example is an example - Tucker produced 50 - for all I know, some of the listed products produced just one - but they weren't snake oil.
Yes, I'd say if a prototype were produced to garner attention or produce FUD - either (or similar causes for being made) resulting in no go to market - that's vaporware. If just a mock-up with no production intention, that's vaporware. If focusing on a feature that's not for real, vaporware.
But it's my contention that CNet is calling some things vaporware that shouldn't be labeled such and is just being typically sensationalistic.
I'd suggest that by their reasoning, they could just have easily called CP/M-86, MP/M-86 or even BeOS vaporware.
Is it just me?
Rather than reading more CNet crap - which I've done to save you all a lot of trouble - and wading through 11 pages of ads, here's an interesting list, coincidentally including many of those listed by CNet, courtesy of Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaporware
Furthermore, given Wiki's definition and write-up of what constitutes vaporware - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware - I'd like to suggest that most of us think of as vaporware doesn't really match CNet's or Wikipedia's broad definition of it.
I don't think it is at fair, accurate or reasonable to take a prototyped product, whose prototype is on time, meets its design goals, is reasonable for the target it tried to achieve, but failed due to external market forces and call that vaporware. The best example in my mind is the digital film to convert ordinary 35 mm cameras to digital.
Was the Tucker automobile vaporware? I think not. Based on that logic being correct, I think a lot of what CNet is saying is being pulled from a nether region.
But then, I'm on record for hating CNet - so today, I'm choosing to be polite about it.
Even though they fucking suck and serve a brane-dead demographic.
Again, his line generated a massive cheer from the crowd.
By now, Lacy was becoming aware of how she was losing the crowd, and said, "Anybody who's seen my (TV) show...has seen me throw a whole glass of water on (Techcrunch founder Michael) Arrington."
With a sly look, Zuckerberg grabbed her water glass and moved it out of her reach.
She then tried to follow up the line of questioning about the journals, saying that one of the interesting things about his process was that he burned the journals when he was done with them.
"I don't do that," Zuckerberg said. "You made that up."
Shocked, Lacy called out to the back of the room where someone who had apparently sat and talked with Lacy and Zuckerberg the night before was sitting in an attempt to get confirmation that he had said he burned his journals. Much as I dislike CNET, the above link seems to tell more than most sites, I recommend it, FWIW. In any case, the rage sounds justified.
On a confusingly really serious note - you do get that that they have raised their head and are consistently trying more - not less - to force these views down the throats of US schoolchildren, yes? Perhaps this link will be helpful because I neither overreact nor am I making that up: http://nmsr.org/
You know what? I've changed my mind - I'm going for the Thorazine, you go for ignore. I'm not petty enough to pretend to claim I'll get better results - I'm just man enough to admit that I'm petty enough to get better results for me - I hate living on the same world in the same universe as creationists/IDers. Our educational system is in worse trouble than the Scopes days.
I agree with your central point - wish everyone got it, stop mentioning it, it's not cute, yes they'll go off anyway, but yes - that acknowledgment absolutely encourages them. I go a step further to say out loud - anyone smart enough to get evolution should be smart enough to know how this works and to not encourage them.
I'm still right about the Thorazine, tho.
Deteriorata, National Lampoon Radio Dinner - still +5^True_Age_of_Universe Funny, tho.
2) Now people on slashdot argue about Microsoft virtues and why Apple is no good because it lacks market share.
3) My wife disapproves of my girlfriends.
WHERE DO I SIGN UP FOR THIS ONE WAY TRIP OF WHICH YOU SPEAK?
Did I remember to post anonymously?
Sorry, compadre. Thanks for the perspective. I think this proves I just need a vacation.
I felt like I'd really fucked up, but after calming down, reading what I wrote and what you wrote, you're just wrong.
No where was I ever on board the you'd be speaking German train. All I did was slag some fool that made wild claims about the US not being necessary to victory and try to offer perspective. I wrote specifically, aside from the Battle of Britain, because I couldn't figure out what's being referring to - and you lecture me about the Battle of Britain. (This post or my one right next to it - naturally, you did take the time to read both and didn't just jump to conclusions about me out of context, yes?)
Bozo claims snorkel detection defeats the U-Boats, I refute it, and you lecture me that it was due to defeating crypto - which it was. By the British. Yes, Bletchley Park was fabulous and how about that Turing? If you were mention anything on-spot for the UK, you might have mentioned the HMS Petard, history buff that you are. Oh - did you forget the Polish contribution to Bletchley Park - no, probably not.
And thank you, I am quite familiar with El Alamein.
I'd like to rail further about resupply and your other views, but it comes to this. Someone else was slagging the contribution of a country, the US, who gave a half-million men dead to help liberate Europe - but according to you, I somehow said that we saved you - which I never did.
As far as the "blinkered" view of two fronts, it was only something Hitler used to refer in general to the problems he faced from the Western Democracies as well as the Communists, very well documented in The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich - perhaps you've heard of it? Well, I've either studied it as well as a number of texts, primarily by European authors - or I lack the skills to see the compass points and just have no knowledge whatsoever of what I'm talking about.
Thanks for lumping me in as ignorant.
Try to be a buff at reading comprehension. Good job at your most excellent reference to knee jerking. I was upset because I'd thought you were talking about me, but you were apparently just looking in the mirror.
Yes, the British had a large and effective fighting force. I'm just ignorant. I cheapen the sacrifices of all by sticking up for the US in the original discussion, while you continue to point out that you don't have this problem - and D-Day would have just taken a little longer without the US.
Best luck to you in all things.
I think highly of the British and recognize her many achievements during WWII even if American history texts are lacking in that respect.
I'm not on about who was better (and I recognize you're not, either), but you may be making my point - and you have a few inaccuracies.
The Japanese won a moral and military victory over the British Navy in the Pacific before the US involvement. Wish I could remember the names of those ships lost or the Japanese admiral who devised the plan. Point is, the east colonies were largely out at that point, leaving those you mention. The only protection for such shipping would have the US and British Navies - no disrespect, but the other countries didn't have sufficient size Navies for surface force escorts.
US casualties were on par with the UK - but the US had more in its Army alone than the combined services of the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
I submit the following points:
1. I don't know if it's true that the Spitfire (a marvelous airplane) won the air war or not, but I'll accept the statement at face value. That being said, and given you're not referring to the Battle of Britain, to which particular aspect do you refer? Ground support? Where was the UK going to get the men to double its effective fighting force for these ground battles, if not the US? Bomber escort? The Spit lacked the range, and that's assuming that the Lancasters, et al, would have been able to take to the air without US resupply. In addition, those Spitfires didn't do the job themselves, as the top three fighters in sheer numbers alone were all US - the P-47, P-51, and P-40. http://www.chuckhawks.com/p40.htm
2. Resupply. Had the US not entered the war, where would those supplies come from? The US and US Merchant Marine would have stayed out of harm's way. Snorkel detection did not allow Britain to win the sea war, neither did Britain win the sea war, neither would it have even it did without re-supply from the US. I guess for your argument to work, the US would have had to have been a den of mere shopkeepers, willing to supply the UK with Liberty Ships without any interest in the outcome (or something - the self-references become tangled at this point, but the historical inaccuracy in such a viewpoint alone would be worth a book - that no one would read). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_ship Those 2751 Liberty Ships weren't used to sail between the British Isles or Canada or India - they were bringing materiel with them - from the US. The production capacity of the UK was seriously threatened and would have diminished beyond your theory's basis had there been no US resupply, and without that resupply, the UK's ability to fight this hypothetical protracted war stretches the imagination to the breaking point.
3. Production capacity of Russia? No. http://www.amazon.ca/Russias-Life-Saver-Lend-Lease-U-S-S-R-World/dp/0739107364 Production capacity you ascribe is something they specifically lacked. The Ju-87D sucked against modern forces, but did quite well in the USSR, until US P-39s, with Soviet pilots, took to the air. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-39_Airacobra
4. It was not a war of attrition in 1942 when the US arrived in the European theatre. It was a war of bold strikes and new tactics for mechanized warfare.
I suppose in the US, Hollywood generally ignores the British in telling the story of the war; I find a lot of people think of the Brits like a Ladies Auxiliary or something. But you're doing the same thing in reverse. From the simplest (and not unreasonable) reading of statistics, then according to your version of history, the UK was going to win on its own, taking longer time,
not to mention the non-use of the {n=n*n; double array[n];} time saver for making n large and double for increasing array memory....
Or even "#include " and "double array[UINT_64MAX]"
The Brits did quite a bit of damage with Bomber Command, but the US Army Air Force effect was quite substantial. Prior to D-Day, it was Hitler's Fortress Europa, as I recall. How was that to fall without the US? No question the Corporal fucked up royally in his Soviet invasions - but are you saying he wouldn't have been fighting a war on two fronts had America not been in the war? As far as the Soviets losing another 5 million without the US - well, maybe - but have you taken into account the aircraft America provided to the USSR in that assessment? The Wolf Pack was sinking GB's supply shipping at an alarming rate before (and for sometime after) the US involvement. However, except for one (published) secret U-Boat sinking before the US entry into the war, Roosevelt maintained strict orders for the US Navy to not engage U-Boats, per US law. How was GB re-supply shipping to work out without the US Merchant Marine and the US Navy? GB may have been safe, established after Fighter Command's outstanding performance in the Battle of Britain, and GB may have been safe from invasion - re: Hitler's famous statement, "On land, I'm a lion, but at sea, I'm a coward" - but what else was supposed to overturn the Wehrmacht's control of Europe in your assessment? Wasn't Rommel's recall from Africa due to Hitler not wanting to lose his favorite general - because he was fighting a war on two fronts? What if Rommel had taken the Suez instead, as he'd fervently planned? GB's war machine would have ground to a halt without oil. The Nazi war machine would have had that oil instead of focusing on synthetics and Czechoslovakia's fields, neither of which was sufficient for their needs.
Hitler's plan was for room to live - Liebensraum as he referred to it - and he was looking to the East, to the USSR. He may have ended up losing that part of his war without the US - although, again, I'm not sure, see above questions on that - but are you saying that Stalin would have pushed Germany all the back to France?
Your turn.