There are many men who are fashionistas too. However I do agree that women love to shop more and men tend to hate it. So you ask a man "why those ugly pants?" and the answer is "they were the first ones I saw in the store".
I just replaced a broken phone with an iPhone 6s. I feel a bit lucky because it's a good small size, and all the android replacements and later iPhones were just too big and bulky even for men's pockets. Probably ok for the east coast where more people wear suits and jackets but they're terrible for trouser pockets for both men and women.
I have had a set of mens jeans that had too small pockets. I didn't check them before hand, I just assumed they'd be ok. It happens. So I think this happens with women, the jeans look ok, they fit, but then then getting home the pockets are inadequate. Or more likely, they tried on 10 pairs of jeans and all of them had small pockets.
I do see quite a lot of women though who do get the men's trousers for casual wear, and women who ditch the handbag for fanny packets. After a certain age comfort and convenience are more important than fashion, it just tends to happen earlier for men than women.
Are all the women you know under 25? I seriously doubt that 50-something women are buying too small stretch pants just to show off their butts. But the fashion world ignores them for the most part.
That's the reason. Men traditionally had pockets because they didn't using handbags (in recent history anyway). Women typically used handbags and dresses and so didn't get pockets. Later on pantsuits had no pockets at the start. As women started wearing trousers the pockets were initially only added cosmetically - looks like a pocket but sewn shut (like on some suit jackets for men) - then later pockets were added for real but were tiny. Fashion hasn't caught up to the mobile phones yet.
Why? Whether it's caused by humans or not, it is still changing. Doesn't it make sense to try and adapt? At the very least, buying a beachfront house might be a bad idea.
Technically I think Stanford was the most influential about this, and probably Shockley being at Stanford. But Ampex was a big place for engineers that wasn't a defense contractor and it probably made it much more likely to see the area as a viable place for technology, and an alternative to the tech hubs on the east coast.
There was a lot of lies that Southerners told themselves over time and taught their children as well. Many of them honestly think the war was about preserving a way of life and that the confederate flag is about "heritage". And they taught themselves to look the other way when someone is beaten or lynched, and they taught themselves to rationalize Jim Crow laws. Overall, they never really accepted that the South was in the wrong in the Civil War, to many it's a chip they've held on their shoulders for 150 years.
No, you don't have it just right. These statues were put up long after the war was over, in the twenthieth century. They were not erected as war memorials, they were put up in order to promote white supremacy and as a reminder to minorities that they should not assume that they were equals. Stone Mountain was started initially to explicitly to honor the KKK, though it was redone after being started and morphed into a civil war design it was still intended to be a racist monument by the designers and builders.
The leaders of the confederacy were absolutely pro-slavery without any doubt, they wrote down that they felt the reasons for the war were about preserving slavery. It was only after the war that propaganda turned this into a war to preserve their way of life (never mind that their way of life was as slave owners). These evil men do not need to be celebrated. Modern day bozos may call this "SJW" in an attempt to hide their racism.
Oh, so you've never heard of Stone Mountain, Georgia? Don't forget all those statues to confederate war criminals that were erected in the twentieth century as a reminder of white supremacy so that minorities wouldn't get too uppity.
It's also a piece of history. It's the start of high tech in the Silicon Valley area. The modern nerds seem to have zero interest in history anymore. And there's barely any silicon companies left as most high tech companies in the area are really in advertising and social media.
I worked across the street from the sign for 7 years in buildings that I presume used to be Ampex. So it's sad that it's all been torn down now.
Historic in that it really was the first big high tech company in the Bay Area that wasn't a government contractor. Also that sign had been prominent along Highway 101 for half a century.
Well, a lot of people used to do that. My grandparents had trucks for the ranch but they didn't take the truck to the grocery store instead they took the car. Of course, this was in the days when trucks were bought to do actual work and weren't silly status symbols for wannabe cowboys. I know people who have a big SUV because they might someday need to carry something heavy, even though they've never needed to do that. You may as well rent a truck for the 1 day a year you need it, the gasoline savings would pay for several rentals.
Get the small car that does 99.9% of the stuff you need it to.
Too many drive F150s for commuting who don't need to. People should stop choosing cars based upon which one makes them look manly. The argument that you might be killed unless you surround yourself by two tons of wasted steel is a stupid argument. May as well say that you should not even walk or ride a bike in your neighborhood because you might be hit by a mini.
Trump isn't completely random. Some people whisper into his ear first and then Trump shoots from the hip. Such as "hey, we could have stopped this Russian story before it began, if it weren't for the memo that Obama wrote", then Trump thinks "I can fix this!"
But don't forget there are many who quickly become the opposite of their parents, politically. From the conservative parents who bemoan that their children came home from college as commies, to the parents who raised their kids in a commune only to see them become stock brokers.
Liberalism and conservatism don't mean what they used to mean. In America the financial politics are closely tied to social politics, no matter how illogical that may be. There's no reason that someone's views on abortion rights should have any bearing on their economic views, except that we're focused on two parties and must put every issue into one of two buckets only.
Go back fifty years and debates about tax cuts or welfare were relatively minor issues in economics and the views on those subjects crossed across party lines.
Also the trend towards short term profits. This is very different from old school economics where it was held that investing and saving for the long term was the best way to go. You would invest in companies that provided regular dividends, rather than speculating that the base value would grow quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many men who are fashionistas too. However I do agree that women love to shop more and men tend to hate it. So you ask a man "why those ugly pants?" and the answer is "they were the first ones I saw in the store".
Those tiny pockets bring the boys to her yard, and they're like, what fits in those.
I just replaced a broken phone with an iPhone 6s. I feel a bit lucky because it's a good small size, and all the android replacements and later iPhones were just too big and bulky even for men's pockets. Probably ok for the east coast where more people wear suits and jackets but they're terrible for trouser pockets for both men and women.
I have had a set of mens jeans that had too small pockets. I didn't check them before hand, I just assumed they'd be ok. It happens. So I think this happens with women, the jeans look ok, they fit, but then then getting home the pockets are inadequate. Or more likely, they tried on 10 pairs of jeans and all of them had small pockets.
I do see quite a lot of women though who do get the men's trousers for casual wear, and women who ditch the handbag for fanny packets. After a certain age comfort and convenience are more important than fashion, it just tends to happen earlier for men than women.
Are all the women you know under 25? I seriously doubt that 50-something women are buying too small stretch pants just to show off their butts. But the fashion world ignores them for the most part.
That's the reason. Men traditionally had pockets because they didn't using handbags (in recent history anyway). Women typically used handbags and dresses and so didn't get pockets. Later on pantsuits had no pockets at the start. As women started wearing trousers the pockets were initially only added cosmetically - looks like a pocket but sewn shut (like on some suit jackets for men) - then later pockets were added for real but were tiny. Fashion hasn't caught up to the mobile phones yet.
I do want a DVR that records streamed shows though. Download it late at night when the network is less cowded then watch it in prime time.
They're called democratic facts, we get to vote on them.
Why? Whether it's caused by humans or not, it is still changing. Doesn't it make sense to try and adapt? At the very least, buying a beachfront house might be a bad idea.
Que?
Technically I think Stanford was the most influential about this, and probably Shockley being at Stanford. But Ampex was a big place for engineers that wasn't a defense contractor and it probably made it much more likely to see the area as a viable place for technology, and an alternative to the tech hubs on the east coast.
There was a lot of lies that Southerners told themselves over time and taught their children as well. Many of them honestly think the war was about preserving a way of life and that the confederate flag is about "heritage". And they taught themselves to look the other way when someone is beaten or lynched, and they taught themselves to rationalize Jim Crow laws. Overall, they never really accepted that the South was in the wrong in the Civil War, to many it's a chip they've held on their shoulders for 150 years.
No, you don't have it just right. These statues were put up long after the war was over, in the twenthieth century. They were not erected as war memorials, they were put up in order to promote white supremacy and as a reminder to minorities that they should not assume that they were equals. Stone Mountain was started initially to explicitly to honor the KKK, though it was redone after being started and morphed into a civil war design it was still intended to be a racist monument by the designers and builders.
The leaders of the confederacy were absolutely pro-slavery without any doubt, they wrote down that they felt the reasons for the war were about preserving slavery. It was only after the war that propaganda turned this into a war to preserve their way of life (never mind that their way of life was as slave owners). These evil men do not need to be celebrated. Modern day bozos may call this "SJW" in an attempt to hide their racism.
Oh, so you've never heard of Stone Mountain, Georgia? Don't forget all those statues to confederate war criminals that were erected in the twentieth century as a reminder of white supremacy so that minorities wouldn't get too uppity.
Even if they don't, people *should* know about Ampex. Especially if they're engineers in Silicon Valley. History is important.
It's also a piece of history. It's the start of high tech in the Silicon Valley area. The modern nerds seem to have zero interest in history anymore. And there's barely any silicon companies left as most high tech companies in the area are really in advertising and social media.
I worked across the street from the sign for 7 years in buildings that I presume used to be Ampex. So it's sad that it's all been torn down now.
Historic in that it really was the first big high tech company in the Bay Area that wasn't a government contractor. Also that sign had been prominent along Highway 101 for half a century.
So if this is unsafe, I assume you are thoroughly opposed to motorcycles going faster than 15mph?
Well, a lot of people used to do that. My grandparents had trucks for the ranch but they didn't take the truck to the grocery store instead they took the car. Of course, this was in the days when trucks were bought to do actual work and weren't silly status symbols for wannabe cowboys. I know people who have a big SUV because they might someday need to carry something heavy, even though they've never needed to do that. You may as well rent a truck for the 1 day a year you need it, the gasoline savings would pay for several rentals.
Get the small car that does 99.9% of the stuff you need it to.
Too many drive F150s for commuting who don't need to. People should stop choosing cars based upon which one makes them look manly. The argument that you might be killed unless you surround yourself by two tons of wasted steel is a stupid argument. May as well say that you should not even walk or ride a bike in your neighborhood because you might be hit by a mini.
Trump isn't completely random. Some people whisper into his ear first and then Trump shoots from the hip. Such as "hey, we could have stopped this Russian story before it began, if it weren't for the memo that Obama wrote", then Trump thinks "I can fix this!"
But don't forget there are many who quickly become the opposite of their parents, politically. From the conservative parents who bemoan that their children came home from college as commies, to the parents who raised their kids in a commune only to see them become stock brokers.
Liberalism and conservatism don't mean what they used to mean. In America the financial politics are closely tied to social politics, no matter how illogical that may be. There's no reason that someone's views on abortion rights should have any bearing on their economic views, except that we're focused on two parties and must put every issue into one of two buckets only.
Go back fifty years and debates about tax cuts or welfare were relatively minor issues in economics and the views on those subjects crossed across party lines.
Also the trend towards short term profits. This is very different from old school economics where it was held that investing and saving for the long term was the best way to go. You would invest in companies that provided regular dividends, rather than speculating that the base value would grow quickly.
Well, that brings up the idea held by so many people that economics is a zero sum game. That is if someone wins then someone else had to lose.