The way WaywardGeek tells the story, the downside is that the code is un-maintainable. war4peace is merely trying to point that out. If all you focus on is the immediate release, then it seems like a good deal, but that kind of coding makes what is basically throw-away code.
WaywardGeek himself said the code was unreadable. What's amusing to me is how highly he praised the guy for writing it. I'll grant that it's pretty awesome if a guy can really pound out working code that quickly. I can't. And throw-away code has its place. But I wouldn't want that guy anywhere near any production code.
I actually agree with everything you say (I was also amused that he was impressed by unreadable code:), but the point I was responding to was the line
Yeah, he saves time NOW, but loses maybe 3x more LATER. Well played! Not.
I disagree with that mostly because from what I understood of GP's anecdote was that the entire company turned a profit, IPO'ed with success, and then got even more money for the entire company. Not a 3x loss, not a loss at all. In fact, I see nothing wrong with code that did that, regardless of the fact that all variables were less than two characters long. I don't care if the code was commented in klingon and used urdu for variable names, as far as I am concerned if it turned into that much of a success, then it was a success.
Sorry, but what you describe is exactly a cowboy coder. A genius (granted) who lacks a certain type of vision, and that is the understanding of the fact that the code he writes is NOT readable by anyone else, unless they make a huge effort that's going to cost them lots of time (and therefore money). Yeah, he saves time NOW, but loses maybe 3x more LATER. Well played! Not.
Well, the way the parent tells the story, it doesn't look like there were any losses at all to that kind of productivity. If a single man was able to produce enough to IPO and then get bought out, there's no measure that counts that as a loss. At all.
Yeah, this seems to be about book reviews. If enough people submitted reviews, there's bound to be some negative ones. Just read those, and ignore the five star ones. For better accuracy, do like any other statistician, and throw out the highest and lowest scores.
I'll second that suggestion about discarding outliers. I'll also add in a few other things - for example weighting the reviews of those who actually purchased the thing (Amazon has a "verified purchase" icon next to reviews, but they don't use the lack of a purchase to weigh down the reviews/ratings by people who've never purchased the item). A store like amazon could also identify shill accounts. For example, my book on Amazon got a single 1-star review (out of a total of 5 good reviews) that dragged it all the way down in rank. That 1-star review went into great depth about the spelling and grammar errors in the book, which my professional editors never found (and neither did any of the other reviewers, for that matter). The account that did the hatchet job only ever reviewed one item (my book), and never purchased the item that was reviewed. For the small volume of sales that I do on that book, a single bad review from a psychotic ex (like the account used to downrate my book) makes a big difference.
Another good one would be to use the median instead of the average when aggregating the ratings. IMDB lists the average for "The Hunger Games" as 7.4 (or similar), while the median is a pathetic 4 or 3. I feel like I was suckered into see that slideshow of a train-wreck by IMDB assigning it a high aggregate rating. Had I actually paged through all 15 pages of reviews, I would have seen that almost everyone hated it.
Having modpoints for the purchasers would help a great deal as well. For example, once a week you get presented with a review of something you've been recorded as purchasing and asked if you agree with the review (and how much you agree with it). Amazon certainly has the data to do this, but they don't.
Let's put the article's point (legitimacy of clicks) aside for a bit, and go back to your specific point: Facebook lets you set an maximum budget (in fact, by default, it asks you for one). It's their problem if they didn't set a limit. I set my campagins with $1 MAX per DAY and run it for 10 days. That's $10 max.
Once it hits the $1/day limit, ads get paused until the next day, automatically.
You can't set aside the question over the legitimacy of clicks. In your hypothetical above (setting a limit), sure, you don't overrun your budget for advertising, but then you are paying for advertising that you are not actually getting. Saying that you want to set aside the question of legitimacy of clicks is in fact you saying that you don't actually want advertising, you only want limits on expenditure.
An OO language breaks the organization of THINGS in a very natural way for western thinkers.
Yes.
Actually, no, it doesn't. OOP doesn't resemble the way humans think, plan or action in any way whatsoever - psychologists' studies have revealed a lot about how humans tend to think, and none of their studies bear out the assertion "But OO is more intuitive". You, yourself, spend the next few paragraphs explaining why human built structures (like that of an organisation) aren't OO in design.
They hate men for ogling them, but intend to trade on their looks to persuade Mr. Right to sweep them away to the life of luxury and ease they deserve, or even better, pay them lots of money so they can have the good life without him. Do they have anything other than looks, like, oh, brains? Sense? You might think some might have signed on to meet a few men, but no. Geeks can actually be good catches, but they don't think so.
I hate to break it to you, but I've had lots of luck with them. Women respond to to the messenger more than they do to the message.
BB: Hello Sir[wide fake smile], May I interest you in...
Me, cutting her off with a genuine smile: No thanks, I'm not interested, I'm just checking you out
BB:[genuine smile]
I took it from there and we had coffee later, dinner the next day and sex two days later. I usually manage to at least get a phone number off of them, so the stuff you're saying... well, if the women don't like you, perhaps it's not them after all?
P.S. I used to ALSO write extremely complex macros in VI as well, which is why I know how vastly different it is to be able to record vs. script macros.
Lol. But he doesn't look or sound muslim. Are u not aware of the FBI boolean function:
isTerrorist(name) { if(muslim_name && (science_project || fertiliser)) return true; return false;}
There are genocides in Africa, civil unrest and brutal crushing of riots across the largely dictator-led Middle East and North Africa, Israel-Palestine conflict, drug fueled organized crime in Central and South America threatening to tear countries apart, China and India crushing and slowly eradicating Tibet and Nepal, tribal warfare, civil war in tribal areas of Pakistan, in South Philippines, genocide in West Papua.
Not that it's entirely relevant, but indirect profit still counts as profit with regards to IP.
True, but what is relevant is that the judge pointed out that Oracle hadn't submitted any evidence of profits, hence as far as the court is concerned, there are no profits. The court is not obliged to plead any parties case for them, the parties are obliged to submit evidence and it a party refuses to submit any evidence then it's not up to the court to find that evidence.
A book's value is mostly determined by its content and when you're marking that down in a foreign country through a foreign distributor, it's massively different than marking down a BMW in Mexico or a wristwatch in Switzerland.
I disagree. If he was scanning in and redistributing that content, sure, totally different. Yay cheap and trivial digital distribution. But he isn't. The book is a tangible good. With utility. You passed your class, didn't you? Not that much different from a BMW or a watch.
A book is a tangible item. However, it's value is not in the number of paper fibres or millilitres of ink, it is in the content of the words. That's the whole point of intellectual property.
We use real, raw currency to measure value. All value comes down to a currency, eventually, even intellectual property. This book is a tangible thing that is not licensed but sold. Once you have sold a tangible thing, it is not yours anymore and you cannot place restrictions on what the new owner wants to do with it. The IP in the book is a different (non-tangible) thing, and that is what you license, hence you cannot simply reproduce it.
If there is a difference in perceived value in different markets, then you get arbitrage. This is what happened here, with the tangible thing (the book), but presumably not with the non-tangible thing (the IP).
This FPS on console was the worst FPS I've ever played in terms of support. Crysis 2 had so many bugs that simply have never been fixed. I will never buy another Crysis game on console again. I'm sure you PC players love it, but console players really got the shaft.
Maybe zero content, but at least I don't dress up my zero content as useful knowledge. Pursue the fucking degree already - there is a lot to learn about humans and mating strategies; what you state is how you would like the world to function. What you learn during the degree is how it actually functions.
You need to learn the difference between "how things should be" and "how things actually are". Education will help.
Your ideas are not only common Dr Phil soundbites, they are also wrong. Perhaps you should pursue a qualification in psychology before mindlessly repeating soundbites?
You felt that way because you, as a female, were brought up to believe that you deserved respect simply for existing, while men are taught from an early age that they must prove themselves. Society as it is right now is still the same way. We are taught to respect the ladies, but the men we make jabs at. You wanted respect in your class? Sorry - it isn't going to happen because respect is in short supply in the male world, and no matter what the male grouping is, even without any females in it, we are constantly reminding each other that respect has to be earned because there isn't enough to go around.
That's how humans are built, that's how we evolved - if you don't like it you are free to start your own grouping, be it small business, large business, academic institution or even your own government, where the rules are different.
You basically just said that males must stop pursuing females.
No no, I didn't say that. There is "pursuing females "and "chasing females". These are two different things
Unfortunately both those words are subjective - they are just shades of grey, and ask five different people what they mean in this context and you'll get five different answers.
and what I advocate is that we should change the way we pursue females. Of course we will never stop pursuing females.
Also, and I'm not sure you disagree with me on 100% of this argument, I don't think the way things work right now are 100% biological.
I think it mostly is. "Evolution" is more than simply cell mitosis or beneficial mutation; it's the effect of environmental pressures weeding out the failed experiments. As such, society as it exists today (which was independently evolved) is largely the product of evolutionary pressures.
Society's construct is very much at play here and we can most certainly influence this.
We can try, but I doubt that it will get you very far when you are addressing the prime reproduction strategies for humans. They are the successful ones, and no amount of talking will get people to change their strategy as it is built-in to them. The strategy can only change as a result of environmental pressures, and a society that successfully regulates how people may mate is not going to be a successful one.
And I think we should. What is the part of society's construct on our behavior remains to be determined and if I read you correctly you think it is negligible while I think it is important.
You do read me correctly.
To sum it up, I don't have time to read all the stuff you've thrown at me right now so I'll leave it there for the moment until I've had some time to do so. Any pointers for a first read?
Thanks for the insightful conversation.
The best place to start reading about men and women would be at this link over here. He covers a lot of ground with very few words and he does so in a way that the layman can understand. For example, you say that men should be less aggressive when pursuing a mate, but as he says that over the history of men only perhaps 40% of all men who existed ever reproduced, while over 80% of women who existed reproduced. As we currently have much more than 40% (closer to 75%) of men who are alive today who will reproduce, it seems that the male strategy paid off in the long run, hence it is now so popular. The other strategies (like the ones you no doubt have in mind) were presumably tried and failed, in that the males who attempted them never reproduced.
Other than that paper, do a scholar search for "mate attraction and mate retention strategies" (Diane something or the other is one of the more published authors in those results - can't quite remember now what her full name is), and another for "game theory in courtship rituals"/"game theory in mating strategies". A scholar search for "competitive strategies and tactics for mating".
Reading all that literature took me over three years, so you go ahead and have fun now:)
Well, it is your claim, you should have to put some effort into it.
Ok, ok. But our societies haven't been living according to the laws of nature for quite a while now.
Yes, they have.
Nature hasn't been driving anything in the last millenia or two.
Yes, it has.
Societies have been pushing social behavior but most certainly not nature. By definition, all modern societies aren't driven by nature anymore.
That is incorrect. Societies evolved to the way they are now for a reason. Even widely disparate societies have more in common than they do differences (Like US societies vs Taliban - they have more in common than they do differences). This is because those characteristics are what worked.
Don't insult, it reduces the strength of your argument, especially when you've been very vocal about something that's extremely well-studied, well-known and well-documented.
You do it too! (See below) so why can you do it while I would not be allowed to do it?
Well, you started it - that's why you have to say "see below" - you can't point to a previous insult of mine:)
How about I agree to lay off insults if you do too?
(This is why it isn't generally a good idea to try a convincing argument by hurling abuse:))
I said that evolutionary pressure resulted in the current strategies (note the plural) due to the unsuccessful strategies resulting in no offspring.
Now I agree with this, but this is not nature anymore, it's evolution.
What's the difference? Evolution via environmental pressure made us the way we are. That's a pretty good description of nature.
There is a whole lot of difference in there. Because evolution isn't always right. Whole species have disappeared over the course of time and the fact that evolution drove us where we are doesn't imply at all that where we are is the best place to be.
Agreed, but it also doesn't mean that where we are is a bad place.
Actually, no. You make a good point (I suspect it's only by accident - even a stopped clock is correct twice a day).
There you go insulting! And I thought it reduces the strength of your argument...
That's the problem with being the first to throw an insult - it generally gets returned in spades:)
However, something else that is well-documented (and no, I'm not doing your scholar search this time - do your own homework!) is that the measured happiness for women tends to be lower than it used to be 35 years ago, when controlled.
I'm sure I could find a study that would say that grownups are not happier than kids. Should we leave everyone in high school?
That's the extreme, the other extreme is that we should make everyone better for their own good, even if it makes them unhappier. I'm not advocating either extreme.
As a matter of fact, again, most civilized countries consitutions clearly state that everyone is born "equal".
Also, do you think the current status quo is a "good one" meaning it suits whatever you feel makes a good society?
No, I don't think it's a good one, in fact I think it's an incredibly bad one (I've sisters too, you know!) that has served largely in the interest of men to the disadvantage of women. The current status quo has lead to women being severely under-valued in society. However, regardless of what I feel, what is known fact is the mating and courting rituals of almost every species discovered by man, and that includes humans as well. In fact, we have more data and research on
Ok, so if a woman tells you to cut it out, then the community sort of ensures that you do - that is not what is happening here. Collectively the community is telling you to cut it out, not the individual woman. I'm sure that the single and looking woman will be pissed if she were to find out that she missed the chance of meeting the guy with villa in spain and his own yacht purely because the "community" (consisting of her competitors for a mate, by the way) forced him to meet women via a different avenue (and therefore he missed meeting her).
Society as a whole understands that men need to pursue women. The men who don't ask a woman out don't get to reproduce. The men who ignore a woman's request to be left alone gets community disapproval. But that is not what is happening here at all. All that is happening is that men are being told that one of the avenues they may have to initiate contact with women is off-limits, which is thoroughly stupid, IME. Protect women, by all means, but don't deny them a chance to be asked out.
A) You're sure, it's pretty well-documented
B) You won't share a single link to the documentation based on a doubtful logic that put the onus on me.
Well, it is your claim, you should have to put some effort into it.
If it's so well-documented, it should have been easy to find a link.
Just use google scholar - the first 10 results for "human mating and mate retention strategies" all provide evidence for what I said.
Ok, I'm fine with this, but you won't convince anyone with this kind of retarded arguments.
Don't insult, it reduces the strength of your argument, especially when you've been very vocal about something that's extremely well-studied, well-known and well-documented.
You just prove you don't give a rat's ass about backing your claims.
Then again, comparing human society to animals has its limitations, and nothing proves that the current strategy is the best one.
I didn't say that, I said that evolutionary pressure resulted in the current strategies (note the plural) due to the unsuccessful strategies resulting in no offspring.
As a matter of fact, the most "civilized" countries (in other words, the most successful ones) are the ones that have given women the most rights.
There, your worthless counter argument, just on par with yours.
Actually, no. You make a good point (I suspect it's only by accident - even a stopped clock is correct twice a day). However, something else that is well-documented (and no, I'm not doing your scholar search this time - do your own homework!) is that the measured happiness for women tends to be lower than it used to be 35 years ago, when controlled.
Also, one of the things that separate humans from animals is our compassion. Compassion calls for an equal footing of everyone.
No, it doesn't - see the existence of SPCA in every civilised country, yet they don't consider animals equal to humans.
As a matter of fact, again, most civilized countries consitutions clearly state that everyone is born "equal".
Also, do you think the current status quo is a "good one" meaning it suits whatever you feel makes a good society?
No, I don't think it's a good one, in fact I think it's an incredibly bad one (I've sisters too, you know!) that has served largely in the interest of men to the disadvantage of women. The current status quo has lead to women being severely under-valued in society. However, regardless of what I feel, what is known fact is the mating and courting rituals of almost every species discovered by man, and that includes humans as well. In fact, we have more data and research on human mating rituals than we do on other animals, and almost all of the data we have shows evidence that *nature* has resulted in the current mating strategies, and that choosing your original "option B)" from your original post will be stupid idea.
People (men and women) don't do what they do because it's currently politically correct to do, they do what they do because there's an evolutionary-honed instinct in them that drives them in certain practices (such as mating practices).
No, I don't - women do this all the time anyway; it's the standard courtship ritual of all creatures to try to get the object of affection to bond.
We're not living in some 80's romantic comedy where guys who do this weirdo crap are charming and funny; I promise you, if the girl found out you'd 'taken aim' in the way you had using a stupid app, she wouldn't go glossy-eyed-smiling and think, 'Wow, whatta prince!' unless she was intensely intoxicated at the bar you tracked her down at or has the IQ of a hatrack.
Actually, the actions a girl finds desirable depends on the person performing the action, not on the action itself. Example - girl receives flowers at the office. If it's from a guy who's unemployed, no car, living in his mom's basement, its "creepy", if it's from a guy with his own business, ferrari and yacht, then it's "sweet".
It's sad how many men have been indoctrinated into thinking that the female is always right in any argument.
To me, it looks as if this is a construct of the judeo-christian society where you're forbidden to see a breast until 16, you're told those things are "a sin" and other craptastic notions like this. Way to screw things up. These notions might have served a purpose back in the day (the same as not eating pork, circumcision, etc served a purpose for society a long time ago) but in the 21st century, we should really know better, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry too - you can't change human nature over the course of a few hundred generations. Wanting it doesn't make it so.
There are also all the bullshit we're feeding our kids, on the form of Hollywood movies advocating for women to wait for the prince charming and men to do all sort of stupid things. I'm sure the impact of this pile of shit we feed our children from very young has more to do with the way we see sex than any kind of natural tendency.
Unfortunately, the effect of that is negligible. They don't make movies that show how things are, or how they should be, they make movies that appeal to humans. Like it or not, the courtship rituals of all animals (humans are just another class of animal) are driven by success. Asking men to deviate from what is clearly a winning strategy is itself a stupid strategy - why will men do that when it works for them?
This screwed up education has an effect on men AND women leading to an often confrontational relation when it comes to sex. There is absolutely no shred of evidence that there is anything "natural" or "biological" about this. I'm willing to be proven wrong if you have references of course.
Well, the mating strategies of all creatures is what has been shown to be successful (only the successful ones reproduce and raise their young into adults), so the onus is on you to show that a better strategy is available. The current strategies in use is the result of experimentations over hundreds (if not thousands) of generations, across multiple languages, races and cultures. The strategies (such as the one you propose) aren't in use, because the males who relied on them never managed to reproduce.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you did it wrong - you never wire a large load directly to a switch, you use a relay.
The way WaywardGeek tells the story, the downside is that the code is un-maintainable. war4peace is merely trying to point that out. If all you focus on is the immediate release, then it seems like a good deal, but that kind of coding makes what is basically throw-away code.
WaywardGeek himself said the code was unreadable. What's amusing to me is how highly he praised the guy for writing it. I'll grant that it's pretty awesome if a guy can really pound out working code that quickly. I can't. And throw-away code has its place. But I wouldn't want that guy anywhere near any production code.
I actually agree with everything you say (I was also amused that he was impressed by unreadable code :), but the point I was responding to was the line
Yeah, he saves time NOW, but loses maybe 3x more LATER. Well played! Not.
I disagree with that mostly because from what I understood of GP's anecdote was that the entire company turned a profit, IPO'ed with success, and then got even more money for the entire company. Not a 3x loss, not a loss at all. In fact, I see nothing wrong with code that did that, regardless of the fact that all variables were less than two characters long. I don't care if the code was commented in klingon and used urdu for variable names, as far as I am concerned if it turned into that much of a success, then it was a success.
Sorry, but what you describe is exactly a cowboy coder. A genius (granted) who lacks a certain type of vision, and that is the understanding of the fact that the code he writes is NOT readable by anyone else, unless they make a huge effort that's going to cost them lots of time (and therefore money). Yeah, he saves time NOW, but loses maybe 3x more LATER. Well played! Not.
Well, the way the parent tells the story, it doesn't look like there were any losses at all to that kind of productivity. If a single man was able to produce enough to IPO and then get bought out, there's no measure that counts that as a loss. At all.
Yeah, this seems to be about book reviews. If enough people submitted reviews, there's bound to be some negative ones. Just read those, and ignore the five star ones. For better accuracy, do like any other statistician, and throw out the highest and lowest scores.
I'll second that suggestion about discarding outliers. I'll also add in a few other things - for example weighting the reviews of those who actually purchased the thing (Amazon has a "verified purchase" icon next to reviews, but they don't use the lack of a purchase to weigh down the reviews/ratings by people who've never purchased the item). A store like amazon could also identify shill accounts. For example, my book on Amazon got a single 1-star review (out of a total of 5 good reviews) that dragged it all the way down in rank. That 1-star review went into great depth about the spelling and grammar errors in the book, which my professional editors never found (and neither did any of the other reviewers, for that matter). The account that did the hatchet job only ever reviewed one item (my book), and never purchased the item that was reviewed. For the small volume of sales that I do on that book, a single bad review from a psychotic ex (like the account used to downrate my book) makes a big difference.
Another good one would be to use the median instead of the average when aggregating the ratings. IMDB lists the average for "The Hunger Games" as 7.4 (or similar), while the median is a pathetic 4 or 3. I feel like I was suckered into see that slideshow of a train-wreck by IMDB assigning it a high aggregate rating. Had I actually paged through all 15 pages of reviews, I would have seen that almost everyone hated it.
Having modpoints for the purchasers would help a great deal as well. For example, once a week you get presented with a review of something you've been recorded as purchasing and asked if you agree with the review (and how much you agree with it). Amazon certainly has the data to do this, but they don't.
Let's put the article's point (legitimacy of clicks) aside for a bit, and go back to your specific point: Facebook lets you set an maximum budget (in fact, by default, it asks you for one). It's their problem if they didn't set a limit. I set my campagins with $1 MAX per DAY and run it for 10 days. That's $10 max.
Once it hits the $1/day limit, ads get paused until the next day, automatically.
You can't set aside the question over the legitimacy of clicks. In your hypothetical above (setting a limit), sure, you don't overrun your budget for advertising, but then you are paying for advertising that you are not actually getting. Saying that you want to set aside the question of legitimacy of clicks is in fact you saying that you don't actually want advertising, you only want limits on expenditure.
An OO language breaks the organization of THINGS in a very natural way for western thinkers.
Yes.
Actually, no, it doesn't. OOP doesn't resemble the way humans think, plan or action in any way whatsoever - psychologists' studies have revealed a lot about how humans tend to think, and none of their studies bear out the assertion "But OO is more intuitive". You, yourself, spend the next few paragraphs explaining why human built structures (like that of an organisation) aren't OO in design.
We don't think in terms of OO, and we never did.
They hate men for ogling them, but intend to trade on their looks to persuade Mr. Right to sweep them away to the life of luxury and ease they deserve, or even better, pay them lots of money so they can have the good life without him. Do they have anything other than looks, like, oh, brains? Sense? You might think some might have signed on to meet a few men, but no. Geeks can actually be good catches, but they don't think so.
I hate to break it to you, but I've had lots of luck with them. Women respond to to the messenger more than they do to the message. ...
BB: Hello Sir[wide fake smile], May I interest you in
Me, cutting her off with a genuine smile: No thanks, I'm not interested, I'm just checking you out
BB:[genuine smile]
I took it from there and we had coffee later, dinner the next day and sex two days later. I usually manage to at least get a phone number off of them, so the stuff you're saying ... well, if the women don't like you, perhaps it's not them after all?
P.S. I used to ALSO write extremely complex macros in VI as well, which is why I know how vastly different it is to be able to record vs. script macros.
Vim can record macros too, you know.
Lol. But he doesn't look or sound muslim. Are u not aware of the FBI boolean function: isTerrorist(name) { if(muslim_name && (science_project || fertiliser)) return true; return false;}
warning: unused variable 'name'
The rest of the world lives in peace?
You're delusional, my good chap.
There are genocides in Africa, civil unrest and brutal crushing of riots across the largely dictator-led Middle East and North Africa, Israel-Palestine conflict, drug fueled organized crime in Central and South America threatening to tear countries apart, China and India crushing and slowly eradicating Tibet and Nepal, tribal warfare, civil war in tribal areas of Pakistan, in South Philippines, genocide in West Papua.
Thank god I live in South Africa, then ...
Not that it's entirely relevant, but indirect profit still counts as profit with regards to IP.
True, but what is relevant is that the judge pointed out that Oracle hadn't submitted any evidence of profits, hence as far as the court is concerned, there are no profits. The court is not obliged to plead any parties case for them, the parties are obliged to submit evidence and it a party refuses to submit any evidence then it's not up to the court to find that evidence.
A book's value is mostly determined by its content and when you're marking that down in a foreign country through a foreign distributor, it's massively different than marking down a BMW in Mexico or a wristwatch in Switzerland.
I disagree. If he was scanning in and redistributing that content, sure, totally different. Yay cheap and trivial digital distribution. But he isn't. The book is a tangible good. With utility. You passed your class, didn't you? Not that much different from a BMW or a watch.
A book is a tangible item. However, it's value is not in the number of paper fibres or millilitres of ink, it is in the content of the words. That's the whole point of intellectual property.
We use real, raw currency to measure value. All value comes down to a currency, eventually, even intellectual property. This book is a tangible thing that is not licensed but sold. Once you have sold a tangible thing, it is not yours anymore and you cannot place restrictions on what the new owner wants to do with it. The IP in the book is a different (non-tangible) thing, and that is what you license, hence you cannot simply reproduce it.
If there is a difference in perceived value in different markets, then you get arbitrage. This is what happened here, with the tangible thing (the book), but presumably not with the non-tangible thing (the IP).
This FPS on console was the worst FPS I've ever played in terms of support. Crysis 2 had so many bugs that simply have never been fixed. I will never buy another Crysis game on console again. I'm sure you PC players love it, but console players really got the shaft.
I thought you'd be used to it by now ;)
You need to learn the difference between "how things should be" and "how things actually are". Education will help.
Your ideas are not only common Dr Phil soundbites, they are also wrong. Perhaps you should pursue a qualification in psychology before mindlessly repeating soundbites?
That's how humans are built, that's how we evolved - if you don't like it you are free to start your own grouping, be it small business, large business, academic institution or even your own government, where the rules are different.
I live in South Africa, it's not that bad people.
OJ was arrested, you idiot. Zimmerman wasn't. That's what the uproar is about.
You basically just said that males must stop pursuing females.
No no, I didn't say that. There is "pursuing females "and "chasing females". These are two different things
Unfortunately both those words are subjective - they are just shades of grey, and ask five different people what they mean in this context and you'll get five different answers.
and what I advocate is that we should change the way we pursue females. Of course we will never stop pursuing females.
Also, and I'm not sure you disagree with me on 100% of this argument, I don't think the way things work right now are 100% biological.
I think it mostly is. "Evolution" is more than simply cell mitosis or beneficial mutation; it's the effect of environmental pressures weeding out the failed experiments. As such, society as it exists today (which was independently evolved) is largely the product of evolutionary pressures.
Society's construct is very much at play here and we can most certainly influence this.
We can try, but I doubt that it will get you very far when you are addressing the prime reproduction strategies for humans. They are the successful ones, and no amount of talking will get people to change their strategy as it is built-in to them. The strategy can only change as a result of environmental pressures, and a society that successfully regulates how people may mate is not going to be a successful one.
And I think we should. What is the part of society's construct on our behavior remains to be determined and if I read you correctly you think it is negligible while I think it is important.
You do read me correctly.
To sum it up, I don't have time to read all the stuff you've thrown at me right now so I'll leave it there for the moment until I've had some time to do so. Any pointers for a first read?
Thanks for the insightful conversation.
The best place to start reading about men and women would be at this link over here. He covers a lot of ground with very few words and he does so in a way that the layman can understand. For example, you say that men should be less aggressive when pursuing a mate, but as he says that over the history of men only perhaps 40% of all men who existed ever reproduced, while over 80% of women who existed reproduced. As we currently have much more than 40% (closer to 75%) of men who are alive today who will reproduce, it seems that the male strategy paid off in the long run, hence it is now so popular. The other strategies (like the ones you no doubt have in mind) were presumably tried and failed, in that the males who attempted them never reproduced.
Other than that paper, do a scholar search for "mate attraction and mate retention strategies" (Diane something or the other is one of the more published authors in those results - can't quite remember now what her full name is), and another for "game theory in courtship rituals"/"game theory in mating strategies". A scholar search for "competitive strategies and tactics for mating".
Reading all that literature took me over three years, so you go ahead and have fun now :)
Well, it is your claim, you should have to put some effort into it.
Ok, ok. But our societies haven't been living according to the laws of nature for quite a while now.
Yes, they have.
Nature hasn't been driving anything in the last millenia or two.
Yes, it has.
Societies have been pushing social behavior but most certainly not nature. By definition, all modern societies aren't driven by nature anymore.
That is incorrect. Societies evolved to the way they are now for a reason. Even widely disparate societies have more in common than they do differences (Like US societies vs Taliban - they have more in common than they do differences). This is because those characteristics are what worked.
Don't insult, it reduces the strength of your argument, especially when you've been very vocal about something that's extremely well-studied, well-known and well-documented.
You do it too! (See below) so why can you do it while I would not be allowed to do it?
Well, you started it - that's why you have to say "see below" - you can't point to a previous insult of mine :)
How about I agree to lay off insults if you do too?
(This is why it isn't generally a good idea to try a convincing argument by hurling abuse :))
I said that evolutionary pressure resulted in the current strategies (note the plural) due to the unsuccessful strategies resulting in no offspring.
Now I agree with this, but this is not nature anymore, it's evolution.
What's the difference? Evolution via environmental pressure made us the way we are. That's a pretty good description of nature.
There is a whole lot of difference in there. Because evolution isn't always right. Whole species have disappeared over the course of time and the fact that evolution drove us where we are doesn't imply at all that where we are is the best place to be.
Agreed, but it also doesn't mean that where we are is a bad place.
Actually, no. You make a good point (I suspect it's only by accident - even a stopped clock is correct twice a day).
There you go insulting! And I thought it reduces the strength of your argument...
That's the problem with being the first to throw an insult - it generally gets returned in spades :)
However, something else that is well-documented (and no, I'm not doing your scholar search this time - do your own homework!) is that the measured happiness for women tends to be lower than it used to be 35 years ago, when controlled.
I'm sure I could find a study that would say that grownups are not happier than kids. Should we leave everyone in high school?
That's the extreme, the other extreme is that we should make everyone better for their own good, even if it makes them unhappier. I'm not advocating either extreme.
As a matter of fact, again, most civilized countries consitutions clearly state that everyone is born "equal".
Also, do you think the current status quo is a "good one" meaning it suits whatever you feel makes a good society?
No, I don't think it's a good one, in fact I think it's an incredibly bad one (I've sisters too, you know!) that has served largely in the interest of men to the disadvantage of women. The current status quo has lead to women being severely under-valued in society. However, regardless of what I feel, what is known fact is the mating and courting rituals of almost every species discovered by man, and that includes humans as well. In fact, we have more data and research on
Ok, so if a woman tells you to cut it out, then the community sort of ensures that you do - that is not what is happening here. Collectively the community is telling you to cut it out, not the individual woman. I'm sure that the single and looking woman will be pissed if she were to find out that she missed the chance of meeting the guy with villa in spain and his own yacht purely because the "community" (consisting of her competitors for a mate, by the way) forced him to meet women via a different avenue (and therefore he missed meeting her).
Society as a whole understands that men need to pursue women. The men who don't ask a woman out don't get to reproduce. The men who ignore a woman's request to be left alone gets community disapproval. But that is not what is happening here at all. All that is happening is that men are being told that one of the avenues they may have to initiate contact with women is off-limits, which is thoroughly stupid, IME. Protect women, by all means, but don't deny them a chance to be asked out.
So to sum it up:
A) You're sure, it's pretty well-documented B) You won't share a single link to the documentation based on a doubtful logic that put the onus on me.
Well, it is your claim, you should have to put some effort into it.
If it's so well-documented, it should have been easy to find a link.
Just use google scholar - the first 10 results for "human mating and mate retention strategies" all provide evidence for what I said.
Ok, I'm fine with this, but you won't convince anyone with this kind of retarded arguments.
Don't insult, it reduces the strength of your argument, especially when you've been very vocal about something that's extremely well-studied, well-known and well-documented.
You just prove you don't give a rat's ass about backing your claims.
Then again, comparing human society to animals has its limitations, and nothing proves that the current strategy is the best one.
I didn't say that, I said that evolutionary pressure resulted in the current strategies (note the plural) due to the unsuccessful strategies resulting in no offspring.
As a matter of fact, the most "civilized" countries (in other words, the most successful ones) are the ones that have given women the most rights. There, your worthless counter argument, just on par with yours.
Actually, no. You make a good point (I suspect it's only by accident - even a stopped clock is correct twice a day). However, something else that is well-documented (and no, I'm not doing your scholar search this time - do your own homework!) is that the measured happiness for women tends to be lower than it used to be 35 years ago, when controlled.
Also, one of the things that separate humans from animals is our compassion. Compassion calls for an equal footing of everyone.
No, it doesn't - see the existence of SPCA in every civilised country, yet they don't consider animals equal to humans.
As a matter of fact, again, most civilized countries consitutions clearly state that everyone is born "equal".
Also, do you think the current status quo is a "good one" meaning it suits whatever you feel makes a good society?
No, I don't think it's a good one, in fact I think it's an incredibly bad one (I've sisters too, you know!) that has served largely in the interest of men to the disadvantage of women. The current status quo has lead to women being severely under-valued in society. However, regardless of what I feel, what is known fact is the mating and courting rituals of almost every species discovered by man, and that includes humans as well. In fact, we have more data and research on human mating rituals than we do on other animals, and almost all of the data we have shows evidence that *nature* has resulted in the current mating strategies, and that choosing your original "option B)" from your original post will be stupid idea.
People (men and women) don't do what they do because it's currently politically correct to do, they do what they do because there's an evolutionary-honed instinct in them that drives them in certain practices (such as mating practices).
But don't you find that underhanded?
No, I don't - women do this all the time anyway; it's the standard courtship ritual of all creatures to try to get the object of affection to bond.
We're not living in some 80's romantic comedy where guys who do this weirdo crap are charming and funny; I promise you, if the girl found out you'd 'taken aim' in the way you had using a stupid app, she wouldn't go glossy-eyed-smiling and think, 'Wow, whatta prince!' unless she was intensely intoxicated at the bar you tracked her down at or has the IQ of a hatrack.
Actually, the actions a girl finds desirable depends on the person performing the action, not on the action itself. Example - girl receives flowers at the office. If it's from a guy who's unemployed, no car, living in his mom's basement, its "creepy", if it's from a guy with his own business, ferrari and yacht, then it's "sweet".
It's sad how many men have been indoctrinated into thinking that the female is always right in any argument.
I agree with your fix on A). But B? Seriously?
Are you sure that's how nature works?
Yes, I'm sure. It's pretty well-documented.
To me, it looks as if this is a construct of the judeo-christian society where you're forbidden to see a breast until 16, you're told those things are "a sin" and other craptastic notions like this. Way to screw things up. These notions might have served a purpose back in the day (the same as not eating pork, circumcision, etc served a purpose for society a long time ago) but in the 21st century, we should really know better, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry too - you can't change human nature over the course of a few hundred generations. Wanting it doesn't make it so.
There are also all the bullshit we're feeding our kids, on the form of Hollywood movies advocating for women to wait for the prince charming and men to do all sort of stupid things. I'm sure the impact of this pile of shit we feed our children from very young has more to do with the way we see sex than any kind of natural tendency.
Unfortunately, the effect of that is negligible. They don't make movies that show how things are, or how they should be, they make movies that appeal to humans. Like it or not, the courtship rituals of all animals (humans are just another class of animal) are driven by success. Asking men to deviate from what is clearly a winning strategy is itself a stupid strategy - why will men do that when it works for them?
This screwed up education has an effect on men AND women leading to an often confrontational relation when it comes to sex. There is absolutely no shred of evidence that there is anything "natural" or "biological" about this. I'm willing to be proven wrong if you have references of course.
Well, the mating strategies of all creatures is what has been shown to be successful (only the successful ones reproduce and raise their young into adults), so the onus is on you to show that a better strategy is available. The current strategies in use is the result of experimentations over hundreds (if not thousands) of generations, across multiple languages, races and cultures. The strategies (such as the one you propose) aren't in use, because the males who relied on them never managed to reproduce.
Unless I'm mistaken, that is not what is happening here.