"Fat" was not desirable; 'heavy' maybe. A 5 foot tall 250 pound person was no more attractive then than they would be now. And they were orders of magnitude more rare.
And now fatness is associated with poverty and laziness. Gaining weight is not a social indicator anymore because it is just what happens if you are lazy in today's world.
I'm not exactly sure what your point actually is. Fat people are definitely more normal now- pretty hard to argue that. There is definitely a drive to reduce the stigma associated with it- you and this article have proven that well enough.
Obese people seem extremely predisposed to externalizing their problems.
I think if somebody didn't put on any weight between puberty and turning 40 they probably have some kind of growth defect. And do you honestly think a 13 year old and a 40 year don't have completely different life styles? Even a 20 year old and a 40 year old have totally different life styles.
Obese people literally do it to themselves. They literally ask for it (by ordering and buying unhealthy food). At some point people are accountable for their own actions. If you want to call responsibility blame then by all means go ahead but you're not helping anybody. You're never going to stop being obese if you don't accept responsibility for your own body.
Which all makes it pointless in a discussion dealing with science and facts. Take your postmodern pseudo-intellectual nonsense elsewhere. All it serves to do is increase the noise.
I will reiterate again: a lack of "proof of negative" does not imply that an idea is not utterly foolish and without merit. It does not mean that anyone has to take your absurd notions seriously. It does not shield you from being "wrong". Far too many people use it as an excuse to believe incredibly foolish things.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some super intelligent dinosaur that just didn't get a chance to grow into a nuclear age species.
You pretty much were arguing that there were super intelligent dinosaurs. You said you would not be surprised which means that you think it is likely. If it was not likely then it would be surprising. In reality it is so amazingly unlikely that it is literally incredible.
You just defined the argument from ignorance fallacy. That does not help your point. Especially since this isn't just a lack of evidence- it is a multitude of evidence to the contrary. This has nothing to do with black swans. The fact that there were distinct species on a new continent can in no way be used as evidence of anything other than "there are different species in different places".
A super intelligent dinosaur is a totally different case than a swan of a different (but very common in related species) colour. You might as well believe that there are swans with feathers made from gold.
I never forgot any of those things. No one worth listening to will say they are as intelligent as humans. There is no reason to believe that other than their brain size. They are very intelligent but they do not give any evidence of human level intelligence.
Argument from ignorance is not a valid form of argument! It is worthless so stop doing it.
Except again all evidence points to dinosaurs being less intelligent than even 'stupid' mammals. There is no reason to think there was a 'super intelligent dinosaur' and every reason to think there wasn't. You can continue with hand waving nonsense about people not wanting to believe but that's useless, void of any logical point and asinine. I might as well say "I wouldn't be surprised that those super intelligent dinosaurs were the ones that Jesus rode- you just don't want to believe". You are arguing from ignorance.
We spread across the entire planet long before we were technologically advanced. I would call that fairly successful. Intelligence allowed us to adapt the environment to our needs instead of the other way around.
I wouldn't call it dogmatic at all. It is inline with the theory of evolution. A new abiogenesis event would not produce a life-form as adapted to competing for resources as the existing biosphere. It would almost certainly get snuffed out because of that. It is definitely not "just as possible" that they would be orthogonal or have different requirements to existing biology. Those statements don't even have much of a meaning in this context. Define "orthogonal".
I really do think it is the same as racism. Tribalism gone awry. You've probably even heard some kind of justification about it being men violent toward men so <excuses>. As if that excuse hasn't been tried before.
"Nerd culture" is misogynistic and entitled because it's one of the few subcultures that will not just accept whatever the cultural norm asserts. "Feminism" is the new cultural normalizing feedback system. No one seems to care about the suffering of individuals like yourself. They only care about validation of their own feelings. Which is pretty strange with all the focus on "injustice".
I read everything you wrote and it was complete garbage. It's a little sad that you seem to know that you are completely misled by your own biases but will refuse to actually do anything about it. Oh, so no evidence backs up your assertion? I guess don't worry about it- just make up a bandwagon fallacy and talk about "general knowledge" and "majority". You are handwaving to justify your bullshit prejudices. Ignoring all evidence to the contrary and placing all your faith in shaky non-verifiable claims. If you are starting to look and sound like creationists you might want to reevaluate your beliefs.
Now let me explain why you are exactly the same as a racist. Even if only 1% of black guys steal cars (which is probably low because, obviously). You claim that good upstanding white folk shouldn't worry that you are one because it's only 1% blah blah. No you're going to worry that you are going to die in a car-jacking. Black people are violent thugs, "Such a thing is general knowledge among the majority of most communities but for some reason you appear to have been sheltered from such awareness or are for some reason denying what is occurring around you." [Holy shit, I didn't even have to change any words in that one. Terrifying.]
Do you still think that appeals to in-group confirmation bias are a valid way to make logical conclusions? Because this is literally what racists say. Practically verbatim.
I should have used the more technical "flat-response" to be more clear with my meaning but here is a citation from Audio Technica. They clearly recommend choosing a pair of headphones based on what sounds best with the music you listen to. There is no "best" headphone; flat-response is not universally desired.
It is a lot like computer monitors. A graphic artist needs a monitor that faithfully represents colours. Most general users think a glossy laptop screen looks "better". A lot of people like the sound of loose bass and it is well known that Beats will provide the sound they like. I don't like loose bass so I don't like Beats- simple as that. I don't need to get all smug about it.
Kind of like how audiophiles like the sound of tube amps and vinyl even though it may be technically inferior to other options.
Why would I be butthurt that a brand I didn't like was technically inferior? Given that you can't even make a logically consistent sentence I am pretty sure your other points are moot (see- both can play at that game)
Fun fact: "music that goes thump" as you put it does not feature a lot of violins, violas or cellos to tell apart. A balanced set of headphones are technically superior to an unbalanced set if perfect sound reproduction is your metric. Few people use that as a metric (audiophiles definitely included). And I was never talking about "superiority" of the headphones. I was talking about you using tastes in music and buzzwords to validate your own sense of superiority.
I will not deny that a lot of people buy Beats based mainly on their style. They also buy them because they feel they sound better when listening to bass heaving music than a more flat set. You can call me butthurt all you want but I don't like headphones to be too bass heavy either- I have a pair of Beyerdyamics myself. My preference nor your preference makes their preference inferior. And it certainly shouldn't make you feel so smug about yourself.
We weren't talking domestic. You can't use "unreported" events to prove women are more victimized because men don't report as well.
I don't see how finding someone to give me an anecdotal report will help ground me in reality. Interesting that you just assume it will always confirm your biases despite most crime stats and modern research that I have heard about doesn't quite agree with you.
What you haven't come back to apologize yet? What a shocker. I was clearly not talking about solely intimate partner violence.
I would also like to bring your attention to the definition of rape in your cited document.
Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender(s)
So a woman could hold a gun to my head and say "fuck me or die" but that isn't rape unless she sticks a finger in my pooper. Sounds like a real unbiased source to me. Not at all trying to sweep male victims under the rug.
It wasn't tangential. Beats are optimized for listening to a different type of music. Their name is even derived from it. You used it as am opportunity to let everyone know that you listen to Opera and Symphony. I know it's common on Slashdot for people to try to validate their sense of superiority based on brands they buy / music they listen to / how they shave their face but that doesn't make it any more valid.
It's just false that their "frequency response is worse than you can find in most earbuds". I do not like Beats and I do not own a pair but they are no where near as bad as you say they are. You are just throwing buzzwords out to get your smug on.
I never made a generalization about music tastes. I made a statement about headphone tastes. It can be verified in what is bought, what is sold and reviews. Not even your audiophiles (who do not have a very good reputation here at Slashdot in the first place) typically buy "balanced" headphones. People want headphones that are tuned to the type of music they listen to. Which is what Beats are and also why they do not sound good for the music you stated.
<condescending>Please keep to the topic at hand and not make everything about the superiority of your tastes. Thank you.</condescending>
It is a supply/demand thing. If you need high quality cans for audio production you will likely be paying a lot simply because there are far fewer people buying those than cheaper "makes sound" headphones.
There are many types of music that go thump. Most people do not want to listen to opera or symphony (those should not be capitalized by the way; it only serves to make you look even more self-congratulatory and condescending). No one wants balanced headphones but studio engineers.
There are better "quality" headphones in the price range of Beats but style is important to a lot of people (although I think they're pretty ugly). Let's cut the "I am superior because I buy a different brand than you" nonsense.
If only they were as smart, enlightened and perfect as you they would have instead made empty remarks relying entirely on their own sense of superiority. Damn nerds and their inferior misogyny.
I don't buy for a second that men are more likely to be the victims of violence, intimidation and other physical threats
Try looking into it. Crime stats don't lie. Unless of course you think women are getting beaten and just don't talk about it... Ever.
That women are more worried about being violently attacked does not mean they are more likely to be violently attacked. In fact this cultural belief that women have to be constantly worried about violence even though they are far less likely to be violently attacked might be why some people come to the notion that feminine qualities include worrying and weakness.
You going on about how "all women have to worry about it" is the problem. Fuck you and your gender stereotypes. Men have far more to worry about getting mugged and murdered than women do. Do I think that all men have to fear? Hell no. Being afraid of incredibly unlikely events is nothing but learned helplessness.
More than 1% of men are violent to women? Fuck you even more for that. Right now there are 300 000 men beating women in the United States I'm sure.
50 years ago you would have been right in there with the hang all darkies group. Same bullshit paranoia and made up reasons. Same sense of superiority.
Why the hell would a man need a child to be "his" to do physical labour? What an absurd line of reasoning.
Many species display hostility toward offspring not their own (eg. lions). A "selfish gene" as you put it would most certainly have positive effects on selection. Protecting your own offspring over others would help them survive over others and lead to more gene replication.
"He" invented marriage for this did "he"? How rich. I could just as easily claim that "she" invented marriage to ensure "she" continued to get support, shelter, protection, etc. after she got her child. The truth is marriage was invented by people because people of both genders benefited from and wanted it. People may not be strictly monogamous but we certainly tend toward pair-bonding (if even for a limited time).
Many species attempt to trick others into raising their offspring (it is a successful strategy) one of the responses to this is instinct to prioritize your own offspring.
I assure you that dumping waste energy as heat as in classical braking systems will be far more effective and robust than any "regenerative" system. If you are having heat dissipation problems you will likewise have overload problems anywhere else you try to direct that energy- along with heat dissipation problems. Although most likely your regenerative system would just be destroyed by the forces involved.
Slashdot Mirror
"Fat" was not desirable; 'heavy' maybe. A 5 foot tall 250 pound person was no more attractive then than they would be now. And they were orders of magnitude more rare.
And now fatness is associated with poverty and laziness. Gaining weight is not a social indicator anymore because it is just what happens if you are lazy in today's world.
I'm not exactly sure what your point actually is. Fat people are definitely more normal now- pretty hard to argue that. There is definitely a drive to reduce the stigma associated with it- you and this article have proven that well enough.
Obese people seem extremely predisposed to externalizing their problems.
I think if somebody didn't put on any weight between puberty and turning 40 they probably have some kind of growth defect. And do you honestly think a 13 year old and a 40 year don't have completely different life styles? Even a 20 year old and a 40 year old have totally different life styles.
Obese people literally do it to themselves. They literally ask for it (by ordering and buying unhealthy food). At some point people are accountable for their own actions. If you want to call responsibility blame then by all means go ahead but you're not helping anybody. You're never going to stop being obese if you don't accept responsibility for your own body.
Which all makes it pointless in a discussion dealing with science and facts. Take your postmodern pseudo-intellectual nonsense elsewhere. All it serves to do is increase the noise.
I will reiterate again: a lack of "proof of negative" does not imply that an idea is not utterly foolish and without merit. It does not mean that anyone has to take your absurd notions seriously. It does not shield you from being "wrong". Far too many people use it as an excuse to believe incredibly foolish things.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some super intelligent dinosaur that just didn't get a chance to grow into a nuclear age species.
You pretty much were arguing that there were super intelligent dinosaurs. You said you would not be surprised which means that you think it is likely. If it was not likely then it would be surprising. In reality it is so amazingly unlikely that it is literally incredible.
You just defined the argument from ignorance fallacy. That does not help your point. Especially since this isn't just a lack of evidence- it is a multitude of evidence to the contrary. This has nothing to do with black swans. The fact that there were distinct species on a new continent can in no way be used as evidence of anything other than "there are different species in different places".
A super intelligent dinosaur is a totally different case than a swan of a different (but very common in related species) colour. You might as well believe that there are swans with feathers made from gold.
I never forgot any of those things. No one worth listening to will say they are as intelligent as humans. There is no reason to believe that other than their brain size. They are very intelligent but they do not give any evidence of human level intelligence.
Argument from ignorance is not a valid form of argument! It is worthless so stop doing it.
Except again all evidence points to dinosaurs being less intelligent than even 'stupid' mammals. There is no reason to think there was a 'super intelligent dinosaur' and every reason to think there wasn't. You can continue with hand waving nonsense about people not wanting to believe but that's useless, void of any logical point and asinine. I might as well say "I wouldn't be surprised that those super intelligent dinosaurs were the ones that Jesus rode- you just don't want to believe". You are arguing from ignorance.
We spread across the entire planet long before we were technologically advanced. I would call that fairly successful. Intelligence allowed us to adapt the environment to our needs instead of the other way around.
The human.
When literally all the evidence points to the contrary I think we can be fairly certain. Those shows are nonsense.
I wouldn't call it dogmatic at all. It is inline with the theory of evolution. A new abiogenesis event would not produce a life-form as adapted to competing for resources as the existing biosphere. It would almost certainly get snuffed out because of that. It is definitely not "just as possible" that they would be orthogonal or have different requirements to existing biology. Those statements don't even have much of a meaning in this context. Define "orthogonal".
I really do think it is the same as racism. Tribalism gone awry. You've probably even heard some kind of justification about it being men violent toward men so <excuses>. As if that excuse hasn't been tried before.
"Nerd culture" is misogynistic and entitled because it's one of the few subcultures that will not just accept whatever the cultural norm asserts. "Feminism" is the new cultural normalizing feedback system. No one seems to care about the suffering of individuals like yourself. They only care about validation of their own feelings. Which is pretty strange with all the focus on "injustice".
I read everything you wrote and it was complete garbage. It's a little sad that you seem to know that you are completely misled by your own biases but will refuse to actually do anything about it. Oh, so no evidence backs up your assertion? I guess don't worry about it- just make up a bandwagon fallacy and talk about "general knowledge" and "majority". You are handwaving to justify your bullshit prejudices. Ignoring all evidence to the contrary and placing all your faith in shaky non-verifiable claims. If you are starting to look and sound like creationists you might want to reevaluate your beliefs.
Now let me explain why you are exactly the same as a racist. Even if only 1% of black guys steal cars (which is probably low because, obviously). You claim that good upstanding white folk shouldn't worry that you are one because it's only 1% blah blah. No you're going to worry that you are going to die in a car-jacking. Black people are violent thugs, "Such a thing is general knowledge among the majority of most communities but for some reason you appear to have been sheltered from such awareness or are for some reason denying what is occurring around you." [Holy shit, I didn't even have to change any words in that one. Terrifying.]
Do you still think that appeals to in-group confirmation bias are a valid way to make logical conclusions? Because this is literally what racists say. Practically verbatim.
Do you often catch measles, whooping cough or polio? Do you really think catching one of those is more likely than catching an STI?
I should have used the more technical "flat-response" to be more clear with my meaning but here is a citation from Audio Technica. They clearly recommend choosing a pair of headphones based on what sounds best with the music you listen to. There is no "best" headphone; flat-response is not universally desired.
It is a lot like computer monitors. A graphic artist needs a monitor that faithfully represents colours. Most general users think a glossy laptop screen looks "better". A lot of people like the sound of loose bass and it is well known that Beats will provide the sound they like. I don't like loose bass so I don't like Beats- simple as that. I don't need to get all smug about it.
Kind of like how audiophiles like the sound of tube amps and vinyl even though it may be technically inferior to other options.
Why would I be butthurt that a brand I didn't like was technically inferior? Given that you can't even make a logically consistent sentence I am pretty sure your other points are moot (see- both can play at that game)
Fun fact: "music that goes thump" as you put it does not feature a lot of violins, violas or cellos to tell apart. A balanced set of headphones are technically superior to an unbalanced set if perfect sound reproduction is your metric. Few people use that as a metric (audiophiles definitely included). And I was never talking about "superiority" of the headphones. I was talking about you using tastes in music and buzzwords to validate your own sense of superiority.
I will not deny that a lot of people buy Beats based mainly on their style. They also buy them because they feel they sound better when listening to bass heaving music than a more flat set. You can call me butthurt all you want but I don't like headphones to be too bass heavy either- I have a pair of Beyerdyamics myself. My preference nor your preference makes their preference inferior. And it certainly shouldn't make you feel so smug about yourself.
We weren't talking domestic. You can't use "unreported" events to prove women are more victimized because men don't report as well.
I don't see how finding someone to give me an anecdotal report will help ground me in reality. Interesting that you just assume it will always confirm your biases despite most crime stats and modern research that I have heard about doesn't quite agree with you.
What you haven't come back to apologize yet? What a shocker. I was clearly not talking about solely intimate partner violence.
I would also like to bring your attention to the definition of rape in your cited document.
Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender(s)
So a woman could hold a gun to my head and say "fuck me or die" but that isn't rape unless she sticks a finger in my pooper. Sounds like a real unbiased source to me. Not at all trying to sweep male victims under the rug.
It wasn't tangential. Beats are optimized for listening to a different type of music. Their name is even derived from it. You used it as am opportunity to let everyone know that you listen to Opera and Symphony. I know it's common on Slashdot for people to try to validate their sense of superiority based on brands they buy / music they listen to / how they shave their face but that doesn't make it any more valid.
It's just false that their "frequency response is worse than you can find in most earbuds". I do not like Beats and I do not own a pair but they are no where near as bad as you say they are. You are just throwing buzzwords out to get your smug on.
I never made a generalization about music tastes. I made a statement about headphone tastes. It can be verified in what is bought, what is sold and reviews. Not even your audiophiles (who do not have a very good reputation here at Slashdot in the first place) typically buy "balanced" headphones. People want headphones that are tuned to the type of music they listen to. Which is what Beats are and also why they do not sound good for the music you stated.
<condescending>Please keep to the topic at hand and not make everything about the superiority of your tastes. Thank you.</condescending>
It is a supply/demand thing. If you need high quality cans for audio production you will likely be paying a lot simply because there are far fewer people buying those than cheaper "makes sound" headphones.
There are many types of music that go thump. Most people do not want to listen to opera or symphony (those should not be capitalized by the way; it only serves to make you look even more self-congratulatory and condescending). No one wants balanced headphones but studio engineers.
There are better "quality" headphones in the price range of Beats but style is important to a lot of people (although I think they're pretty ugly). Let's cut the "I am superior because I buy a different brand than you" nonsense.
If only they were as smart, enlightened and perfect as you they would have instead made empty remarks relying entirely on their own sense of superiority. Damn nerds and their inferior misogyny.
I don't buy for a second that men are more likely to be the victims of violence, intimidation and other physical threats
Try looking into it. Crime stats don't lie. Unless of course you think women are getting beaten and just don't talk about it... Ever.
That women are more worried about being violently attacked does not mean they are more likely to be violently attacked. In fact this cultural belief that women have to be constantly worried about violence even though they are far less likely to be violently attacked might be why some people come to the notion that feminine qualities include worrying and weakness.
You going on about how "all women have to worry about it" is the problem. Fuck you and your gender stereotypes. Men have far more to worry about getting mugged and murdered than women do. Do I think that all men have to fear? Hell no. Being afraid of incredibly unlikely events is nothing but learned helplessness.
More than 1% of men are violent to women? Fuck you even more for that. Right now there are 300 000 men beating women in the United States I'm sure.
50 years ago you would have been right in there with the hang all darkies group. Same bullshit paranoia and made up reasons. Same sense of superiority.
Why the hell would a man need a child to be "his" to do physical labour? What an absurd line of reasoning.
Many species display hostility toward offspring not their own (eg. lions). A "selfish gene" as you put it would most certainly have positive effects on selection. Protecting your own offspring over others would help them survive over others and lead to more gene replication.
"He" invented marriage for this did "he"? How rich. I could just as easily claim that "she" invented marriage to ensure "she" continued to get support, shelter, protection, etc. after she got her child. The truth is marriage was invented by people because people of both genders benefited from and wanted it. People may not be strictly monogamous but we certainly tend toward pair-bonding (if even for a limited time).
Many species attempt to trick others into raising their offspring (it is a successful strategy) one of the responses to this is instinct to prioritize your own offspring.
I assure you that dumping waste energy as heat as in classical braking systems will be far more effective and robust than any "regenerative" system. If you are having heat dissipation problems you will likewise have overload problems anywhere else you try to direct that energy- along with heat dissipation problems. Although most likely your regenerative system would just be destroyed by the forces involved.
Yeah I would imagine blood splatter has a pretty strong chance of infection.