The problem is, that the planting procedures for BT corn were supposed to prevent or at least reduce this. Proper BT corn management practice is to have a certain percentage (usually 20%) of your corn as non-BT (called "refuge"), to provide a haven for non-BT-resistant insects to thrive (in far greater numbers than any rare resistant bugs), thus dramatically diluting BT resistant genes and the evolutionary pressure to develop them.
Actually, I work for an Icelandic company/am prepping to move to Iceland/am learning Icelandic, and in Icelandic, it's "fjörður" in nominative, "fjörð" in accusative. Eth is normally transliterated as "d". My mind just instinctively tried to keep as much as possible like the Icelandic spelling. Icelandic, FYI, is closer to Old Norse than modern Norwegian, which is closer to Danish.
Women like a guy to be assertive. Not necessarily a jerk. Although a jerk often has these traits too, a man doesn't necessarily have to be a jerk to also exude confidence...and be assertive.
Thank you -- exactly.:)
And while there is no single thing that all men or all women are attracted to, being attracted to men who are assertive is extremely common. There are plenty of girls who like guys to be shy and demure to be sure. I'll mention, however, the only ones of my friends who are attracted to guys like that are also bisexual. Anecdote? Sure. But I'd wager on 2 to 1 odds that if you meet a girl who likes her guys to be shy and demure, she'd also like to do things like braid his hair, paint his nails, or put barrettes in his hair. The latter of which one of my bi housemates has already done with her new shy and demure boyfriend.;)
2. Do not start talking to her about "hyper-drive and shield modulation".....
To each their own. I once chatted with a guy for about an hour about our differing world conquest plots;)
and complained that she got to talk too much about herself.
Careful you don't end up in the "too shy and quiet" zone, though. FYI, we play that exact same game, the whole encouraging-them-to-talk-about-themselves thing.
If America's military efforts have any weakness, it's overconfidence. The assumption that its enemies are idiots. That it's enemies could never pull off a sophisticated operation or countermeasure.
Sometimes the US is right. Unfortunately for America, sometimes they're wrong.
Anyone catch, several years ago, the story about the Iranian concrerte? There are competitions between universities for producing high strength concrete, and a couple years ago one was won by a team from the University of Tehran. The compressive strength they got was just absurd, about 400MPa. Unreinforced and with only 28 days of ageing. The professor in charge of the team works in two fields: civil engineering, and... yes, you guessed it... nuclear science.
Anyway, this current story reminds me of a twist on an old story from the Cold War days. Once the US started getting really good communication encryption, they were very disappointed to find out that the Soviets seemed to still be able to intercept their messages. They eventually figured out what was going on. Certain types of messages had characteristic lengths, and so the Soviets figured out they didn't need to crack the messages, merely look at the length.
I can only guess that you haven't read or seen Twilight. It actually doesn't fall into this pattern. Edward has early 20th century romantic sensibilities (courting, etc), and quite the opposite of the trope, tries to discourage her from having interest in him (due to the danger to her). Jacob does come into significant conflict with Edward, but not in a "stalking Bella" sort of manner, and the hostility isn't something that attracts Bella (rather, the two of them fight for her by more by trying to arrange the situation to manipulate her emotions).
And the fact that you think stalking ends in a relationship in the real world... sigh.
If said girl likes to date known abusers/rapists... Just to clarify, your point was women like jerks because they are jerks,
No. It's that it's frequent for women to be attracted to certain characteristics, such as self-confidence, aggression, energy, sex drive, a "knowing what he wants and not afraid to get it" attitude, etc, which also tends to be correlated with, but does not inherently impply, someone causing abuse or other problems. Comparing that to a woman being raped because she's dating a *known* rapist isn't an accurate analogy at all.
And that we shouldn't advise those women to modify their behaviour because it's arguably somewhat instictive. Well, so is rape, if you want to play disproportinate analogies.
Let's go with that. You yourself call that an analogy; thus, in your mind, trying to change a behavior that puts a woman in a dangerous situation is morally equivalent to trying to change a behavior that *harms* a woman. Or am I reading you wrong? If not, that's just absurd. You correct criminals, not victims.
You think any instinctive activity that has a correlation with risk shouldn't be done? Well, good luck banning sex itself, because that's a prime example.
BTW, I find it awfully amusing to hear a bunch of guys who've never been attracted to a guy in their life talk about the manner in which women should be attracted to guys.
Right, because it's totally the woman's fault and not the abuser. And while we're at it, it's a rape victim's fault for wearing a skimpy dress and a collateral damage victim's fault for being too close to where a bomb fell.
Let's be explicit: Just because a woman may be attracted to a "bad boy" doesn't give him the right to abuse her or make it her fault that she is abused. Quit blaming the people who hold a (extremely common, and IMHO, historically genetically advantageous) attraction for the clearly wrong actions of the perpetrator.
If you insist that women can only fuck aggressive guys
Since you just tore the last one down, do you need me to build you a new straw man, or can you do it yourself?
New plot:
Apparently, without the "guy stalks girl, therefore causing her to fall in love with him" plot, all movies and TV shows must become boring -- is that your argument? I had no clue there were so few possible plots out there.
1) I thought it obvious. 2) Did you miss the word "experiment"? I described an experiment on human attraction. How you saw that as advocacy that clubs are an ideal way to meet people is beyond me.
Attraction doesn't change based on whether you're in a club or not. The same things that attract you to someone in a club attract you outside the club and vice versa.
I'd contrarily state that: given the premise of "what you're attracted to can't be helped" and "it's unreasonable to ask someone to not date people they're attracted to", ridiculing women who end up getting treated like that is not productive, and that a better avenue of your efforts would be toward eliminating cultural acceptance of stalker-ish behavior from guys. And if you don't think we live in a culture that glorifies guys doing stalker-ish behavior, let me ask you something: how many times have to seen this plot in TV or the movies?
* Girl leaves guy (or never goes out with guy in the first place)
* Guy can't get over girl
* Guy does something like punch the girl's new fling, stand outside her window blaring love songs, kisses her when she's not expecting it, or something of that nature.
* Girl decides, "wow, this guy really loves me" and starts dating him.
In the movies, we call that "a love story". In real life, we call it "stalking". And the ending is not romance, but a restraining order.
Indeed, even rats have been shown to practice metacognition. Presented with a choice with consequences -- full reward for the right answer, no reward for the wrong answer, and a tiny reward for an "opt-out" choice -- lab rats will choose the right answer when the test is easy, but as it becomes increasingly difficult they begin to hesitate more and more, and eventually start to choose the "opt-out" choice. That is, they know what they do not know and will make choices that are not impulsive, but are well thought out.
The gp could also be referring to delayed gratification, but higher nonhuman animals have also been shown to practice that. For example, if you have chimps in a setup where there's a device that slowly loads up a food dispenser with one desired food item after another, but stops as soon as the chimp takes the food, after prior experience with the test, most chimps will wait until all possible food items have been loaded before taking them. Delayed gratification has also been shown in dolphins and a number of other animals.
Picture you find... oh, let's just say women with a mullet, simply unattractive. Now imagine someone telling you, "You can only date women with mullets."
Your comparison is bad because in bars/clubs there are no other way to judge people but on looks
Please go back and re-read, because I said just the opposite. Perhaps *you* only go on looks in bars/clubs, but you'll find that many if not most women do not.
Dating isn't necessarily about "acting on impulses", but there's a vast difference between "not acting on impulses" and "dating only people you don't find attractive instead of people you do".
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, that the planting procedures for BT corn were supposed to prevent or at least reduce this. Proper BT corn management practice is to have a certain percentage (usually 20%) of your corn as non-BT (called "refuge"), to provide a haven for non-BT-resistant insects to thrive (in far greater numbers than any rare resistant bugs), thus dramatically diluting BT resistant genes and the evolutionary pressure to develop them.
Actually, I work for an Icelandic company/am prepping to move to Iceland/am learning Icelandic, and in Icelandic, it's "fjörður" in nominative, "fjörð" in accusative. Eth is normally transliterated as "d". My mind just instinctively tried to keep as much as possible like the Icelandic spelling. Icelandic, FYI, is closer to Old Norse than modern Norwegian, which is closer to Danish.
Iceland != Norway. Björk is Icelandic. Well, at least technically; she's pretty atypical even by Icelandic standards ;)
Fjörd != Ocean
Fjörd == Connected to Ocean
Connected to Ocean != Deep ocean
Fjörd == Heatflow bottleneck
Return environmental_study.
The aluminum/gallium/hydrogen cycle is incredibly inefficient and expensive. But don't let that get in the way of the "neato" factor. :P
+1
Thank you -- exactly. :)
And while there is no single thing that all men or all women are attracted to, being attracted to men who are assertive is extremely common. There are plenty of girls who like guys to be shy and demure to be sure. I'll mention, however, the only ones of my friends who are attracted to guys like that are also bisexual. Anecdote? Sure. But I'd wager on 2 to 1 odds that if you meet a girl who likes her guys to be shy and demure, she'd also like to do things like braid his hair, paint his nails, or put barrettes in his hair. The latter of which one of my bi housemates has already done with her new shy and demure boyfriend. ;)
To each their own. I once chatted with a guy for about an hour about our differing world conquest plots ;)
Careful you don't end up in the "too shy and quiet" zone, though. FYI, we play that exact same game, the whole encouraging-them-to-talk-about-themselves thing.
If America's military efforts have any weakness, it's overconfidence. The assumption that its enemies are idiots. That it's enemies could never pull off a sophisticated operation or countermeasure.
Sometimes the US is right. Unfortunately for America, sometimes they're wrong.
Anyone catch, several years ago, the story about the Iranian concrerte? There are competitions between universities for producing high strength concrete, and a couple years ago one was won by a team from the University of Tehran. The compressive strength they got was just absurd, about 400MPa. Unreinforced and with only 28 days of ageing. The professor in charge of the team works in two fields: civil engineering, and... yes, you guessed it... nuclear science.
Anyway, this current story reminds me of a twist on an old story from the Cold War days. Once the US started getting really good communication encryption, they were very disappointed to find out that the Soviets seemed to still be able to intercept their messages. They eventually figured out what was going on. Certain types of messages had characteristic lengths, and so the Soviets figured out they didn't need to crack the messages, merely look at the length.
I can only guess that you haven't read or seen Twilight. It actually doesn't fall into this pattern. Edward has early 20th century romantic sensibilities (courting, etc), and quite the opposite of the trope, tries to discourage her from having interest in him (due to the danger to her). Jacob does come into significant conflict with Edward, but not in a "stalking Bella" sort of manner, and the hostility isn't something that attracts Bella (rather, the two of them fight for her by more by trying to arrange the situation to manipulate her emotions).
And the fact that you think stalking ends in a relationship in the real world... sigh.
And hey, while we're at it, lets ban gay men from dating the same sex to reduce the risk of aids... right?
No. It's that it's frequent for women to be attracted to certain characteristics, such as self-confidence, aggression, energy, sex drive, a "knowing what he wants and not afraid to get it" attitude, etc, which also tends to be correlated with, but does not inherently impply, someone causing abuse or other problems. Comparing that to a woman being raped because she's dating a *known* rapist isn't an accurate analogy at all.
Let's go with that. You yourself call that an analogy; thus, in your mind, trying to change a behavior that puts a woman in a dangerous situation is morally equivalent to trying to change a behavior that *harms* a woman. Or am I reading you wrong? If not, that's just absurd. You correct criminals, not victims.
You think any instinctive activity that has a correlation with risk shouldn't be done? Well, good luck banning sex itself, because that's a prime example.
Direct analogy.
BTW, I find it awfully amusing to hear a bunch of guys who've never been attracted to a guy in their life talk about the manner in which women should be attracted to guys.
Great idea! And while we''re at it, let's have gays and lesbians cultivate a taste for the opposite sex. The debate is over!
Lol, you are too rare ;)
Right, because it's totally the woman's fault and not the abuser. And while we're at it, it's a rape victim's fault for wearing a skimpy dress and a collateral damage victim's fault for being too close to where a bomb fell.
Let's be explicit: Just because a woman may be attracted to a "bad boy" doesn't give him the right to abuse her or make it her fault that she is abused. Quit blaming the people who hold a (extremely common, and IMHO, historically genetically advantageous) attraction for the clearly wrong actions of the perpetrator.
Since you just tore the last one down, do you need me to build you a new straw man, or can you do it yourself?
Apparently, without the "guy stalks girl, therefore causing her to fall in love with him" plot, all movies and TV shows must become boring -- is that your argument? I had no clue there were so few possible plots out there.
1) I thought it obvious. 2) Did you miss the word "experiment"? I described an experiment on human attraction. How you saw that as advocacy that clubs are an ideal way to meet people is beyond me.
Attraction doesn't change based on whether you're in a club or not. The same things that attract you to someone in a club attract you outside the club and vice versa.
I'd contrarily state that: given the premise of "what you're attracted to can't be helped" and "it's unreasonable to ask someone to not date people they're attracted to", ridiculing women who end up getting treated like that is not productive, and that a better avenue of your efforts would be toward eliminating cultural acceptance of stalker-ish behavior from guys. And if you don't think we live in a culture that glorifies guys doing stalker-ish behavior, let me ask you something: how many times have to seen this plot in TV or the movies?
* Girl leaves guy (or never goes out with guy in the first place)
* Guy can't get over girl
* Guy does something like punch the girl's new fling, stand outside her window blaring love songs, kisses her when she's not expecting it, or something of that nature.
* Girl decides, "wow, this guy really loves me" and starts dating him.
In the movies, we call that "a love story". In real life, we call it "stalking". And the ending is not romance, but a restraining order.
There's not a single part of that sentence that's correct.
And my point stands.
Indeed, even rats have been shown to practice metacognition. Presented with a choice with consequences -- full reward for the right answer, no reward for the wrong answer, and a tiny reward for an "opt-out" choice -- lab rats will choose the right answer when the test is easy, but as it becomes increasingly difficult they begin to hesitate more and more, and eventually start to choose the "opt-out" choice. That is, they know what they do not know and will make choices that are not impulsive, but are well thought out.
The gp could also be referring to delayed gratification, but higher nonhuman animals have also been shown to practice that. For example, if you have chimps in a setup where there's a device that slowly loads up a food dispenser with one desired food item after another, but stops as soon as the chimp takes the food, after prior experience with the test, most chimps will wait until all possible food items have been loaded before taking them. Delayed gratification has also been shown in dolphins and a number of other animals.
To put it another way:
Picture you find... oh, let's just say women with a mullet, simply unattractive.
Now imagine someone telling you, "You can only date women with mullets."
Perhaps having a little more respect for women than a place to "stick your eleventh finger" might be a good start for you.
Please go back and re-read, because I said just the opposite. Perhaps *you* only go on looks in bars/clubs, but you'll find that many if not most women do not.
Dating isn't necessarily about "acting on impulses", but there's a vast difference between "not acting on impulses" and "dating only people you don't find attractive instead of people you do".