Okay, so "physically, men are superior to women" does not leave "too much for interpretation"?
No it doesn't. I said physical, not physical and mental. If you care to try and derive some other meaning from that feel free, but you would be wrong. Not to mention i said, in my OP, strength as an example....let me quote it for you "writing a science paper and basically went about that the strongest man is stronger then the strongest woman, and the average male strength is greater then the average female strength. That physically, men were superior to women.". It does not say "men are better at tasks then women".
When I say "physical task", I actually mean "physical and mental tasks"... but when you say "physically superior", for you that automatically includes the connotation of "a specific set of criteria involving a physical 'task'"?
Well you have been in the wrong conversation. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to take mental faculty into account. How can you properly judge your subjects when mental judgement comes into play. If you can, with 100% certainty, determine the intelligence level of a man/woman and take that into account for a physical feat then you may want to publish your work - you will become famous. On the other hand, if you can't do that (and I am willing to bet you can't) you are forced to setup tests that take out as many variables as possible - for example, ingenuity/creativeness - a result of intelligence.
Wow, you're truly a master communicator. I wish everyone could be that specific!
Thank you. I actually am a master communicator - I even have a piece of paper from an acredited university saying so. Your fault in reading my plain-written comments is not my failure in communicating.
That's what's wrong, in two different ways. First off, the word 'superior' is unqualified - if you'd said something like, "superior at some physical tasks", Sockatume's objection would not apply. Secondly, the use of "men" and "women" was unqualified. If you'd said something like, "at a given strength level on the upper end, you will find more men than women," you would have actually been correct and your statement would be unobjectionable
Actually, "superior at some physical tasks" would be sexist. Completing a task, for example, of moving an object from one location to another, involves mental capacity. How do we move those? Do we push, pull, use a pully, etc. It leaves too much for interpretation.
My comments, more accurately, are - given a specific set of criteria involving a physical "task" men will do better. So the rule is simple, what one gender does the other has to do exactly the same way. This removes the intelligence component. If men are stronger/faster then women, then men will be able to accomplish feats of strength/speed "ahead" of women. Not sure how someone can logically argue that point.
Well, yeah, it says men are evolving faster... specifically, the Y-chromosome, and more specifically, it's related to sperm production.
Will they develop enhanced regeneration and adamantium claws?
In short, your junk is evolving. Not necessarily anything else. That MIGHT not be considered a complementary thing, depending on how you feel about your particular junk.
I feel pretty good about my "junk" but don't refer to them as junk. I am pretty sure they are holy...why my fiancee says oh god all the time...
Perhaps if you didn't flamebait them at every opportunity that arose?
I don't. Next
I swear every damn article that talks about evolution has DOZENS of agnostic drones bitching about 'religious groups'.
I am jewish, not agnostic. Next
Wtf really... Is it really that bad someone doesn't believe what you do?[/quote]
I could care less if someone doesn't believe what I believe, however, when someone shrugs off proven science for dogma I do have a problem with that. especially when they punish people who do not support their religious belief. Next
They are not part of the borg so you call them out at every opportunity?[/quote]
I never called religious groups the borg, but thanks for the idea. Next
Perhaps you act as bad as you accuse others of doing? Is this how you want to present yourself to others? Sounds like you (and your parents) also missed the point of being called to the principals office. You like to piss people off (btw that is not a good thing). Not what the article was about... So far my sample of 2 examples from your rant shows this about you.
Glad you are able to determine my intentions when you don't know me. I was doing a project I was assigned to do - just some people didn't like the answer. As for ranting...no really, I'd like you to meet kettle. Next
And I said that doesn't mean what you think it means. You said that meant "That physically, men were superior to women."
Sockatume pointed out one problem with that too: "Equating mechanical strength to physical superiority is specious." Especially in a species with as many different strategic options as humans do, a difference in any one dimension isn't particularly relevant.
My point was that, even for tasks that require a specific faculty like upper-body strength, you'll still find women who can do the job just fine. The "average differences", while interesting, are useless in practice. You still need to focus on the only relevant criteria: can they do the job?
And your last paragraph shows your lack of understanding of what I am talking about. I never said women can't do a certain job. I said the strongest man is stronger then the strongest woman. I said the average man is stronger then the average woman. Where in those statements does it say that women can't hunt, fight, run, etc? It doesn't. That is the same reason why Sockatume is wrong when replying to my statement, also he needs to back up his/her information about efficiency.
To go on to the efficiency: Sockatume said women are more efficient then men - that requires some proof. They may utilize less energy, on the average, but if they are less efficient at physical tasks, which includes (hunting, running, construction, etc) they will take logner and more energy (in the long run) to complete those tasks. It's similar to people who say "well i should buy that 4 cylinder car because 6 cylinders burn more gas then 4 cylinders, which makes 4 cylinders more efficient" - that is wrong. 6 cylinders burn more gas, yes, but that doesn't make them less efficient. The 4 cylinder car has to work harder then the 6 cylinder car to get the same performance - and actually can't get the same higher end performance because of those limitations. BTW every medical doctor in the world will tell you that someone with more muscle mass is more efficient then someone with less muscle mass, and that is irrespective of gender. Males have more muscle mass then women.
In terms of body fat - men can store fat pretty darn well. The higher percentage of body fat women tend to have over men is from breasts - which can add a considerable percentage to a woman based on her size. Other then that men and women store fat fairly equally.
Before you respond, remember, I am talking about strength/speed - not intelligence. I am also talking about maximum, minimum, and averages.
On a side note of women can do everything men can do. If the strongest woman can only lift X lbs, and the strongest man can lift X + Y lbs (no pun intended) then women cannot do everything men can do. This is largly irrelevant because we are smart people and we can think of ways around the issue...for example, get someone to help you lift the object, or create a device like a pully system. This is even more irrelevant because that is not what I am talking about, but it is what you and sockatume are talking about
Yes... and no. The "differences" you mention are not hard, sharp divisions. They are bell curves with peaks in different places, but there is lots of overlap. Even in the realm of sheer upper-body strength, I guarantee that (unless you happen to be a champion powerlifter) there are are women who can outbench you.
It's not that differences don't exist. (They do, and vive la difference.) It's just they they are of a different kind, and a different size, and a different range, than you seem to understand.
I don't think you understood what i said, because you said I don't seem to understand, but before that you agreed with my comments. I said the strongest man is strongest then the strongest woman...you agreed with your "unless you happen to be a champion powerlifter" - well when talking about the strongest those people fall into those categories. And then i went on to averages. Yes I am sure there are plenty of women who are physically stronger then I am (though now you are resorting to anecdotal evidence) - but I never said every man was stronger then every woman - i said on average men are stronger. That is not a failure of knowledge that is a statement of fact. Average of these two means there will be women who are stronger then men, but on AVERAGE men will be stronger then women.
Windows Key, Esc, CTRL, Alt, Delete, Page up/down, print screen - i use these all the time.
Home/End/Scroll lock/Insert (annoying)/ Page break (only for dos type screens)/ num lock I either don't use or rarely use.
You're thinking it too simply. Instead of fighting against each other, why not have the assassins work together? More like co-opping. A few players could be going near the target on street and other players assisting from the roofs
Uh huh, and when I slip my stilleto into your back I will say "oh sorry dude, the targeting system sucks, and i knifed you...tee hee".
I remember playing baldurs gate for the ps2 with a friend of mine, and i was the tank. He would blow up the exploding barrels while I was next to them....on purpose. That is all that will happen here.
But yea - counter is the ez button. Not that combat is hard in this game. The game is about being as stealthy as possible
Does she believe that all embryos start as female, and then some (approx half) evolve to male? By that statement, I had to *FIGHT* to be a male. Now I reached that goal and I have to deal with those who were "left behind" or didn't evolve....hmm actually the above was a joke but formed a thought in my head.
If we start out as females, and have to evolve to be males (hence why males have nipples), does that explain why males evolve faster then females? Maybe because we have to do so to become males?
You know the womens groups will come out that this is sexist? I swear it's like the religious groups who come out with their nonsense when science disproves one of their "theories" - you know like the earth is not flat, does not reside in the center of the universe, and is not approximately 6000 years old.
I remember, in highschool, writing a science paper and basically went about that the strongest man is stronger then the strongest woman, and the average male strength is greater then the average female strength. That physically, men were superior to women.
It caused an issue in school, and I was called into the principals room. So where my mom and dad. My dad was pissed...at the principal. My mom just thought the principal was an idiot.
Now there is this article, stating men evolve faster then women. I remember, a few years back, showing that men have a greater affinity for science/math, and women more for culture/literature and this extends beyond the nurture part of nature vs nurture.
FYI: The universe is not equal. The world is not equal. The genders are not equal. It's not fiction, it's not sexism, it's fact.
And remember, Chinese citizens will still find a way to use many of googles products - no matter how much the chinese gov't tries to block google addresses.
I sure would love to be a fly on the wall of these discussions. We certainly live in interesting times.
No you wouldn't. It's not that lively - on the contrary it is quite boring, full of ritual and face saving. If you ever have a case of insomnia attend one of these meetings - it will be clearly taken care of.
Now if you want a bit of excitement, political meetings that have some energy, then go to UK parliment meetings - especially when the prime minister is around. I remember watching video's of former PM Blair and boy was exciting. The guy was in the center of the room, turning around and launching off complex answers to complex questions. Any political group where you can get a bunch of old boys to start a fist fight will be exciting...and you will not see that in a Chinese gov't meeting.
Doesn't PLASMA tv use lasers and phospher and this causes burn-ins? What about this? I don't care how good the image is, if burn-in occurs I don't want it.
"Where possible, the game will provide non-violent ways to resolve conflicts."
Wait, a player will have weapons and technology of war available to him which makes our most advanced technology seem like a stone tipped spear, and the player is expected to resolve a conflict non-violently? WTH, was this game designed by Quakers?
I would rather have been blasting Denebian slime devils than the FREAKIN' BORG, who should be too tough for newbs. So their talk about respecting the story is not entirely accurate.
Doing any action, other then running while peeing your pants, when encountering the borg should automatically delete your character, subscription and ban your game key UNLESS you are engaging them with three full-sized armadas. And then you get to keep your account if you still run while peeing your pants.
Disclaimer: I actually read the FA (yes, I know this is slashdot). This guy is angry because, amongst other things, Google has made 40% of his debugging skills useless. Apperantly, his problem is that this means that other people without his "superskills" can develop software for Android.
I actually thought he was being facetious, more along the lines of "Darn you for buying me that lottery ticket that made me a millionaire". Though if he billed hourly he is probably annoyed because he has 40% less work:)
Get with the times. AOL is spam mail central- I worry this person will end up giving my email address (unwittingly) to someone else. If it's a professional company they should have their own domain name (it's not expensive). If it's someone doing some side work then come on g-mail is a great free option. There are other good options - but lose AOL, Hotmail, and Yahoo.
I liked that show. Alien kills dude to inhabit his body, by accident, and takes care of the guys son as they are fleeing the law. Though the son is OK with the alien sounds a bit far fetched...kind of like "yea shit happens, might as well move on with my life and deal with the cards that were dealt to me". Still i would see this.
Starbucks supposedly gives more money to their mexican coffee growers then the other companies - using the fair coffee something or other. I wonder how the gov't would feel if starbucks said "sure we will pay this fee, it will come out of the money we were going to use to pay your farmers the wages we pay them - which is higher then what the other guys pay....hope your people are happy with your decision"
Which seems to imply, to my mind, that this isn't the matter of specific photographs being copied, but rather that the Mexican government considers any photographs of these artefacts/sites to be the intellectual property of Mexico.
So if I go to mexico, and take pictures - do I have to pay fees for each picture?
Does Mexico own the symbols? Considering they were created before there was a state of Mexico I doubt it. Considering the symbols are a language - and I don't think an established (even if it's dead) can be copyrighted. Please I don't copyrights expire after like 80 years? Wow, I know Mexico is desperate for cash - but really, what do they think they will get? 10 million? What's 10 million going to do for a freakign COUNTRY.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so "physically, men are superior to women" does not leave "too much for interpretation"?
No it doesn't. I said physical, not physical and mental. If you care to try and derive some other meaning from that feel free, but you would be wrong. Not to mention i said, in my OP, strength as an example....let me quote it for you "writing a science paper and basically went about that the strongest man is stronger then the strongest woman, and the average male strength is greater then the average female strength. That physically, men were superior to women.". It does not say "men are better at tasks then women".
When I say "physical task", I actually mean "physical and mental tasks"... but when you say "physically superior", for you that automatically includes the connotation of "a specific set of criteria involving a physical 'task'"?
Well you have been in the wrong conversation. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to take mental faculty into account. How can you properly judge your subjects when mental judgement comes into play. If you can, with 100% certainty, determine the intelligence level of a man/woman and take that into account for a physical feat then you may want to publish your work - you will become famous. On the other hand, if you can't do that (and I am willing to bet you can't) you are forced to setup tests that take out as many variables as possible - for example, ingenuity/creativeness - a result of intelligence.
Wow, you're truly a master communicator. I wish everyone could be that specific!
Thank you. I actually am a master communicator - I even have a piece of paper from an acredited university saying so. Your fault in reading my plain-written comments is not my failure in communicating.
No Furbymon. Stop watching pokemon. We don't 'evolve' into males, we grow into males. There is no fancy genetic changing required to become a guy.
But, thiezar, I wanted to choose you!
That's what's wrong, in two different ways. First off, the word 'superior' is unqualified - if you'd said something like, "superior at some physical tasks", Sockatume's objection would not apply. Secondly, the use of "men" and "women" was unqualified. If you'd said something like, "at a given strength level on the upper end, you will find more men than women," you would have actually been correct and your statement would be unobjectionable
Actually, "superior at some physical tasks" would be sexist. Completing a task, for example, of moving an object from one location to another, involves mental capacity. How do we move those? Do we push, pull, use a pully, etc. It leaves too much for interpretation.
My comments, more accurately, are - given a specific set of criteria involving a physical "task" men will do better. So the rule is simple, what one gender does the other has to do exactly the same way. This removes the intelligence component. If men are stronger/faster then women, then men will be able to accomplish feats of strength/speed "ahead" of women. Not sure how someone can logically argue that point.
Well, yeah, it says men are evolving faster... specifically, the Y-chromosome, and more specifically, it's related to sperm production.
Will they develop enhanced regeneration and adamantium claws?
In short, your junk is evolving. Not necessarily anything else. That MIGHT not be considered a complementary thing, depending on how you feel about your particular junk.
I feel pretty good about my "junk" but don't refer to them as junk. I am pretty sure they are holy...why my fiancee says oh god all the time...
Perhaps if you didn't flamebait them at every opportunity that arose?
I don't. Next
I swear every damn article that talks about evolution has DOZENS of agnostic drones bitching about 'religious groups'.
I am jewish, not agnostic. Next
Wtf really... Is it really that bad someone doesn't believe what you do?[/quote] I could care less if someone doesn't believe what I believe, however, when someone shrugs off proven science for dogma I do have a problem with that. especially when they punish people who do not support their religious belief. Next
They are not part of the borg so you call them out at every opportunity?[/quote] I never called religious groups the borg, but thanks for the idea. Next
Perhaps you act as bad as you accuse others of doing? Is this how you want to present yourself to others? Sounds like you (and your parents) also missed the point of being called to the principals office. You like to piss people off (btw that is not a good thing). Not what the article was about... So far my sample of 2 examples from your rant shows this about you.
Glad you are able to determine my intentions when you don't know me. I was doing a project I was assigned to do - just some people didn't like the answer. As for ranting...no really, I'd like you to meet kettle. Next
And I said that doesn't mean what you think it means. You said that meant "That physically, men were superior to women." Sockatume pointed out one problem with that too: "Equating mechanical strength to physical superiority is specious." Especially in a species with as many different strategic options as humans do, a difference in any one dimension isn't particularly relevant. My point was that, even for tasks that require a specific faculty like upper-body strength, you'll still find women who can do the job just fine. The "average differences", while interesting, are useless in practice. You still need to focus on the only relevant criteria: can they do the job?
And your last paragraph shows your lack of understanding of what I am talking about. I never said women can't do a certain job. I said the strongest man is stronger then the strongest woman. I said the average man is stronger then the average woman. Where in those statements does it say that women can't hunt, fight, run, etc? It doesn't. That is the same reason why Sockatume is wrong when replying to my statement, also he needs to back up his/her information about efficiency.
To go on to the efficiency: Sockatume said women are more efficient then men - that requires some proof. They may utilize less energy, on the average, but if they are less efficient at physical tasks, which includes (hunting, running, construction, etc) they will take logner and more energy (in the long run) to complete those tasks. It's similar to people who say "well i should buy that 4 cylinder car because 6 cylinders burn more gas then 4 cylinders, which makes 4 cylinders more efficient" - that is wrong. 6 cylinders burn more gas, yes, but that doesn't make them less efficient. The 4 cylinder car has to work harder then the 6 cylinder car to get the same performance - and actually can't get the same higher end performance because of those limitations. BTW every medical doctor in the world will tell you that someone with more muscle mass is more efficient then someone with less muscle mass, and that is irrespective of gender. Males have more muscle mass then women.
In terms of body fat - men can store fat pretty darn well. The higher percentage of body fat women tend to have over men is from breasts - which can add a considerable percentage to a woman based on her size. Other then that men and women store fat fairly equally.
Before you respond, remember, I am talking about strength/speed - not intelligence. I am also talking about maximum, minimum, and averages.
On a side note of women can do everything men can do. If the strongest woman can only lift X lbs, and the strongest man can lift X + Y lbs (no pun intended) then women cannot do everything men can do. This is largly irrelevant because we are smart people and we can think of ways around the issue...for example, get someone to help you lift the object, or create a device like a pully system. This is even more irrelevant because that is not what I am talking about, but it is what you and sockatume are talking about
Yes... and no. The "differences" you mention are not hard, sharp divisions. They are bell curves with peaks in different places, but there is lots of overlap. Even in the realm of sheer upper-body strength, I guarantee that (unless you happen to be a champion powerlifter) there are are women who can outbench you. It's not that differences don't exist. (They do, and vive la difference.) It's just they they are of a different kind, and a different size, and a different range, than you seem to understand.
I don't think you understood what i said, because you said I don't seem to understand, but before that you agreed with my comments. I said the strongest man is strongest then the strongest woman...you agreed with your "unless you happen to be a champion powerlifter" - well when talking about the strongest those people fall into those categories. And then i went on to averages. Yes I am sure there are plenty of women who are physically stronger then I am (though now you are resorting to anecdotal evidence) - but I never said every man was stronger then every woman - i said on average men are stronger. That is not a failure of knowledge that is a statement of fact. Average of these two means there will be women who are stronger then men, but on AVERAGE men will be stronger then women.
Windows Key, Esc, CTRL, Alt, Delete, Page up/down, print screen - i use these all the time.
Home/End/Scroll lock/Insert (annoying)/ Page break (only for dos type screens)/ num lock I either don't use or rarely use.
He's a good looking guy, with a good job and can't find love? Yea you know his social skills have got to be retardedly low
Then again, if the chances of finding life in the universe are only 100 times worse, then I see that as a good thing.
You're thinking it too simply. Instead of fighting against each other, why not have the assassins work together? More like co-opping. A few players could be going near the target on street and other players assisting from the roofs
Uh huh, and when I slip my stilleto into your back I will say "oh sorry dude, the targeting system sucks, and i knifed you...tee hee".
I remember playing baldurs gate for the ps2 with a friend of mine, and i was the tank. He would blow up the exploding barrels while I was next to them....on purpose. That is all that will happen here.
But yea - counter is the ez button. Not that combat is hard in this game. The game is about being as stealthy as possible
Does she believe that all embryos start as female, and then some (approx half) evolve to male? By that statement, I had to *FIGHT* to be a male. Now I reached that goal and I have to deal with those who were "left behind" or didn't evolve....hmm actually the above was a joke but formed a thought in my head.
If we start out as females, and have to evolve to be males (hence why males have nipples), does that explain why males evolve faster then females? Maybe because we have to do so to become males?
You know the womens groups will come out that this is sexist? I swear it's like the religious groups who come out with their nonsense when science disproves one of their "theories" - you know like the earth is not flat, does not reside in the center of the universe, and is not approximately 6000 years old.
I remember, in highschool, writing a science paper and basically went about that the strongest man is stronger then the strongest woman, and the average male strength is greater then the average female strength. That physically, men were superior to women.
It caused an issue in school, and I was called into the principals room. So where my mom and dad. My dad was pissed...at the principal. My mom just thought the principal was an idiot.
Now there is this article, stating men evolve faster then women. I remember, a few years back, showing that men have a greater affinity for science/math, and women more for culture/literature and this extends beyond the nurture part of nature vs nurture.
FYI: The universe is not equal. The world is not equal. The genders are not equal. It's not fiction, it's not sexism, it's fact.
And remember, Chinese citizens will still find a way to use many of googles products - no matter how much the chinese gov't tries to block google addresses.
I sure would love to be a fly on the wall of these discussions. We certainly live in interesting times.
No you wouldn't. It's not that lively - on the contrary it is quite boring, full of ritual and face saving. If you ever have a case of insomnia attend one of these meetings - it will be clearly taken care of.
Now if you want a bit of excitement, political meetings that have some energy, then go to UK parliment meetings - especially when the prime minister is around. I remember watching video's of former PM Blair and boy was exciting. The guy was in the center of the room, turning around and launching off complex answers to complex questions. Any political group where you can get a bunch of old boys to start a fist fight will be exciting...and you will not see that in a Chinese gov't meeting.
Doesn't PLASMA tv use lasers and phospher and this causes burn-ins? What about this? I don't care how good the image is, if burn-in occurs I don't want it.
Every time I turn my PvP status to "on" my shirt turns red... What's the deal?
You also forget your first name. No really, try it, and then see if you can remember your first name...ensign pike.
"Where possible, the game will provide non-violent ways to resolve conflicts."
Wait, a player will have weapons and technology of war available to him which makes our most advanced technology seem like a stone tipped spear, and the player is expected to resolve a conflict non-violently? WTH, was this game designed by Quakers?
I would rather have been blasting Denebian slime devils than the FREAKIN' BORG, who should be too tough for newbs. So their talk about respecting the story is not entirely accurate.
Doing any action, other then running while peeing your pants, when encountering the borg should automatically delete your character, subscription and ban your game key UNLESS you are engaging them with three full-sized armadas. And then you get to keep your account if you still run while peeing your pants.
....just sayin
40% less work != 40% less billable hours. I envy you, you've obviously never met a lawyer.
Well played young fellow, well played. Maybe I should have said 40% less work = 40% less honest work :)
Disclaimer: I actually read the FA (yes, I know this is slashdot). This guy is angry because, amongst other things, Google has made 40% of his debugging skills useless. Apperantly, his problem is that this means that other people without his "superskills" can develop software for Android.
I actually thought he was being facetious, more along the lines of "Darn you for buying me that lottery ticket that made me a millionaire". Though if he billed hourly he is probably annoyed because he has 40% less work :)
Get with the times. AOL is spam mail central- I worry this person will end up giving my email address (unwittingly) to someone else. If it's a professional company they should have their own domain name (it's not expensive). If it's someone doing some side work then come on g-mail is a great free option. There are other good options - but lose AOL, Hotmail, and Yahoo.
I liked that show. Alien kills dude to inhabit his body, by accident, and takes care of the guys son as they are fleeing the law. Though the son is OK with the alien sounds a bit far fetched...kind of like "yea shit happens, might as well move on with my life and deal with the cards that were dealt to me". Still i would see this.
Starbucks supposedly gives more money to their mexican coffee growers then the other companies - using the fair coffee something or other. I wonder how the gov't would feel if starbucks said "sure we will pay this fee, it will come out of the money we were going to use to pay your farmers the wages we pay them - which is higher then what the other guys pay....hope your people are happy with your decision"
Which seems to imply, to my mind, that this isn't the matter of specific photographs being copied, but rather that the Mexican government considers any photographs of these artefacts/sites to be the intellectual property of Mexico.
So if I go to mexico, and take pictures - do I have to pay fees for each picture?
Does Mexico own the symbols? Considering they were created before there was a state of Mexico I doubt it. Considering the symbols are a language - and I don't think an established (even if it's dead) can be copyrighted. Please I don't copyrights expire after like 80 years? Wow, I know Mexico is desperate for cash - but really, what do they think they will get? 10 million? What's 10 million going to do for a freakign COUNTRY.