This is also the main reason behind auto theft. People should offer their cars for sale at all times and reduce the cost of their cars to a point low enough to discourage theft. Instead, we have lengthy (and costly!) prosecutions of car thieves. When will auto-havers ever learn? Probably not soon.
Except for all those aptitude tests showing that males are just better at spatial reasoning and higher math then women. Granting that the distributions overlap all you have to do is assume Engineers come from the tails of the distribution and you will naturally have male dominated fields.
Is this supposed to be a specimen of masculine excellence in mathematical reasoning?
If men needed a culture of approval and acceptance and someone to remind them whenever possible that they are wanted and welcome, and then and only then could they program if they wanted to, then they'd be just like women.
Whether men do need a culture of approval we'll never know, because they get that approval frequently...from other men.
Normally, all cars are diaxles. But these guys have created a stretch limo so long and stretchy that when a few dozen of them are wrapped around one another in a parking lot, and the front of one is sticking out, it looks like it's a free-standing monoaxle.
If there are independent monoaxle vehicles, then gasoline is a homogeneous liquid. Otherwise, according to Maxwell's equations, it's a bunch of tiny pebbles.
You should listen to what people here are telling you about your misinterpretation of the situation (even the ones who seem to you to be being jerks about it). You might learn something.
Here's a similar mind-bender: someone can like you and want to try moving ahead into some intimate contact, and your reaction to that can turn them right off. Being really uptight about the thing, showing that you're ready to be "hurt" if things don't go as you want, demanding explanations--all these sorts of actions on your part can change someone's mind about you. If you're not aware of how those actions can do that, it can seem to you that you've been led down the garden path and then rejected "inconsistently" or "cruelly."
I don't presume that the woman you mention was not stringing you along, but even if she was, you are responsible for letting yourself be "hurt" by her. It's funny how little in human interactions can properly described as one person doing something to another; it takes two to do the dysfunctional tango.
I wish you better luck next time you like someone. Better than luck, though, is knowledge and honesty with oneself. Hard stuff, but it makes life better all around.
(P.S. Looking for explanations for your situation in speculation about genetic dispositions toward cruelty is not a step in the right direction.)
Don't the mini-chlorides or whatever make it sciency enough for you? Plus, it's got, like, big honking space ships, and I'm sure they had to use some science to build them.
Most of the mysterious illnesses of our society, from wifi allergies to "travelling" pain, to fibromyalgia and chronic pain disorder, are all manifestations of dysthemia and depression.
So, the objection is that the administration is allowed to choose which information it thinks is relevant to developing and promoting a health care plan? This differs from governments' usual way of making policy how, exactly?
I see the point that they're imposing some limits on how the conversation goes, but did anyone really expect anything different?
My point is just that there's a vast distance separating this kind of rinky-dink maneuvering from the government's having somehow actually succeeded in making the conversation take only the shape that it favors.
It's kind of tiresome to continually read Americans complaining that tiny annoyances (or imagined biases and conspiracies) amount to political oppression. We have free speech in this country; it's no use complaining that the government isn't cooperating in our exercising that right in the way we would find most convenient.
It's no use, in the first place, because doing so will change nothing, and second, because those private individuals who have helped advance the national conversation in various ways at various times would have accomplished nothing if they had spent their time whining on public message boards about how the government was not broadcasting their message. That's the argument not of an activist, but of a loser.
Got something to say? Find others who will help and make yourselves heard. (Oh, and don't expect much except to be in it for the long haul with marginal success, if any.)
Am I the only person who's concerned that the Whitehouse has been allowed to be the moderator of such discussions?
Are you saying it's impossible to put your own video on Youtube (or elsewhere) detailing what you think about this or any other political issue? If not, I'm not sure how the administration has been "allowed to be the moderator of such discussions." Could you explain?
Like most natural human languages (those spoken by beings who are trying to communicate with one another and who exhibit the power of judgment), English allows some variation in what elements of sentences go where. No competent English-speaker who hasn't remained retarded in their sexual development at the anal-retentive stage, or developed a weird fetish by the daily practice of putting parentheses around symbolic expressions to coerce mechanical systems into evaluating them in the preferred order, could ever actually misconstrue this sentence as you are doing or pretend to be doing.
It's ironic that in a comment on a story about the joy of pattern-making and pattern-recognition, you should reveal the ugliness of pattern-enforcement. Don't, for the love of humanity, be a lexer (of any languages but those that need it), and don't go around insisting others think like machines.
Slashdot Mirror
This is also the main reason behind auto theft. People should offer their cars for sale at all times and reduce the cost of their cars to a point low enough to discourage theft. Instead, we have lengthy (and costly!) prosecutions of car thieves. When will auto-havers ever learn? Probably not soon.
Well, if you'd just pull your head out of your ...
Oh. Never mind. Keep looking.
Except for all those aptitude tests showing that males are just better at spatial reasoning and higher math then women. Granting that the distributions overlap all you have to do is assume Engineers come from the tails of the distribution and you will naturally have male dominated fields.
Is this supposed to be a specimen of masculine excellence in mathematical reasoning?
If men needed a culture of approval and acceptance and someone to remind them whenever possible that they are wanted and welcome, and then and only then could they program if they wanted to, then they'd be just like women.
Whether men do need a culture of approval we'll never know, because they get that approval frequently...from other men.
Depends on your race, class, and faction.
*insert Wailing Caverns joke*
It's one that you wouldn't date, but would happily fork.
I kind of get what you're saying.
How dare AC ask for further explanatino of the topic?
I could be wrong, but I don't think the explanatory field is quantized.
Normally, all cars are diaxles. But these guys have created a stretch limo so long and stretchy that when a few dozen of them are wrapped around one another in a parking lot, and the front of one is sticking out, it looks like it's a free-standing monoaxle.
If there are independent monoaxle vehicles, then gasoline is a homogeneous liquid. Otherwise, according to Maxwell's equations, it's a bunch of tiny pebbles.
What about bunnies? Rufus is going to die, isn't he?
Oh, in my day we used to dream of having our eyes plucked out by rabid bats!
You should listen to what people here are telling you about your misinterpretation of the situation (even the ones who seem to you to be being jerks about it). You might learn something.
Here's a similar mind-bender: someone can like you and want to try moving ahead into some intimate contact, and your reaction to that can turn them right off. Being really uptight about the thing, showing that you're ready to be "hurt" if things don't go as you want, demanding explanations--all these sorts of actions on your part can change someone's mind about you. If you're not aware of how those actions can do that, it can seem to you that you've been led down the garden path and then rejected "inconsistently" or "cruelly."
I don't presume that the woman you mention was not stringing you along, but even if she was, you are responsible for letting yourself be "hurt" by her. It's funny how little in human interactions can properly described as one person doing something to another; it takes two to do the dysfunctional tango.
I wish you better luck next time you like someone. Better than luck, though, is knowledge and honesty with oneself. Hard stuff, but it makes life better all around.
(P.S. Looking for explanations for your situation in speculation about genetic dispositions toward cruelty is not a step in the right direction.)
Don't the mini-chlorides or whatever make it sciency enough for you? Plus, it's got, like, big honking space ships, and I'm sure they had to use some science to build them.
"Most"? No.
Most of the mysterious illnesses of our society, from wifi allergies to "travelling" pain, to fibromyalgia and chronic pain disorder, are all manifestations of dysthemia and depression.
Source?
Rectal extraction.
The next exciting and up-to-date town-hall meeting discussing government's use of technology will be...Webpage Layout: Tables or CSS?
And they don't get angry at other cells for not following the rules.
So, the objection is that the administration is allowed to choose which information it thinks is relevant to developing and promoting a health care plan? This differs from governments' usual way of making policy how, exactly?
I see the point that they're imposing some limits on how the conversation goes, but did anyone really expect anything different?
My point is just that there's a vast distance separating this kind of rinky-dink maneuvering from the government's having somehow actually succeeded in making the conversation take only the shape that it favors.
It's kind of tiresome to continually read Americans complaining that tiny annoyances (or imagined biases and conspiracies) amount to political oppression. We have free speech in this country; it's no use complaining that the government isn't cooperating in our exercising that right in the way we would find most convenient.
It's no use, in the first place, because doing so will change nothing, and second, because those private individuals who have helped advance the national conversation in various ways at various times would have accomplished nothing if they had spent their time whining on public message boards about how the government was not broadcasting their message. That's the argument not of an activist, but of a loser.
Got something to say? Find others who will help and make yourselves heard. (Oh, and don't expect much except to be in it for the long haul with marginal success, if any.)
Am I the only person who's concerned that the Whitehouse has been allowed to be the moderator of such discussions?
Are you saying it's impossible to put your own video on Youtube (or elsewhere) detailing what you think about this or any other political issue? If not, I'm not sure how the administration has been "allowed to be the moderator of such discussions." Could you explain?
Better than being followed around by an assigned state-licensed Public Warning Engineer.
Like most natural human languages (those spoken by beings who are trying to communicate with one another and who exhibit the power of judgment), English allows some variation in what elements of sentences go where. No competent English-speaker who hasn't remained retarded in their sexual development at the anal-retentive stage, or developed a weird fetish by the daily practice of putting parentheses around symbolic expressions to coerce mechanical systems into evaluating them in the preferred order, could ever actually misconstrue this sentence as you are doing or pretend to be doing.
It's ironic that in a comment on a story about the joy of pattern-making and pattern-recognition, you should reveal the ugliness of pattern-enforcement. Don't, for the love of humanity, be a lexer (of any languages but those that need it), and don't go around insisting others think like machines.
Did it leave a silver lining?
Could we please start treating "serious gaming" like the oxymoron it should be?
One word: baccarat.
It's when you reply to a string of earlier messages and place your reply on top, so that whoever reads will have no idea of the context.
What's top posting?
Let's all go into comp.lang.c and start top posting to threads. They LOVE IT when you do that.