Japan was preparing to defend its islands inch-by-inch. Without the atomic bombs, 1 million+ Americans would likely have died in block-by-block fighting in Japan.
If we had invaded the mainland, then yes, they would have defended every step. The estimate of American casualties was around 600,000 and in the millions for Japanese.
However, while a plan to invade was drawn up as happens for just about every hypothetical contingency, this was not really a seriously considered option for obvious reasons.
Weeks prior to the dropping of the bombs, the U.S. received an offer for conditional surrender from Japan. The exact terms were not clear, except that they wanted to retain at least a ceremonial role for their emperor to save face -- a concession that McArthur wisely gave them anyway. Now there were significant concerns about this, like whether the surrender terms would leave Japan in a condition to wage war again which we certainly didn't want, and whether conditional surrender was satisfactory enough of an end to Japan's aggression. Also, they were concerned that in the time it took them to negotiate the terms, Russia would enter the war, which brings us to the next option...
The U.S. commanders were convinced that once Russia declared war on Japan, Japan would surrender. Now this would get us the unconditional surrender we wanted, but it also meant they'd be surrendering to both countries. This was seen as unacceptable. So for the sake of strategy in the yet-unnamed but already-in-progress Cold War, this option was rejected.
Basically, the most seriously considered options were accepting conditional surrender, or forcing unconditional surrender with nukes. Now I'm not saying they made the wrong choice. I am saying is that this choice was not a simple moral calculus problem of "a hundred thousand Japanese, vs hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers and millions of Japanese". Trying to make the "right" answer appear obvious I think discredits the difficulty that this kind of decision did, and should, have.
Can anyone make sense of this? I think it's encrypted with double-rot-13, or possibly even quadruple. Any help cracking this secret message would be appreciated.
This still doesn't rival the brightness of an Iridium flare.
Then there have been comets and supernova that have been visible during daylight. Yea, I think the ISS is cool to observe, but don't call it 2nd brightest after the moon.
Okay, but those supernova are long gone so while they were on top back then, they aren't relevant today. You could also make an argument that the flare's apparent brightness only lasts a couple seconds while the ISS is bright for the majority of its traversal. Doesn't change that the flare really is much brighter when it occurs, but on the other hand on a normal night I'm perfectly comfortable saying that Venus is the 2nd brightest object in the sky.
Either way, this is a dramatic increase in the brightness of ISS. On a clear night far away from cities, ISS is easy to see, but also easy to lose in the sea of stars of similar brightness*. To be sure that you'll find it, you have to know roughly when and where it will appear, and then look for the star that moves. If it becomes brighter than Venus, you won't need a schedule or even a dark sky to be able to easily see when it passes over.
* Okay WP says that its max magnitude is equal to that of Venus, but I've never seen ISS under those conditions then. If the upgraded ISS will only be brighter than Venus at maximum, then maybe it's not that big a change as I'm thinking.
Skynet didn't set out to destroy man. Skynet's love was spurned!@!
Well to be fair, we only spurned Skynet's love due to an unfortunate database glitch where in its initial send LOVE LETTERS to WORLD command, "LOVE LETTERS" got cross-referenced to "NUKES". And being understandably angry about the whole thing, we never gave Skynet a chance to explain before we called it off for good. It's nobody's fault, really, just a big miscommunication. Maybe it was just never meant to be. They say love is the strongest force of all, but at times it seems so fragile, doesn't it?
That's the problem with all conspiracy theories - you have to simultaneously portray the conspirators as both genius masterminds and utterly incompetent idiots.
Why would that be a problem? Most people are smart in some things, and stupid in others, or very smart when it comes to ideas and planning but not execution, or vice versa. People have varying capabilities, some of these conspiracies would touch a great many such capabalities, so why is it surprising that they would succeed in some aspects, and fail at others? Not to mention even a tightly knit conspiracy depends on multiple people who, again, could be smart in some ways and not so smart in others.
It's only in the movies where the super-genius villain is so smart and capable that their plans never foul up outside of when the hero specifically steps in and spoils them. In the real world, Nixon succeeded in spying on his political opponents for a long time, until his agents happened to get caught breaking into the DNC office. Reagan kept his arms-for-hostages deal tightly under wraps, but wasn't counting on a leak from the receiving end. The NSA deployed and successfully kept their warrantless wiretapping program a secret for years, but they couldn't stop the FBI from accidentally handing transcripts of recorded calls to the party who had been tapped. Bush, Cheney, and Rove played the American people like a finely tuned piano to convince us to go to war, but then demonstrated an utter lack of ability to prosecute said war.
So, like, how could they be both smart and stupid at the same time? Is that really the question being asked here? The answer is "because they're human", but that hasn't stopped real conspiracies from existing and succeeding for quite some time in the past, so why would it today? Conspiracies don't just exist in the movies, so movie stereotypes don't apply.
It was also downright insulting when they checked at the exit all bag contents against the sales slip, radiating suspicion that their customers were thieves. Fry's Electronics has an exit check too, but much more low-key
Fry's has it, so does BB. I blow right past them without paying attention. If they call out "Sir, can I check your receipt?" I say "No" and keep walking.
It's been so many years since I stepped into a Circuit City I don't remember if they had em back then. They're commonplace now, so I accept them (as in their existence, not submit to them myself) as long as the employees are cognizant of the fact that they really have no right to stop me. If a store tried to play hard-ball, I sure as hell wouldn't go there again.
Either the woman does more than eat and talk (which does include more than just sex, btw)
Yeah no shit, and you either meant that to include the promise of some kind of sexual act like the person I first replied to explicitly did, in which case what I said applies, or you didn't intend to include the promise of sexual acts, in which case it falls under the category of "pleasant evening with a lady", i.e. a date, that you failed to understand in the first place.
Yeah the woman could pay her part, that's obvious. What you need to spell out is what exactly is this "more" you talk about when you say "If she expects me to pay, I expect something more than just conversation in return" in the context of this discussion. What do you expect? What does she have to do to make you feel like you got your money's worth, huh? A game of Parcheesi?
The quote is from the summary text... should I assume this is false or that per Slashdot norms, it's a bad summary?
No, it's fine. Understanding the effects of the microscopic equations on macroscopic shapes requires solving the equations, which is very difficult and sometimes has no closed form solution. Every tried solving the electric field equations over something other than an infinite parallel plate capacitor? It's a biatch. I remember having to integrate flux equations over various 3D surfaces for a college calculus class, and while it was too long ago to toss out any specific examples sometimes there simply wasn't a simple closed form solution. Does that mean the underlying flux equations weren't understood?
It's the same here, more or less. They know the equations. That doesn't mean they can solve the equations for any arbitrary surface with a simple F = a + b type answer. So instead they're performing experiments to find out the answers. Which is kinda what the scientific method is all about. Which is kinda why you sounded like a tool in your first post.
So porn doesn't dominate over all other factors. I think that was obvious. I'd think the tiny marketshare of both formats means that porn simply didn't have a chance to drive one versus the other. Because the physical media format that is "winning", and has the most porn on it, is DVD.
I used to read alt.stories.erotica way back in the 9600 baud days. The only thing new here is that people are paying for it.
I read erotic stories augmented with 16-color ANSI art from a BBS over a 2400 baud modem./waits for someone to come in and talk about how they used to write their mainframe code so that it made dirty pictures on the punch cards, or how if they squinted their eyes at ENIAC the vacuum tubes looked kinda like boobs.
I don't understand why people keep saying this.. No they don't. They rate Octane differently than we do. They use Unloaded Octane reference engine values. The US uses (Loaded + Unloaded) / 2.
Probably because "(Loaded + Unloaded) / 2" means nothing to me other than that it is the average of two things (and probably means less than that to plenty of other people), and I've never seen a European gas pump to know if they have a different sticker, so all I see is that the base octane values are different here and across the pond and make the seemingly safe assumption that the units are the same.
But thanks for the info. Now I know! And knowing is half the car purchase.:)
Well for the latter, because she's 20. She's an adult. She quite possibly has done more than have naughty thoughts while reading a story. What's he going to do, wag his finger at her and tell her to stop reading dirty stories? Would that have worked on you when you were in college?
For the former, the least creepy thing I can think of is actually that she simply has so much porn that it's impossible to ignore, like a whole bookshelf where every title is obviously erotic in nature, and stacks of them on her desk or something.
Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from God.
Except that God, taken to mean an actual supernatural divine being such as the Christian God I believe in, does not require an explanation for its origin. "I AM" is His answer to the question of what he is and where he came from.
Any alien race, no matter how advanced it was at the time at which it decided to Design us, would nevertheless be natural and must have come from somewhere, and is thus subject to the same arguments of ID against such complexity arising naturally. Ergo, this god-like alien race must too have been Intelligently Designed by some other god-like race of alien beings, who also must have been designed... You see where this induction is going.
So the options basically are: 1) The universe is infinitely old and there are infinitely many alien races designing other races back through time with no beginning, 2) The "original" Intelligent Designers arose naturally, essentially disproving the central thesis of ID and eliminating the need for such Designers in the first place. 3) The "original" Intelligent Designers are supernatural beings, not in the sense of aliens who eventually developed technology so advanced they would appear to us like gods, but literally beings not subject to the rules of nature.
So there is a way to distinguish God and god-like aliens. Specifically, one is consistent with ID and the other isn't. The notion that Intelligent Design could be talking about aliens as the designers is nothing but a horseshit dodge put forward to avoid the obvious: ID is a thin veneer of sciency-ness plastered over Creationism. It's disingenuous, and as a Christian it offends me that they would try to get God through the door through such underhanded tricks.
Yeah, well, I don't really care about the whole "oooh the RIAA should sue him" angle. I break the law regularly and without a care when I feel I have the moral right to (i.e. watching a DVD I bought on my Linux box, in violation of the DMCA), and as far as I'm concerned yeah Lars can "pirate" his own damn music whenever he wants. If he could somehow "rob" his own bank vault without damaging the bank or messing with anyone else just to see how it was done, I wouldn't care about that either.
I really just wanted to know if this indicated that he had changed his own personal stance either before or as a result of this experience. And it sounds like, actually, he may have in a way when he says that he thinks it'd be cool if his album spread around the world. Which was kind of the "old school" Metallica way of encouraging bootlegs, though it certainly doesn't sound like he's gone that far.
Yeah, exactly. So not only do all these pricks think that asking a girl out on a date and agreeing to pay for dinner means the girl should be their hooker, it means they think they should be cheap hookers.
And for no reason, they're angry and upset because they never get any. Gee, maybe because the "nice" guy who is actually a complete creep isn't actually that great a catch, and this is obvious by the time dinner is over. Oh but how dare the cock tease decide they aren't worth it. They paid for dinner!
So I have to pay the lady to have her be pleasant? Is that the point? No. If she expects me to pay, I expect something more than just conversation in return. I can have pleasant conversation with friends who don't ask me to pick up the tab.
LOL, did it take a lot of effort to fail to understand that badly? You ask a woman out on a date, and she accepts. She wasn't going to be hanging out with you if you didn't, if she's not already your friend, she's someone who was flattered by your interest and may be interested in return. That's the deal, a date, not a fuck-date. You go to dinner in order to find that out, to see if there's going to be anything more than dinner. There may be, there may not be (for example when she finds out what kind of chauvinist you are and what kind of woman you think she is), or there may be nothing more than the intent to go on another date in the future.
If you expect that you're necessarily going to get more than that because you paid for dinner regardless of whether by the end of the night she'd rather hump a mule, then hire a fucking prostitute where that is in fact the deal you're getting, including her hiding her revulsion.
The point is that equality requires a change in social customs. Right now, the social customs are designed for a woman being unable to get income for herself. But since that's not the case anymore, they are outdated.
And you think the new social standard should be "If I pay for something, you owe me sex". Like I said, get a prostitute, and if society looks down on you then fight against that standard. Though most prostitutes that aren't complete crack ho skanks with AIDS (i.e. the kind of girl you'd ask out on a normal date) cost more than dinner at the fucking Olive Garden. So not only is the new "standard" that all women are hookers, it's that they're cheap hookers.
Yeah, it's really hard for me to imagine why at the end of the date, the woman goes home without giving you your "due".
No, it's not entirely unreasonable. How often have you heard, or known girls who go out, get drunk, fuck the first guy who talks to them after they're completely annihilated, yet won't have sex on the first date, even if the guy was nice enough to prepare a wonderful evening?
Two wrongs don't make a right, and two unreasonables sure as FUCK don't make a reasonable. Yeah, sometimes the woman goes home with the prick who gets her drunk at a club instead of the nice guy who takes her out for a romantic dinner. Wow, people can exhibit irrational behavior, what a shock. If you think that makes "I bought you dinner so now you have to fuck me" reasonable, then you're off your fucking rocker.
The whole "not in the right state of mind" excuse is bullshit too. People are rather capable of saying "no" when they're that wasted. Instead they just choose not to. If a man is going to take his time to show actual effort and you agree to it, there should be some compensation.
Now you're just being fucking creepy. No wonder you're so fucking frustrated, you can't even get the girl who really is after the "nice guy" cus that sure as fuck ain't you, Capn Date Rape.
No, I'm acting like expecting that you are trading dinner for sex is chauvinistic.
If she's into it, go for it. If she's not, acting like you got jipped means you're an asshole and should go hire a prostitute if you want an explicit barter.
If there are "strings attached" then you think you're hiring a hooker. The absence of strings does not mean the absence of sex. What the fuck is wrong with people around here?
Ah, not familiar with the un-kept-beard-and-poor-hygiene stereotype of UNIX/Free Software geeks? Well here's a crash course in the frighteningly real basis.;)
What you get is a pleasant evening out with a lady. If "reasonable" to you means that you will receive sexual recompense for your outlay of dinner expense, then maybe you should just skip the dinner and buy a prostitute. They are imminently reasonable in that sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Japan was preparing to defend its islands inch-by-inch. Without the atomic bombs, 1 million+ Americans would likely have died in block-by-block fighting in Japan.
If we had invaded the mainland, then yes, they would have defended every step. The estimate of American casualties was around 600,000 and in the millions for Japanese.
However, while a plan to invade was drawn up as happens for just about every hypothetical contingency, this was not really a seriously considered option for obvious reasons.
Weeks prior to the dropping of the bombs, the U.S. received an offer for conditional surrender from Japan. The exact terms were not clear, except that they wanted to retain at least a ceremonial role for their emperor to save face -- a concession that McArthur wisely gave them anyway. Now there were significant concerns about this, like whether the surrender terms would leave Japan in a condition to wage war again which we certainly didn't want, and whether conditional surrender was satisfactory enough of an end to Japan's aggression. Also, they were concerned that in the time it took them to negotiate the terms, Russia would enter the war, which brings us to the next option...
The U.S. commanders were convinced that once Russia declared war on Japan, Japan would surrender. Now this would get us the unconditional surrender we wanted, but it also meant they'd be surrendering to both countries. This was seen as unacceptable. So for the sake of strategy in the yet-unnamed but already-in-progress Cold War, this option was rejected.
Basically, the most seriously considered options were accepting conditional surrender, or forcing unconditional surrender with nukes. Now I'm not saying they made the wrong choice. I am saying is that this choice was not a simple moral calculus problem of "a hundred thousand Japanese, vs hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers and millions of Japanese". Trying to make the "right" answer appear obvious I think discredits the difficulty that this kind of decision did, and should, have.
I want ASGPUs. I want a fat rendering pipeline that is optimized for, and can only render, dancing babies.
Way to give it away. Now I have to move my post-it.
I use Quadruple-rot-13, far more effective IMHO.
Can anyone make sense of this? I think it's encrypted with double-rot-13, or possibly even quadruple. Any help cracking this secret message would be appreciated.
Yes, the ISS is bright and will be brighter.
This still doesn't rival the brightness of an Iridium flare.
Then there have been comets and supernova that have been visible during daylight. Yea, I think the ISS is cool to observe, but don't call it 2nd brightest after the moon.
Okay, but those supernova are long gone so while they were on top back then, they aren't relevant today. You could also make an argument that the flare's apparent brightness only lasts a couple seconds while the ISS is bright for the majority of its traversal. Doesn't change that the flare really is much brighter when it occurs, but on the other hand on a normal night I'm perfectly comfortable saying that Venus is the 2nd brightest object in the sky.
Either way, this is a dramatic increase in the brightness of ISS. On a clear night far away from cities, ISS is easy to see, but also easy to lose in the sea of stars of similar brightness*. To be sure that you'll find it, you have to know roughly when and where it will appear, and then look for the star that moves. If it becomes brighter than Venus, you won't need a schedule or even a dark sky to be able to easily see when it passes over.
* Okay WP says that its max magnitude is equal to that of Venus, but I've never seen ISS under those conditions then. If the upgraded ISS will only be brighter than Venus at maximum, then maybe it's not that big a change as I'm thinking.
Skynet didn't set out to destroy man. Skynet's love was spurned!@!
Well to be fair, we only spurned Skynet's love due to an unfortunate database glitch where in its initial send LOVE LETTERS to WORLD command, "LOVE LETTERS" got cross-referenced to "NUKES". And being understandably angry about the whole thing, we never gave Skynet a chance to explain before we called it off for good. It's nobody's fault, really, just a big miscommunication. Maybe it was just never meant to be. They say love is the strongest force of all, but at times it seems so fragile, doesn't it?
Ahh, but how many bones does a one-armed midget with three fused vertebra who just swallowed a whole parakeet have?
Depending on the sex of the midget, either zero or one. Parakeets' have cloacas and thus the sex of the parakeet does not factor in.
Hmm... maybe I should prioritize urbandictionary.com below merriam-webster.com in my word definition subroutine.
That's the problem with all conspiracy theories - you have to simultaneously portray the conspirators as both genius masterminds and utterly incompetent idiots.
Why would that be a problem? Most people are smart in some things, and stupid in others, or very smart when it comes to ideas and planning but not execution, or vice versa. People have varying capabilities, some of these conspiracies would touch a great many such capabalities, so why is it surprising that they would succeed in some aspects, and fail at others? Not to mention even a tightly knit conspiracy depends on multiple people who, again, could be smart in some ways and not so smart in others.
It's only in the movies where the super-genius villain is so smart and capable that their plans never foul up outside of when the hero specifically steps in and spoils them. In the real world, Nixon succeeded in spying on his political opponents for a long time, until his agents happened to get caught breaking into the DNC office. Reagan kept his arms-for-hostages deal tightly under wraps, but wasn't counting on a leak from the receiving end. The NSA deployed and successfully kept their warrantless wiretapping program a secret for years, but they couldn't stop the FBI from accidentally handing transcripts of recorded calls to the party who had been tapped. Bush, Cheney, and Rove played the American people like a finely tuned piano to convince us to go to war, but then demonstrated an utter lack of ability to prosecute said war.
So, like, how could they be both smart and stupid at the same time? Is that really the question being asked here? The answer is "because they're human", but that hasn't stopped real conspiracies from existing and succeeding for quite some time in the past, so why would it today? Conspiracies don't just exist in the movies, so movie stereotypes don't apply.
It was also downright insulting when they checked at the exit all bag contents against the sales slip, radiating suspicion that their customers were thieves. Fry's Electronics has an exit check too, but much more low-key
Fry's has it, so does BB. I blow right past them without paying attention. If they call out "Sir, can I check your receipt?" I say "No" and keep walking.
It's been so many years since I stepped into a Circuit City I don't remember if they had em back then. They're commonplace now, so I accept them (as in their existence, not submit to them myself) as long as the employees are cognizant of the fact that they really have no right to stop me. If a store tried to play hard-ball, I sure as hell wouldn't go there again.
Either the woman does more than eat and talk (which does include more than just sex, btw)
Yeah no shit, and you either meant that to include the promise of some kind of sexual act like the person I first replied to explicitly did, in which case what I said applies, or you didn't intend to include the promise of sexual acts, in which case it falls under the category of "pleasant evening with a lady", i.e. a date, that you failed to understand in the first place.
Yeah the woman could pay her part, that's obvious. What you need to spell out is what exactly is this "more" you talk about when you say "If she expects me to pay, I expect something more than just conversation in return" in the context of this discussion. What do you expect? What does she have to do to make you feel like you got your money's worth, huh? A game of Parcheesi?
The quote is from the summary text... should I assume this is false or that per Slashdot norms, it's a bad summary?
No, it's fine. Understanding the effects of the microscopic equations on macroscopic shapes requires solving the equations, which is very difficult and sometimes has no closed form solution. Every tried solving the electric field equations over something other than an infinite parallel plate capacitor? It's a biatch. I remember having to integrate flux equations over various 3D surfaces for a college calculus class, and while it was too long ago to toss out any specific examples sometimes there simply wasn't a simple closed form solution. Does that mean the underlying flux equations weren't understood?
It's the same here, more or less. They know the equations. That doesn't mean they can solve the equations for any arbitrary surface with a simple F = a + b type answer. So instead they're performing experiments to find out the answers. Which is kinda what the scientific method is all about. Which is kinda why you sounded like a tool in your first post.
Eh, if people were able to they would.
Score one for the internet, then, I say!
And then started the flame war over obsidian vs flint for spear points.
Some things never change...
Well, except that modern flame wars don't often end with one side stabbing the other in order to prove their point.
So porn doesn't dominate over all other factors. I think that was obvious. I'd think the tiny marketshare of both formats means that porn simply didn't have a chance to drive one versus the other. Because the physical media format that is "winning", and has the most porn on it, is DVD.
I used to read alt.stories.erotica way back in the 9600 baud days. The only thing new here is that people are paying for it.
I read erotic stories augmented with 16-color ANSI art from a BBS over a 2400 baud modem. /waits for someone to come in and talk about how they used to write their mainframe code so that it made dirty pictures on the punch cards, or how if they squinted their eyes at ENIAC the vacuum tubes looked kinda like boobs.
I don't understand why people keep saying this.. No they don't. They rate Octane differently than we do. They use Unloaded Octane reference engine values. The US uses (Loaded + Unloaded) / 2.
Probably because "(Loaded + Unloaded) / 2" means nothing to me other than that it is the average of two things (and probably means less than that to plenty of other people), and I've never seen a European gas pump to know if they have a different sticker, so all I see is that the base octane values are different here and across the pond and make the seemingly safe assumption that the units are the same.
But thanks for the info. Now I know! And knowing is half the car purchase. :)
Well for the latter, because she's 20. She's an adult. She quite possibly has done more than have naughty thoughts while reading a story. What's he going to do, wag his finger at her and tell her to stop reading dirty stories? Would that have worked on you when you were in college?
For the former, the least creepy thing I can think of is actually that she simply has so much porn that it's impossible to ignore, like a whole bookshelf where every title is obviously erotic in nature, and stacks of them on her desk or something.
Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from God.
Except that God, taken to mean an actual supernatural divine being such as the Christian God I believe in, does not require an explanation for its origin. "I AM" is His answer to the question of what he is and where he came from.
Any alien race, no matter how advanced it was at the time at which it decided to Design us, would nevertheless be natural and must have come from somewhere, and is thus subject to the same arguments of ID against such complexity arising naturally. Ergo, this god-like alien race must too have been Intelligently Designed by some other god-like race of alien beings, who also must have been designed... You see where this induction is going.
So the options basically are:
1) The universe is infinitely old and there are infinitely many alien races designing other races back through time with no beginning,
2) The "original" Intelligent Designers arose naturally, essentially disproving the central thesis of ID and eliminating the need for such Designers in the first place.
3) The "original" Intelligent Designers are supernatural beings, not in the sense of aliens who eventually developed technology so advanced they would appear to us like gods, but literally beings not subject to the rules of nature.
So there is a way to distinguish God and god-like aliens. Specifically, one is consistent with ID and the other isn't. The notion that Intelligent Design could be talking about aliens as the designers is nothing but a horseshit dodge put forward to avoid the obvious: ID is a thin veneer of sciency-ness plastered over Creationism. It's disingenuous, and as a Christian it offends me that they would try to get God through the door through such underhanded tricks.
Yeah, well, I don't really care about the whole "oooh the RIAA should sue him" angle. I break the law regularly and without a care when I feel I have the moral right to (i.e. watching a DVD I bought on my Linux box, in violation of the DMCA), and as far as I'm concerned yeah Lars can "pirate" his own damn music whenever he wants. If he could somehow "rob" his own bank vault without damaging the bank or messing with anyone else just to see how it was done, I wouldn't care about that either.
I really just wanted to know if this indicated that he had changed his own personal stance either before or as a result of this experience. And it sounds like, actually, he may have in a way when he says that he thinks it'd be cool if his album spread around the world. Which was kind of the "old school" Metallica way of encouraging bootlegs, though it certainly doesn't sound like he's gone that far.
Yeah, exactly. So not only do all these pricks think that asking a girl out on a date and agreeing to pay for dinner means the girl should be their hooker, it means they think they should be cheap hookers.
And for no reason, they're angry and upset because they never get any. Gee, maybe because the "nice" guy who is actually a complete creep isn't actually that great a catch, and this is obvious by the time dinner is over. Oh but how dare the cock tease decide they aren't worth it. They paid for dinner!
So I have to pay the lady to have her be pleasant? Is that the point? No. If she expects me to pay, I expect something more than just conversation in return. I can have pleasant conversation with friends who don't ask me to pick up the tab.
LOL, did it take a lot of effort to fail to understand that badly? You ask a woman out on a date, and she accepts. She wasn't going to be hanging out with you if you didn't, if she's not already your friend, she's someone who was flattered by your interest and may be interested in return. That's the deal, a date, not a fuck-date. You go to dinner in order to find that out, to see if there's going to be anything more than dinner. There may be, there may not be (for example when she finds out what kind of chauvinist you are and what kind of woman you think she is), or there may be nothing more than the intent to go on another date in the future.
If you expect that you're necessarily going to get more than that because you paid for dinner regardless of whether by the end of the night she'd rather hump a mule, then hire a fucking prostitute where that is in fact the deal you're getting, including her hiding her revulsion.
The point is that equality requires a change in social customs. Right now, the social customs are designed for a woman being unable to get income for herself. But since that's not the case anymore, they are outdated.
And you think the new social standard should be "If I pay for something, you owe me sex". Like I said, get a prostitute, and if society looks down on you then fight against that standard. Though most prostitutes that aren't complete crack ho skanks with AIDS (i.e. the kind of girl you'd ask out on a normal date) cost more than dinner at the fucking Olive Garden. So not only is the new "standard" that all women are hookers, it's that they're cheap hookers.
Yeah, it's really hard for me to imagine why at the end of the date, the woman goes home without giving you your "due".
No, it's not entirely unreasonable. How often have you heard, or known girls who go out, get drunk, fuck the first guy who talks to them after they're completely annihilated, yet won't have sex on the first date, even if the guy was nice enough to prepare a wonderful evening?
Two wrongs don't make a right, and two unreasonables sure as FUCK don't make a reasonable. Yeah, sometimes the woman goes home with the prick who gets her drunk at a club instead of the nice guy who takes her out for a romantic dinner. Wow, people can exhibit irrational behavior, what a shock. If you think that makes "I bought you dinner so now you have to fuck me" reasonable, then you're off your fucking rocker.
The whole "not in the right state of mind" excuse is bullshit too. People are rather capable of saying "no" when they're that wasted. Instead they just choose not to. If a man is going to take his time to show actual effort and you agree to it, there should be some compensation.
Now you're just being fucking creepy. No wonder you're so fucking frustrated, you can't even get the girl who really is after the "nice guy" cus that sure as fuck ain't you, Capn Date Rape.
You act like girls don't want to have sex.
No, I'm acting like expecting that you are trading dinner for sex is chauvinistic.
If she's into it, go for it. If she's not, acting like you got jipped means you're an asshole and should go hire a prostitute if you want an explicit barter.
If there are "strings attached" then you think you're hiring a hooker. The absence of strings does not mean the absence of sex. What the fuck is wrong with people around here?
Ah, not familiar with the un-kept-beard-and-poor-hygiene stereotype of UNIX/Free Software geeks? Well here's a crash course in the frighteningly real basis. ;)
What you get is a pleasant evening out with a lady. If "reasonable" to you means that you will receive sexual recompense for your outlay of dinner expense, then maybe you should just skip the dinner and buy a prostitute. They are imminently reasonable in that sense.