agreed. and to add to that - the rampant consumerism needed to drive modern economies is often diametrically opposed to classic child-rearing --- in Japan anyway. Fewer young women are looking to marry and start families.
isn't it in japan where they're collecting eggs with the ultimate aim of generating state-children?
The difference between current and next-gen games is significantly reduced relative to the leaps of generations past. It's possible we've reached a critical juncture of gaming evolution, where the next step in video games require not so much advances in rendering graphics and quality sound, but in interfacing specifically.
That's why Nintendo's experiment with their controller is risky and interesting. Ultimately, gaming has matured - for the most part, genres are cemented and experience evolutionary tweaks that refine a preexisting gaming experience. The next step involves interfacing, i.e. how the gamer interacts with the game.
We respond with our eyes, ears, and tactile sense now. But what happens when we can control our characters the way we control our own bodies - i.e. with a direct neural interface? When we feel the pain of a bullet or are rewarded with a rush of endorphins? The next step in gaming is to eliminate the obvious disconnect between the real experience and virtual one. The direct neural interface - brain-gaming is going to be the next killer ap. brain-gaming - brain-teaching - how quickly can you teach a child using direct interfacing mapped onto their brains?
I'm not sure how many generations away from this we are - but I can imagine that this world is an amazingly different place.
How about this: imagine a company that makes its money by inserting a neural interface in free ranging tigers - the neural interface can be mapped to any person so you can briefly experience what it feels like to be a tiger - or another interface that allows you to control the tiger remotely, become the tiger.
I disagree with you on nothing. However, it doesn't obviate my point, which is that I believe original poster's assertion of coders to be the best programmers as faulty. Clearly, hackers do not supercede the best programmers.
Great mechanics, with intricate understanding of automotive dynamics, are not automotive engineers, and probably cannot design automobiles. An automotive engineer, however, probably can tinker successfully with his leaky transmission.
I never said it didn't take skill, time, and/or intelligence to accomplish a hacker's objectives. My point is that it takes less time/skill/intelligence to break code or circumvent security than it takes to design and implement a system. Merely understanding how to code doesn't make you a coder. Understanding a system doesn't put you on par with the designer. This is my point, and you don't refute it.
It did take a lot of skill to design nuclear weapons. But I could probably break one - or edit it slightly to alters its behavior with a little bit of knowledge and/or training. This is no way makes me superior to the designers, which is what grandparent asserted.
For the most part, it always requires less skill to break something than to get something working. i.e. my ten year old nephew can destroy my car if I let him under the hood - it doesn't make him as talented as an automotive engineer. With some knowledge, he can do more sophisticated sabotage, but he still isn't as skilled as the average engineering undergrad.
The analogy works in other places: in sports, defensive teams succeed way more often than high flying offensive teams - in other words, it's easier to thwart what the other team is doing than to focus on perfect and intricate execution. I guess that's why Peyton Manning doesn't have a super bowl ring.
I grew up in a foster home - I ran away often, so finally, my foster mother resorted to locking me into a room to keep me from running. I scored an exacto knife and learned how to pick locks. To this day it remains one of my less marketable skills, but I in no way can design locks.
The question is how much of a loss can Sony accept given their meager cash resources (relative to Microsoft). Let's agree to an arbitrary ceiling for an acceptable console price - let's say $500. How long can Sony absorb $400 loss per unit? And $500 won't be competitive considering that the 360 will have dropped $100-150 by the time The PS3 drops.
I agree. I don't own one either. But they have the industry on lock. Apple had a reputation for superlative devices before the ipod. Amazon has no reputation for making anything, thus its a hard thing to build on.
the itunes issue isn't about cost. music is anonymously free all over the net. people WANT to pay for itunes. an amazon branded electronics device won't be competition for the ipod for two reasons: (1) its going to have to be spectacular to compete with the ipod on looks/UI alone (harder than it sounds), and (2) people like to know who is making their products (i.e. a brand). Amazon isn't known as an electronics maker - it's like Walmart selling a DAP.
I haven't read the article, but if Amazon expects its brand to move DAPS, they are mistaken. If they think they can honestly compete with Apple on heart-share (Apple succeeds in establishing an emotive connection with its users, thus inspiring loyalty - it's like a wierd kind of nationalism or something) or on design - it seems like a fools errand.
the article said bloomberg was going around with his photographer. This wasn't just a case of catching the guy playing solitare. It was more like catching him playing solitaire while an "inspection" was going on - or a tour, or whatever. Timing was the issue here.
I freelance and run my own business. It's harrowing - constantly making sure my next client(s) is/are on hand, but nothing beats not having to deal with lame bosses.
it's no coincidence that the highest grossing movie of all time is titanic. it's a movie that EVERYONE KNOWS THE END TO before going in. There is no discovery whatsoever - utterly sacharrine. Yet it's the highest grossing movie of all time.
dude... I'm not trying to speak for you, first of all. Second, I'm not wrong.
I want everything in one device and I damn near have it. I do everything with my pocket pc and have for 2 years. video, music, IM, DUN via bluetooth, wifi, word processing, spreadsheets, pics, ebooks, games, skype, email. all on a $300 HP pocket pc with 2 1-gig sd cards. The only thing missing is a phone - but for obvious power consumption reasons... the all in one solution is not going to be viable until we can put more power in them.
So you mistake me speaking for you, when I in fact understand your position and prefer it. The general audience that consumes gadgets however, disagrees with us.
Guess if I'm successful at attracting an audience on slashdot by doing the very thing you claim is "my own logic" - wouldn't that make you wrong and prove my point?
And you're missing the point - the audience isn't chased away if they're merely consuming another of your products. You're making the mistake of considering the film industry to be discrete and separate from other forms of entertainment. Incorrect assumption buddy. Audiences aren't chased away. In fact it's bigger than ever before. they're just doing different things - market fragmentation. So the industry diversifies by producing all of those products in house. But you've got it, dude. No more will I engage you. A wise man said... lol.
Hollywood and the marketplace loves guys like you - you hate everything, you disagree with everything, yet you consume voraciously. You offer no reasons, make no assertions - you're contrary because it's the only way you stand out... which means you don't. What this means is that you're inherently insecure. Because marketers need to inspire insecurity in order to then sell you the cure (their product) you are the easiest guy to sell to. You've done half their job for them! Good job, bud.
Agreed... I think someone is actually doing a study about correlations between urben centers and agnostic/atheistic beliefs.
Government listens to old people because old people vote. And old people and undereducated people are more religious. Government caters to them because they do the talking.
It's why the US wants media to get into fundamentalist countries. Nothing will destabilize a devout muslim country better than a few girls gone wild videos and american idol.
completely unrelated - I saw a documentary on the guys who flew the 9/11 planes. The night before they did the deed - one of the guys ordered a porn vid in his hotel room. One of the other guys ordered in for a hooker. The reason it was important to note was because one of the mandates they got in terrorist training was to "not let American mores corrupt you." By the time they did the deed - they were wearing down. They'd gotten drunk - they'd done some gambling in vegas.
It works very well for the film industry. It works very well for every industry. It works well for apple. That's the idea behind the IPOD - design simply and they will come.
The film industry is suffering from issues that are independent of the product. Piracy and the increased diversity of the entertainment marketplace and market saturation for movie-going in the US... And what you don't see is that much of the offset in box-office sales (which hurts exhibitors way more than it hurts hollywood) is being taken up by the cable medium and the international market. This is why hollywood firms vertically integrate. This is the reason there is no drastic move on hollywoods part to shift their way of doing business.
Further, Hollywood is in the business of doing movies with other people's money. Very few studios finance films with their own money. So it's win/win for a studio - they make money if a film does well and lose nothing if it doesn't because the money spent wasn't theirs. In the meantime, the studios keep and hold a catalogue. It's the catalogue that generates full and consistent revenue going forward. So Hollywood's method of doing business is extremely profitable - lol - obscenely profitable.
So then the question begs to be asked - why did you bother to type in your response?
My point remains: you dumb down your product and cast a wide net and you get great returns. You smarten up your product and you necessarily reduce your market. This is clear and evident across the board. It's why more people watch MTV than The Science Channel. It's why more people watch American Idol than that documentary on string theory. It's why more people own ipods than other, cheaper, feature-rich DAPs.
I've been watching video on a mobile since my Tungsten C.
I walk around with 2 gig SD cards. One is music - one is loaded with various vids. My HP pocket PC serves all of my needs in one device - not to mention bluetooth (for DUN, etc) and Wi-fi for hotspots. ebooks, audiobooks, spreadsheets, instant messaging, etc. It's such a great device to have. In the past two years, all of my friends are $1000+ in on Apple products - and they make fun of me for being a holdout. I on the other hand - am in $400 (300 for the pocket pc - 100 for two gig sd cards) during the same span.
I agree with you. Some method of actively tracking patents to determine that there is measurable progress towards marketing of the patent. If the patent-holder isn't moving to market with the innovation, then the patent is conditionally voided. I say conditionally, because if after it being voided, the original patent-holder should be given preference should they re-patent the innovation. Instances like this can be for example... when startyups run out of cash and suspend development while trying to re up, etc.
it's not hurting innovation. It's helping it. patents are what keep money flowing into new ideas. Otherwise, there's no reason to sink millions into anything; tyhere's no value to being the first rat to the mousetrap cause the second guys are gonna get the cheese and eat ur lunch.
the patent system is too lax, and the criteria for offering patents is flawed, but the system does not hurt innovation. Not at all.
PSP's success isn't rampant. Game Boy's success is rampant.
People don't want to be able to do everything with one device. The Treo isn't a rampant success; it's just successful relative to other devices that try to combine multiple functions. And the Treo isn't that good of a device.
I'll give you a poor analogy - I work in film, and film meetings go like this: "This is a great idea, but we need to dumb it down." The intelligence benchmark used by the film industry is a 12 year old boy. This isn't to say that they gear products toward 12-year old boys (although they do) but to say they assume the avarage audience, regardless of age or demographic, to be that smart. Why? Because people hate feeling that they're not smart - or that there's something going on behind the curtain they can't comprehend. The worst thing that happens with a dumbed down film is that people figure everything out (and feel good about themselves for doing so). In this instance, the industry did its job in serving up an opiate. Hence IPOD - one wheel - anyone can use it. Hence the dumbest movies making the most money. Most people would rather something banal and predictable because it affirms them, rather than something that does not.
To conclude, you do not want a device that does all things. Complex technology often reminds people that they know little to knowing of tech. It smacks of purposeful obscurity (I've witnessed marketing tests where test subjects get mad, bang the unit on the table like an ape, then complain that the designers don't want the working man using their products). Nintendo is right in that most people don't play games because the user interface looks intimidating from the outside in (You have to step into the shoes of someone unfamiliar with tech and just sees a bunch of buttons). Sony is in a can't lose situation - the PS installation is so huge, all they have to do is shut up about the device and deliver it soon before really good games start coming out for the 360. The only way they lose is if they self destruct. They've already started down the path.
Standard in films is that the classic hero doesn't do much talking. Why? Talking is considered weakness in films - most people talk not to convey something, but to hide something else. Sony is doing a lot of TALKING RIGHT NOW. People are justifiably nervous.
For example: analysis of the Japanese marketplace indicates that their economy is coming out of a long recession. Why? Japan has a dangerously low birth rate. Japanese women are educated and entering the workplace at a breakneck pace. They are not marrying and they are not having children. They don't feel the same amount of social pressures to succeed that the men feel, so they experience less stress and have loads of disposable income. For these reasons, the JApanese economy is becoming pegged to the spending habits of professional working age women. They overconsume ALL ACROSS THE BOARD.
If Nintendo chooses to focus its efforts on this group in Japan, it's only fair to assume that a similar trend will emerge here, given the standard delay of 5-15 years between our cultures.
We mirror Japan in other ways. JApan has a high suicide rate amongst males specifically. The US suicide rate amongst males is steadily rising. We've mirrored them in reality television shows and the steadily increasing amount of time spent watching it (The Japanese watch the most television in the world). The US is becoming increasingly a-religious as its urban centers grow, mirroring a largely secular Japanese culture.
I've done some freelance work for MTV and its no big secret there that their second biggest audience is urban professional women. They are a critical mass audience.
It's always funny that slashdot guys complain about not meeting/having chicks. The numbers are totally in your favor, dudes.
Because we need EXTRA males for a whole bunch of things. In my estimation, exploration, the sciences and engineering.
In school, I was smoking pot with a friend and we were having this random conversation and she blurted out: "You could never convince me to get on a ship in the 1500s." Then it made sense to me. Men do stupid shit - a lot of us die because of it. So evolution produces a surplus of men to compensate. Space travel, exploration, even intellectual exploration like in the sciences and engineering.
Women outnumber men by a handy margin in university in the US. University enrollment by men is also artificially bolstered by athletics; many student athletes would not attend college on academics alone. There's been interest in a kind of affirmative action for men in regards to attending college. More credence, I think, to the idea that males are produced in surplus to account for variables that might affect the population.
Slashdot Mirror
look at box office mojo (www.boxofficemojo.com). That's where I got the number from. The world
agreed. and to add to that - the rampant consumerism needed to drive modern economies is often diametrically opposed to classic child-rearing --- in Japan anyway. Fewer young women are looking to marry and start families.
isn't it in japan where they're collecting eggs with the ultimate aim of generating state-children?
dude, the film has grossed $542,681,518 worldwide.
The difference between current and next-gen games is significantly reduced relative to the leaps of generations past. It's possible we've reached a critical juncture of gaming evolution, where the next step in video games require not so much advances in rendering graphics and quality sound, but in interfacing specifically.
That's why Nintendo's experiment with their controller is risky and interesting. Ultimately, gaming has matured - for the most part, genres are cemented and experience evolutionary tweaks that refine a preexisting gaming experience. The next step involves interfacing, i.e. how the gamer interacts with the game.
We respond with our eyes, ears, and tactile sense now. But what happens when we can control our characters the way we control our own bodies - i.e. with a direct neural interface? When we feel the pain of a bullet or are rewarded with a rush of endorphins? The next step in gaming is to eliminate the obvious disconnect between the real experience and virtual one. The direct neural interface - brain-gaming is going to be the next killer ap. brain-gaming - brain-teaching - how quickly can you teach a child using direct interfacing mapped onto their brains?
I'm not sure how many generations away from this we are - but I can imagine that this world is an amazingly different place.
How about this: imagine a company that makes its money by inserting a neural interface in free ranging tigers - the neural interface can be mapped to any person so you can briefly experience what it feels like to be a tiger - or another interface that allows you to control the tiger remotely, become the tiger.
I disagree with you on nothing. However, it doesn't obviate my point, which is that I believe original poster's assertion of coders to be the best programmers as faulty. Clearly, hackers do not supercede the best programmers.
Great mechanics, with intricate understanding of automotive dynamics, are not automotive engineers, and probably cannot design automobiles. An automotive engineer, however, probably can tinker successfully with his leaky transmission.
I never said it didn't take skill, time, and/or intelligence to accomplish a hacker's objectives. My point is that it takes less time/skill/intelligence to break code or circumvent security than it takes to design and implement a system. Merely understanding how to code doesn't make you a coder. Understanding a system doesn't put you on par with the designer. This is my point, and you don't refute it.
It did take a lot of skill to design nuclear weapons. But I could probably break one - or edit it slightly to alters its behavior with a little bit of knowledge and/or training. This is no way makes me superior to the designers, which is what grandparent asserted.
I don't know how accurate that is.
For the most part, it always requires less skill to break something than to get something working. i.e. my ten year old nephew can destroy my car if I let him under the hood - it doesn't make him as talented as an automotive engineer. With some knowledge, he can do more sophisticated sabotage, but he still isn't as skilled as the average engineering undergrad.
The analogy works in other places: in sports, defensive teams succeed way more often than high flying offensive teams - in other words, it's easier to thwart what the other team is doing than to focus on perfect and intricate execution. I guess that's why Peyton Manning doesn't have a super bowl ring.
I grew up in a foster home - I ran away often, so finally, my foster mother resorted to locking me into a room to keep me from running. I scored an exacto knife and learned how to pick locks. To this day it remains one of my less marketable skills, but I in no way can design locks.
The question is how much of a loss can Sony accept given their meager cash resources (relative to Microsoft). Let's agree to an arbitrary ceiling for an acceptable console price - let's say $500. How long can Sony absorb $400 loss per unit? And $500 won't be competitive considering that the 360 will have dropped $100-150 by the time The PS3 drops.
was this written by men named wachowski?
I agree. I don't own one either. But they have the industry on lock. Apple had a reputation for superlative devices before the ipod. Amazon has no reputation for making anything, thus its a hard thing to build on.
This won't be competition for the ipod/itunes.
the itunes issue isn't about cost. music is anonymously free all over the net. people WANT to pay for itunes. an amazon branded electronics device won't be competition for the ipod for two reasons: (1) its going to have to be spectacular to compete with the ipod on looks/UI alone (harder than it sounds), and (2) people like to know who is making their products (i.e. a brand). Amazon isn't known as an electronics maker - it's like Walmart selling a DAP.
I haven't read the article, but if Amazon expects its brand to move DAPS, they are mistaken. If they think they can honestly compete with Apple on heart-share (Apple succeeds in establishing an emotive connection with its users, thus inspiring loyalty - it's like a wierd kind of nationalism or something) or on design - it seems like a fools errand.
the article said bloomberg was going around with his photographer. This wasn't just a case of catching the guy playing solitare. It was more like catching him playing solitaire while an "inspection" was going on - or a tour, or whatever. Timing was the issue here.
I freelance and run my own business. It's harrowing - constantly making sure my next client(s) is/are on hand, but nothing beats not having to deal with lame bosses.
dude, the matrix was a dumb movie.
it's no coincidence that the highest grossing movie of all time is titanic. it's a movie that EVERYONE KNOWS THE END TO before going in. There is no discovery whatsoever - utterly sacharrine. Yet it's the highest grossing movie of all time.
dude... I'm not trying to speak for you, first of all. Second, I'm not wrong.
I want everything in one device and I damn near have it. I do everything with my pocket pc and have for 2 years. video, music, IM, DUN via bluetooth, wifi, word processing, spreadsheets, pics, ebooks, games, skype, email. all on a $300 HP pocket pc with 2 1-gig sd cards. The only thing missing is a phone - but for obvious power consumption reasons... the all in one solution is not going to be viable until we can put more power in them.
So you mistake me speaking for you, when I in fact understand your position and prefer it. The general audience that consumes gadgets however, disagrees with us.
Guess if I'm successful at attracting an audience on slashdot by doing the very thing you claim is "my own logic" - wouldn't that make you wrong and prove my point?
And you're missing the point - the audience isn't chased away if they're merely consuming another of your products. You're making the mistake of considering the film industry to be discrete and separate from other forms of entertainment. Incorrect assumption buddy. Audiences aren't chased away. In fact it's bigger than ever before. they're just doing different things - market fragmentation. So the industry diversifies by producing all of those products in house. But you've got it, dude. No more will I engage you. A wise man said... lol.
Hollywood and the marketplace loves guys like you - you hate everything, you disagree with everything, yet you consume voraciously. You offer no reasons, make no assertions - you're contrary because it's the only way you stand out... which means you don't. What this means is that you're inherently insecure. Because marketers need to inspire insecurity in order to then sell you the cure (their product) you are the easiest guy to sell to. You've done half their job for them! Good job, bud.
lol.
Agreed... I think someone is actually doing a study about correlations between urben centers and agnostic/atheistic beliefs.
Government listens to old people because old people vote. And old people and undereducated people are more religious. Government caters to them because they do the talking.
It's why the US wants media to get into fundamentalist countries. Nothing will destabilize a devout muslim country better than a few girls gone wild videos and american idol.
completely unrelated - I saw a documentary on the guys who flew the 9/11 planes. The night before they did the deed - one of the guys ordered a porn vid in his hotel room. One of the other guys ordered in for a hooker. The reason it was important to note was because one of the mandates they got in terrorist training was to "not let American mores corrupt you." By the time they did the deed - they were wearing down. They'd gotten drunk - they'd done some gambling in vegas.
It works very well for the film industry. It works very well for every industry. It works well for apple. That's the idea behind the IPOD - design simply and they will come.
The film industry is suffering from issues that are independent of the product. Piracy and the increased diversity of the entertainment marketplace and market saturation for movie-going in the US... And what you don't see is that much of the offset in box-office sales (which hurts exhibitors way more than it hurts hollywood) is being taken up by the cable medium and the international market. This is why hollywood firms vertically integrate. This is the reason there is no drastic move on hollywoods part to shift their way of doing business.
Further, Hollywood is in the business of doing movies with other people's money. Very few studios finance films with their own money. So it's win/win for a studio - they make money if a film does well and lose nothing if it doesn't because the money spent wasn't theirs. In the meantime, the studios keep and hold a catalogue. It's the catalogue that generates full and consistent revenue going forward. So Hollywood's method of doing business is extremely profitable - lol - obscenely profitable.
So then the question begs to be asked - why did you bother to type in your response?
My point remains: you dumb down your product and cast a wide net and you get great returns. You smarten up your product and you necessarily reduce your market. This is clear and evident across the board. It's why more people watch MTV than The Science Channel. It's why more people watch American Idol than that documentary on string theory. It's why more people own ipods than other, cheaper, feature-rich DAPs.
Lol. You're funny. lol.
Dude I totally agree with you.
I've been watching video on a mobile since my Tungsten C.
I walk around with 2 gig SD cards. One is music - one is loaded with various vids. My HP pocket PC serves all of my needs in one device - not to mention bluetooth (for DUN, etc) and Wi-fi for hotspots. ebooks, audiobooks, spreadsheets, instant messaging, etc. It's such a great device to have. In the past two years, all of my friends are $1000+ in on Apple products - and they make fun of me for being a holdout. I on the other hand - am in $400 (300 for the pocket pc - 100 for two gig sd cards) during the same span.
I agree with you. Some method of actively tracking patents to determine that there is measurable progress towards marketing of the patent. If the patent-holder isn't moving to market with the innovation, then the patent is conditionally voided. I say conditionally, because if after it being voided, the original patent-holder should be given preference should they re-patent the innovation. Instances like this can be for example... when startyups run out of cash and suspend development while trying to re up, etc.
I agree totally.
it's not hurting innovation. It's helping it. patents are what keep money flowing into new ideas. Otherwise, there's no reason to sink millions into anything; tyhere's no value to being the first rat to the mousetrap cause the second guys are gonna get the cheese and eat ur lunch.
the patent system is too lax, and the criteria for offering patents is flawed, but the system does not hurt innovation. Not at all.
PSP's success isn't rampant. Game Boy's success is rampant.
People don't want to be able to do everything with one device. The Treo isn't a rampant success; it's just successful relative to other devices that try to combine multiple functions. And the Treo isn't that good of a device.
I'll give you a poor analogy - I work in film, and film meetings go like this: "This is a great idea, but we need to dumb it down." The intelligence benchmark used by the film industry is a 12 year old boy. This isn't to say that they gear products toward 12-year old boys (although they do) but to say they assume the avarage audience, regardless of age or demographic, to be that smart. Why? Because people hate feeling that they're not smart - or that there's something going on behind the curtain they can't comprehend. The worst thing that happens with a dumbed down film is that people figure everything out (and feel good about themselves for doing so). In this instance, the industry did its job in serving up an opiate. Hence IPOD - one wheel - anyone can use it. Hence the dumbest movies making the most money. Most people would rather something banal and predictable because it affirms them, rather than something that does not.
To conclude, you do not want a device that does all things. Complex technology often reminds people that they know little to knowing of tech. It smacks of purposeful obscurity (I've witnessed marketing tests where test subjects get mad, bang the unit on the table like an ape, then complain that the designers don't want the working man using their products). Nintendo is right in that most people don't play games because the user interface looks intimidating from the outside in (You have to step into the shoes of someone unfamiliar with tech and just sees a bunch of buttons). Sony is in a can't lose situation - the PS installation is so huge, all they have to do is shut up about the device and deliver it soon before really good games start coming out for the 360. The only way they lose is if they self destruct. They've already started down the path.
Standard in films is that the classic hero doesn't do much talking. Why? Talking is considered weakness in films - most people talk not to convey something, but to hide something else. Sony is doing a lot of TALKING RIGHT NOW. People are justifiably nervous.
not quite. by the time you're 35 - the female/male ratio in US is 6 to 4.
For example: analysis of the Japanese marketplace indicates that their economy is coming out of a long recession. Why? Japan has a dangerously low birth rate. Japanese women are educated and entering the workplace at a breakneck pace. They are not marrying and they are not having children. They don't feel the same amount of social pressures to succeed that the men feel, so they experience less stress and have loads of disposable income. For these reasons, the JApanese economy is becoming pegged to the spending habits of professional working age women. They overconsume ALL ACROSS THE BOARD.
If Nintendo chooses to focus its efforts on this group in Japan, it's only fair to assume that a similar trend will emerge here, given the standard delay of 5-15 years between our cultures.
We mirror Japan in other ways. JApan has a high suicide rate amongst males specifically. The US suicide rate amongst males is steadily rising. We've mirrored them in reality television shows and the steadily increasing amount of time spent watching it (The Japanese watch the most television in the world). The US is becoming increasingly a-religious as its urban centers grow, mirroring a largely secular Japanese culture.
I've done some freelance work for MTV and its no big secret there that their second biggest audience is urban professional women. They are a critical mass audience.
It's always funny that slashdot guys complain about not meeting/having chicks. The numbers are totally in your favor, dudes.
Because we need EXTRA males for a whole bunch of things. In my estimation, exploration, the sciences and engineering.
In school, I was smoking pot with a friend and we were having this random conversation and she blurted out: "You could never convince me to get on a ship in the 1500s." Then it made sense to me. Men do stupid shit - a lot of us die because of it. So evolution produces a surplus of men to compensate. Space travel, exploration, even intellectual exploration like in the sciences and engineering.
Women outnumber men by a handy margin in university in the US. University enrollment by men is also artificially bolstered by athletics; many student athletes would not attend college on academics alone. There's been interest in a kind of affirmative action for men in regards to attending college. More credence, I think, to the idea that males are produced in surplus to account for variables that might affect the population.
Women have higher resting serum levels of growth hormone than men until menopause when they fall. That's where the seven extra years plus come from.
women get extra time because they reproduce. males are overproduced, so we can afford to waste a few doing stupid shit, like you mentioned.