I was referring to the RIAA mass-subpoena compaign, and the similar (only much worse) actions being taken by DirectTV towards purchasers of smart-card technology.
In a thread about "U.S. Appeals court upholds webcasting royalties?"
Uh huh. Apparently that "misguided response" bit was talking, then, about your very own post?
Except they can't take our stuff. What they are "taking" is their stuff using the laws we have all lived by for decades. Those very same laws protect us from having these people do exactly what you describe - bash us on the heads (or not) and take "our" stuff. Warner Communications can no more compile my megabytes of very public usenet postings and publish them for their own profit than I can do so with Harry Potter.
You're not going to find many people more anti-media than myself. I don't have pay TV, haven't bought a CD in years, don't rent movies at Blockbuster, rarely go to the theatre, and can barely even tolerate the public airwaves l0ong enough to enjoy Survivor or, on the odd chance it's not a repeat (or just lame) Late Night with David Letterman.
In short, I don't support the old guard. Hell, I don't even get magazines shipped to my house or even click on CNN.com. But I likewise cannot tolerate this nonsensical parroting about how the old school publishers are stealing "our stuff." WIRED harped on this nonsense for years - how "they" were going to deprive "us" of "our culture" - and I disputed it then, just as now. You want culture? Write a goddamned book. Make some music. Take some photographs. Share them with the world.
There's your culture.
Stop listening to the talking heads in hollywood who tell you what to think and feel and desire. Stop letting corporations rule your daily thoughts - contrary to what those "anti-media" talking heads in the mainstream media are telling you, it's NOT impossible to tune them out. You DON'T have to throw up your hands and accept it - but you're not going to make a change by trying to defend your "right" to their cultural icons.
If corporate publishers are able to "lock away your culture" what does that tell you about the values of your culture?
You want culture? You have the power to redefine it. The time has come to put up or shut up.
Then the market is wide open for a competitor to live365 that WILL embrace and foster the market for truly independant media.
The only sad part of this decision is that it still holds the door open for all those established broadcasters - like the god-whore Clear Channel - to webcast all the RIAA dreck they wish. and, given clear channel's power in the market, they'll have no problem negotiating a cherry deal with the RIAA while all the "little guys" continue to flounder.
On the upside, that's the ideal environment for a dinos-vs-indi@s battle.
Not to mention, such email will probably not be scannable for attached viruses (presumably the entire email is encrypted, including attachments)--so either virus checkers will have to bounce them automatically, or let an unscanned email through their gateway. Great.
In fact, that last is almost sure to kill this idea stillborn, once the threat is realized. Would you allow a certain percentage of your email through without being checked? Or would you bounce it back, first?
So then... just curious: do you also automatically bounce back any PGP encrypted email packets arriving at your office LAN?
Not trying to troll, but it seems to me if "this last [point] is almost sure to kill this idea stillborn" then perhaps that's why PGP has also not taken hold? By extension there is a real security risk of allowing ANY PGP encrypted packets onto your LAN that have not been encrypted to a key you control. So what do you do? No office banking? No secure transactions with other companies?
It's either a problem for everyone, or it's not a problem at all. Sounds to me like it's a problem for everyone - not unique at all to MS.
Not that I would trust MS as far as I could throw Steve Ballmer into a headwind... but some consistency is in order.
Who has the lobbying power in washington? To even come close to parity you'd need to send more like $50 to the EFF for every dollar you send to hollywood.
Expecting legal downloads to ever be completely absent of DRM is completely ridiculous.
These sites have been available for years now. MP3 finder, grammy.ru - many of them. All operating completely within the laws of the country that hosts them (Russia) and in cooperation with many of the very same labels (Universal, Sony, etc) who have refused, for years, to cooperate with american web companies in offering the very same product package.
Notice how we never hear about lawsuits or the RIAA threatening to take down these "international" sites? Why do you think that is? They don't dare talk about them and let Americans know they can buy mp3 music online at a dime a pop... or even get many popular picks absolutely free, and completely legal.
It's fascinating how they can continue to make money in a country where "pirated music" outnumbers legal copies on store shelves 2:1, but swear that offering DRM free download services in the US would put them out of business.
Just want to say it again: I'll never buy an online song (or another CD) from an RIAA label. I don't care if Apple is selling them or Mother Theresa's ministry, I ain't putting any more money down that rathole in hollywood.
That's the only explanation I can think of why I, on a dialup line, managed to get rooted within a week of firing up a default smoothwall 2.0 install.
Plus their fearless leader seems to be something of a belligerent (and possibly unstable) jackass (google it and see yourself). While I, too, have something of this trait, I'm not here asking people to trust their network security to me.
ipcop is based on the early work on smoothwall. It's just as easy to install and configure and use, it's completely open source (meaning you can get at those install scripts you wanted) and it appears, based on my limited dialup experience, to be much more secure than smoothwall.
And all the others who would seek to compete. Just like pirating RIAA music hurts the indies, cuz it just perpeptuate the mindset that the majors are the only game in town.
I don't care for Adobe at all, but I rather hope this works. Making it impossible to "upgrade" without paying money isn't going to drive all those students and housewives and schoolteachers to shell out hundreds of dollars, but it might convince a few thousand to try out gimp and PSP.
By making their software harder to pirate, they are ultimately diluting their power in the graphics market. That's a good thing for everyone.
Porn is outlawed in many countries. Ironically, it's these very countries where women are not allowed to drive cars, or walk the streets with exposed faces, or leave the home without their husband's consent...
And nudity has nothing to do with porn. This american puritanism is responsible for most of the problems we face regarding "porn." If people weren't so damn hung up on a little nudity, the MTV type flesh trade would have significantly less power.
And THAT is why it is perpeptuated. The thumpers are just too stupid to realize they are being played to serve the secular corporate agenda.
Scientific American Frontiers
(older) NOVA
Connections
Brief History Of Time
Cosmos
Various NASA programs
Various BBC programs
And, because this is the new age of post-glasnodst communication, don't forget all those old Soviet science programs. And I'm sure china has some as well they would be willing to share with the world. It would be incredibly interesting to see tranlations of the various iron curtain "technology demonstrations."
Would they be objective? Probably no more than NASA programming of the era. But as newsreel footage it represents a very real documentaton of part of that history, and until now few of us in the west have seen ANY of it. This concept alone would probably be enough to fill several seasons, and the productions costs would be relatively low.
Wrong, trollboy. While it's certain there are MS boxes involved, Mississippi has been one of the LEADING states in migrating to open source software - including linux.
So, maybe we should throw some lame linux jokes in here? After all, if the software has problems you can bet this case will make it into the next round of windows propoganda.
Science has outpaced itself in this case. Until there are genetic treatments to "cure" ailments there is no need for ANYONE to have your genetic information except, if you desire it, you.
Prohibiting employers from discriminating on the basis of genetics means nothing, because they can always lie. and prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage means ABSOLUTELY nothing, because they can just do exactly like they already do with cancer patients and make the coverage so freaking expensive they'd need a grant from Bill Gates to pay it.
It doesn't stop there. Worse of all, I think, are those "no stick cooking sprays." Ever bother to read the ingredients of PAM? The stuff has cooking oil with TEFLON held in a liquid suspension!
I can't stand it. My father uses it to cook bisquits but the guy is 80 and I doubt anything he eats now is going to shorten his life. But I can taste and smell that shit when it's been sprayed onto a pan, and if you can taste it there's no doubt you're eating it.
I think it's hilarious how crap like this is put into food but it's illegal to smoke a doobie all in the name of "protecting the consumer." Ah well... when all the idiots have been killed off by cancer, maybe there'll be someone left with some sense to do something about the idiotic laws.
Stereophile is managed by a very UN-youthful fellow. Most of the editors are professionals in various fields (Kal Rubison, for example, is an audiologist and has been for at least the ten years I've known him).
You just got it WAY wrong. Stereophile exists to sell music systems. I'm sure JA would quibble with this but, at the end of the day, he'd have to admit this is the primary reason it exists. And many of the people who read that magazine are a persnickity bunch who wouldn't move beyond the 19th century if you shackled'em and threw'em in a donkey cart. Reviews of equipment like this help motivate a voluntary movement on their part.
And at the end of the day it's a review written by a reviewer. Would you go choose to not see a movie based on one bad movie review? Or allow one good review to change your opinion?
That's all it is... an opinion. And magazines like SP don't exist to publish bad ones - it pisses off the advertisers.
leaks happen all the time. They are unofficial, usually untraceable, and cannot be held against the company itself. The source for parts of windows media player were leaked, and even parts of the source for windows itself have been leaked. Is this because MS put them on a site and said "here, have fun?" No.
Stuff gets "leaked" all the time. From washington, from corporations - it's a "hole" in the fabric and although not always accidental, it can rarely be proven. How can MS be sued for the actions of an unidentified individual acting against the corporation's policy?
Thats the way the cookie crumbles, if you don't wanna pay for a licence and your product enfringes a patent you have to stop its distribution NOW, not when you have a patent work arround.
Actually, no. Distribution alone cannot practically be enforced (see mplayer, asfrecorder, decss, etc.) All the legal system can do is enforce limits on the profitability of a piece of code - in no way can the legal system practically enforce limits on the actual distribution of a piece of code. If MS really wanted to fuck with the system they could just open up IE - leak the source "into the wild" and pull the executable from their website.
Of course, it ain't likely to happen... but it could and "eolas" or whatever the fuck they are would lose a helluva lot more than MS would. In fact, you could argue MS would (greatly) benefit, since it would take about a minute before a dozen "forks" appeared at sourceforge and IE code wormed its way into linux and bsd and every goddamn thing else, thus further establishing the MS way as "the way of the world." By the time the suits at "eolas" got through figuring out who to sue next, the lawyers would have long since abandoned the sinking ship.
But that would be expected from someone who cites a wiki [slashdot.org] as an authoratative source.
You gotta get over this nonsense. It is crippling your ability to think. What makes the people at Merriam Webster so much more knowledgable about a given topic than others who are able to research? And what makes a "wiki" so goddamn refutable when the information cited is directly from the APA? When was the last time you saw Brittanica cataloging all its references?
Here's what I think. I think the OP made some valid points that you feel arent PC to talk...
I once opened up the valve cover of an Escort and found the oil had become congealed jelly. You couldn't even see the rocker arms anymore, and when it was running the whole mess just shook like the proverbial "bowl full of...
I told the service writer, who told the woman who owned the car she needed a new engine after only about 60,000 miles. Of course she was irate and, when confronted, the service writer said "that engine looks like it's never had the oil changed" - at which point she produced documentation that she HAD, in fact, followed the minimum suggested service intervals in the owner's manual. She had had the oil changed twice in the time she had the car, and she had it changed at the dealership.
Service writer called Ford, and Ford shipped out a new engine on a crate.
BTW most car dealerships now charge about the same for changing oil as the drive-through shops. Some offer specials and are even cheaper than the average drive-thru. They also have "techs" whose job it is to do nothing but prep cars and do oil changes all day long so as to ensure speedy (ie 20 minute) service. The idea is to get the owner used to coming to the dealership so when something else goes wrong they don't immediately think of taking it to "the kid at the local service station" who usually does the oil changes and tune-ups. Every time a car comes into a dealership is another chance to sell service and parts, so oil changes have become the prime in the pump - the loss leader.
So, in that case at least, the industry solved the problem itself: once they were "forced" by the courts into this realization, they still came out ahead by competing. Not many service stations can afford to keep a man on payroll all day just to do oil changes and wash cars, but dealerships already had that guy (usually a kid just out of high school) - they just expanded his job function.
Makes one wonder what the world of printers might look like if a couple of these big players would standardize their consumables and use the increased production quantity (ie lower mean unit cost) to leverage competition on "features" like quality and innovation.
Bandwidth is a function of time. If it takes ten times longer to send the same data, that means the slow "USB2" device is tying up the bus when other devices could be making use of it. One of the biggest features I've seen advertised for USB2 is how it can compete with firewire for storage devices. High capacity USB storage devices are common. So now I need to buy an extra USB controller just to connect to these devices because my fucking mouse and keyboard are slogging down the bus?
This kind of nonsense is the best thing that could happen for 1394. So long as people keep making these excuses and the "USB people" allow this sort of erosion to take place, USB will remain the domain of mice and keyboards and scanners and printers and still cameras.
So you make your point by repeating all the stupid shit that was already refuted? Those differences you list are all related to a lot more than whether or not someone has a pair of nuts. They relate to things like brain physiology - which is also related to developmental hormone levels - which is also related to...
How about if we say "blacks are better runners than white people and mexicans all like spicy food and have black hair..."
So far as that "friendly" stuff - do you actually KNOW any women? And since when is being nurturing a bad managerial trait? I've worked in places where the managers were all encouraged to be assholes, and I've worked in places where we were encouraged to be encouraging. Wanna guess which place was the more productive?
Again I ask: WTF does physical strength have to do with 90% of the jobs performed in the US? How does being a good goalie make one a better plant manager?
Ergo, what does 90% of the stuff you were talking about have to do with the status of men over women? When was the last time you had to physically defend yourself from an attack, much less stand up for "your" woman? And what makes you so certain that physical strength would even be the relevant defense factor in the event of such an attack?
What you just created is a vivid black and white ink drawing with absolutely no shading. There aren't even any attempts at shading or hiding the distinct lines you've drawn.
When I was a kid I loved to play with dolls (actually, I still have a few). and at recess I played with the girls, because the boys absolutely bored me. I have never had a hypercompetetive attitude and "sports" is, so far as I'm concerned, yet another religion this world would would be better without.
And I've known many women who absolutely love sports, and not just women's sports. I have a girl cousin who can tell you what quarterback played for what team decades ago, and can roll off stats like a young Howard Cossell.
There is a section of the brain that connects the left and right hemispheres. Some studies have shown a correlation between the size of this "link" in the brain and many of the traits we consider "feminine" - increased language skills, more emotional in responses, etc. And it appears this section of the brain is, as a rule, "bigger" in women (another of those physiological differences you mention). But this, like the development of breasts, is not set in stone; plenty of women have this area less developed, and plenty of men have it developed larger than average.
So... even if all that other stuff were true, what does it mean? Women tend to have better language skills, so this should indicate women are better suited to programming jobs (for example), where language skills are quite relevant. And in advertising (for example) because of that "emotional" thing. And what about men? Who gives a shit if a man who sits at a desk all day is physically stronger than a woman? When was the last time you were put into a ring with the other guy you were up against for that promotion?
Those code words you use - like "overwhelming forces of evolution" - are the same excuses everyone else makes when the time comes to promote the man over the woman. It's the same attitude that fosters the notion of "women's work" even in the tech sector.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard this expression used - and if you go into any electronic assembly plant you'll see things are little different now than ever: hundreds of women and few men sitting around assembly stations, applying paste or soldering or inspecting assemblies while a few more men walk around "supervising" the floor. Walk into any call center and look at the proportion of women working the phones to the male managers walking the floor.
How is a man better suited to management than a woman? Yeah, I've known some women who were put into management who never should have been there - but I've known lots of men in that same boat.
You "can't see any way to overcome" this because you are not looking. You are, like the rest, too busy making excuses for why things have to be the way they are.
Slashdot Mirror
In a thread about "U.S. Appeals court upholds webcasting royalties?"
Uh huh. Apparently that "misguided response" bit was talking, then, about your very own post?
You're welcome.
You're not going to find many people more anti-media than myself. I don't have pay TV, haven't bought a CD in years, don't rent movies at Blockbuster, rarely go to the theatre, and can barely even tolerate the public airwaves l0ong enough to enjoy Survivor or, on the odd chance it's not a repeat (or just lame) Late Night with David Letterman.
In short, I don't support the old guard. Hell, I don't even get magazines shipped to my house or even click on CNN.com. But I likewise cannot tolerate this nonsensical parroting about how the old school publishers are stealing "our stuff." WIRED harped on this nonsense for years - how "they" were going to deprive "us" of "our culture" - and I disputed it then, just as now. You want culture? Write a goddamned book. Make some music. Take some photographs. Share them with the world.
There's your culture.
Stop listening to the talking heads in hollywood who tell you what to think and feel and desire. Stop letting corporations rule your daily thoughts - contrary to what those "anti-media" talking heads in the mainstream media are telling you, it's NOT impossible to tune them out. You DON'T have to throw up your hands and accept it - but you're not going to make a change by trying to defend your "right" to their cultural icons.
If corporate publishers are able to "lock away your culture" what does that tell you about the values of your culture?
You want culture? You have the power to redefine it. The time has come to put up or shut up.
The only sad part of this decision is that it still holds the door open for all those established broadcasters - like the god-whore Clear Channel - to webcast all the RIAA dreck they wish. and, given clear channel's power in the market, they'll have no problem negotiating a cherry deal with the RIAA while all the "little guys" continue to flounder.
On the upside, that's the ideal environment for a dinos-vs-indi@s battle.
In fact, that last is almost sure to kill this idea stillborn, once the threat is realized. Would you allow a certain percentage of your email through without being checked? Or would you bounce it back, first?
So then... just curious: do you also automatically bounce back any PGP encrypted email packets arriving at your office LAN?
Not trying to troll, but it seems to me if "this last [point] is almost sure to kill this idea stillborn" then perhaps that's why PGP has also not taken hold? By extension there is a real security risk of allowing ANY PGP encrypted packets onto your LAN that have not been encrypted to a key you control. So what do you do? No office banking? No secure transactions with other companies?
It's either a problem for everyone, or it's not a problem at all. Sounds to me like it's a problem for everyone - not unique at all to MS.
Not that I would trust MS as far as I could throw Steve Ballmer into a headwind... but some consistency is in order.
I prefer world and techno, and it's relatively easy to avoid the RIAA with such tastes.
BTW, if you think all those 400 "indies" are RIAA unaffiliated, you need to do a little more research...
Who has the lobbying power in washington? To even come close to parity you'd need to send more like $50 to the EFF for every dollar you send to hollywood.
These sites have been available for years now. MP3 finder, grammy.ru - many of them. All operating completely within the laws of the country that hosts them (Russia) and in cooperation with many of the very same labels (Universal, Sony, etc) who have refused, for years, to cooperate with american web companies in offering the very same product package.
Notice how we never hear about lawsuits or the RIAA threatening to take down these "international" sites? Why do you think that is? They don't dare talk about them and let Americans know they can buy mp3 music online at a dime a pop... or even get many popular picks absolutely free, and completely legal.
It's fascinating how they can continue to make money in a country where "pirated music" outnumbers legal copies on store shelves 2:1, but swear that offering DRM free download services in the US would put them out of business.
Plus their fearless leader seems to be something of a belligerent (and possibly unstable) jackass (google it and see yourself). While I, too, have something of this trait, I'm not here asking people to trust their network security to me.
ipcop is based on the early work on smoothwall. It's just as easy to install and configure and use, it's completely open source (meaning you can get at those install scripts you wanted) and it appears, based on my limited dialup experience, to be much more secure than smoothwall.
I don't care for Adobe at all, but I rather hope this works. Making it impossible to "upgrade" without paying money isn't going to drive all those students and housewives and schoolteachers to shell out hundreds of dollars, but it might convince a few thousand to try out gimp and PSP.
By making their software harder to pirate, they are ultimately diluting their power in the graphics market. That's a good thing for everyone.
And nudity has nothing to do with porn. This american puritanism is responsible for most of the problems we face regarding "porn." If people weren't so damn hung up on a little nudity, the MTV type flesh trade would have significantly less power.
And THAT is why it is perpeptuated. The thumpers are just too stupid to realize they are being played to serve the secular corporate agenda.
Scientific American Frontiers (older) NOVA Connections Brief History Of Time Cosmos Various NASA programs Various BBC programs And, because this is the new age of post-glasnodst communication, don't forget all those old Soviet science programs. And I'm sure china has some as well they would be willing to share with the world. It would be incredibly interesting to see tranlations of the various iron curtain "technology demonstrations." Would they be objective? Probably no more than NASA programming of the era. But as newsreel footage it represents a very real documentaton of part of that history, and until now few of us in the west have seen ANY of it. This concept alone would probably be enough to fill several seasons, and the productions costs would be relatively low.
So, maybe we should throw some lame linux jokes in here? After all, if the software has problems you can bet this case will make it into the next round of windows propoganda.
My bad... try mazola. Methyl Silicone
Prohibiting employers from discriminating on the basis of genetics means nothing, because they can always lie. and prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage means ABSOLUTELY nothing, because they can just do exactly like they already do with cancer patients and make the coverage so freaking expensive they'd need a grant from Bill Gates to pay it.
I can't stand it. My father uses it to cook bisquits but the guy is 80 and I doubt anything he eats now is going to shorten his life. But I can taste and smell that shit when it's been sprayed onto a pan, and if you can taste it there's no doubt you're eating it.
I think it's hilarious how crap like this is put into food but it's illegal to smoke a doobie all in the name of "protecting the consumer." Ah well... when all the idiots have been killed off by cancer, maybe there'll be someone left with some sense to do something about the idiotic laws.
You just got it WAY wrong. Stereophile exists to sell music systems. I'm sure JA would quibble with this but, at the end of the day, he'd have to admit this is the primary reason it exists. And many of the people who read that magazine are a persnickity bunch who wouldn't move beyond the 19th century if you shackled'em and threw'em in a donkey cart. Reviews of equipment like this help motivate a voluntary movement on their part.
And at the end of the day it's a review written by a reviewer. Would you go choose to not see a movie based on one bad movie review? Or allow one good review to change your opinion?
That's all it is... an opinion. And magazines like SP don't exist to publish bad ones - it pisses off the advertisers.
Stuff gets "leaked" all the time. From washington, from corporations - it's a "hole" in the fabric and although not always accidental, it can rarely be proven. How can MS be sued for the actions of an unidentified individual acting against the corporation's policy?
It can't. that's why it's called a "leak."
Actually, no. Distribution alone cannot practically be enforced (see mplayer, asfrecorder, decss, etc.) All the legal system can do is enforce limits on the profitability of a piece of code - in no way can the legal system practically enforce limits on the actual distribution of a piece of code. If MS really wanted to fuck with the system they could just open up IE - leak the source "into the wild" and pull the executable from their website.
Of course, it ain't likely to happen... but it could and "eolas" or whatever the fuck they are would lose a helluva lot more than MS would. In fact, you could argue MS would (greatly) benefit, since it would take about a minute before a dozen "forks" appeared at sourceforge and IE code wormed its way into linux and bsd and every goddamn thing else, thus further establishing the MS way as "the way of the world." By the time the suits at "eolas" got through figuring out who to sue next, the lawyers would have long since abandoned the sinking ship.
You gotta get over this nonsense. It is crippling your ability to think. What makes the people at Merriam Webster so much more knowledgable about a given topic than others who are able to research? And what makes a "wiki" so goddamn refutable when the information cited is directly from the APA? When was the last time you saw Brittanica cataloging all its references?
Here's what I think. I think the OP made some valid points that you feel arent PC to talk...
Hilarious.
A) You think I'm PC.
B) You think I care what a freak thinks.
I told the service writer, who told the woman who owned the car she needed a new engine after only about 60,000 miles. Of course she was irate and, when confronted, the service writer said "that engine looks like it's never had the oil changed" - at which point she produced documentation that she HAD, in fact, followed the minimum suggested service intervals in the owner's manual. She had had the oil changed twice in the time she had the car, and she had it changed at the dealership.
Service writer called Ford, and Ford shipped out a new engine on a crate.
BTW most car dealerships now charge about the same for changing oil as the drive-through shops. Some offer specials and are even cheaper than the average drive-thru. They also have "techs" whose job it is to do nothing but prep cars and do oil changes all day long so as to ensure speedy (ie 20 minute) service. The idea is to get the owner used to coming to the dealership so when something else goes wrong they don't immediately think of taking it to "the kid at the local service station" who usually does the oil changes and tune-ups. Every time a car comes into a dealership is another chance to sell service and parts, so oil changes have become the prime in the pump - the loss leader.
So, in that case at least, the industry solved the problem itself: once they were "forced" by the courts into this realization, they still came out ahead by competing. Not many service stations can afford to keep a man on payroll all day just to do oil changes and wash cars, but dealerships already had that guy (usually a kid just out of high school) - they just expanded his job function.
Makes one wonder what the world of printers might look like if a couple of these big players would standardize their consumables and use the increased production quantity (ie lower mean unit cost) to leverage competition on "features" like quality and innovation.
This kind of nonsense is the best thing that could happen for 1394. So long as people keep making these excuses and the "USB people" allow this sort of erosion to take place, USB will remain the domain of mice and keyboards and scanners and printers and still cameras.
How about if we say "blacks are better runners than white people and mexicans all like spicy food and have black hair..."
So far as that "friendly" stuff - do you actually KNOW any women? And since when is being nurturing a bad managerial trait? I've worked in places where the managers were all encouraged to be assholes, and I've worked in places where we were encouraged to be encouraging. Wanna guess which place was the more productive?
Ergo, what does 90% of the stuff you were talking about have to do with the status of men over women? When was the last time you had to physically defend yourself from an attack, much less stand up for "your" woman? And what makes you so certain that physical strength would even be the relevant defense factor in the event of such an attack?
When I was a kid I loved to play with dolls (actually, I still have a few). and at recess I played with the girls, because the boys absolutely bored me. I have never had a hypercompetetive attitude and "sports" is, so far as I'm concerned, yet another religion this world would would be better without.
And I've known many women who absolutely love sports, and not just women's sports. I have a girl cousin who can tell you what quarterback played for what team decades ago, and can roll off stats like a young Howard Cossell.
There is a section of the brain that connects the left and right hemispheres. Some studies have shown a correlation between the size of this "link" in the brain and many of the traits we consider "feminine" - increased language skills, more emotional in responses, etc. And it appears this section of the brain is, as a rule, "bigger" in women (another of those physiological differences you mention). But this, like the development of breasts, is not set in stone; plenty of women have this area less developed, and plenty of men have it developed larger than average.
So... even if all that other stuff were true, what does it mean? Women tend to have better language skills, so this should indicate women are better suited to programming jobs (for example), where language skills are quite relevant. And in advertising (for example) because of that "emotional" thing. And what about men? Who gives a shit if a man who sits at a desk all day is physically stronger than a woman? When was the last time you were put into a ring with the other guy you were up against for that promotion?
Those code words you use - like "overwhelming forces of evolution" - are the same excuses everyone else makes when the time comes to promote the man over the woman. It's the same attitude that fosters the notion of "women's work" even in the tech sector.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard this expression used - and if you go into any electronic assembly plant you'll see things are little different now than ever: hundreds of women and few men sitting around assembly stations, applying paste or soldering or inspecting assemblies while a few more men walk around "supervising" the floor. Walk into any call center and look at the proportion of women working the phones to the male managers walking the floor.
How is a man better suited to management than a woman? Yeah, I've known some women who were put into management who never should have been there - but I've known lots of men in that same boat.
You "can't see any way to overcome" this because you are not looking. You are, like the rest, too busy making excuses for why things have to be the way they are.