Well, I can't speak for your experience, but I've had a lot of similar annoyances.
1) LiarSucks deletes my bookmarks and javascript whitelist every time I upgrade, even though this bug has officially been "fixed". Yeah, I just *love* having to recover my bookmarks and re-authorize every single page I go to. (If your response is "Hey, you can rescue your bookmarks by following the instructions on an obscure web page", please kill yourself. You just. don't. get it.) 2) The memory on forms is more of an annoyance: the list of entries I've previously put in a field pops up, but I have to move my hand away from its natural position, and back, to use it, defeating the convenience purpose of it. Plus, the list obscures stuff I want to see. 3) Clicking on a web address in the address drop-down bar doesn't make a page load until I hit enter. Moreover, previous versions of LIARsucks did, yet they try to delete evidence of this! (IE has this funcitonality btw...) 4) If you don't know to regularly clean your downloads list, downloads will take longer and longer to start, and LiarSucks will freeze. 5) Any form involving a complicated, secure transaction? Just pray.
Solve these problems, and you've got a better browser.
What's "negative-science"? Is that like where you try to propose hypotheses most randomly correlated (i.e. not even negatively correlated) with the data?
The major experiment uses a flawed definition of "decision". If I were the subject it might take me several seconds of unconscious cogitation to formulate a plan: when the next letter flashes I will press the left button, for example. The real decision is made below the level of consciousness, so the letter recorded is the one shown when the action is started, not the one shown when the decision-making process is started.
Hm, I'm having a bit of trouble making out what your argument is here...
Yes, because how I act in social situations is exactly the same as how I respond to people spreading dangerous lies on internet forums through either extreme malice or extreme stupidity.
You know, "Snocone", you could just admit your error... j/k man, persisting in idiodicy to save face with people you've deceived is probably the better route;-P
Yeah, his carbon-footprint -- *by his ridiculous counting method* -- is precisely zero. What a load of crap. If buying indulgences from your OWN COMPANY counts as reducing your carbon footprint, the term no longer has any meaning.
He doesn't tell people to buy credits from their own company. He tells people to make questionable cutbacks in their own lives, and buy down the rest from OTHER people. *THAT* is what's so objectionable. If carbon credits could truly cancel that much, Al Gore should shut up about efficiency *entirely* and just say, "Hey, CO2 is no big deal as long as you pay $200/year/family to plant some trees, which is a hell of a lot easier than reducing your consumption enough."
But then, how does that let him regulate every nook and cranny of people's lives?
2 B according to Greenpeace And I'm sure Greenpeace is making a VALIANT effort to ensure that those 2 billion people have steady, reliable source of electricity, right;-)
So, in other words, while stepping up to defend omris's claim that it's a good idea to DIRECTly ask for sex, you reveal yourself to be defending the claim that one should INDIRECTly ask for sex. And like the others, you advocate actions that omris explicitly called out as things she's NOT suggesting.
You guys *really* need to form a club or something.
Side note: I've noticed in your... diversions... that you're probably a natural flirt. That's good, but you should probably take it as a sign that what's obvious for you isn't obvious for others, and you may be making a few assumptions (about the type of social situation, someone's demeanor or dress, what others know about, etc.) that others don't share.
Don't worry -- I made sure to get around to addressing your garbage too.
Look at your second paragraph for a minute. Does it support my case, or yours? What it means is, there is a significant chance (either because she doesn't like me/is neutral, or asking her directly has *caused* her not to like me) that the result will be whoever's in charge of the venue (be it manager, security, or homeowner), will come over to me and say, "yeah, did you just [whatever] this woman? Yeah, I'm going to have to ask you to leave."
As your very own last paragraph basically admits, whether I'm a Don Juan or a perverted predator, hinges upon her reaction to something you just advocated doing. One change in opinion means the difference between suave, and OMG HOW DARE YOU WHAT A COMPLETE ATROCITY
Still think it's worth doing? Are you going to still agree with the other poster who said if she likes me (which I know within 30 seconds), that suffices to establish a high probability that directly asking for sex will be successful? And the risk of it seriously backfiring being low?
Did you consider the possibility that maybe, you're just an outlier?
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
The airlines mark your bag with a 'priority' badge to make sure it doesn't go missing Wow, that's the most concise summary I've seen of how bad it's gotten. You need a "priority badge" just to have a reasonable chance of not losing your luggage.
How many UPS or even USPS packages get misrouted? Compared to how much tonnage of packages?
The hypothetical that proves his point, in other words.
All oil curtailment measures are equivalent to some oil tax in how much use they, er, curtail. Now, imagine if during Kyoto negotations, someone said, "omg, these new requirements would be outrageous! We'd have to slap taxes high enough to make oil effectively cost $70/barrel! Imagine that: SEVENTY DOLLARS A BARREL!"
If you had proposed something equivalent to making oil cost $135/barrel, basically about a 300% tax at the time, far above what mainstream enviros ever propose, you would have been told that that's "way too much". That it's too much of a burden for the benefits. Well, that's where we are now (modulo a little inflation adjustment).
Just goes to show, the world economy doesn't totally collapse when you make oil users pay a huge Pigouvian tax, because we're seeing the equivalent of one.
wow. way to take a perfectly reasonable conversation and turn it into me advocating rape. that was spectacular. It's not my fault you can't follow the implications of what you advocate. It's not my fault that indifference to the opinions of others means indifference to whether they want to have sex with me.
if you need a step by step instruction manual in how not to be a creep, you should probably start with a basic social skills class. a lot of ADD/ADHD clinics offer them. That would be a neat trick, considering that those with ADD are typically BETTER at picking up women due to the impression (you know, that you like) they give off that they don't care what others think, and how women have to fight for their attention.
talking to people is usually a good way to interact with them without making them uncomfortable. and if it DOES make people uncomfortable when you are just conversing with them, i have news for you. you are creepy. you lack the social skills to interact with other humans. you send messages you don't mean to and don't send messages when you want to. So, because I point out that directly asking for sex is probably not a good idea, that means I must be creepy. It couldn't that maybe, you're wrong? It couldn't be that spending time in sex clubs has numbed you to the realities of situations in which NOT everyone there has publicly announced that they want to have sex someone that day?
Hell, even those nominally defending your claim are actually defending significantly-watered-down versions, like saying it's a good idea to subtly hint at situations most people take as an invitation to sex -- but you reject such "invitations for coffee" as being examples of what you advocate.
Moreover, you have to be blind not to see how significantly you've had to revise your position: you gave your advice as exceptionless advice for geeks, who are at least as socially maladjusted as me (and FWIW, I do say hi and smile at random strangers and they respond in kind rather than avoid me). Now you're saying, wait, none of this applies unless you meet some minimum threshold... that I won't give you a litmus test for. This ultimately reveals the weakness of your advice you never dared to address -- that of the downside risk.
Finally, when pressed, you give advice virtually impossible to follow -- I should "talk to people" in such a way that makes them comfortable, but... in a way that clearly signals from the beginning that I want sex... but which does put any pressure on them whatsoever to agree to the sex.
How would that conversation go? If I ask a woman how her day is going, what she thinks of the store, etc., is that a dishonest attempt to get sex? Since it doesn't reveal immediately that I just want to take her home for sex?
Btw, if you don't think women can spread fake rumors to conspire against someone, we're going to have to back to the non-woman hypothesis, I'm afraid.
Still willing to put your claims to the test. Are you?
Sorry omris, the pointmissing is all on your side.
First of all, as much as you'd like to encourage this idea of some rugged individual, who knows what he wants and how to get it, who is completely indifferent to others' opinion of him (such as deeming him a creep);
AND, as much as I'd like to widen my eyes and nod my head in agreement with your pearls of wisdom;
it just doesn't work that way. While I can suppress the thoughts of others considering me a creep, I cannot suppress the actions they take based thereon. While I can ignore what one particular person thinks about me, I cannot ignore the mistreatment I get when that evaluation of me spreads to others, as it is likely to do.
Unlike me, you have not been in a situation where one person took her negative opinion of me, and spread it to tons of others, just totally out of the blue. Next thing I know the ringleader is telling me to back off because he's been told by 10 that I'm a physical threat to them. So yes, genius, it is a little bit hard to write off the opinions of others. Imagine if I had actually asked for sex!
Hm, guess you hadn't thought of that?
Second of all, you are now forced to fundamentally revise your advice. Before, there was nothing about whether I had to be a non-creep to do what you suggested; nor any way to know if others think I'm a creepy weirdo. Now, you -- oops, forgot to mention -- that oh, this only applies if you're already 99% of the way there in terms of being liked.
And finally, we have this wonderful gem: I'm supposed to ask in a way that is CONFIDENT, like I ALWAYS get my way, but simultaneously leaves absolutely no pressure to yes. You don't see the contradiction there?
Yes, some guys have charm. But you damn well haven't articulated how someone can do it without becoming "the creep", unless they're already extremely successful.
You owe me and the rest of the guys here a gold-plated apology for misleading us and proving my theory right. Any one of them who actually tries what you described is going to be permanently removed from the dating pool.
(Btw, if I were *truly* indifferent to the opinions of others, rape would be no big deal. But then, that's kind of the point of being a "bad boy", isn't it?)
I was going to say something similiar, that it's a species of terminology misuse here. What everyone here, and the summary, seem to be meaning by "AI" is actually called "AGI", or artificial *general* intelligence, i.e., a self-aware system capable of thinking and computing fairly good solutions to ill-defined, *arbitrary* problems, rather than ones for which it is narrowly tailored, and the underlying algorithm already discovered.
So AGI has been disappointing, but not AI as such. What AI workers have accomplished is to algorithmize very good methods for solving various problems (chess, search engines, etc.). In other words, they have identified what rote, human-less methods can solve problems that were previously thought to require a human. That's nothing to sneeze at!
But, it is not yet AGI, and to discover that, you have to find the algorithm that makes creativity, social interaction, self-awareness, etc. just as much a rote human-less process as has been done on the previous advances. But to do that, you'd have to actually understand how these things arise, without reference to something humans intuitively understand; and why the brain works at these things, to the extent that does. Those making chess computers couldn't say, "Oh, yeah, and this point, you know, just like, look for a weakness, you know..." And those programming an AGI don't have that luxury either, which is much MORE of a burden.
Okay, that possibility (of you owning a sex club) is believable, and I had assigned it a good probability (and higher than that of "your advice is remotely realistic or representative of a typical female's psychology"), just not as high as the "fat cow who drops restrictions".
Nevertheless, it's "out of the frying pan, and into the fire".
As such a person, you are most frequently in situations where asking for sex is really no big deal. This has led you to (over)generalize to women, while at the same time you *ignore* and *trivialize* the downside risk.
Do you accept that being open to the wrong person will get me labled a creep, with penalities to future encounters? Do you accept that it is difficult to distinguish right from wrong persons (OUTside of sex clubs)? If so, you should probably accept that it is a bad idea to do what you've tried, given the risk of saying it to the wrong person.
Furthermore (I should tag this on a different reply of yours, but I want to keep it on one post), I think you have admitted the source of the problem. What big signal, what massive green light have you thrown at guys to indicate your interest and that they can ask for sex without fear? Ah, you spend time with them! What a brave, explicit signal, omris! Your advice thus means that any woman willing spending time with me, must be okay to ask for sex from. (And just to avoid accusations of strawmanning and unnecessary back-and-forth, I think this characterization holds for various levels you restrict your "willing to spend time" definition to.)
But what if I find myself in situations where married women, platonic friendship women, etc. seem to like to spend time with me? I can ask for sex without fear in ALL of such situations? That even the "no's" wont have catastrophic consequences for me?
I am completely willing to put this to the test: tell me what "do-or-die" test you are willing to expose your theories to. FWIW, I'll talk to you via email, send you pics, vidchat with you so you can verify for yourself I count as an attractive male, if I have quirks that scare off women, etc, if I'm going to be involved in the field work.
Oh jeez, my apologies! When I (stupidly) assumed you were actually PAYING ATTENTION to the discussion and thus giving a responsive contribution, you (gasp!) weren't. While omris was very clear (in other posts) that asking to come up for coffee does not count as directly asking for sex, and directly asking for sex is a good idea, YOU thought you were supporting her point by defending the idea that INdirectly asking for sex is a good idea ("are we going...").
Wow, you must feel pretty silly at this point.
Thus, my point stands, and you haven't even offered a reply to it.
(Btw, if you interpret an affirmative to the "asking for sex" phrasing you gave ["So, are we going home now?"], as consenting to a request for sex, that means your definition of consent is so expansive as probably have made you a rapist by now who has, by the grace of God[1], escaped justice. I hope you burn in hell[1].)
I don't know why you get modded up for this garbage. I don't know why you *believe* this garbage, or at least lack the self awareness to realize that maybe, just maybe, you're an outlier.
Let's put together what you've just claimed (original post reproduced below to show I'm not making this up. shouldn't be necessary, since you *can't* make this stuff up):
Asking women for sex (directly, as in not "go to my place", "come up for coffee", "spend the night", but "have sex with me") will work, with most women (and all women "worth my time"), so long as: -She's into me. -I ask confidently. -People she doesn't want to see, will not see her giving a yes.
You've further claimed that the decision is made within three seconds of eye contact, AND that a negative response will NOT get me labeled as a creep/weirdo/predator under these conditions, EVER.
All of this together implies that with high frequency, if I observe that a woman likes me -- which of course is visible within a few seconds of eye contact -- I can go up to her and, as my FIRST statement, ask confidently if she'd like to have sex, and she'll say yes.
There's no response I can even give to that, since it's clear you're starting from such a different world and will most likely invent unlimited new exceptions.
Sure it does. If they've already decided they're going to. Which they do in, at most, the first three seconds after you make eye contact.
The only three reasons directly asking doesn't work are
1) She's not into you. Which you should be able to pick up on after two exchanged sentences at most. Generally you shouldn't even need to speak though, holding eye contact is almost always a sufficient sign, and the "almost" is pretty much just hedging, I can't recall a single occasion when it wasn't, personally.
2) You fuck up asking. Confident yet detached is correct; nervous or intense will strike you out every time. "So, are we going home now?" is the particular phrasing that works best for me.
3) There's somebody aware of the conversation whom she doesn't want to form the impression she's easy/unfaithful/whatever. Of course, that "somebody" could actually be you, in which case we call it "playing hard to get."
Would it bee too much to ask to only use one? [emphasis added -- DC] Wow,/.ers sure have gotten lazy in their posts. The CORRECT way to say that is, "Would it sting too much to ask to only use one?"
1.) ANYONE who uses a hint of sex to gain power is a manipulative bitch, and you should walk away then. Whoa, not quite. You don't have to be a manipulative bitch to hold off on giving away certainty about whether you want to have sex. It's just that it's a bad strategy to "throw all your cards on the table" like that.
Think about it for a minute: why do you think women don't just come up to guys and tell them they want to have sex? Why wait for *them* to make the first (overt, omris, OVERT) move?
Because one filter you have to throw up to get decent guys is to only take those with the balls to *make* a move. And making a (further, overt) move no longer takes balls when you make it 100% clear you're going to have sex with him.
Right?
So...
2.) If someone doesn't like you enough to not be offended if you say you're interested in them and want to know if they might have similar tendencies is NOT GOING TO SLEEP WITH YOU ANYHOW. a woman into to you, but not wanting sex that night, could very well slap the creep label on you if you do what you've described.
nor am I entirely sure that I know what you mean by softening my face (I exfoliate, if that counts). ding ding ding ding ding! That's the point! Female signs of interest are (and necessarily must be) so subtle that they have plausible deniability. ("Whoa whoa whoa, I was just getting some junk out of my hair, that doesn't mean I'm into you, go away creep". )
If I like someone, I spend time with them. I continue to do so until I'm tired of it or I grasp that they don't really want to spend time with me. If you want to bang me, telling me that is the best and fastest way to make that happen. No, it isn't a guarantee. But not telling me does greatly decrease your chances of making it happen. Perhaps -- but why is that benefit greater than the *risk* of what will happen if I say that to a woman with a different mentality (i.e. normal).
But then, why the hell would you want to sleep with me anyhow? I'm probably not even a real girl. I AM on the internet, after all. My statistical inference (with apologies to xkcd) is that you are some fat cow desperate for sex with any guy, and so not representative of the typical female's mind. Sorry, but that's the only way I can account for such bizarre advice. Like I said before, I'm willing to test these theories against the real world. Are you?
i DO completely agree with you about women being MUCH worse about asking for what they want then men. but then society as a whole has trained us not to do that. i'm guilty of this one too. So, having *agreed* that women are trained not to be so direct, you advocate men going ahead and acting as if women preferred directness... makes no sense.
I'd be glad to do a genuine test of the experiment -- work with me enough to agree I'm attractive to women and suave, I'll hit 30 bars, directly ask for sex with the best prospects, and we'll say what happens.
Or have other people work this out in our steads.
Do you really think that method would be successful?
3) There's somebody aware of the conversation whom she doesn't want to form the impression she's easy/unfaithful/whatever. Of course, that "somebody" could actually be you, in which case we call it "playing hard to get." ... and you make my point for me. That's exactly why women DON'T respond to such requests -- they will look easy to someone, and they don't want that, even and ESPECIALLY if it's -- wait for it -- the asker!
What you're basically saying is, "No no no, you're wrong, it's just that the data are observationally equivalent to you being right", which, to anyone with a decent epistemology, is not worth viewing as a serious objection.
Okay, first of all, let's say you're right, and a fraction (large or small) of women DO actually sleep with guys they just met, if, at some point in the conversation, he says, "Hey, *confidence, suaveness*, do you want to sleep with me tonight?" (assuming she's into him)
Even granting you this ultra-unrealistic assumption, that still means a fraction of girls aren't into open requests for sex. Now, how do you think such a girl would respond to such a request? Okay. Now, do you think the risk of that is worth it, given the difficulty of determining which girl is which type when I first meet her? Come on, you're asking me to walk into a pit.
Now, as for disproving that girls are into simple requests for sex early in the relationship, I can't show you much that would convince you, as all such stuff happens in private. All I can say is: what the fuck is going through your head that would make you think girls act like that? Come on, early in the relationship the main tool the girl has is, the dangled possibility that you'll get a chance in bed with me. You think she's going to give *certainty* about that?
Why on earth do you think that every known "female sign of interest" for early in the relationship, has plausible deniability? Let's go through the list:
-flicking hair -softening face -brief touching -pointing toes at you -"strong"? eye contact
You get the point. You're describing girls that are extreme outliers. And you're giving tons of support to my theory. If I'm stupid enough to do what you say, boom, I'm out of the dating pool.
OMG U WILL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THAT GUY DRIEDCLEXLER SAID TO ME! EWWW! WHAT A DORK! I'M GONNA TELL...
Sorry, directly asking for sex doesn't work, unless you're well into the relationship. Try giving advice that won't turn guys into the pariah who "omg did WHAT?"
Btw, the theory I have formed is that women give romantic advice in order to cull the dating field of the guys so genetically unfit that they would do what a woman tells them.
Crazy theory, but I won't reject it until I find a theory that better fits the data. I'm a stickler like that.
Well, I listed all those problems with iTunes too, and here's some more: when running the podcast, it won't automatically play them in order, no matter what option you use, and all google got me was whining about it.
But point taken. FWIW, I consider being able to easily save stills from vids to be basic functionality, and Apple users have admitted the process is unnecessarily difficult (after dragging them begging and screaming to the table to admit it), and then, like any good open source programmer, criticize me for wanting to do that! And that case is typical. Just be lucky you use a different set of features than I do.
I agree that this fix is late to the game.
And I presume, you also agree that putting such a window in a position that i can't be close the normal way, is a pretty bad blunder too.
What was disingenuous was your claim that the keyboard shortcuts only gave one access to 6 features, when the number is, of course, much higher. The claim was that there were *few* (not literally six) shortcuts *that were also consistent between programs*, and that claim is correct.
As to 100% access to the menu options - I personally think that using arrow keys to navigate the menus is awkward Are you for real? Do you know how alt works, and what I'm referring to? I'm not so patient as to arrow-key through the menus (and so your mac solution is unimpressive). When you hit alt, you call a menu with a key, and then each option thereunder is called with another LETTER key, and then the submenu or popup window with further *letter* keys (though I'll admit there's room for improvement on tabbing between some of that stuff). E.g., I want to change the name of a sheet in excel? alt-o(format)-h(sheet)-r(rename). What if I hadn't hunted that ultra-super-secret down? Well, I assume to go under format, so that gets me alt-o, then I see sHeet come up, etc. Great stuff!
Btw, this "omg, I do *not* want to navigate with arrow keys" is really surprising. I absolutely agree, and so do most... but then, why does FireFox (and iirc Safari) think it's being so ULTRAhelpful by popping up previous entries in web forms when I hit the first few letters of them, covering up very useful information, and I can only hop to those ultra-helpful stored entries by using the... wait for it... ARROW KEYS?
But how does listing a few bad things about OS X make it worse than Windows? My complaint was about the interface, NOT the system as a whole. And every one was right; on some of them, Mac fanboys' best response is that "it's not a big deal". Wow. The ones which are bugs, are inexcusable bugs of the type you just don't see on Windows. A sub-window having its "close" button out of reach and impossible to bring back in? Windows has always been designed so that this kind of thing *just doesn't happen*.
Hey Steve: right-clicking and alt-commands. Learn it.
I believe he learned that many years ago. Some people are just a tad slow at catching on.
Who? Steve? Hm, still don't see right-clicking in any of the help features. Still don't see the usefulness it has in Windows. Still don't see all menu choices (and I mean ALL, not just six major) available from alt-commands, or in fact, ANY key command.
Yeah, Steve was pretty damn slow at accommodating those dumbasses who only have one hand, who the fuck needs them anyway? Should prolly just be in some locker.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I can't speak for your experience, but I've had a lot of similar annoyances.
1) LiarSucks deletes my bookmarks and javascript whitelist every time I upgrade, even though this bug has officially been "fixed". Yeah, I just *love* having to recover my bookmarks and re-authorize every single page I go to. (If your response is "Hey, you can rescue your bookmarks by following the instructions on an obscure web page", please kill yourself. You just. don't. get it.)
2) The memory on forms is more of an annoyance: the list of entries I've previously put in a field pops up, but I have to move my hand away from its natural position, and back, to use it, defeating the convenience purpose of it. Plus, the list obscures stuff I want to see.
3) Clicking on a web address in the address drop-down bar doesn't make a page load until I hit enter. Moreover, previous versions of LIARsucks did, yet they try to delete evidence of this! (IE has this funcitonality btw...)
4) If you don't know to regularly clean your downloads list, downloads will take longer and longer to start, and LiarSucks will freeze.
5) Any form involving a complicated, secure transaction? Just pray.
Solve these problems, and you've got a better browser.
I'm confused. Why would umpires oppose a technology that can automate the refereeing of a game? It just doesn't make any sense.
What's "negative-science"? Is that like where you try to propose hypotheses most randomly correlated (i.e. not even negatively correlated) with the data?
The major experiment uses a flawed definition of "decision". If I were the subject it might take me several seconds of unconscious cogitation to formulate a plan: when the next letter flashes I will press the left button, for example. The real decision is made below the level of consciousness, so the letter recorded is the one shown when the action is started, not the one shown when the decision-making process is started.
Hm, I'm having a bit of trouble making out what your argument is here...
This is similar to driving a car. ...
Ah, okay, that's better!
Yes, because how I act in social situations is exactly the same as how I respond to people spreading dangerous lies on internet forums through either extreme malice or extreme stupidity.
You know, "Snocone", you could just admit your error ... j/k man, persisting in idiodicy to save face with people you've deceived is probably the better route ;-P
Yeah, his carbon-footprint -- *by his ridiculous counting method* -- is precisely zero. What a load of crap. If buying indulgences from your OWN COMPANY counts as reducing your carbon footprint, the term no longer has any meaning.
He doesn't tell people to buy credits from their own company. He tells people to make questionable cutbacks in their own lives, and buy down the rest from OTHER people. *THAT* is what's so objectionable. If carbon credits could truly cancel that much, Al Gore should shut up about efficiency *entirely* and just say, "Hey, CO2 is no big deal as long as you pay $200/year/family to plant some trees, which is a hell of a lot easier than reducing your consumption enough."
But then, how does that let him regulate every nook and cranny of people's lives?
So, in other words, while stepping up to defend omris's claim that it's a good idea to DIRECTly ask for sex, you reveal yourself to be defending the claim that one should INDIRECTly ask for sex. And like the others, you advocate actions that omris explicitly called out as things she's NOT suggesting.
You guys *really* need to form a club or something.
Side note: I've noticed in your ... diversions ... that you're probably a natural flirt. That's good, but you should probably take it as a sign that what's obvious for you isn't obvious for others, and you may be making a few assumptions (about the type of social situation, someone's demeanor or dress, what others know about, etc.) that others don't share.
Don't worry -- I made sure to get around to addressing your garbage too.
Look at your second paragraph for a minute. Does it support my case, or yours? What it means is, there is a significant chance (either because she doesn't like me/is neutral, or asking her directly has *caused* her not to like me) that the result will be whoever's in charge of the venue (be it manager, security, or homeowner), will come over to me and say, "yeah, did you just [whatever] this woman? Yeah, I'm going to have to ask you to leave."
As your very own last paragraph basically admits, whether I'm a Don Juan or a perverted predator, hinges upon her reaction to something you just advocated doing. One change in opinion means the difference between suave, and OMG HOW DARE YOU WHAT A COMPLETE ATROCITY
Still think it's worth doing? Are you going to still agree with the other poster who said if she likes me (which I know within 30 seconds), that suffices to establish a high probability that directly asking for sex will be successful? And the risk of it seriously backfiring being low?
Did you consider the possibility that maybe, you're just an outlier?
How many UPS or even USPS packages get misrouted? Compared to how much tonnage of packages?
The hypothetical that proves his point, in other words.
All oil curtailment measures are equivalent to some oil tax in how much use they, er, curtail. Now, imagine if during Kyoto negotations, someone said, "omg, these new requirements would be outrageous! We'd have to slap taxes high enough to make oil effectively cost $70/barrel! Imagine that: SEVENTY DOLLARS A BARREL!"
If you had proposed something equivalent to making oil cost $135/barrel, basically about a 300% tax at the time, far above what mainstream enviros ever propose, you would have been told that that's "way too much". That it's too much of a burden for the benefits. Well, that's where we are now (modulo a little inflation adjustment).
Just goes to show, the world economy doesn't totally collapse when you make oil users pay a huge Pigouvian tax, because we're seeing the equivalent of one.
Hell, even those nominally defending your claim are actually defending significantly-watered-down versions, like saying it's a good idea to subtly hint at situations most people take as an invitation to sex -- but you reject such "invitations for coffee" as being examples of what you advocate.
Moreover, you have to be blind not to see how significantly you've had to revise your position: you gave your advice as exceptionless advice for geeks, who are at least as socially maladjusted as me (and FWIW, I do say hi and smile at random strangers and they respond in kind rather than avoid me). Now you're saying, wait, none of this applies unless you meet some minimum threshold ... that I won't give you a litmus test for. This ultimately reveals the weakness of your advice you never dared to address -- that of the downside risk.
Finally, when pressed, you give advice virtually impossible to follow -- I should "talk to people" in such a way that makes them comfortable, but ... in a way that clearly signals from the beginning that I want sex ... but which does put any pressure on them whatsoever to agree to the sex.
How would that conversation go? If I ask a woman how her day is going, what she thinks of the store, etc., is that a dishonest attempt to get sex? Since it doesn't reveal immediately that I just want to take her home for sex?
Btw, if you don't think women can spread fake rumors to conspire against someone, we're going to have to back to the non-woman hypothesis, I'm afraid.
Still willing to put your claims to the test. Are you?
Sorry omris, the pointmissing is all on your side.
First of all, as much as you'd like to encourage this idea of some rugged individual, who knows what he wants and how to get it, who is completely indifferent to others' opinion of him (such as deeming him a creep);
AND, as much as I'd like to widen my eyes and nod my head in agreement with your pearls of wisdom;
it just doesn't work that way. While I can suppress the thoughts of others considering me a creep, I cannot suppress the actions they take based thereon. While I can ignore what one particular person thinks about me, I cannot ignore the mistreatment I get when that evaluation of me spreads to others, as it is likely to do.
Unlike me, you have not been in a situation where one person took her negative opinion of me, and spread it to tons of others, just totally out of the blue. Next thing I know the ringleader is telling me to back off because he's been told by 10 that I'm a physical threat to them. So yes, genius, it is a little bit hard to write off the opinions of others. Imagine if I had actually asked for sex!
Hm, guess you hadn't thought of that?
Second of all, you are now forced to fundamentally revise your advice. Before, there was nothing about whether I had to be a non-creep to do what you suggested; nor any way to know if others think I'm a creepy weirdo. Now, you -- oops, forgot to mention -- that oh, this only applies if you're already 99% of the way there in terms of being liked.
And finally, we have this wonderful gem: I'm supposed to ask in a way that is CONFIDENT, like I ALWAYS get my way, but simultaneously leaves absolutely no pressure to yes. You don't see the contradiction there?
Yes, some guys have charm. But you damn well haven't articulated how someone can do it without becoming "the creep", unless they're already extremely successful.
You owe me and the rest of the guys here a gold-plated apology for misleading us and proving my theory right. Any one of them who actually tries what you described is going to be permanently removed from the dating pool.
(Btw, if I were *truly* indifferent to the opinions of others, rape would be no big deal. But then, that's kind of the point of being a "bad boy", isn't it?)
I was going to say something similiar, that it's a species of terminology misuse here. What everyone here, and the summary, seem to be meaning by "AI" is actually called "AGI", or artificial *general* intelligence, i.e., a self-aware system capable of thinking and computing fairly good solutions to ill-defined, *arbitrary* problems, rather than ones for which it is narrowly tailored, and the underlying algorithm already discovered.
So AGI has been disappointing, but not AI as such. What AI workers have accomplished is to algorithmize very good methods for solving various problems (chess, search engines, etc.). In other words, they have identified what rote, human-less methods can solve problems that were previously thought to require a human. That's nothing to sneeze at!
But, it is not yet AGI, and to discover that, you have to find the algorithm that makes creativity, social interaction, self-awareness, etc. just as much a rote human-less process as has been done on the previous advances. But to do that, you'd have to actually understand how these things arise, without reference to something humans intuitively understand; and why the brain works at these things, to the extent that does. Those making chess computers couldn't say, "Oh, yeah, and this point, you know, just like, look for a weakness, you know..." And those programming an AGI don't have that luxury either, which is much MORE of a burden.
Okay, that possibility (of you owning a sex club) is believable, and I had assigned it a good probability (and higher than that of "your advice is remotely realistic or representative of a typical female's psychology"), just not as high as the "fat cow who drops restrictions".
Nevertheless, it's "out of the frying pan, and into the fire".
As such a person, you are most frequently in situations where asking for sex is really no big deal. This has led you to (over)generalize to women, while at the same time you *ignore* and *trivialize* the downside risk.
Do you accept that being open to the wrong person will get me labled a creep, with penalities to future encounters? Do you accept that it is difficult to distinguish right from wrong persons (OUTside of sex clubs)? If so, you should probably accept that it is a bad idea to do what you've tried, given the risk of saying it to the wrong person.
Furthermore (I should tag this on a different reply of yours, but I want to keep it on one post), I think you have admitted the source of the problem. What big signal, what massive green light have you thrown at guys to indicate your interest and that they can ask for sex without fear? Ah, you spend time with them! What a brave, explicit signal, omris! Your advice thus means that any woman willing spending time with me, must be okay to ask for sex from. (And just to avoid accusations of strawmanning and unnecessary back-and-forth, I think this characterization holds for various levels you restrict your "willing to spend time" definition to.)
But what if I find myself in situations where married women, platonic friendship women, etc. seem to like to spend time with me? I can ask for sex without fear in ALL of such situations? That even the "no's" wont have catastrophic consequences for me?
I am completely willing to put this to the test: tell me what "do-or-die" test you are willing to expose your theories to. FWIW, I'll talk to you via email, send you pics, vidchat with you so you can verify for yourself I count as an attractive male, if I have quirks that scare off women, etc, if I'm going to be involved in the field work.
Oh jeez, my apologies! When I (stupidly) assumed you were actually PAYING ATTENTION to the discussion and thus giving a responsive contribution, you (gasp!) weren't. While omris was very clear (in other posts) that asking to come up for coffee does not count as directly asking for sex, and directly asking for sex is a good idea, YOU thought you were supporting her point by defending the idea that INdirectly asking for sex is a good idea ("are we going...").
Wow, you must feel pretty silly at this point.
Thus, my point stands, and you haven't even offered a reply to it.
(Btw, if you interpret an affirmative to the "asking for sex" phrasing you gave ["So, are we going home now?"], as consenting to a request for sex, that means your definition of consent is so expansive as probably have made you a rapist by now who has, by the grace of God[1], escaped justice. I hope you burn in hell[1].)
[1]I mean these terms in the secular sense.
I don't know why you get modded up for this garbage. I don't know why you *believe* this garbage, or at least lack the self awareness to realize that maybe, just maybe, you're an outlier.
Let's put together what you've just claimed (original post reproduced below to show I'm not making this up. shouldn't be necessary, since you *can't* make this stuff up):
Asking women for sex (directly, as in not "go to my place", "come up for coffee", "spend the night", but "have sex with me") will work, with most women (and all women "worth my time"), so long as:
-She's into me.
-I ask confidently.
-People she doesn't want to see, will not see her giving a yes.
You've further claimed that the decision is made within three seconds of eye contact, AND that a negative response will NOT get me labeled as a creep/weirdo/predator under these conditions, EVER.
All of this together implies that with high frequency, if I observe that a woman likes me -- which of course is visible within a few seconds of eye contact -- I can go up to her and, as my FIRST statement, ask confidently if she'd like to have sex, and she'll say yes.
There's no response I can even give to that, since it's clear you're starting from such a different world and will most likely invent unlimited new exceptions.
Sure it does. If they've already decided they're going to. Which they do in, at most, the first three seconds after you make eye contact.The only three reasons directly asking doesn't work are
1) She's not into you. Which you should be able to pick up on after two exchanged sentences at most. Generally you shouldn't even need to speak though, holding eye contact is almost always a sufficient sign, and the "almost" is pretty much just hedging, I can't recall a single occasion when it wasn't, personally.
2) You fuck up asking. Confident yet detached is correct; nervous or intense will strike you out every time. "So, are we going home now?" is the particular phrasing that works best for me.
3) There's somebody aware of the conversation whom she doesn't want to form the impression she's easy/unfaithful/whatever. Of course, that "somebody" could actually be you, in which case we call it "playing hard to get."
What's with this fad of verbing every noun?
Think about it for a minute: why do you think women don't just come up to guys and tell them they want to have sex? Why wait for *them* to make the first (overt, omris, OVERT) move?
Because one filter you have to throw up to get decent guys is to only take those with the balls to *make* a move. And making a (further, overt) move no longer takes balls when you make it 100% clear you're going to have sex with him.
Right?
So ...
2.) If someone doesn't like you enough to not be offended if you say you're interested in them and want to know if they might have similar tendencies is NOT GOING TO SLEEP WITH YOU ANYHOW. a woman into to you, but not wanting sex that night, could very well slap the creep label on you if you do what you've described. nor am I entirely sure that I know what you mean by softening my face (I exfoliate, if that counts). ding ding ding ding ding! That's the point! Female signs of interest are (and necessarily must be) so subtle that they have plausible deniability. ("Whoa whoa whoa, I was just getting some junk out of my hair, that doesn't mean I'm into you, go away creep". ) If I like someone, I spend time with them. I continue to do so until I'm tired of it or I grasp that they don't really want to spend time with me. If you want to bang me, telling me that is the best and fastest way to make that happen. No, it isn't a guarantee. But not telling me does greatly decrease your chances of making it happen. Perhaps -- but why is that benefit greater than the *risk* of what will happen if I say that to a woman with a different mentality (i.e. normal). But then, why the hell would you want to sleep with me anyhow? I'm probably not even a real girl. I AM on the internet, after all. My statistical inference (with apologies to xkcd) is that you are some fat cow desperate for sex with any guy, and so not representative of the typical female's mind. Sorry, but that's the only way I can account for such bizarre advice. Like I said before, I'm willing to test these theories against the real world. Are you?I'd be glad to do a genuine test of the experiment -- work with me enough to agree I'm attractive to women and suave, I'll hit 30 bars, directly ask for sex with the best prospects, and we'll say what happens.
Or have other people work this out in our steads.
Do you really think that method would be successful?
What you're basically saying is, "No no no, you're wrong, it's just that the data are observationally equivalent to you being right", which, to anyone with a decent epistemology, is not worth viewing as a serious objection.
Okay, first of all, let's say you're right, and a fraction (large or small) of women DO actually sleep with guys they just met, if, at some point in the conversation, he says, "Hey, *confidence, suaveness*, do you want to sleep with me tonight?" (assuming she's into him)
Even granting you this ultra-unrealistic assumption, that still means a fraction of girls aren't into open requests for sex. Now, how do you think such a girl would respond to such a request? Okay. Now, do you think the risk of that is worth it, given the difficulty of determining which girl is which type when I first meet her? Come on, you're asking me to walk into a pit.
Now, as for disproving that girls are into simple requests for sex early in the relationship, I can't show you much that would convince you, as all such stuff happens in private. All I can say is: what the fuck is going through your head that would make you think girls act like that? Come on, early in the relationship the main tool the girl has is, the dangled possibility that you'll get a chance in bed with me. You think she's going to give *certainty* about that?
Why on earth do you think that every known "female sign of interest" for early in the relationship, has plausible deniability? Let's go through the list:
-flicking hair
-softening face
-brief touching
-pointing toes at you
-"strong"? eye contact
You get the point. You're describing girls that are extreme outliers. And you're giving tons of support to my theory. If I'm stupid enough to do what you say, boom, I'm out of the dating pool.
OMG U WILL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THAT GUY DRIEDCLEXLER SAID TO ME!
EWWW! WHAT A DORK! I'M GONNA TELL...
Sorry, directly asking for sex doesn't work, unless you're well into the relationship. Try giving advice that won't turn guys into the pariah who "omg did WHAT?"
Btw, the theory I have formed is that women give romantic advice in order to cull the dating field of the guys so genetically unfit that they would do what a woman tells them.
Crazy theory, but I won't reject it until I find a theory that better fits the data. I'm a stickler like that.
I use iTunes and Safari...
Well, I listed all those problems with iTunes too, and here's some more: when running the podcast, it won't automatically play them in order, no matter what option you use, and all google got me was whining about it.
But point taken. FWIW, I consider being able to easily save stills from vids to be basic functionality, and Apple users have admitted the process is unnecessarily difficult (after dragging them begging and screaming to the table to admit it), and then, like any good open source programmer, criticize me for wanting to do that! And that case is typical. Just be lucky you use a different set of features than I do.
I agree that this fix is late to the game.
And I presume, you also agree that putting such a window in a position that i can't be close the normal way, is a pretty bad blunder too.
What was disingenuous was your claim that the keyboard shortcuts only gave one access to 6 features, when the number is, of course, much higher. The claim was that there were *few* (not literally six) shortcuts *that were also consistent between programs*, and that claim is correct. As to 100% access to the menu options - I personally think that using arrow keys to navigate the menus is awkward Are you for real? Do you know how alt works, and what I'm referring to? I'm not so patient as to arrow-key through the menus (and so your mac solution is unimpressive). When you hit alt, you call a menu with a key, and then each option thereunder is called with another LETTER key, and then the submenu or popup window with further *letter* keys (though I'll admit there's room for improvement on tabbing between some of that stuff). E.g., I want to change the name of a sheet in excel? alt-o(format)-h(sheet)-r(rename). What if I hadn't hunted that ultra-super-secret down? Well, I assume to go under format, so that gets me alt-o, then I see sHeet come up, etc. Great stuff!Btw, this "omg, I do *not* want to navigate with arrow keys" is really surprising. I absolutely agree, and so do most ... but then, why does FireFox (and iirc Safari) think it's being so ULTRAhelpful by popping up previous entries in web forms when I hit the first few letters of them, covering up very useful information, and I can only hop to those ultra-helpful stored entries by using the ... wait for it ... ARROW KEYS?
I believe he learned that many years ago. Some people are just a tad slow at catching on.
Who? Steve? Hm, still don't see right-clicking in any of the help features. Still don't see the usefulness it has in Windows. Still don't see all menu choices (and I mean ALL, not just six major) available from alt-commands, or in fact, ANY key command.Yeah, Steve was pretty damn slow at accommodating those dumbasses who only have one hand, who the fuck needs them anyway? Should prolly just be in some locker.