Turns out those people were OUTSIDE the fence, and not imprisoned in some sort of detention camp. If I had the time, I'd find a reference for you, but it took me long enough just to find the picture.
Secretly meeting is a lot more sinister than having a closed meeting.
Completely irrelevant. We are talking about the same meeting. You knew what I meant, I knew what I meant. The contents of the meeting were secret, full stop.
Okay, so your claim is that these... executives or whathaveyou... have so much pull in the US government that they can arrange this vast conspiracy
By attempting to exaggerate my position to ridicule it you show that you miss the point. Seems like explaining it yet again won't make a difference either. So enjoy your strawman.
I remember a CLOSED meeting on energy policy that was not kept secret.
Semantics, whether you say the meeting was closed or the content of the discussions was kept secret its the same thing.
The oil companies seem to be split on whether the pipeline would be any cheaper than the sea route through Georgia - so I'd say that whatever their "quantification" is, it is pretty marginal compared to the cost of the war.
You miss the point. The cost of stabilizing the country is an externality to the oil companies. So even if it is cheaper for the US government to do one thing or another, it don't matter as Unocal doesn't have to pay the price. If the US govt can spend $100B and that results in Unocal saving $1M then that's what Unocal is going to push for and attempt to rationalize with all kinds of doubletalk about who else might benefit or about patriotism or whatever it takes to convince those spending the money to spend it how Unocal wants it spent.
IIRC this pipeline would provide Russian oil to Europe... why would we get involved?
Turkmenstein oil to India and Pakistan. As for why? Governments do a LOT of things that only benefit certain companies rather than the entire nation. Remember that big secret oil meeting with the vp earlier that year?
Second, a really bad way to build a pipeline is to destabilize a country.
Country WAS destabilized prior to US entry - which is why the pipeline was on hold since the mid-90s and why there has been significant pre-construction activity in recent years.
Third, whatever it would have cost to convince the Afghans that they should let the west build a pipeline - it would have to be cheaper than this war will be.
Please quantify 'whatever' - compare and contrast your quantification with Unocal's.
One class? We're talking about DOZENS of shows here
Class - "Crime/Medical Drama" CSI CSI Miami CSI New York Cold Case Bones JAG Crossing Jordan etc - that's the class you were talking about
X-Files/Smallville - both very male-oriented with a single token female with technical expertise and drowning in a sea of similar shows without even the token female - as for buffy, WTF? what character has technical expertise there? Willow? With her technical expertise in MAGIC? You really aren't that bright, eh?
And just which popular kids shows?
So you've narrowed your argument to KIDS shows, eh? I guess that kicks out all of your previous examples. Trouble with that argument is that KIDS shows don't portray either gender as being particularly expert in any technical field.
Contrast that with just about any sitcom made for 20 years where the men on the show can't so much as tie their show laces without their wife's help
Ah, the wussy chauvinist POV. I've heard this complaint a million times before. The thing it always ignores is that the women on the sitcoms are just as foolish too, just usually hotter than their husbands. If you actually believe that the women on those shows are portrayed as wise and rational, you aren't playing with a full deck.
I think he was saying the opposite. Men would not be as responsible for social conditioning because they rarely let men work at daycare centers.
Either way it is a total dufus claim. As if kids aren't exposed to social pressures and beliefs every waking minute of their lives be it television, other children at school and anywhere else, siblings, books, video games, etc.
You PC people who are afraid to admit that there are actual differences between the sexes.
What part of, "I think you seem to have a real fixation on the obvious factoid that men and women are different, as if no one else can see that with their own eyes" is "us PC people" being "afraid to admit there are actual differences between the sexes?"
Because foragers and child rearers had less use for spacial skills and for thinking about trajectories and such than hunters did.
Well, you chose to pin it ALL on trajectories and hunting big game (anyone with any knowledge of the period knows that women still hunted small game as much as men did). You had your chance to broaden your argument. You failed.
Plotting trajectories is only a teeny tiny part of an engineering skillset. Women had many tasks that used forms of math and engineering - such as geometry to make optimal use of pelts for clothing, and understanding vectors and tensile strength in order to properly stitch the seams. Constructing shelters- more women's work- to withstand the elements is almost entirely an engineering task as is the design and manufacture of baskets for transport and storage of foraged food. Tool making is also a very spacially-oriented task - start with raw materials and visualize how to get to the end product.
Are you going to demand that we ignore sexual dimorphism, too?
Well, since you brought it up, I think that is the ONLY point you have to hang your hat on. Its well understood that men hunted big game precisely because they were physically stronger. But hunting of smaller animals like rabbits and such was a task shared equally between men and women because being bigger and stronger was not an advantage.
Throughout this entire thread you have completely and utterlyfailed to show why minor differences in brain chemistry and physiology, rather than cultural bias, should result in as wide a discrepancy of interests in math and engineering as we see in the western world. Furthermore, reports by non-westerners here in this thread indicate that in their cultures there is nowhere near as much of a gender divide with some large Malaysian and Indian universities having roughly equal levels of enrollment in their engineering programs.
Regular-sized squid are actually the most plentiful source of protein on the planet, far out-stripping cattle, chicken and tuna. If we would just eat them instead...
And the universities already consume all of the money on causes they consider more worthy. Forcible changes will foster resentment.
Get a load of yourself. The people charged with making sure the taxpayers get the most for their money shouldn't exercise any control over how the money is spent because it will cause 'resentment.' Poor little universities...
Ok, so it says that critics are complaining about the quota bogeyman. Big deal. No one advocating for it is saying quotas should be part of any such system.
In fact, the article even go so far as to say that quotas my happen because the institutions don't take a rational approach but instead act out of fear.
So my point stands - you are arguing with a strawman just as much as you were before. Your apology is now expected.
Do you really lack the the understanding that the experiences your children have are different? Sure, *some* things are the same. But to think that they have both experienced exactly the same formative experiences is ludicrous. In fact, it is the exactly the kind of poor logic and bad reasoning I would expect from a woman!
You have it completely backwards. I'm not saying that "Men's interests" and "Women's intersts" are valued the way they are because of who does them. I'm saying that women are pushed towards fields which the free market does not value as much as the fields men are pushed towards.
How does child-birth in any way translate into a reduced need for math or engineering skills? Does not a mother need to know how much to feed her child? How to construct clothing for her child? How to anticipate the growth of her child so that the clothing will last longer? How to best keep her child warm and protected from the elements? The list of tasks which require some form of math and engineering for child-bearers and child-raisers in primitive societies may easily exceed that of any hunter-gather role.
Again, no explanation for why "being female" should reduce interest in math and engineering. There are a ton of reasons why "being female" ought to INCREASE interest in math and engineering, so forgive me if I remain unconvinced.
You're insinuating that blacks and whites didn't have the same opportunity to enter the job of their choice, but this doesn't hold true for the academic field where jobs are (or would be, without affirmative action,) given solely based on the merits of applicants.
Nope, I am not insinuating any such thing. You however are claiming it for your own. It is simply an analogy to show that if such an argument was not valid then, it ain't valid now.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of the Fourth is not to encourage criminals to keep secrets... its to stop police from interrupting law-abiding citizens' lives.
By that argument, a wiretap should not require a warrant. Since obviously if you don't even know about it, it sure ain't 'interrupting' your life.
Do you even remember what the Serbs were up to back in those days? The images of people in camps starving to death?
Like this picture?
Turns out those people were OUTSIDE the fence, and not imprisoned in some sort of detention camp. If I had the time, I'd find a reference for you, but it took me long enough just to find the picture.
Secretly meeting is a lot more sinister than having a closed meeting.
Completely irrelevant. We are talking about the same meeting. You knew what I meant, I knew what I meant. The contents of the meeting were secret, full stop.
Okay, so your claim is that these... executives or whathaveyou... have so much pull in the US government that they can arrange this vast conspiracy
By attempting to exaggerate my position to ridicule it you show that you miss the point. Seems like explaining it yet again won't make a difference either. So enjoy your strawman.
draw the line at androids! no athlete should have less then 40% natural body parts! THEIR body parts!
Like this runner?
I remember a CLOSED meeting on energy policy that was not kept secret.
Semantics, whether you say the meeting was closed or the content of the discussions was kept secret its the same thing.
The oil companies seem to be split on whether the pipeline would be any cheaper than the sea route through Georgia - so I'd say that whatever their "quantification" is, it is pretty marginal compared to the cost of the war.
You miss the point. The cost of stabilizing the country is an externality to the oil companies. So even if it is cheaper for the US government to do one thing or another, it don't matter as Unocal doesn't have to pay the price. If the US govt can spend $100B and that results in Unocal saving $1M then that's what Unocal is going to push for and attempt to rationalize with all kinds of doubletalk about who else might benefit or about patriotism or whatever it takes to convince those spending the money to spend it how Unocal wants it spent.
IIRC this pipeline would provide Russian oil to Europe... why would we get involved?
Turkmenstein oil to India and Pakistan. As for why? Governments do a LOT of things that only benefit certain companies rather than the entire nation. Remember that big secret oil meeting with the vp earlier that year?
Second, a really bad way to build a pipeline is to destabilize a country.
Country WAS destabilized prior to US entry - which is why the pipeline was on hold since the mid-90s and why there has been significant pre-construction activity in recent years.
Third, whatever it would have cost to convince the Afghans that they should let the west build a pipeline - it would have to be cheaper than this war will be.
Please quantify 'whatever' - compare and contrast your quantification with Unocal's.
in my state, personal sales don't involve any forms.
Do you have a firearms license? That's good enough of a reason for them to come for you.
For a lot of users one of the low power Semperons would be a better choice right now.
The problem is they are not as sexy as the Atom.
That's because you spelled it wrong sounds like simperon, the real name is a whole lot more sexy - sempron .
One class? We're talking about DOZENS of shows here
Class - "Crime/Medical Drama"
CSI
CSI Miami
CSI New York
Cold Case
Bones
JAG
Crossing Jordan
etc - that's the class you were talking about
X-Files/Smallville - both very male-oriented with a single token female with technical expertise and drowning in a sea of similar shows without even the token female - as for buffy, WTF? what character has technical expertise there? Willow? With her technical expertise in MAGIC? You really aren't that bright, eh?
And just which popular kids shows?
So you've narrowed your argument to KIDS shows, eh? I guess that kicks out all of your previous examples. Trouble with that argument is that KIDS shows don't portray either gender as being particularly expert in any technical field.
Contrast that with just about any sitcom made for 20 years where the men on the show can't so much as tie their show laces without their wife's help
Ah, the wussy chauvinist POV. I've heard this complaint a million times before. The thing it always ignores is that the women on the sitcoms are just as foolish too, just usually hotter than their husbands. If you actually believe that the women on those shows are portrayed as wise and rational, you aren't playing with a full deck.
Like Scully on X-Files? Or Rush on Cold Case? Or the women on just about any crime/medical drama you could possibly mention?
Because as we all know, exactly one class of television show that has very little appeal to children is going to make all the difference.
Feminist math strikes again...
Lol, smug self-satisfaction strikes again, are your palms hairy too?
I think he was saying the opposite. Men would not be as responsible for social conditioning because they rarely let men work at daycare centers.
Either way it is a total dufus claim. As if kids aren't exposed to social pressures and beliefs every waking minute of their lives be it television, other children at school and anywhere else, siblings, books, video games, etc.
You PC people who are afraid to admit that there are actual differences between the sexes.
What part of, "I think you seem to have a real fixation on the obvious factoid that men and women are different, as if no one else can see that with their own eyes" is "us PC people" being "afraid to admit there are actual differences between the sexes?"
Because foragers and child rearers had less use for spacial skills and for thinking about trajectories and such than hunters did.
Well, you chose to pin it ALL on trajectories and hunting big game (anyone with any knowledge of the period knows that women still hunted small game as much as men did). You had your chance to broaden your argument. You failed.
Plotting trajectories is only a teeny tiny part of an engineering skillset.
Women had many tasks that used forms of math and engineering - such as geometry to make optimal use of pelts for clothing, and understanding vectors and tensile strength in order to properly stitch the seams. Constructing shelters- more women's work- to withstand the elements is almost entirely an engineering task as is the design and manufacture of baskets for transport and storage of foraged food. Tool making is also a very spacially-oriented task - start with raw materials and visualize how to get to the end product.
Are you going to demand that we ignore sexual dimorphism, too?
Well, since you brought it up, I think that is the ONLY point you have to hang your hat on. Its well understood that men hunted big game precisely because they were physically stronger. But hunting of smaller animals like rabbits and such was a task shared equally between men and women because being bigger and stronger was not an advantage.
Throughout this entire thread you have completely and utterly failed to show why minor differences in brain chemistry and physiology, rather than cultural bias, should result in as wide a discrepancy of interests in math and engineering as we see in the western world. Furthermore, reports by non-westerners here in this thread indicate that in their cultures there is nowhere near as much of a gender divide with some large Malaysian and Indian universities having roughly equal levels of enrollment in their engineering programs.
Yeah, and it's dangerous up there.
Because foragers and child rearers had less use for spacial skills and for thinking about trajectories and such than hunters did.
You sure you want pin everything about math and engineering on that specific claim?
Just trying to help you dig your hole a little deeper...
Ok meat. Although I doubt rice qualifies either way since it is 10:1 carbs:protein.
Regular-sized squid are actually the most plentiful source of protein on the planet, far out-stripping cattle, chicken and tuna. If we would just eat them instead...
And the universities already consume all of the money on causes they consider more worthy. Forcible changes will foster resentment.
Get a load of yourself. The people charged with making sure the taxpayers get the most for their money shouldn't exercise any control over how the money is spent because it will cause 'resentment.' Poor little universities...
Ok, so it says that critics are complaining about the quota bogeyman. Big deal. No one advocating for it is saying quotas should be part of any such system.
In fact, the article even go so far as to say that quotas my happen because the institutions don't take a rational approach but instead act out of fear.
So my point stands - you are arguing with a strawman just as much as you were before. Your apology is now expected.
That's exactly what it does, as a matter of fact. Do a little homework before you act all shocked and everything.
So, where are the men denied football so that women can play football in those same slots? I think you are not only illiterate, but also innumerate.
Do you really lack the the understanding that the experiences your children have are different? Sure, *some* things are the same. But to think that they have both experienced exactly the same formative experiences is ludicrous. In fact, it is the exactly the kind of poor logic and bad reasoning I would expect from a woman!
hah
You have it completely backwards. I'm not saying that "Men's interests" and "Women's intersts" are valued the way they are because of who does them. I'm saying that women are pushed towards fields which the free market does not value as much as the fields men are pushed towards.
Your analogy is ludicrous, and I've answered your "different post".
No, you didn't. You went off on a completely unrelated tirade about race.
And "gynormous"? How do you expect me to take you seriously?
You think there is no room for a pun here? You apparently have a stick up somewhere, and it ain't gyno-related, that's for sure.
Men carry babies to term and then nurse them?
How does child-birth in any way translate into a reduced need for math or engineering skills? Does not a mother need to know how much to feed her child? How to construct clothing for her child? How to anticipate the growth of her child so that the clothing will last longer? How to best keep her child warm and protected from the elements? The list of tasks which require some form of math and engineering for child-bearers and child-raisers in primitive societies may easily exceed that of any hunter-gather role.
Again, no explanation for why "being female" should reduce interest in math and engineering. There are a ton of reasons why "being female" ought to INCREASE interest in math and engineering, so forgive me if I remain unconvinced.
You're insinuating that blacks and whites didn't have the same opportunity to enter the job of their choice, but this doesn't hold true for the academic field where jobs are (or would be, without affirmative action,) given solely based on the merits of applicants.
Nope, I am not insinuating any such thing. You however are claiming it for your own. It is simply an analogy to show that if such an argument was not valid then, it ain't valid now.