LOL!!!! You are sooo silly! What you just said proves the opposite of your point. "Media depictions of horse riding tend to be masculine." Maybe the ones you were exposed to - but what about Black Stallion, Black Beauty, My Little Pony, Barbie's horses (unicorns, pegasus, whatever in pink), Misty of Chincoteague (and subsequent books), the two or three horse centered series for young girls (Thoroughbred, Heartland, Phantom Stallion etc.) and about a hundred other such things. As for movies - more recent than John Wayne even - All the Pretty Horses, the Horse Whisperer, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, and Dreamer. Seriously - go to amazon and search for horses and see how many things that come up are marketed towards females versus males. Where I was raised in Virginia it was kind of assumed that every girl about the age of ten was going through a horse phase.
As to "On the other hand, if you ask editors of classical music recording review magazines, such as Gramophone, Fanfare or American Record Guide, what percentage of their subscribers are female, I'm quite certain it will be well below 28%." You are quite certain based on what facts? That is a fairly weak argument... Last time I went to the symphony the audience looked pretty well mixed to me... Come up with some actual numbers and I will discuss that set with you.
"The point is, often girls like certain thing and boys like certain things."
Why do you think that is? Is it maybe because little girls and little boys are told from an early age what is and isn't appropriate for them to play with? Walk into any toy store and tell me that girls aren't being programmed by what they are supposed to want to being playing with. Maybe you don't find aisles and aisles of pepto bismal pink morally repugnant but I do. Do you honestly think that such programming stops with childhood toys?
I am so sick of people saying that the whole anti-female bias doesn't exist anymore. I decided computing wasn't for me when my highschool compsci teacher seemed to think that he needed to come over and give me extra help and make sure to reexplain what he had just said but with extra little words this time because he wanted to make sure I could "keep up" with the rest of the class. He helped me so much, whether I wanted it or not, that I can't honestly claim to have done any of the work for that class.
As it is, in the science field I am in, I feel the need to NOT be girly or express my more feminine side because if I do then I don't get taken seriously by my peers. As if whether I wear a skirt and pink shirt or jeans and a ratty sweatshirt affects my logic abilities. I was also told I couldn't pole vaule in highschool... btw - I am only 25, I am talking the fairly recent past here when things like Title 9 were supposed to have taken care of crap like that.
Given my personal experiences, it really irritates me when people say things like what is on the forum. For example: girls aren't equally interested in computers! What kind of shit is that? Maybe we aren't equally interested because people like you have been telling us that for years! Or because when we do express an interest we get treated as inferior students even when we aren't. Most of the people on here seem to be pretty proud of their intelligence - how would you like to have yours questioned at every turn because of a one chromosome difference? If there were a difference in the number of men and women in a field and I felt like there was nothing holding one of those genders back from joining the field then I wouldn't have a problem. But I really don't believe that is the case.
I think the point might have been something more to the effect that her teeth may have affected how she smiled thus affecting her facial features and etc. Modern smiles would also be affected by teeth but modern dentistry means that modern teeth are probably different. So - if teeth affect smiles then does the difference in teeth in the US today from teeth in Italy before modern dentristy mean that the computer may have not been as accurate?
It states that:
"The eye uses two types of vision, foveal and peripheral.
Foveal, or direct vision, is excellent at picking up detail but is less suited to picking up shadows.
'The elusive quality of the Mona Lisa's smile can be explained by the fact that her smile is almost entirely in low spatial frequencies, and so is seen best by your peripheral vision,' Prof Livingstone said.
The more a person stares fixedly ahead, the less useful is their peripheral vision."
Thus Livingston stated that her smile disappears when it is looked at because of the way the human eye processes visual information.
I am curious how emotion recognition software accounts for this, and if it doesn't - how does this affect the accuracy of its recognition?
It is interesting how more and more science is being used to explain why certain art is good (golden ratio, foveal vs. peripheral visions, mathematic sequences in music, etc.). It makes me wonder if eventually we will be able to come up with "formulas" to create stunning art? And if so, will we appreciate art as much?
Geeks are in right now - don't you know that? Even supermodels and hollywood stars are dating them. Find a girlfriend now why it lasts (or at least stop blaming not having one on being a geek).;)
Ummm what country do you live in again? Violence related to sports happens all of the time in the US - especially if you have school rivalries involved. Having lived in VA and seen some UVA vs. Tech animosity and in SC and seen USC vs. Clemson nastiness (including the players ending up in brawls on the field after a game) I can attest to the fact. Heck, it even happened at my high school. Sports and civilized behavior don't seem to be very related to each other in any country I know about. Kind of makes you wonder the term sportsmanlike behavior came from...
I am going to drop some of the other arguments to save both of our sanity - I don't think that anything either of us is going to say will change the other's mind at this point and it is so hard to deal in religious generalities. This is especially true since for all I know we are dealing with different breeds (as it were) of Christians. I live in the "Bible Belt" of the South of the United States and I think that the militant form of Christianity often practiced here (again stereotypically) has probably negatively colored quite a few of my opinions. (For example it is probably true that you find Paul's arguments more convincing than the Gnostics but I am not sure I believe that most Christians even know what Gnostic Christianity is much less have studied their arguments.) I would like to comment on just one point though... (if there is anything you would particular like to continue to debate I guess I would be willing to give it a go).
"To an extent everybody whether Christian or not necessarily does this part. Simply by saying "I believe X" you are saying you believe that someone who believes "not X" is wrong. Politeness tends to make us use the "I believe X" form, though;-) The point I am wryly making is that tolerance isn't about saying everybody's beliefs are true (that'd be an odd sort of pluralism that logically doesn't work) but about saying that everybody has a social right to their beliefs whether or not they are true."
I simple don't buy that. To begin with, religious and spiritual beliefs don't really have much to do with logic. We wouldn't be having this discussion if logic didn't break down at some point and things have to be taken on faith. Religion is a matter of personal preference. Me stating preferences does not mean that I think that others are wrong. There are plenty of cases where people state beliefs but are happy if others' differ. For example - if someone says "I believe that chocolate is the best food in the world." you might disagree but realize it is a matter of what is personally the best for that person. Why can't it be the same way with religion? "I believe X and it works for me but you believe Y and that works for you and both of us lead better lives because of it?"
No problem - I wasn't offended or anything. Just horribly amused. It can be hard to tell gender and what not from a post.:)
And no fair mentioning brownies - I am afraid that chocolate (ie female kryptonite) is one steortype that I completely conform too. Now I am going to have to dig the hidden chocolate bar out of my desk.
I feel like you didn't read closely or are purposely twisting what I said. I get of tired of debates such as this devolving to nitpicking specific points instead of trying to discuss the main issues - not that I am saying that you are doing this but that it always seems to happen. (And yes I know that you might have to refute evidence for a point to explain why it is fallacious but when that is done while avoiding discussing the main issues really being discussed it gets annoying.)
I didn't say that because of the Gnostic Gospels we should disregard the New Testament Gospels. I was trying to point out that as a source of historical accuracy they were not the only version of what happened. (I guess furthering the point of why should we, as a society, take the New Testament on faith alone to believe what modern Christians believe about Jesus? And yes, I do realize that isn't the only reason Christians believe in Christ and etc. but it is a major reason from what I understand.)
It would silly to argue specific points of historical accuracy about the Bible's texts as there is a wealth of evidence for both sides saying that their side is right and the other side is wrong. Including those claiming that the New Testament was heavily edited, like by the Nicene Council. (To give a specific point so you know I wasn't vague because there aren't any specific examples.) My main point, which perhaps I didn't make well - is that with so much debate around it all, how is a person supposed to figure out what is right and wrong? On top of that what truly wonderful and compassionate god would blame a person for not being able to figure it out? In addition why does it matter? Wouldn't the energy being put into these debates and condemning people of different religious sects to hell be better spent trying to do good and help others? Does why are you trying to be a good person really make so much of difference? I am not trying to make the point that the New Testament is bunk I am trying to say that whether or not it is just really shouldn't matter.
I guess in an attempt to be PC and try not to say nasty things about people, I wasn't clear. I don't mind having discussions with people - especially to try to further the idea of religious tolerance. I do mind when they get to the point where they say that what assumptions they have made about faith are right and mine are wrong and God is going to send me to hell to be tortured eternally because of it. Such a statement goes against everything that their faith teaches besides being mean, nasty, and irrational. It scares me that something that affects peoples' lives so much (and on which they may base a majority of the important decisions in their life on) is something that they refuse to have questioned, question themselves, or consider alternate views for. Of course, not every Christian does this, but enough do that I am beginning to become somewhat disgusted with the group as a whole. I have gotten to the point where I don't think I believe in organized religion because I am starting to feel that it has caused more harm and dissention throughout human history than good. This is the exact opposite of what I thoughts it purpose was supposed to be.
LOL - if I was trying to get girls that might worry me! I happen to be one of those (apparently?) rare breed of nerds known as a female. I suppose I could take your comments and apply them to males but, speaking from personal experience, don't date/marry/get seriously involved with someone who doesn't love you for what you really are. It will make you miserable and be unfair to both of you. I was lucky enough to find someone who finds my geekiness cute and sexy. It is quite fabulous to be myself and be appreciated for what I am. I would highly recommend it and you don't get there by being anything other than what you are - even if that is a nerd or a geek.:)
Oh boy I don't even know where to start - I guess I won't bother repeating arguments but I will say this - what about all the fairly proven alterations/editing that the Bible went through to support the various political and social beliefs of later times? What about the differing accounts from people alive at the time of Jesus who were later persecuted by the Orthodox Christians - such as the Gnostic Christians? You simply can't use something written by people who deny all other evidence to the contrary to their own beliefs as proof or support of that argument.
And if what you say is true and it is the message of the Bible, and not the individual stories are important - then why won't a vast majority of Christians leave me alone for thinking that it is more important to strive to be a good person than to care whether or not a person who lived 2000 years ago was or was not the son of a god or resurrected or any of those things?
Every time I see this debate and all other arguments play out it always seems to get to the point where the person defending the Christian faith says something along the lines of "because I have seen the effects of God/Christ/faith in my own life." I understand that faith means believing in something without evidence but why does that seem to mean that logic gets completely thrown out? If a scientist was performing an experiment and used a similar argument (for example didn't do a double blind study) he wouldn't be taken seriously by his peers. I won't comment on my own religious/spiritual beliefs but I have plenty of faith in people's capabilities for self-delusion - therefore this argument holds no weight for me. I would love to see this debate continued - it was quite interesting and articulate (and I especially loved that it didn't devolve into name calling) without using this pattern of argument.
I am trying to decide if the fact that I knew it was a humpback whale and was all uptight over the mistake (and the major differences between the two species and how could you confuse them and etc?) makes me a bigger nerd 'cause of knowing something about Star Trek or cause of knowing something about the differences between whale species...
Slashdot Mirror
LOL!!!! You are sooo silly! What you just said proves the opposite of your point. "Media depictions of horse riding tend to be masculine." Maybe the ones you were exposed to - but what about Black Stallion, Black Beauty, My Little Pony, Barbie's horses (unicorns, pegasus, whatever in pink), Misty of Chincoteague (and subsequent books), the two or three horse centered series for young girls (Thoroughbred, Heartland, Phantom Stallion etc.) and about a hundred other such things. As for movies - more recent than John Wayne even - All the Pretty Horses, the Horse Whisperer, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, and Dreamer. Seriously - go to amazon and search for horses and see how many things that come up are marketed towards females versus males. Where I was raised in Virginia it was kind of assumed that every girl about the age of ten was going through a horse phase.
As to "On the other hand, if you ask editors of classical music recording review magazines, such as Gramophone, Fanfare or American Record Guide, what percentage of their subscribers are female, I'm quite certain it will be well below 28%." You are quite certain based on what facts? That is a fairly weak argument... Last time I went to the symphony the audience looked pretty well mixed to me... Come up with some actual numbers and I will discuss that set with you.
No prob - I will put you in touch with my grandmother. A lady simply doesn't do that kind of thing you know...
Wow - that is a mature response that demonstrates exactly how emotionally mature a geek guy can be. Way to prove your point.
"The point is, often girls like certain thing and boys like certain things."
Why do you think that is? Is it maybe because little girls and little boys are told from an early age what is and isn't appropriate for them to play with? Walk into any toy store and tell me that girls aren't being programmed by what they are supposed to want to being playing with. Maybe you don't find aisles and aisles of pepto bismal pink morally repugnant but I do. Do you honestly think that such programming stops with childhood toys?
I am so sick of people saying that the whole anti-female bias doesn't exist anymore. I decided computing wasn't for me when my highschool compsci teacher seemed to think that he needed to come over and give me extra help and make sure to reexplain what he had just said but with extra little words this time because he wanted to make sure I could "keep up" with the rest of the class. He helped me so much, whether I wanted it or not, that I can't honestly claim to have done any of the work for that class.
As it is, in the science field I am in, I feel the need to NOT be girly or express my more feminine side because if I do then I don't get taken seriously by my peers. As if whether I wear a skirt and pink shirt or jeans and a ratty sweatshirt affects my logic abilities. I was also told I couldn't pole vaule in highschool... btw - I am only 25, I am talking the fairly recent past here when things like Title 9 were supposed to have taken care of crap like that.
Given my personal experiences, it really irritates me when people say things like what is on the forum. For example: girls aren't equally interested in computers! What kind of shit is that? Maybe we aren't equally interested because people like you have been telling us that for years! Or because when we do express an interest we get treated as inferior students even when we aren't. Most of the people on here seem to be pretty proud of their intelligence - how would you like to have yours questioned at every turn because of a one chromosome difference? If there were a difference in the number of men and women in a field and I felt like there was nothing holding one of those genders back from joining the field then I wouldn't have a problem. But I really don't believe that is the case.
Actually you are wrong - at least as far as the education field goes. In many parts of the country they are really trying to recruit male teachers...
I think the point might have been something more to the effect that her teeth may have affected how she smiled thus affecting her facial features and etc. Modern smiles would also be affected by teeth but modern dentistry means that modern teeth are probably different. So - if teeth affect smiles then does the difference in teeth in the US today from teeth in Italy before modern dentristy mean that the computer may have not been as accurate?
I read an article a while ago and just relocated it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2775817.s tm
It states that:
"The eye uses two types of vision, foveal and peripheral.
Foveal, or direct vision, is excellent at picking up detail but is less suited to picking up shadows.
'The elusive quality of the Mona Lisa's smile can be explained by the fact that her smile is almost entirely in low spatial frequencies, and so is seen best by your peripheral vision,' Prof Livingstone said.
The more a person stares fixedly ahead, the less useful is their peripheral vision."
Thus Livingston stated that her smile disappears when it is looked at because of the way the human eye processes visual information.
I am curious how emotion recognition software accounts for this, and if it doesn't - how does this affect the accuracy of its recognition?
It is interesting how more and more science is being used to explain why certain art is good (golden ratio, foveal vs. peripheral visions, mathematic sequences in music, etc.). It makes me wonder if eventually we will be able to come up with "formulas" to create stunning art? And if so, will we appreciate art as much?
Geeks are in right now - don't you know that? Even supermodels and hollywood stars are dating them. Find a girlfriend now why it lasts (or at least stop blaming not having one on being a geek). ;)
Geeks are "in"
Computer Geeks Are "In"
It's chic to be geek! Geeks are in vogue on TV, film
Ummm what country do you live in again? Violence related to sports happens all of the time in the US - especially if you have school rivalries involved. Having lived in VA and seen some UVA vs. Tech animosity and in SC and seen USC vs. Clemson nastiness (including the players ending up in brawls on the field after a game) I can attest to the fact. Heck, it even happened at my high school. Sports and civilized behavior don't seem to be very related to each other in any country I know about. Kind of makes you wonder the term sportsmanlike behavior came from...
I am going to drop some of the other arguments to save both of our sanity - I don't think that anything either of us is going to say will change the other's mind at this point and it is so hard to deal in religious generalities. This is especially true since for all I know we are dealing with different breeds (as it were) of Christians. I live in the "Bible Belt" of the South of the United States and I think that the militant form of Christianity often practiced here (again stereotypically) has probably negatively colored quite a few of my opinions. (For example it is probably true that you find Paul's arguments more convincing than the Gnostics but I am not sure I believe that most Christians even know what Gnostic Christianity is much less have studied their arguments.) I would like to comment on just one point though... (if there is anything you would particular like to continue to debate I guess I would be willing to give it a go).
;-) The point I am wryly making is that tolerance isn't about saying everybody's beliefs are true (that'd be an odd sort of pluralism that logically doesn't work) but about saying that everybody has a social right to their beliefs whether or not they are true."
"To an extent everybody whether Christian or not necessarily does this part. Simply by saying "I believe X" you are saying you believe that someone who believes "not X" is wrong. Politeness tends to make us use the "I believe X" form, though
I simple don't buy that. To begin with, religious and spiritual beliefs don't really have much to do with logic. We wouldn't be having this discussion if logic didn't break down at some point and things have to be taken on faith. Religion is a matter of personal preference. Me stating preferences does not mean that I think that others are wrong. There are plenty of cases where people state beliefs but are happy if others' differ. For example - if someone says "I believe that chocolate is the best food in the world." you might disagree but realize it is a matter of what is personally the best for that person. Why can't it be the same way with religion? "I believe X and it works for me but you believe Y and that works for you and both of us lead better lives because of it?"
No problem - I wasn't offended or anything. Just horribly amused. It can be hard to tell gender and what not from a post. :)
And no fair mentioning brownies - I am afraid that chocolate (ie female kryptonite) is one steortype that I completely conform too. Now I am going to have to dig the hidden chocolate bar out of my desk.
I feel like you didn't read closely or are purposely twisting what I said. I get of tired of debates such as this devolving to nitpicking specific points instead of trying to discuss the main issues - not that I am saying that you are doing this but that it always seems to happen. (And yes I know that you might have to refute evidence for a point to explain why it is fallacious but when that is done while avoiding discussing the main issues really being discussed it gets annoying.)
I didn't say that because of the Gnostic Gospels we should disregard the New Testament Gospels. I was trying to point out that as a source of historical accuracy they were not the only version of what happened. (I guess furthering the point of why should we, as a society, take the New Testament on faith alone to believe what modern Christians believe about Jesus? And yes, I do realize that isn't the only reason Christians believe in Christ and etc. but it is a major reason from what I understand.)
It would silly to argue specific points of historical accuracy about the Bible's texts as there is a wealth of evidence for both sides saying that their side is right and the other side is wrong. Including those claiming that the New Testament was heavily edited, like by the Nicene Council. (To give a specific point so you know I wasn't vague because there aren't any specific examples.) My main point, which perhaps I didn't make well - is that with so much debate around it all, how is a person supposed to figure out what is right and wrong? On top of that what truly wonderful and compassionate god would blame a person for not being able to figure it out? In addition why does it matter? Wouldn't the energy being put into these debates and condemning people of different religious sects to hell be better spent trying to do good and help others? Does why are you trying to be a good person really make so much of difference? I am not trying to make the point that the New Testament is bunk I am trying to say that whether or not it is just really shouldn't matter.
I guess in an attempt to be PC and try not to say nasty things about people, I wasn't clear. I don't mind having discussions with people - especially to try to further the idea of religious tolerance. I do mind when they get to the point where they say that what assumptions they have made about faith are right and mine are wrong and God is going to send me to hell to be tortured eternally because of it. Such a statement goes against everything that their faith teaches besides being mean, nasty, and irrational. It scares me that something that affects peoples' lives so much (and on which they may base a majority of the important decisions in their life on) is something that they refuse to have questioned, question themselves, or consider alternate views for. Of course, not every Christian does this, but enough do that I am beginning to become somewhat disgusted with the group as a whole. I have gotten to the point where I don't think I believe in organized religion because I am starting to feel that it has caused more harm and dissention throughout human history than good. This is the exact opposite of what I thoughts it purpose was supposed to be.
LOL - if I was trying to get girls that might worry me! I happen to be one of those (apparently?) rare breed of nerds known as a female. I suppose I could take your comments and apply them to males but, speaking from personal experience, don't date/marry/get seriously involved with someone who doesn't love you for what you really are. It will make you miserable and be unfair to both of you. I was lucky enough to find someone who finds my geekiness cute and sexy. It is quite fabulous to be myself and be appreciated for what I am. I would highly recommend it and you don't get there by being anything other than what you are - even if that is a nerd or a geek. :)
Just wait till you have the pleasure of meeting a Primitive Baptist (and yes they call themselves that).
Oh boy I don't even know where to start - I guess I won't bother repeating arguments but I will say this - what about all the fairly proven alterations/editing that the Bible went through to support the various political and social beliefs of later times? What about the differing accounts from people alive at the time of Jesus who were later persecuted by the Orthodox Christians - such as the Gnostic Christians? You simply can't use something written by people who deny all other evidence to the contrary to their own beliefs as proof or support of that argument. And if what you say is true and it is the message of the Bible, and not the individual stories are important - then why won't a vast majority of Christians leave me alone for thinking that it is more important to strive to be a good person than to care whether or not a person who lived 2000 years ago was or was not the son of a god or resurrected or any of those things?
Every time I see this debate and all other arguments play out it always seems to get to the point where the person defending the Christian faith says something along the lines of "because I have seen the effects of God/Christ/faith in my own life." I understand that faith means believing in something without evidence but why does that seem to mean that logic gets completely thrown out? If a scientist was performing an experiment and used a similar argument (for example didn't do a double blind study) he wouldn't be taken seriously by his peers. I won't comment on my own religious/spiritual beliefs but I have plenty of faith in people's capabilities for self-delusion - therefore this argument holds no weight for me. I would love to see this debate continued - it was quite interesting and articulate (and I especially loved that it didn't devolve into name calling) without using this pattern of argument.
I am trying to decide if the fact that I knew it was a humpback whale and was all uptight over the mistake (and the major differences between the two species and how could you confuse them and etc?) makes me a bigger nerd 'cause of knowing something about Star Trek or cause of knowing something about the differences between whale species...