In reality, if you have software which cannot make you money directly, it's a very good candidate for making open-source
... because the world really really needs yet another bloated "massive framework" that will take more time to bang into shape^W^W^Wcustomize than doing it from scratch...
The "I'll give the code away and make money off support" model rarely works.
Guess what - sliding sideways increases your chance of stopping, rather than just rolling through the intersection and getting t-boned. And no, ABS does not stop vehicles faster - and drivers with abs are more likely to be killed in crashes.
. When braking on dry or wet roads your stopping distance will be about the same as with conventional brakes.
You should allow for a longer stopping distance with ABS than for conventional brakes when driving on gravel, slush, and snow. This is because the rotating tire will stay on top of this low traction road surface covering, and effectively "float" on this boundary layer.
A non ABS braked vehicle can lock its tires and create a snow plow effect in front of the tires which helps slow the vehicle. These locked tires can often find more traction below this boundary layer.
Snow under pressure sticks to ice better than frozen rubber does. You want the tire to stop rotating so it can build up a 1/2 layer of snow.
With no abs, I have the option of locking all 4 wheels and getting whatever little friction there is. You don't get that with wheels that are unlocked.
If he wanted to be left alone, all he had to do was SHUT UP! Same as if Shuttlewirth doesn't want to be criticized, he should stop making stupid announcements that are a joke - like his latest brainfart about Ubuntu "out-innovating" Apple and Microsoft.
Sorry, but the conclusion is wrong!
on
The Numbers of a Life
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
"As personal analytics develops, itâ(TM)s going to give us a whole new dimension to experiencing our lives."
Here's a clue - if that would "give a whole new dimension to experiencing your life", you need to step away from the keyboard and get a life!.
We've had large multi-user operating systems for decades now and people still don't seem to understand this basic principle -- if an interface is available to a regular user, it has to be vetted to ensure that it does not allow the user to do any more than what it advertises and that the effects of that are limited to things that the user is supposed to be able to accomplish.
What a load of horse puckey. This is a kid's computer for school use. Not a system to control an aircraft or nuclear power plant. "As much security as necessary, and no more". Besides, you should always leave some low-level fruit hanging out there as a "canary in a mineshaft" warning mechanism, otherwise you are forcing attackers to put on their best game face.
Privacy is going to be a problem, and I also agree that, just as people have managed to evolve privacy behaviours in public (remember your mom telling you "It's not polite to stare!") we'll evolve the same sort of coping mechanisms.
After all, people have had binoculars and telescopes for decades, and yet someone spying on their neighbor getting undressed is still a peeper who can be arrested if caught...
These days we can pick our noses in our cars and expect de facto privacy,
Those days are long gone:-) There are over 6 million hits for "youtube driver picking nose", including videos of people, how can I put this delicately.... "grabbing a quick snack"?
Pretty much every electronic device can interact with your video SPEKZ, which can be anything from a pair of plain-jane NokiaSofts to the latest cool shades from Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL). Cars, streetlight surveillance cams, water meters, televisions, and even your clock radio are all talking to each other -- and your SPEKZ are piggybacking on their data streams. There's not a single laptop, desktop, smartphone or tablet computer in sight.
It's an amazingly seamless experience. The tiny twin cams on your SPEKZ let you share what you see with your friends and stream a copy to your home server. Your watch and charm bracelet contain sensors to detect your wrist movements and the muscles and tendons of your fingers flexing, all descended from Nintendo WiiMote technology.
As for driving with the future versions, it will be safer, since:they will give the driver full night vision, as well as the ability to display an enhanced view of traffic despite road glare, sun in the eyes, torrential rain, etc. It would be nice to see that deer well before it goes through your windshield.
I only pointed out the fact that unemployed men do less work around the house than their working spouses because of attempts to portray women as doing the same amount of work overall, if you consider both paid and unpaid work (which was a false assumption).
Depression definitely comes into play, and women generally realize that mens egos are fragile things, in part because they're "not allowed to be" fragile. It's one of those conundrums of society, where having to keep up the appearance of power and strength actually weakens men, and women, being "allowed" to be seen as weaker, can actually be more honest and open in dealing with certain problems. It's why men don't want to talk about things, and women do. "Talking about" a problem leads to the possibility of being seen as weaker. Women can "afford" it, men less so. Ultimately, we all pay the price.
Now, as to the quality of housework, yes, it's easier to just give up on trying to get the guy to do it right, because who wants to be seen as a nag? And yet, guys manage to get the latrines spotless in the military... and they can spend all afternoon washing, waxing, and detailing a car. Part of it is motivation. Guys don't see "the nest" the same way, I guess.
This same difference is also expressed in fashion. Guys wear the same basic outfit to work every day of the week. If two programmers show up with the same grungy dead metal band t-shirt, it's "Hey, Dude! Awesome!" If 5 of them do, it's high 5's all around.
Contrast that to two women showing up with the same outfit... it's... awkward.
And unlike guys, if a woman shows up wearing the same basic outfit day in, day out, even the men will notice and comment on it. "What's wrong with her?" So now you know why we need more closet space. And more shoes. And jackets and coats and hats.
This same attention to "extraneous" detail comes into play, not just for housework and clothing, but in a lot of areas.
It might also be why men simply don't take many of the sexual harassment scenarios all that seriously. "In one ear, out the other..." In this discussion it was brushed off as "it's even more under-reported by men." How many men have been groped by a stranger in the subway? How many men have had someone they don't even know grab them and try to shove their tongue down their throats in broad daylight? Not too many. And yet, try to find a woman who hasn't experienced that sort of stupidity, or worse. Good luck with your search. There are definite inequalities.
This doesn't mean that all men are jerks or all women are saints. Just that the realities of differences in physical strength, levels of aggression, and the concommittent responses (women mostly just want to get away and get somewhere safe, whereas men subject to the same treatment are more likely to want to fight) are also facts.
Same with inequality of employment. Being paid considerably less than the people you're leading based on your gender is just one example. Others include differences in consensus-seeking, etc.
As for men who think that women are gold-diggers because some women, when they finally get fed up with not being treated equally, end up with someone with more money. Are they gold-diggers, or is it just part of the odds - in any re-distribution some will end up with someone who makes more money, some will end up with someone who makes less...? Maybe the ones whose ex-spouses end up better off financially are using this as a salve for their egos, the same as the ones whose ex-spouses end up worse off financially are going around saying "ha! look where she is now!" I've seen both (guys, if there's one thing a woman doesn't want to hear, it's how rotten your ex was... over and over and over and over and over. If it's over, please, get over it, hmmm???)
Now, the whole trying to equate orgasm frequency with wealth and arguing that that "p
As I pointed out, the studies are there to back up that men are, for the most part, slobs. Don't blame me if the facts disagree with you. It's not MY fault.
Again, the facts from those studies:
1. unemployed men do less housework than their full-time-employed wives. (plenty of studies to back this one up)
1. sexist attitudes in the workplace (where ~70% of women reported being sexually harassed) aren't isolated to the workplace - it also comes in the home space, where cleaning the toilets and doing the laundry is "women's work"
2. In everything from food prep to caring for children and relatives, women spend more hours than men.
All this is fact, borne out by study after study. If you don't like the facts, that's irrelevant. The facts don't care either way - they're just facts. They don't apply to everyone, obviously, and I have never said that they did. Nor do the studies. But they do apply, on average. The average guy is a slob, and too many guys think it's okay to try to cop a feel or worse. When's the last time you were groped?
While unemployment is an ordeal for anyone, it still appears to be more traumatic for men. Men without jobs are more likely to commit crimes and go to prison. They are less likely to wed, more likely to divorce, and more likely to father a child out of wedlock. Ironically, unemployed men tend to do even less housework than men with jobs and often retreat from family life, says W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.
How do you account for that? The fact is, men do less of the housework, even when both partners work outside the home an equal amount.
#2 - what does a study of lesbians have to do with how men and women interact? Really?
#3 - No, it's not a "fair summary". A "fair summary" would be that a dirty car is a possible indicator or poor overall hygiene, and a clean car is a possible indicator of good overall hygiene. Given ONLY that variable, women would conclude that the guy with the slob car is probably a slob. Or would you conclude otherwise - that the guy with the clean car is more likely to be a slob?
#4 - that is not a "control group" - it didn't control for the variable that was being tested - the car itself. It put the same guy in a dirty car and a clean car. The dirty car was cheap, the clean car was expensive. To conclude that women were more attracted to the guy in the clean car because it was more expensive is not supported, since they didn't properly control for filth. If they had, they would have run the same test with an expensive dirty car and a clean cheap car.
Or they could have had two clean cars, one expensive, and one cheap. And two dirty cars, one expensive and one cheap. To conclude that "women care about cars while men don't" is not supported by the study, which is fatally flawed. It's "junk science." Then again, the NEJM did a study of double-blind studies, and found 1/3 of them to be fatally flawed (and this wasn't even a double-blind study).
So no, they did not have proper controls in the study. Saying that they did because they had men in the study is ridiculous.
#5 - You're the one who made a lot of assumptions. And nowhere does the study ask about difficulty in obtaining orgasm, contrary to what you just wrote. Did you actually READ the questions? Obviously not. It DID look at things like "opportunity lost" factors because they were relevant. Your attempt to misrepresent the results is just as bad as the original article, which was not supported by the research, and was just page hit bait.
#6 - No, it's not misdirection - the original point was that to classify women as gold-diggers is unfair, and not supported by the evidence, which shows women do more of the housework even when everything else is kept equal, and that may
Even those studies show that, overall, women spend more total time (paid work and housework) than men... as the links I provided show - and one of the studies I linked to is not "just self-reported". They actually had observers in the home.
And the studies also showed that unemployed men did less housework than their working wives...
I only used rape as an example because you questioned my statement about women being the victims more often when it comes to violence. My exact words were "As for gender and violence, it IS pretty cut-and-dried." The facts agree with my statement. Now, as to relationships, my original point was that one of the factors might be that women get tired of verbal or physical abuse - there's no denying it happens.
Worse, there's no denying it happens in the workplace as well. 71% of women experience gender-based harassment at work in hospital settings. It's only slightly lower - 69% - in IT. It's the #1 reason women drop out of IT.
Now, if that happens in the workplace, how likely is it that the same happens in the home?
As for the car, don't put words in my mouth. The study could have been done with proper controls - a clean car and a beater of the same make and model, a clean Fiesta and a beat-up Bentley, and not just the beat-up Fiesta and the sparkling clean Bentley.
Of course, such a study wouldn't have proven what the "researchers" wanted to prove.
The study, lacking any control data, is bogus and shows the biases of the "researchers".
As for female orgasms - as I pointed out (and you missed... perhaps because it's not important to you, as long as you get yours???;-) the real problem is that the majority of women in the relationships studied are not "getting as good as they give" - they either don't orgasm, or rarely. That would tend to indicate a factor other than money money money. And when you write "you are implying that there's no such thing as someone who simply makes less than someone else", that's ridiculous - there is no such implication. Obviously, unless everyone is making the exact same, people will have different income levels.
When you have almost 50 million people on food stamps, and almost 50 million people with questionable health care, that's going to affect "performance" and libido. Throw in another bunch (maybe another 50 million) who are struggling to make ends meet or dealing with other issues. Not having financial worries being paramount is not "wealthy", but it will surely affect family life, including in the bedroom.
Please don't equate that with "women have more orgasms with wealthy men", because, again, it fails to control for these factors.
Also, if you bothered to read the survey, a few things might have made a difference, since it was about mainland China. One of the questions was how often a child slept with the parents. That has to put a damper on things. So, more money == more opportunity to have sex that isn't just a quicky. That's why question # 85 was "How seriously do your living conditions affect your sex life."
So, unless they controlled for the # of rooms, # of children, etc (and they did not), to draw the conclusion they did was, again, bogus. Even in North America, the opportunity to send kids to the movies or summer camp can make a big difference.
Again, please try to do some research before projecting outdated assumptions.
There are more women than men in the workforce (though Canada beat the US by several years). And after re-reading my post, I still don't see what you are referring to when you write that "the link points out a correction for this."
91% of United States rape victims were female and 9% were male, with 99% of the offenders being male and 1% of the offenders being female.
So, rapists are men 99% of the time, and the victims were women more than 90% of the time. I honestly don't know how you can't get much more cut-and-dried than that.
Also - the car study - a dirty old Ford Fiesta to a clean new car??? (not the same as todays' version, btw). You might as well say that women are more attracted to men who take a bath once in a while.
For the female orgasm study, I think the real point was missed. Here's the salient quote:
From the analysis, they found that 121 of these women always had orgasms during sex, while 408 more had them "often". Another 762 "sometimes" orgasmed while 243 had them rarely or never. Such figures are similar to those for western countries.
The majority of women with partners didn't have orgasms often. It's known that financial stress causes "performance stress" for men... so it would also explain why couples where there is more $$$ == better sex. Also, more $$$ == better health, and more likelihood to be able to see a doctor to get help for things like problems attaining orgasm - for both sexes. It's not as simple as the headline makes it out to be. And let's be honest - it's also a lot harder for people to get in the mood when there are job problems, money problems, and/or health problems.
Which brings me back to my main point - labeling women as gold-diggers is superficial, to say the least. It would be like me saying almost all men are rapists just because almost all rapists are men.
Financial, job, and in-the-home equality are part of the solution. Another part of the solution is better jobs, period! A sour economy brings out the worst in people, eroding their self-confidence, their resiliency, their willingness to see things as other than "us vs them."
Look at what I was replying to - basically, the poster was making women out to be gold-diggers. Do you believe that's the case? If not, why aren't you speaking out against it?
When I wrote that the majority of perps in domestic violence are men, that's a cold, hard fact. It's not "anti-male" any more than pointing out that most victims of domestic violence are women and children.
As for domestic chores (including changing the roll of toilet paper, laundry, vacuuming, etc), the link I provided points out the fact that even when both spouses work, time spent on domestic chores is lopsided - women do a lot more. Again, a fact... should we ignore the facts because they're inconvenient?
Also, you might want to re-read the last line - "Nobody's perfect - but to imply that "a good amount of women" divorce because they are gold-diggers ignores some serious problems." This is not "anti-male"; it's pointing out that we all have our flaws, and that saying women are gold-diggers (without any stats to back it up) doesn't do anything to advance the debate, or address the underlying issues.
I'm sorry if you see these facts as being "anti-male", and I'm certainly ready to listen to any reasonable points, backed up by citations, etc (which is what I did). - not "they're just gold-diggers".
If you want to look at gold-digger behavior by men, there's certainly enough. Take Jon McCain or John Kerry, for example.
The split-up with children is the same whether you're married or not. You don't have different responsibilities to your kids depending on whether you were married at the time of their birth, or just living together.
However, by making marriage either a renewable contract, or eliminating it, one aspect of the fighting is removed.
The easiest way to end divorces is to end marriage.
The second-easiest way would be to make it a contract that is for a set term, renewable on mutual agreement - no agreement at renewal time, the contract (and marriage) simply expire. No messy divorce.
So here's the question - what "law" prevents two adults from making a marriage that auto-terminates if it isn't renewed every 5 years? It seems to me that a contract is a contract, and that this would be the way to go.
On the contrary, a good amount of women will divorce because they have found another guy who can give them a bigger ring or a 7 series instead of a 5 series BMW. Especially if the breadwinner gets a pink slip. This is often a hard learned lesson for most guys -- trust someone, then find out way too late that the spouse wasn't after one's heart, but just reaching past for the wallet.
Slashdot Mirror
Want to re-think that one, Skppy? Windows, OSX, iOS, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, Semantec yadda yadda yadda ...
The "I'll give the code away and make money off support" model rarely works.
Snow under pressure sticks to ice better than frozen rubber does. You want the tire to stop rotating so it can build up a 1/2 layer of snow.
With no abs, I have the option of locking all 4 wheels and getting whatever little friction there is. You don't get that with wheels that are unlocked.
No, they're not. There's nothing quite like the OMG feeling of the stupid ABS system completely unlocking all 4 wheels as you approach a red light.
If he wanted to be left alone, all he had to do was SHUT UP! Same as if Shuttlewirth doesn't want to be criticized, he should stop making stupid announcements that are a joke - like his latest brainfart about Ubuntu "out-innovating" Apple and Microsoft.
"As personal analytics develops, itâ(TM)s going to give us a whole new dimension to experiencing our lives."
Here's a clue - if that would "give a whole new dimension to experiencing your life", you need to step away from the keyboard and get a life!.
What a load of horse puckey. This is a kid's computer for school use. Not a system to control an aircraft or nuclear power plant. "As much security as necessary, and no more". Besides, you should always leave some low-level fruit hanging out there as a "canary in a mineshaft" warning mechanism, otherwise you are forcing attackers to put on their best game face.
And then there's the whole selinux crap larded onto Fedora if you don't use the "selinux=0" at the install prompt.
"OMG you're making it insecure!!!" Compared to what? I don't need a minimum of 7% less performance (their figures) for my particular use case.
Privacy is going to be a problem, and I also agree that, just as people have managed to evolve privacy behaviours in public (remember your mom telling you "It's not polite to stare!") we'll evolve the same sort of coping mechanisms.
After all, people have had binoculars and telescopes for decades, and yet someone spying on their neighbor getting undressed is still a peeper who can be arrested if caught ...
Those days are long gone :-) There are over 6 million hits for "youtube driver picking nose", including videos of people, how can I put this delicately .... "grabbing a quick snack"?
As for driving with the future versions, it will be safer, since:they will give the driver full night vision, as well as the ability to display an enhanced view of traffic despite road glare, sun in the eyes, torrential rain, etc. It would be nice to see that deer well before it goes through your windshield.
Au contraire, it IS something you're entitled to by your citizenship. You don't get an American passport if you're, say, Russian, or vice versa.
Of course, if you're MOSSAD, you can get a US passport, a Canadian passport, or pretty much any sort of passport ...
I only pointed out the fact that unemployed men do less work around the house than their working spouses because of attempts to portray women as doing the same amount of work overall, if you consider both paid and unpaid work (which was a false assumption).
Depression definitely comes into play, and women generally realize that mens egos are fragile things, in part because they're "not allowed to be" fragile. It's one of those conundrums of society, where having to keep up the appearance of power and strength actually weakens men, and women, being "allowed" to be seen as weaker, can actually be more honest and open in dealing with certain problems. It's why men don't want to talk about things, and women do. "Talking about" a problem leads to the possibility of being seen as weaker. Women can "afford" it, men less so. Ultimately, we all pay the price.
Now, as to the quality of housework, yes, it's easier to just give up on trying to get the guy to do it right, because who wants to be seen as a nag? And yet, guys manage to get the latrines spotless in the military ... and they can spend all afternoon washing, waxing, and detailing a car. Part of it is motivation. Guys don't see "the nest" the same way, I guess.
This same difference is also expressed in fashion. Guys wear the same basic outfit to work every day of the week. If two programmers show up with the same grungy dead metal band t-shirt, it's "Hey, Dude! Awesome!" If 5 of them do, it's high 5's all around.
Contrast that to two women showing up with the same outfit ... it's ... awkward.
And unlike guys, if a woman shows up wearing the same basic outfit day in, day out, even the men will notice and comment on it. "What's wrong with her?" So now you know why we need more closet space. And more shoes. And jackets and coats and hats.
This same attention to "extraneous" detail comes into play, not just for housework and clothing, but in a lot of areas.
It might also be why men simply don't take many of the sexual harassment scenarios all that seriously. "In one ear, out the other ..." In this discussion it was brushed off as "it's even more under-reported by men." How many men have been groped by a stranger in the subway? How many men have had someone they don't even know grab them and try to shove their tongue down their throats in broad daylight? Not too many. And yet, try to find a woman who hasn't experienced that sort of stupidity, or worse. Good luck with your search. There are definite inequalities.
This doesn't mean that all men are jerks or all women are saints. Just that the realities of differences in physical strength, levels of aggression, and the concommittent responses (women mostly just want to get away and get somewhere safe, whereas men subject to the same treatment are more likely to want to fight) are also facts.
Same with inequality of employment. Being paid considerably less than the people you're leading based on your gender is just one example. Others include differences in consensus-seeking, etc.
As for men who think that women are gold-diggers because some women, when they finally get fed up with not being treated equally, end up with someone with more money. Are they gold-diggers, or is it just part of the odds - in any re-distribution some will end up with someone who makes more money, some will end up with someone who makes less ...? Maybe the ones whose ex-spouses end up better off financially are using this as a salve for their egos, the same as the ones whose ex-spouses end up worse off financially are going around saying "ha! look where she is now!" I've seen both (guys, if there's one thing a woman doesn't want to hear, it's how rotten your ex was ... over and over and over and over and over. If it's over, please, get over it, hmmm???)
Now, the whole trying to equate orgasm frequency with wealth and arguing that that "p
I think the average slashdotter would rather be able to see in the infra-red range, not the ultra-violet range.
As I pointed out, the studies are there to back up that men are, for the most part, slobs. Don't blame me if the facts disagree with you. It's not MY fault.
Again, the facts from those studies:
1. unemployed men do less housework than their full-time-employed wives. (plenty of studies to back this one up)
1. sexist attitudes in the workplace (where ~70% of women reported being sexually harassed) aren't isolated to the workplace - it also comes in the home space, where cleaning the toilets and doing the laundry is "women's work"
2. In everything from food prep to caring for children and relatives, women spend more hours than men.
All this is fact, borne out by study after study. If you don't like the facts, that's irrelevant. The facts don't care either way - they're just facts. They don't apply to everyone, obviously, and I have never said that they did. Nor do the studies. But they do apply, on average. The average guy is a slob, and too many guys think it's okay to try to cop a feel or worse. When's the last time you were groped?
Or http://books.google.ca/books?id=YNB14HvzcnUC&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=unemployed+men+do+less+housework+than+their+working+wives&source=bl&ots=Vyxd4vG2-2&sig=R6mtEy0XA8-wbRKgnyw_TSdYpTk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JmtCT7jYGsTt0gG-rJzoBw&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=unemployed%20men%20do%20less%20housework%20than%20their%20working%20wives&f=false
How do you account for that? The fact is, men do less of the housework, even when both partners work outside the home an equal amount.
#2 - what does a study of lesbians have to do with how men and women interact? Really?
#3 - No, it's not a "fair summary". A "fair summary" would be that a dirty car is a possible indicator or poor overall hygiene, and a clean car is a possible indicator of good overall hygiene. Given ONLY that variable, women would conclude that the guy with the slob car is probably a slob. Or would you conclude otherwise - that the guy with the clean car is more likely to be a slob?
#4 - that is not a "control group" - it didn't control for the variable that was being tested - the car itself. It put the same guy in a dirty car and a clean car. The dirty car was cheap, the clean car was expensive. To conclude that women were more attracted to the guy in the clean car because it was more expensive is not supported, since they didn't properly control for filth. If they had, they would have run the same test with an expensive dirty car and a clean cheap car.
Or they could have had two clean cars, one expensive, and one cheap. And two dirty cars, one expensive and one cheap. To conclude that "women care about cars while men don't" is not supported by the study, which is fatally flawed. It's "junk science." Then again, the NEJM did a study of double-blind studies, and found 1/3 of them to be fatally flawed (and this wasn't even a double-blind study).
So no, they did not have proper controls in the study. Saying that they did because they had men in the study is ridiculous.
#5 - You're the one who made a lot of assumptions. And nowhere does the study ask about difficulty in obtaining orgasm, contrary to what you just wrote. Did you actually READ the questions? Obviously not. It DID look at things like "opportunity lost" factors because they were relevant. Your attempt to misrepresent the results is just as bad as the original article, which was not supported by the research, and was just page hit bait.
#6 - No, it's not misdirection - the original point was that to classify women as gold-diggers is unfair, and not supported by the evidence, which shows women do more of the housework even when everything else is kept equal, and that may
And the studies also showed that unemployed men did less housework than their working wives ...
I only used rape as an example because you questioned my statement about women being the victims more often when it comes to violence. My exact words were "As for gender and violence, it IS pretty cut-and-dried." The facts agree with my statement. Now, as to relationships, my original point was that one of the factors might be that women get tired of verbal or physical abuse - there's no denying it happens.
Worse, there's no denying it happens in the workplace as well. 71% of women experience gender-based harassment at work in hospital settings. It's only slightly lower - 69% - in IT. It's the #1 reason women drop out of IT.
Now, if that happens in the workplace, how likely is it that the same happens in the home?
As for the car, don't put words in my mouth. The study could have been done with proper controls - a clean car and a beater of the same make and model, a clean Fiesta and a beat-up Bentley, and not just the beat-up Fiesta and the sparkling clean Bentley.
Of course, such a study wouldn't have proven what the "researchers" wanted to prove. The study, lacking any control data, is bogus and shows the biases of the "researchers".
As for female orgasms - as I pointed out (and you missed ... perhaps because it's not important to you, as long as you get yours??? ;-) the real problem is that the majority of women in the relationships studied are not "getting as good as they give" - they either don't orgasm, or rarely. That would tend to indicate a factor other than money money money. And when you write "you are implying that there's no such thing as someone who simply makes less than someone else", that's ridiculous - there is no such implication. Obviously, unless everyone is making the exact same, people will have different income levels.
When you have almost 50 million people on food stamps, and almost 50 million people with questionable health care, that's going to affect "performance" and libido. Throw in another bunch (maybe another 50 million) who are struggling to make ends meet or dealing with other issues. Not having financial worries being paramount is not "wealthy", but it will surely affect family life, including in the bedroom.
Please don't equate that with "women have more orgasms with wealthy men", because, again, it fails to control for these factors.
Also, if you bothered to read the survey, a few things might have made a difference, since it was about mainland China. One of the questions was how often a child slept with the parents. That has to put a damper on things. So, more money == more opportunity to have sex that isn't just a quicky. That's why question # 85 was "How seriously do your living conditions affect your sex life."
So, unless they controlled for the # of rooms, # of children, etc (and they did not), to draw the conclusion they did was, again, bogus. Even in North America, the opportunity to send kids to the movies or summer camp can make a big difference.
There are more women than men in the workforce (though Canada beat the US by several years). And after re-reading my post, I still don't see what you are referring to when you write that "the link points out a correction for this."
There are other studies that show that men don't do their fair share ...
As for gender and violence, it IS pretty cut-and-dried.
So, rapists are men 99% of the time, and the victims were women more than 90% of the time. I honestly don't know how you can't get much more cut-and-dried than that.
Also - the car study - a dirty old Ford Fiesta to a clean new car??? (not the same as todays' version, btw). You might as well say that women are more attracted to men who take a bath once in a while.
For the female orgasm study, I think the real point was missed. Here's the salient quote:
The majority of women with partners didn't have orgasms often. It's known that financial stress causes "performance stress" for men ... so it would also explain why couples where there is more $$$ == better sex. Also, more $$$ == better health, and more likelihood to be able to see a doctor to get help for things like problems attaining orgasm - for both sexes. It's not as simple as the headline makes it out to be. And let's be honest - it's also a lot harder for people to get in the mood when there are job problems, money problems, and/or health problems.
Which brings me back to my main point - labeling women as gold-diggers is superficial, to say the least. It would be like me saying almost all men are rapists just because almost all rapists are men.
Financial, job, and in-the-home equality are part of the solution. Another part of the solution is better jobs, period! A sour economy brings out the worst in people, eroding their self-confidence, their resiliency, their willingness to see things as other than "us vs them."
When I wrote that the majority of perps in domestic violence are men, that's a cold, hard fact. It's not "anti-male" any more than pointing out that most victims of domestic violence are women and children.
As for domestic chores (including changing the roll of toilet paper, laundry, vacuuming, etc), the link I provided points out the fact that even when both spouses work, time spent on domestic chores is lopsided - women do a lot more. Again, a fact ... should we ignore the facts because they're inconvenient?
Also, you might want to re-read the last line - "Nobody's perfect - but to imply that "a good amount of women" divorce because they are gold-diggers ignores some serious problems." This is not "anti-male"; it's pointing out that we all have our flaws, and that saying women are gold-diggers (without any stats to back it up) doesn't do anything to advance the debate, or address the underlying issues.
I'm sorry if you see these facts as being "anti-male", and I'm certainly ready to listen to any reasonable points, backed up by citations, etc (which is what I did). - not "they're just gold-diggers".
If you want to look at gold-digger behavior by men, there's certainly enough. Take Jon McCain or John Kerry, for example.
A few RC trucks with front-mounted blowers could be fun :-)
However, by making marriage either a renewable contract, or eliminating it, one aspect of the fighting is removed.
Sexist much?
Compared to that, really, who cares about a crummy freemail account?
The #1 cause of divorce is marriage.
The easiest way to end divorces is to end marriage.
The second-easiest way would be to make it a contract that is for a set term, renewable on mutual agreement - no agreement at renewal time, the contract (and marriage) simply expire. No messy divorce.
So here's the question - what "law" prevents two adults from making a marriage that auto-terminates if it isn't renewed every 5 years? It seems to me that a contract is a contract, and that this would be the way to go.
Or maybe they got tired of adult men who can't even be bothered to change the roll of toilet paper - women do most of the housework in a marriage, even when both work.
Or maybe they got tired of the verbal or physical abuse - men are the vast majority of perps, women the vast majority of victims.
Nobody's perfect - but to imply that "a good amount of women" divorce because they are gold-diggers ignores some serious problems.