|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 27, 2010 2:37:59 GMT
Okay. I got it then. You're right, that doesn't sound like fun. so I would have to wonder why anyone would. I can come up with a few reasons I would guess why and they would range from feeling time pressure to embarassment, and most of the reasons I would guess would also make me wonder if that personality would also feel pressured to give a certain answer in a survey. Probably any guess I make is going to be pretty entertaining to the women, though . So I'll just wonder out loud: "Why?" Edit: I fully expect there to be multiple reasons, and a statistical distribution among those reasons ... I just don't know all the reasons, and have no idea about the statistical distribution.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 26, 2010 14:18:12 GMT
Hey hey this is a family show. Send a PM to another viewer and ask them. So this seems to be turning into one of those other areas where men and women complain about each other ... I'm not sure I'm catching your hint. The way you seem to be trying to avoid actually saying it, I'm guessing now that you are saying that the women say they fake orgasms. Is that what you are saying? There are a number of follow up questions depending on the answer to that question.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 25, 2010 22:25:12 GMT
Well I've been told by several men that I think like a man. Whatever that means. ;D Maggie, did you grow up in a male dominated household? Myself 3 older bros, 1 younger bro, and 2 younger sisters. I think that made the difference for me. Seems I have been in that old situation of "whose side are you on," far too often in my time. Middle children need to know how to ride the fence, alot. One of our local radio stations recently reported a startling statistic. 80% of the women surveyed admitted they were faking. Something wrong with that picture. Maybe men just need to get over themselves and figure out that we women really aren't that much physically different than they are, just a wee bit smaller. lol So.. letting men be men, is not a good thing to do. Well in some instances anyway. Can you clarify a bit for me? I really want to be sure I know what is being said. Faking what? How is not letting men be men a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 25, 2010 22:17:08 GMT
Heck of a diatribe. All government grants do is allow a professor to do some research instead of teaching. The professor makes no money off the deal. So you're saying that professors do fraudulent research in order to be able to do research? That kinda defeats the purpose. You want us to believe that job security plays no part with professors' motivation? That would make them much different from the rest of humanity.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 10, 2010 17:27:55 GMT
I predict that, no, this will deservedly get less traction than the 10:10 thing. Wow! what a surprise.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 10, 2010 17:26:58 GMT
Well, glc, since you put it THAT way, the justification for those figures is very easy to get. Remember, Google is your friend. Stranger I think glc was correct to ask for justification for the figures. It's always frustrating for someone to make an assertion, then ask those disagreeing with him to prove it for him. (IE, you made the assertions, glc asked for the basis, and you asked him to prove your assertion by using a search engine). If you're going to make the assertion, I think you should be able to provide the basis for your assertion. There are more than just glc that want to see it.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 9, 2010 19:21:47 GMT
I understood it.
Like most of the other alarms I've heard in my life, the IP address article ignored the facts, especially the fact that the fix is already in place and they're worrying about deprecated technology, but we're moving on past it. I just thought that to be a fitting add-on.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 8, 2010 23:49:11 GMT
Perhaps fear of loss is why people are so reluctant to accept the threat of mans tinkering with the carbon cycle That's almost exactly opposite of the use of "fear of loss." Fear of loss is used specifically to motivate people to action. It's taught to sales people ranging from real estate agents to car sales people. Listen to politics, and you'll hear it. I don't think you can fit your thought into what I'm talking about with "fear of loss."
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 8, 2010 22:47:40 GMT
It doesn't have to compel me to action, but I'd rather be one of the ones who accepts the risk rather than be one of the ones who denies it. The risk is so clear, it's hard to imagine which dimension claims like "there is no co2 problem" or "AGW is just a myth" come from. The four points I mention that establish clear risk are solid knowledge. No climate models or statistical analyses of tree-rings required. What we face is a risk beyond the scope of a single human. It's not simply the risk of a plane crashing or the risk of a house burning down, but the risk of the worst the climate can throw at us. What happens when atmospheric co2 doubles from 280ppm to 560ppm in the space of 200 years starting from a holocene-like climate? What happens when H+ ions in the ocean double? Noone knows. We'd love to have reassuring examples of such changes from the past where nothing significantly changed, but despite all the paleo-records out there, Nature doesn't provide any examples of such things happening. What we have is a very simple matter of human activity pushing the climate into an area it hasn't been tested. Pulling levers that cause changes, without understanding what the magnitude or effects of those changes will be. That's a significant threat and a significant problem in anyone's book. Perhaps so significant that many people try to bury their heads in the sand. Fear of loss is a greater motivator than opportunity to gain. Used car salesmen use the tactic all the time. So do politicians. I'm surprised at how well it still works with so many.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 8, 2010 22:26:30 GMT
32 digit IP addresses refer specifically to IPv4. IPv6 is currently in use in the internet - it uses 128 bit addresses. In fact, IPv6 is required for newer technologies like DirectAccess. This one is another Y2K alarm - the fix is already in place, in use, and replacing the limited IPv4 that the article speaks of. IPv6 article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6which says this about addresses: I'd say that there will be enough IP addresses to last us for a while. Other things I referenced: DirectAccess: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectAccessIPv4 (the one that is being deprecated and exhausted): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 7, 2010 23:02:39 GMT
I don't know whether it would be related to brain structure or not. It seems to be a common complaint women have about men, and I recognized that I do it, too. My wife doesn't - when she's preoccupied she just tells me, "I can't think about that right now." Since it seemed to apply to me, but not her or our daughters, I had to wonder if it was related.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 6, 2010 18:33:01 GMT
So you think that one may not be gender related.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 6, 2010 4:16:11 GMT
Interesting indeed. The first two posts especially, then I laughed at a few other things. (I will say that the article in the second post, while interesting, has its places where it is obvious that it is written by a woman. That's not necessarily bad, it's just something I always notice in articles written by women telling us how men function). Re: The "I heard you" punch line. This is one I've been thinking about a lot lately. Part of the thinking I have trouble separating the ADD from the "being a man." (Pardon the software engineering jargon in my thinking, but it's the metaphor I use in my own thinking). I've noticed that when my mind goes into its rapid context switching where I am juggling 3 or 4 lines of thought, my wife will talk to me and it goes into a kind of a "message queue." Unfortunately, I don't have much buffer on that queue - it's only good for 1 or two sentences max. I know someone said something, but I honestly don't know what was said at that moment. If allowed to finish the thought that was on my mind at that time, I can then realize what was said and process that. My wife sees it as a 5 - 10 second delay from the time she says something until I respond. I don't always do that - it's just at the times when my mind is busy (okay, that's most of the time). My wife is used to it, though. BTW, thank you for recognizing we have differences and allowing us to just function like we're hard wired to function. I don't want my wife to think or function like a man (maybe that's the defensiveness the article talked about), and fortunatly, she doesn't want me to think like a woman. It works out for us.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 23, 2010 23:56:47 GMT
Those are good questions, Icefisher. I didn't think of those kinds of questions to ask when I had the chance.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 23, 2010 20:16:27 GMT
5,000m was a figure I heard recently from a leading IPCC Bod as the figure (altitude) where AGW warming leads to enhanced precipitation events (snow) as the warmer air holds more moisture. At lower level it's not snow so you get the ablation, above 5,000m and it's snow so the catchment area provides more building materials for the glacier it feeds. 5000 meters? or feet?
|
|