Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/18/17 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Also, anybody who is not an identical twin cannot prove that they are a begonia.
  2. 2 points
    OMG, your computer knowledge is near zero... If each of them is unsigned byte what will be range.. ? 0 ... 2^8-1 = 0....255 .... (NOT !) How about starting from reading Wikipedia pages about IP v4 addresses for example.. ? You will learn which IP addresses must be skipped because they have special meaning.. Scanning the all IP v4 from the start is silly idea. It's ~4.3 billions IPs. Visiting one per second would take 136 years.. The majority of them contain no servers nor computers, so you will be just wasting time. One IP can be hundred or thousands of computers. Connecting to port 80,443,8080 won't give you much. Virtual servers are configured typically that they REQUIRE host name to reveal their content.. (Did you ever configure Virtual Server in Apache? https://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/vhosts/examples.html ) You should start from collecting host names.. That's why web crawlers are analyzing web pages, to find A HREF HTML tags.. Google made special technique for web admins for revealing what are pages that should be visited or not visited by their bot. But it can be used to examine what are pages hosted on server, if you will pretend Google bot.. If you ever set up website with optimization for Google, using their panel, it should be there in instructions how to optimize and how to fight with 404 errors..
  3. 1 point
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html The list also includes “evidence-based”! WTF?
  4. 1 point
    In a "regular" assault, you'd have to be doing something overtly stupid to trigger questions about behavior and circumstances. In sexual assaults, you're right, the assumption is fairly automatic that the woman was doing something to bring attention to herself, like the guy in the regular assault who was flashing lots of cash in a rough neighborhood. In the woman's case, having breasts, smiling, or wearing perfume is often enough to trigger these questions.
  5. 1 point
    Wrong again so much for your vaulted logic. Of course I do how can you accurately apply logic without understanding the technical details. Wild blooming guess work? Thank you for wasting my time
  6. 1 point
    First, that is a horrible stance implying that only certain people are worthy of protection. Second, it is not even true that those groups you listed are better protected. Just taking an example of Arapaio's office again (as this one was one of few that had a thorough investigation) we find there was a pattern of ignoring victims of sexual abuse, including minors. Police should never decide whether to follow up an investigation based on their (no doubt biased) opinion of the victims. As it stands, it is obvious that if you are from a low social group and/or are perceived not morally pristine (whatever that may mean) you are denied the protection that you are entitled to. I would think that it would be trivial to agree that the system has to change but apparently there are folks out there who still put the blame on the victims. That is beyond silly. The rate of rape has dropped to about a third to the rate in the 70s. Religiosity offers no protection whatsoever, especially considering that serious abuse has happened in religious institutions. And also let me be clear: if you look at historic rates we see that rape and sexual abuse rates have, at best, an inverse relationship with female participation in the workforce. Again, you are trying to shift blame to victim's choices.
  7. 1 point
    Here is part of the problem. You are making statements that could have multiple meanings in the theory, some of which are correct, some are not. Do you mean that both photons have a definite state (that is simply unknown), each time the experiment is run? Because if so, this is false, and in fact is exactly hat Bell's Theorem disproves.
  8. 1 point
    Yes, it's suicide that is notable in Greenland; an error actually by me in terms of as a reference for the OP, your point is valid as well though if violence against the self qualifies. The suicide rate there blew my mind too. Coincidentally, I was reading about a Russian place in the Arctic Circle and this line put into perspective how harsh it is: “I always loved those winter evenings when the temperature rose to -30C, and it felt warm enough for everyone to come out for a walk on our main pedestrian street – we called it Broadway.” (my underline)
  9. 1 point
    Sorry, this has been bugging me the whole weekend: Ether has been proven and is 100% legit and fun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether Aether on the other hand is a lost cause.
  10. 1 point
    This is a shameless copypasta largely, but I think conveys the ambiguity of sex and gender in a scientific, evidence based but accessible manner quite well. In a sexual species, you can have females be XX and males be X (insects), you can have females be ZW and males be ZZ (birds), you can have females be females because they developed in a warm environment and males be males because they developed in a cool environment (reptiles), you can have females be females because they lost a penis sword fighting contest (some flatworms), you can have males be males because they were born female, but changed sexes because the only male in their group died (parrotfish and clownfish), you can have males look and act like females because they are trying to get close enough to actual females to mate with them (cuttlefish, bluegills, others), or you can be one of thousands of sexes (slime mold, some mushrooms.) In humans. You can be male because you were born female, but you have 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at age 12. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X's HAS an SRY gene, and so you have a male body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes- but also a Y. You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all. And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male. So yes, gender fluidity does exist and can have many physiological as well as psychological mechanisms.
  11. 1 point
    That's the nature vs nurture dilemma all over again. But I certainly think it is harder for men to find women, most of the time they have to ask many women out and never ever get asked out and that leads to women getting a lot of unwanted attention and an inflated ego.
  12. 1 point
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDwFCoj-0js Click this first^ https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/courts-lenient-sentencing-bond-women Good god man, that is far, far, FAR from even being remotely close to the truth. Well, then I must be one very Naive person. ANyways, SOME beautiful women use their beauty. Not all. Also, for that thing about women being in a room with powerful men and testosterone, refer to the previous youtube link I gave to inow. My thoughts are that women and men have different tools at their disposal, depending on their situation. Most of the time, their tools are the same. Although, it's more likely for women to seduce a man, and him to be weak enough to fall for it, then the other way around. But that's not even a majority or even a large minority. Women think of themselves as victims because often they are the victims. And even when they aren't, society will readily accept it if they say they were the victims. It's a power move, just like any other. And while women can usually pull off the victim scheme much easier than men, it doesn't mean that all women do so. Nor does it even mean that men don't have their own schemes.
  13. 1 point
    The fact that women no longer feel alone or isolated in these exchanges. The fact that they're finally being treated seriously and not dismissed or shamed or victim blamed. The fact that people are tired of "ugly" men having all the power, and... to be clear... I'm not referring here to physical traits or indicators of fertility. There are other reasons, but those are some. Completely tangential and irrelevant to the points I actually made, to the point of being an outright strawman. If my point was unclear, please request I clarify it and I will happily do so. In return, please don't assume that I hold such remedial concepts about the need for equality across the sexes.
  14. 1 point
    i wonder what the numbers are for men being harassed in their lifetime. From personal experience, women can be just as base and sexually aggressive as men. Maybe not as often but it's not insignificant.
  15. 1 point
    Our perceptions of wealth have been shaped to allow for this behavior, I think. The smallfolk have always had to bow to the will of the upper class, allowing them their depredations in order to not upset the status quo. It's more acute now because the disparity is more acute. I wish we could see an overall shift in attitude that would value more than financial strength or your ability to make money as the worth of a person. I think extreme capitalism spawns the attitude that everything the underclasses have is cheap, and everything the upper class has is valuable. That includes your body, your self-worth, and your integrity. And there is also the persistent and contrary myth that men just can't help themselves. I blame the biblical story of Sampson and Delilah for a lot of it. The man/hero is so strong and virile and powerful, except when it comes to women, then he can't help himself and is undone. If the story had ended with him being killed for his weakness and stupidity, we probably wouldn't have so many Christians going along with the idea of a strong, famous man who can't keep his pants on. But the writers have Sampson regain his strength and defeat his enemies in the end, so we're left with an image of heroic virility tinged by a weakness even God will forgive eventually. Women are portrayed as openly conniving and treacherous in this story, while Sampson is a justifiable idiot who got the girl and became an icon of strength instead of gullibility.
  16. 1 point
    Obviously not. I'm reminded of a case I read online not so long ago about Amherst college. Amherst had no evidence the girl hadn't provided consent other than her word yet the boy was expelled because they believed her. It turned out that the guy in question was raped from what I read the girl took advantage of him after drugging him and taking him back to his girlfriend's bedroom then told everyone he raped her. http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/amherst-student-was-expelled-for-rape-bu The guy in question still hasn't a degree his entire career has suffered as a result of how Amherst handled the case.
  17. 1 point
    It’s not just men over 60 putting women I care about at risk. Believing women when they speak up is not equivalent to punishing those who are innocent.
  18. -1 points
    A timeline of Earth's average temperature: http://xkcd.com/1732/
  19. -1 points
    THERE'S NO FIRE HERE! NO FIRE! http://residentevil.wikia.com/wiki/Anna_Bolt?file=Anna_yells_at_the_Red_Queen.jpg
  20. -3 points
    Because it does not matter! It is a matter of logic, it has nothing to do with the actual correlations. The only important thing is that these correlations have to be the same as determined by quantic statistical regularities. You insist on turning it into a technical matter that can be solved by technical means. I say it is a matter of logic. Once you have accepted that both situations are different, then you must accept entanglement and non-local variables as Bell did. But my whole point is that both situations are in fact equivalent. And you can only prove that by logic and the empirical facts from which the whole situation starts: 1) both photons have the same polarization, 2) both filters are identical in the sense that they could be swapped without changing the experiment. I am sorry, but I cannot make it clearer than this. And if you still think after my explanation that it still is a mathematical or a physics problem then all I can do is give up, because we will keep talking alongside each other, and that would be a waste of time for all of us.