 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-1-2014 21:36, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:50:58 +0200, Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmail com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 15/01/14 05:48, Sherry K. Shaw wrote:
>
>>> Silly me...I thought it was about being able to walk into a room full of
>>> people and have a conversation with some of them, without having to stop
>>> and explain what I just said every couple of sentences. Or, just
>>> possibly, without having to face the sullen, cowlike stares of people
>>> who assume that women cannot possibly be very bright.
>>
>> Hi, Sherry. Long time, no see.
>> Unfortunately, there appear to be a few unreconstructed chauvinists on
>> the group atm.
>
> I think Gail left this group for the same reason...
I wasn't aware of that :( That would be a pity, because off-topic should
be a place for as diverse a set of views as possible. I wouldn't know
how you can have a broad conversation without women. Although I am also
sometimes away for several days, because I do not always feel at home
here anymore.
On women and computers. If I look at the people that I meet in that
field, the majority are men and the majority of those with interesting
views and knowledge and competence are women.
IME something has significantly changed over the last decade.
Is that because I am in the medical field or is that true also in the
rest of the world?
There are still too many men in the field with the 'right' attitude but
no significant skills. And that is especially true for the more
management type of jobs. The qualified women are often just below that
level and also often on a level below their abilities. (it is one of the
reasons for the 'her' in my sig)
Andrel
--
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> And someone please explain to me, what IQ is?
> >
> > IQ is a quantification of your intelligence in comparison to the average
> > person of your age.
> It is therefore fundamentally dependant on whatever the designer
> considers to be the "average person".
I don't think the idea is to define the "average person". The idea
is to measure tons of people and just take the average, and scale
the results so that the average gets 100 points.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/14 17:15, andrel wrote:
> Stephen, please, I know we don't have many women visitors here, but that
> is no reason to start to babble incoherently when one turns up.
>
> [looking aside] Oh hi Sherry, good to see you again. I am assuming that
> my calendar starting to bleep your name today is just a coincidence that
> we won't have to look into further.
>
>
Super-big :-D
If you had met Stephen, you would know that he's a George Clooney
look-alike, albeit somewhat less than 160 cm tall ( a bit like Albert
Finney - and he was a real sex-god over here in the UK) He is also no
stranger to smooth talking. (Just kidding, Regan. Put down that axe. I
said put down that AAArgh)
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/14 23:07, andrel wrote:
> (it is one of the
> reasons for the 'her' in my sig)
>
> Andrel
>
I missed that.
(Note to self: read the sig properly. It tells you a lot about the person)
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/14 19:32, Stephen wrote:
> I am all ears.
>
Pardon?
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/14 18:49, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 05:08:27 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
> I was never quite brave (?) enough to try something like that.
I think you might mean stupid
> were a couple of kids on the football team (well, one in particular that
> I remember well) who were really good to me, but mostly I just didn't
> make friends easily because I was as I described.
Oddly, I've always pictured you as a typical US high school jock. You
know, 6 foot three and 190 lbs.
>
> I didn't give it up because of the bullying - I was actually pretty good
> (though I do say so myself). I still have it, but I need to have some
> work done on it before I can play it again - a repair gone bad several
> years ago left the sound post stuck to the top face of the instrument,
> and it's got a really bad wolf on the E string (the open E, at that).
>
> I haven't played in years, though, because of that. One of our neighbors
> is a violin maker, even, but he said it'd cost about $400 to get it
> fixed, because he'd have to take the front off the instrument to fix it.
>
Good luck in selling the house then. House prices here in London seem to
be heading for the inflation levels of '74-76 with many buyers queuing
up to gazump each other.
> ...
> Thanks, that helps. Oooh, coffee. :)
>
<Looks at the time> A small snifter of the malt of your choice?
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/14 23:21, Doctor John wrote:
> If you had met Stephen, you would know that he's a George Clooney
> look-alike, albeit somewhat less than 160 cm tall ( a bit like Albert
> Finney
Oops. I meant Alan Ladd
(Look up Billy Connoly and Weekend Soldier)
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/01/14 19:11, Warp wrote:
>
> Also, feeling inferior in mental capacity is a much more touchy
> subject than feeling inferior eg. in soccer or throwing a javelin.
>
A perceptive answer. I need to consider this more.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 21:00:54 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> > On 15/01/2014 08:58 AM, scott wrote:
> >> The problem is, and it's the same in the UK, it's "cool" to be dumb, or
> >> at least appear to be dumb.
> >
> > This seems to be pretty much the root of it all.
> >
> > You know, there *was* a time when great mathematicians, engineers,
> > scientists and so forth were like revered deities. What the heck
> > happened??
>
> Everybody became a winner. At least that's part of it. If being smart
> were important, then an inability to apply one's knowledge wouldn't be
> regarded as "still worthy of a trophy of participation".
>
> It's more complicated than that, but at least here in the US, this idea
> that everyone's a winner and nobody ever fails is a dangerous, dangerous
> precedent.
>
> Jim
> --
Everyone is a winner and liked on fakebook for it
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 15.01.2014 21:51, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> And someone please explain to me, what IQ is?
>>
>> IQ is a quantification of your intelligence in comparison to the average
>> person of your age.
>
> It is therefore fundamentally dependant on whatever the designer
> considers to be the "average person".
No, that's pretty well defined: The average person is the one that has a
higher intelligence than 50% of the remaining population, and a lower
one than the other 50%.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
