| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2009/3/4-13 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52672 Activity:nil Cat_by:auto |
3/4 How Image Stabilization works. Pretty cool!
http://i.gizmodo.com/5163783/how-optical-image-stabilization-lenses-work-jiggle-jiggle |
| 2009/3/4-11 [Recreation/Dating] UID:52673 Activity:moderate |
3/3 Why smart people can't find dates:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-alex-benzer/why-the-smartest-people-h_b_169939.html
\_ Wow, that's even more stinker crap than that ladder poop people
keep flinging around.
\_ You can debate how original the "ladder theory" is, and there is
some chain yanking, but the basic idea that a lot of people have
trouble finding people to date because they are "overshooting"
their prospects is accurate, in my reading of single women I know
in San Francisco.
\_ Considering the ladder theory starts with "the only
really important thing is how rich and powerful a man
is" and goes downhill from there...
\_ The ladder theory starts with the premise that women are
all golddiggers at heart and goes downhill from there...
\_ That falls under the chain-yanking, as does "and all
men care about are looks/putting out". Here are two
specific examples of two women I know in San Francisco
who have been single for a long time, are keen to be in
relationships and are not scary trolls:
woman1: has a degree in an unemployable field from
Stanford and works at a not especially well-paying
office job, is moderately interested in pop culture and
sports but is a little chubby and a lousy dresser, but
has a reasonably strong personality, sang with a amateur
band etc. If she went after the typical soda software
engineer, she'd be with a guy making decent money whom
she could probably dominate in a relationship. But her
self-professed type is "the frat boy." (I joke that in
her book "a baseball cap is good, and a backward baseball
cap is *really* good). But she probably cant bring her-
self to date a dumb, blue collar, right-wing good-looking
guy. So as long as she is after a Marina-boy who works at
law firm, she's out of her league.
woman2: also well-educated -- Columbia MBA -- decent-
looking [better than woman1], but terrible dresser and
somewhat unusual personality (somewhat stridently left-
wing, but also occasionally Sex and the City party girl),
and a higher-status job, but not ultra-successful. Goes
to the gym a fair amount, skis, so in shape, but not a
Marina Spandex Girl. Has gone on many, many internet
dates but doesn't come to anything solid. She is clearly
most interested in a guy who is tall, doesn't have to be
amazingly attractive, but decent looking and in decent
shape. That is all reasonable, but I get the sense that
her idea of success is unrealistic: doctor, lawyer,
banker, successful business type etc. At the age group
she is looking in, and *in SF*, these people are likely
to be married, quite high net worth etc. Between her
personality and her dressing, they statistically too
personality and her dressing, they statistically not too
likely to get to know her.
The over-reaching in a combination of success and looks
is s a pretty decent explanation of these two cases.
is a pretty decent explanation of these two cases.
\_ Maybe, maybe not. You seem to think that a good-looking
Marina lawyer is above these women because he's busy
seeing some tall, blonde cardiologist. I agree with
the premise that people who are too-picky wind up
alone, but I disagree with the idea that these
uber-successful men are in turn: 1) such a great
catch (they can be jackasses like anyone else) and 2)
not interested in women like these because they can
date 21 year old cardiologist supermodels. The main
thing these women seem to be doing wrong is
dressing poorly. It's bad for a man, but the kiss
of death for women. A makeover is in order. I don't
think their "success levels" matter too much because
these are both highly educated and intelligent career
women. You are making them out like they work at
McDonald's while going to night school. They are in
the right socioeconomic group - Stanford and Columbia
fit right in those circles. You sound bitter that
they aren't interested in *you*, but why would a
woman like that want to date a pudgy s/w engineer
with no social skills?
\_ First, my comments are descriptive not prescriptive:
it's not a matter of whether the should change plans,
I am just describing what the are doing.
Second, woman2 is significantly more successful than
woman1 -- there is a big difference in discretionary
income between somebody who makes say $70k a year
(which I doubt #1 makes) and even a modest $100-120k
a year, and I think women are pretty averse to
subsidizing vacation and dining for their significant
others. Third, among people say above 35, a
significant number of the available men are married
and a reasonable number od the women are factoring
and a reasonable number of the women are factoring
biological clock issues, or are post-divorce, which
also affects the pool. Fourth, dressing is part of
it but in the case of w1, being chubby is a big issue
and w2 also has some personality factors when it
comes to "putting herself out there". Fifth, I was
never interested in w1. There was a bunch of talk
in a social group and me and w2 and we went out a
couple of times, but untimately I think it was a good
thing I am not going out with her -- I am actually
going out with a different Stanford person who would
probably be considered a hotter commodity, so this
isn't sour grapes.
\_ Sounds prescriptive. You spent a lot of time
analyzing the situation. My point in mentioning
income is that most guys pulling down $400K aren't
too worried about whether their mates are making
$70K, $120K, or $300K. If she is her own woman
capable of holding down a good job who has her own
interests (not an airhead looking for handouts)
and well-educated that's probably enough. You are
making too much of the income of these women.
Income matters a lot more to women when looking
for men. Obviously personal appearance matters,
but "a little chubby" isn't a big deal. Look at
Bill Clinton's taste in women. It sounds like you
are more shallow than most guys. However, if
they dress sloppily then that's likely their
biggest mistake. Put them in a hot outfit and
make them up and I guarantee they will get hit on
by more men than they care to be. As for sour
grapes, I don't know if it's a case where you
want to date these women, but you want them
to want to date you. It's like when the hot
girl gets all into you because you don't pay
her any attention and then once you do and
she's affirmed her attractiveness she wants
nothing to do with you. It bothers you that
these women don't want to date you or people
like you *even though* you don't want to date
them anyway. You think they are aiming too high.
To me they sound like good catches who just
need a makeover and possibly an attitude
adjustment.
\_ You are making a lot of guesses about me, w1
an w2 without first hand knowledge, so it's
one thing to be dubious but speculating is
crazy. These are two people I've known
pretty well for ~5years and "men in SF",
internet dating (them, not me), "will I die
alone or with a cat" were all major topics of
conversation with them. Next, income affects
going out and other life style options. For
example one owns a modest condo, the other
went from a roommate situation to a micro-
apartment which sucks up a large part of her
discretionary income, and does affects her
"going out options" which in turn in SF affects
who you meet. The speculation about me wanting
to date them or wanting them to want me are all
way off so lets ignore all that. Your last
line is what I am getting at: if they had
an attitude and expectations adjustment, they
an attitude and expections adjustment, they
would find somebody to date very quickly
(but I mean that "if" predictively, not
prescriptively. I think it is fine to remain
picky, but the outcome is going to change).
If fact there is almost a "control case" in
this social group: w3 who is an unattractive
quite fat woman with poor manners -- generally
inferior to w1, and w2 in every way except
possibly making more money (I dont know what
she makes and while she rents, she does own a
boat) is going out with a low-on-the-ladder
Pillsbury dough boy type. If you want to get
into specifics, w1 and w2 have an interesting
"asymmetry" problem, which goes beyond the
"simple ladder theory" which unifies all of
you into a single axis. w1 has a number of
nerdy elements, such as an "ironic
appreciation of bad movies", like party games
appreciation of bad movies", likes party games
she owns some t-shirts with obnoxious/pseudo-
clever slogans you see frequently advertised on
web pages etc. She'd do well with a geek,
EXCEPT she I think reviles Tolkien, computer
games and dweebery in guys. W2s inconsistency
is wanting both a guy who is smart and
substantial and ideologically compatible
(she went to Ohio to knock on doors for Obama)
but will also whisk her away for the occasional
spa weekend in Sedona or to some trendy
restaurant up in Napa (she actually isn't
that into food, which is why I made the
Sex and the City comment) ... the investment
banker with taste and a conscience.
pillsbury dough boy type.
\_ The way you characterize these people (and
others like these mythical investment
bankers and Tolkien geeks) and the details
you think are important about them is
repulsive. No wonder they aren't into you.
You sound immature, shallow, and lacking
much life experience. Have you ever
been in a long-term relationship with a
woman? (Let's say > 5 years.) BTW, people
(especially women, since men will buy their
drinks/food and let them in clubs free)
don't need much money to go out to meet
people. Funny that you think these women
are handicapped by making "only $70K/year".
They could be making half that and it
wouldn't matter. You sound like an elitist,
too.
\_ If she has an Ivy League MBA, why wouldn't
she want to date someone else with a similar
level of education and success? It doesn't
seem like she is being that unreasonable to
me, actually, unless she is looking for looks
money, brains *and* success, which from your
description, she is not. But if she is over
35, she definitely needs to fish or cut bait.
me, actually, unless she is looking for
looks, money, brains *and* success, which
from your description, she is not. But if
she is over 35, she definitely needs to
fish or cut bait.
\_ Some women have a unrealistic expectation of how
lawyers live (or ought to live). Not all of us
live (or like) the flashy BMW, thousand $ suit,
five star lifestyle. Many of us who started out
as engineers remain basically the same geeky star
trek watching guys we were before we went to law
school. For some reason many women find that
unacceptable. I've gone out with women very
similar in general description to the ones
you mention, and after a few dates they start
mentioning things like a BWM is a much nicer
car than your subaru, and I'm sure you could
afford it, or why don't we get you some nice
clothes at some super high end SF store, or
let's go on some exotic vacation. Its a huge
turn off b/c the only thing these girls are
interested in is upgrading their lives via
my paycheck.
\_ The way I understand the "ladder theory" is that everyone
is trying to move up to someone higher on the attractiveness
ladder that supposedly everyone subscribes to. Even if they
are currently dating someone, they are looking for someone
better. Which is a bunch of BS, btw, if you are older than
25. Actually, it is BS in any case, because not everyone
has the same idea of attractiveness. I, for example, am a
guy how rates a woman's intellegence as the most important
guy who rates a woman's intellegence as the most important
characteristic. I know this makes me unusual, but it also
means I never had much of a problem finding dates.
This is one of the most idiotic things I have ever seen:
"Toward A Meaning of Life
Convieniently, the ladder theory answers the oft asked
question, "What is the purpose of life?" The purpose of
life is to move up the ladder. The person you are with
now should be better (higher on your ladder) than the
person you were last with." |
| 2009/3/4-6 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Reference/History/WW2/Japan] UID:52674 Activity:moderate |
3/4 Apparently reading Japanese is hard, even for the Japanese:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090304/ap_on_re_as/as_japan_reading_japanese
\_ Well, yeah. Japan has the most BS writing system ever developed.
It's managed to get all the detriments of both pictoral and phonetic
writing, with none of the benefits of either. This for a language
that, phonetically, can fit within a subset of the latin characters.
\_ Thank you. I was going to post something like this, but figured
I'd get skewered what with the Asianphiles on soda. Sometimes you
have to disregard culture and admit someone else came up with a
better idea. This is true of chopsticks, too, but I know that
will be an even more controversial issue than the language.
\_ Ah, the Asianphiles are a problem in this case. We have a
\_ Ah, the Asianphiles are not a problem in this case. We have a
couple of pro-chinese and a pro-Korea guy, but China and Korea
hate Japan. So, no problem there.
\_ you can do much more with chopsticks than a fork. You are a twit.
\_ true, chopsticks>>fork, but they aren't so good for cutting
fork+knife is a great combo. Chopsticks are good for
noodles, salad, small pieces of meat, etc, but not so
good for an uncut piece of steak or a half chicken.
\_ further evidence of the superiority of chopsticks.
designed to support a society where everyone carries
blades intended to kill people. The craftsmanship
of food is taken more seriously as evreything is
is cut into pieces designed for eating. Surely you
must know this. Barbarian culture is not something
to be proud of.
\_ So Chinaman, are you pro-China unification as well?
\_ Chopsticks kind of lost their appeal to me, after
I was eating with a native-born Chinese guy who
said to me after I asked him why he asked for
a fork in a Chinese restauraunt, "Why would I
want to use chopsticks? A fork is better and
easier." And most of the time, it is.
\_ Actually, chopsticks are very limiting. While you have
more precise control, you can pretty much only eat
one item at a time. If I want to have avocado,
lettuce, and a slice of tomato then I can do that
with my fork but with chopsticks I have to hunt for
each item one at a time. Also, chopsticks are
terrible for foods like pies and cakes. There are
probably other examples, too. I think there are some
things forks can do that chopsticks cannot do and
vice-versa, but overall the fork is a more versatile
tool unless your food consists solely of little bitty
pieces of pre-cut food that you want to eat individually.
\_ I nominate this for "most pointless MOTD debate of
all time." -tom
\_ Surely the Great Camera Lens Debate of 2008/2009
is more pointless.
\_ There was a time when Japanese uses Chinese Han character 80% of
the time. I thought it's at least better than the mix-mush they
got today. Then again, I am biased because I am a Chinese
myself. And just give you an idea how relatively recent has
Japanese abandoned Chinese characters... I was able to read and
comprehend World War 2 Japanese machinegun manual, and be able
read and comprehend 90% of news paper headlines back in the day.
\_ and now, you can't read a new Japanese machinegun manual?
\_ and that is due to percentage of Han Characters in modern
Japanese writing is a lot smaller... something like less
than 20%. |
| 2009/3/4-6 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:52675 Activity:low |
3/4 you'd think there would be a way to end north korea.
we wouldm't even have to clean up. We could make South Korea
do it!
\_ South Korea doesn't want to clean up North Korea's mess
either.
\_ Any suggestions?
\_ there was an article on Forign Affair stated that China essentially
has set up a "shadow government skeleton" within China so in case
of total collapse China can implant them in. Again, it is not in
China's, nor South Korean's interest to see the total collapse of
N.Korea just because they have to deal with millions of refugees.
USA, on the other hand, doesn't give a crap and just want to see
the regime go away. |
| 2009/3/4-13 [Uncategorized] UID:52676 Activity:nil |
3/4 By request, the wall logs now rotate at 4am instead of 6:30am,
and they're no longer gzipped. --mconst
\_ We are wasting so much space though! ;) -mrauser
\- thanks --original requestor |