Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Tech Replaces Diamonds As Girl's Best Friend 313

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the dog-still-man's-best-friend dept.
Ant writes to tell us that 'diamonds are no longer a girls best friend', at least according to a recent study commissioned by the Oxygen Network. From the article: "The survey, commissioned by U.S. cable television's Oxygen Network that is owned and operated by women, found the technology gender gap has virtually closed with the majority of women snapping up new technology and using it easily. Women were found on average to own 6.6 technology devices while men own 6.9, and four out of every five women felt comfortable using technology with 46 percent doing their own computer trouble-shooting."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tech Replaces Diamonds As Girl's Best Friend

Comments Filter:
  • Well, of course (Score:5, Informative)

    by 9x320 (987156) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @03:52AM (#15830139)
    If you had watched that special on The History Channel's Modern Marvels about the history of diamond mining, you'd know that diamonds are valuable because of the De Beers mining company obtaining a monopoly on diamond mining by gradually buying out and merging with all the other diamond companies in South Africa, and gradually the world. They then instituted a propaganda campaign in order to get couples to buy the diamonds, while releasing only a set number of diamonds every year, thus keeping demand artificially high.

    Their monopoly was threatened by the Soviet Union finding diamonds in modern Russia. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, De Beers bought out nearly all the diamonds that had fallen into the hands of former Soviet countries. In the 21st century they are threatened by a Canadian diamond company founded by a Canadian geologist once thought to be crazy for suspecting the presence of diamonds in Northwest Canada.

    They were finally fined $5 million by the Department of Justice with their monopolistic tactics, but obviously that's like the EU fining Microsoft. I think people are finally waking up and smelling the coffee, realizing that these gems are merely worthless shiny rocks, though the advent of artificial diamonds doesn't hurt.

    Here, Wikipedia has an entry. [wikipedia.org]
  • Re:Well, of course (Score:3, Informative)

    by linvir (970218) * on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @04:46AM (#15830287)
    It seems that De Beers is the most evil bunch on the planet [fguide.org]. Thank you for linking to that information. I plan to take every opportunity to fuck with De Beers from this day forward.
  • by zalle (637380) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @05:30AM (#15830391)
    Statistical inference is not dependent on the "size" of the sample space - it is equally valid to infer things from data that may get values from an infinite, uncountable set as it is to do similar inferences from a population that only has 3 possible values, thanks to the central limit theorem. Furthermore, sample size and the "size" of the sample space have no connection. For the purposes of inference, a sample is either large enough or not, but it doesn't matter in the least if the population from which the sample is drawn is enormous in comparison. This is why for example opinion polls are valid with just a few thousand respondents: regardless of whether the U.S. has 3 or 300 million inhabitants who have a relevant opinion, 3000 is enough to form confidence intervals of very good accuracy.

    In this particular case, it is completely irrelevant whether the 2 samples are even close to being the same size. While 700 is quite small (too small for accuracy), it has no connection to the other sample at all. The only thing that can then be said about the 2 inferences is that the one about women is almost certainly quite a bit more accurate.
  • by Ohreally_factor (593551) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @05:42AM (#15830418) Journal
    Less so when it's an Apache config...

    There's this cool new feature on computers now where you can save a file under a different name, then rename it back when you want to roll back. =) Don't tell me you really play around in httpd.conf without saving a copy! It takes all of 5 seconds!
  • by BungeBash (971979) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @06:00AM (#15830460)
    46% of 51% wouldn't that be about half of the 51%. meaning that about 50% of women can still be impressed with our intelligence>
  • by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @07:34AM (#15830675)
    Nerdy trivia.... type this in the /. comment:

    <tag>...</tag>

    to get this result:

    <tag>...</tag>

    Otherwise the comment parser will eat the tags.
  • Re:Well, of course (Score:5, Informative)

    by nblender (741424) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @08:05AM (#15830803)
    Yes. "Have you ever tried to sell a diamond"? http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198202/diamond [theatlantic.com]
  • by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @11:04AM (#15832136)
    I hate to break it to you, but that "10k rock" is really worth something like $50 (should free markets actually work in real life). Only thanks to DeBeers' amazing ability to mess with people's heads and wallets, would you, or any otherwise intelligent and reasonable person, go simply gaga and part with 10k for it. But then again the world is full of mass delusions and con-artists willing to make a buck on them. Pet rock [utoronto.ca] anyone?
  • by k1t10 (940115) <a_mistress01@hotmail.com> on Wednesday August 02, 2006 @11:35PM (#15837132)
    90% of the guys i know call me to fix thier computer issues, i just call them to fix my car so ease up there on the ladies, i might be blond and busty but im not stupid.

Nobody said computers were going to be polite.

Working...