Eh, 70% of what they do is absolutely stupid shit that isn't funny at all that they put in only because they have to do so many shows a week. The remaining 30% is hilarious and makes wading through the 70% well worth the effort. However, not putting up with the 70% isn't particularly strange.

No one should expect evolution to design an optimal anything - what evolution produces is usually pretty good and at the same time unnecessarily complex in our eyes. It's the unnecessary complexity that is making it difficult for us to improve on evolution, because we have to understand what is going on to do much and evolution does not. We don't understand in detail what is going on in the body, and that's the problem because then we have a very hard time predicting what a new protein will do. So we are reduced to trial and error, and that particular technique is what evolution is the very best at, and so for that reason beating evolution is hard for us - until we reach a point where we really understand what's going. At that point we will be handily beating evolution as a matter of course, because then we won't be limited to the one technique of trial and error that evolution is so good at.

Sinning platters cause original spin.

Yet it still takes confidence and physical coordination to dance well in front of others, so there is a common theme in that.

A typosquatter wants to create a domain using a trademark illegally. So then he doesn't want it in his own name because it is illegal. So he looks up the whois information of a related website and uses the same information in order not to have to put in his own name. Someone at the company discovers the typosquat website, runs whois on the typosquat domain and is enough of a moron to just assume that the name label associated to an illegal activity is actually genuine, and then proceeds to impugn the good name of an employee. This based on the equivalent of a bank robber putting a note with a name on his forehead and everyone just assuming that the name on the note is his actual name.

Obviously what the company should have done is to help the guy prove that it wasn't him, rather than just throwing him overboard to see if he floats. At least every other employee at that company now knows what kind of organization they work for, if they didn't already. I know I would be racking my brain to see if I couldn't find a better place to work if I was an employee there and saw something like this going on to someone else. I would be doing that even if it turns out that the guy actually did do it, because the company attacked him before they could know that, so if I ever got in trouble through no fault of my own I would know to expect the same thing - not the kind of place that I want to be if I have any choice in the matter.

Oh yes, how I must hate women to even think to say that annoying a woman disequals rape. I'll turn myself into a sensitization camp immediately. Thank you for showing me the light.

I agree that if they only used those two videos, then the study doesn't tell us very much. I imagine they used more than just those two videos, though.

Why would the woman you are dancing with want to lower her value by being seen to dance for you, and why would she have fun dancing with you if you are just standing there? It seems to me that that kind of behavior only lends itself to not having fun in itself and also pretty soon to not have any dance partners.

The article we are talking about here says that keeping your upper body and head still and moving the rest of the body only is exactly the opposite of what will make you look like a good dancer to women - at least if their perception has not already been influenced by a statement about what is considered the correct way to dance according to some dance school.

Wikileaks is not in the business of acquiring information. Wikileaks is in the business of publishing information that other people are sending to them, but that those people don't dare to publish themselves. So they have no special capability to investigate this matter beyond what you or I have.

What impacts his reputation in this instance is the mere fact of having been accused. Everything else is largely irrelevant.

Not only does it take "a bunch of research scientists creating a bunch of avatars to determine that women don't find flailing arms attractive," it even still isn't established having done that! This is just one data point and in future we might find a different way to interpret it. You are confusing on one hand having an expectation (we've all got that) and on the other hand having confirmation of that expectation (much more difficult).

E.g. if I showed you a study saying that being cold causes you to have a cold, would you say that nothing new had been discovered? If you said yes, you'd be wrong (and for argument's sake suppose you did say yes, even if you already knew this), because in fact the research has been done and being cold does not cause a cold! That people tend to get more colds in winter is due to other factors that are indeed caused by the colder weather, but not by way of cold directly making you more susceptible to getting infected. So avoiding being cold will do nothing to help you not get a cold. So in this case your expectation was shown to be wrong (we are assuming for the sake of argument), and in this instance we can agree that you learned something new. Now what if the study had shown that being cold causes a cold? Since it is abundantly clear that you didn't actually know that being cold causes a cold (since in reality it doesn't), you would have learned something new from this information - you would have learned information that increases your confidence in what you already suspected to be true. So when research comes out saying something you already suspected, you will now know, I hope, that you are still learning something new.

Back on the concrete topic: asking women what they find attractive in male dancing is a perfectly reasonable thing to also do. It is a good way to generate hypotheses about the subject, and it can corroborate information gained in other ways. Yet what if what women say don't match what this experiment comes out with? I know that I certainly place much more stock in this kind of research than I would a questionnaire. The point is to approach a matter in as many different directions as possible, because in that way you can get a much higher confidence about what is actually true, instead of just discovering what people's expectations are. That's good science. It's not common sense, because common sense is about just assuming that your expectations are true. Surely being cold causes colds, right? It is common sense not to investigate "obvious" things, and that is why science trumps common sense.

Yes, I believe that your point was the point the OP was making. I don't agree with it because Wikileaks isn't publishing just anything - they publish what they see as having a purpose in being published. In any case the police should look out for the interest of everyone equally, even to the point of keeping appropriate secrets about a man whose job it is to reveal the secrets of other people. The police shouldn't be lax in protecting people they may not like. In the same way it is a failure of the US military that they allowed their secrets to be uncovered, and that is the case independently of whether or not those things should have been kept secret in the first place or whether Assange is evil for having uncovered them. So I don't agree with the conclusion you and the OP are drawing, namely that Assange has forfeited part of his right to being dealt with by the police in a professional manner due to what he does for a living - but it a position a reasonable person could hold so it certainly isn't flamebait.

I must bow down to your mastery of argument. The error of my ways are so clear to me now. No mere moron like me could survive the briefest ray of your shining genius in the ways of logic.

I'm shocked that I can't tell if you are a feminist or a parody of a feminist.