I'm not talking about chimps or bonobos... I'm talking about human beings.

Then where did the concept of "breeding rights" come from? We don't do alpha males like chimps or gorillas.

Marxism believes pretty much everything is a social construct.

Groucho never said that, and neither did Karl. The "blah is a social construct" is many things, but Marxist it ain't.

ANYONE on intellectual honesty are marxists.

OK, I get you're obsessed with Marxists, but what's that got to do with simplistic evopsych?

I told you... COME AT ME. Your first argument was to claim I talked about chimps and not bonobos

Well pretty much yeah, though apparently you don't realise it. You're taking the strongly heiraichal groupings seen with chimps and gorillas and claiming humans are the same. "Breeding rights" is a thing with chimps (though of course reality is as always much more complex) not with humans.

Out of interest have you ever actually interacted with a human female?

time in your life and come up with your own argument

  DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!

(this is insults, arguments are down the hall)

I don't see what the need for babies to be cared for has to do with what we're talking about. Be specific please.

Are you being facetious? You make a comment about genetic death and I responded including a quote for context. Genetic survival requires your offspring survive, not merely that you have sex.

[status]

Moden hunter gatherer societies mostly seem to live in small, egalitarian bands, and from what little evidnce there is, that's how humans up until the middle peleolithic lived. That is how humans evolved.

There's also this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

which implies very much that there are going to be multiple sexual partners.

Women associated with high status males cheat less or not at all.

[citation needed]

[white feather]

You are generalising a small segment of British history to the entire human race. The white feather campaign doesn't exist any more. Most people I know are not or have never een in the armed forces and yet the appear to have no trouble with women.

Out of curiosity are you using a US processor and operating system right now? :)

A US processor (Celery 900 MHz), and an international OS (Arch Linux). I believe my web browser hails from Chile, though I'm not 100% sure. Naturally being all OSS, it would run fine on ARM.

My reply is a bit disorganised, as are my thoughts on this matter.

  CMake, Scons, etc. are mainly targeted at dependency-based building of programs. Autotools doesn't really build anything. It goes through a long list of system facilities, determining if each is present. For many, perhaps most of them, it builds a little C program that exercises the facility, and sees if it compiles. Now, there's another poster who says you really can do this with CMake, which I'll have to look at.

I'm not sure. My experiences with CMake have been somewhat less than stellar. Cross compiling seems to be very much a second class citizen, whereas autoconf whines loudly if you break such things. As such cLAPACK actually won't cross compile, or wouldn't last time I tried it at any rate.

Also, CMake is much like autotools in that it emits Makefiles. It used to emit recursive ones (lile automake), which is a big old black mark against it.

CMake also has it's own little wretched language too, which is kinda bleh, and its then meant to emit either a Makefile or a VS build file and possibly some others (XCode). The problem with that of course is that you're limited to the common subset of functionality of VS, Make and XCode which isn't very large.

I'm actually not much a fan of automake. I personally quite like autoconf plus GNU Make.

As a building system, make is IMO pretty good, though some of the language specific ones work better in those cases because they understand the language and so can automatically scan for dependencies.

What would be your ideal dependency scanning system?

I don't really get your point:

It seems to be "all build systems suck but autotools is more suitable than cmake, scons etc".

This seems to be a common opinion, since build systems are the first line of defence agains anyone trying to compile the program of course. Naturally the authors of systems designed to be better than autoconf and make are usually written by people who understand neither and as a result work worse on all but the simplest projects.

What would your ideal build/configuration system be?

I think a huge problem is lack of good documentation. Building complex software is often complex, especially when cross compilation. So far the "simpler" ones seem to be simpler because they're incomplete.

I don't have a solution.

...and your last paragraph is a logical fallacy as well. See if you can guess which one it is!

The this-post-doesn't-pass-the-bullshit-test-and-I-can't-be-arsed-to-read-an-entire-essay-when-the-premise-is flawed test.

In the real word, if you top and tail a long post with crap, people aren't going to bother wading in on the off chance there's a gem in the middle.

So tell me, Mr SJW, at what point should one simply give up on someone as a nutcase, or doyou believe that one is obliated to read the entire output lest one be socially unjust to the swivel-eyed ranter?

It's what happens when you mix up the lube and a tube of cyanoacrylate.

Interesting, there seem to be two problems then.

Another question, since I'm not a golfer: how much does the distance matter? Clearly it matters holes a long distance away. Are most holes that far?

What do you know... stupid country that runs the CPU industry isn't that bad at math.

Out of interest, which is the biggest selling CPU instruction set?

Women furthemore do not NEED to compete to obtain genetic survival. All they need is for some guy to shoot a load of semen into them and bingo... genetic survival obtained.

Out of interest, have you ever seen a new born baby? You might notice that if left alone for too long they will simply die. They are literally unable to look after themselves. Genetic survival is so, so much more complex than you are making out.

And for men... low status means genetic death.

No it doesn't, because we're neither chimps nor gorillas, and, frankly it doesn't work that way for them either.

This goes back to our evolutionary roots in that men genetically DIE if they do not obtain status sufficient to obtain breeding rights where as women really just have to play it safe and they pass on their genes.

Oh dear, here comes the evopshcy.

It's intellectually dishonest to take behaviour models from one of our closest relative while not taking them also from our other closest relative (bonobos). As I'm sure you're aware the sexual behaviour of bonobos and chimps is very, very different. And if anything we're more similar to bonobos than chimps in this regard as of the three, chimps lack the oxycotin receptors which make sexual bonding work in the other two.

But we're not bonobos either.

Trying to apply simplistic models of sexual behaviour based on other species is an invalid way of reasoning and so will lead you to all sorts of invalid conclusions.

Here some cute pink cheeked marxist dupe is going to contradict me. I welcome it. Come at me.

Attacking the messenger as a means to dismiss the argument is literally the definiton of ad homenim. As such your post is bracketed at the top and bottom with logical fallacies. Great way to start and end, at least it gives a good idea of what one might find in the middle.

For example, if science can observe an MRI image of brain activity, and correctly determine the gender 99% of the time, this is proof of a difference.

Ah yes, fMRI.

http://www.wired.com/2009/09/f...

A system with such wildly difficult statistics that a dead fish appears to register an emotional response.

Honest question since I know nothing about gold and haven't played it. Are the distances and forces involved such that strength is a significant factor? From the little I've seen on TV, the pro's seem to be concentrating on smooth accurate motions rather than whacking the ball hard.

Googling around, it seems that the gap is in putting, not whacking the ball off the tee (I'm sure there's a more technical term).

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf...

They would have one dickhead less :-)

That is true, but it appears there is a wide gulf between owning a dick head and being a dickhead.

The top tech firms disporoprtionately hire from the top schools. And we're not talking one or two here, we're taking the top 120 as the top schools. Or are you denying that Facebook take more people from MIT than the farming college of eastern new Mexico?

And despite that, their hiring demographics do not match the student demographics.

Of course they are - the only reason that this whole (for the last two years at least, anyway) SJW controversy was manufactured and marketed is to provide a downward force on salaries in tech/CS.

Ad this is why I've come to the conclusion that anyone using the term "SJW" without irony is essentially a swivel-eyed loon.

You're apparently now saying that SJWs want---and are aiming for---lowered slaries in tech. They're also responsible (+2 insightful) dystopia in Sci-Fi. Seriously is there anything the SJW haven't done? Since people such as you essentially assign everything you don't like to "SJW" it has become a meaningless catch-all "stuff I don't like" from a random bunch of people on the internet.

If the studies were at all honest they'd at least acknowledge that eastern races are disproportionately represented in CS, far above any other demographic.

By "eastern races", you actually mean realtively recent (100 years?) immigrants from certain eastern countries, I presume. But I've not seen anyone deny it. Or are you demanding that authors of studies go out of their way to cover your pet talking points every single time?

the multitude of non-science studies that are being paraded as science have desensitized me to caring about their cause.

So in other words, a bunch of people otherwise unrelated ot the problem (social sciences aren't STEM) have made you not care about a problem, not by reasoning or logic, but by posting a lot of articles you go out of your way to read. Interesting that you are influenced so easily.