What I meant is while western music scales mathematically divide the octave into 8 intervals (12 including the black keys), Thai instruments divide their "octave" into 7,
Look again at a piano keyboard. Notice there are 7 white keys and 5 black keys for each octave? There are seven letters in the western scale, so people get confused by that.
But it's even more confusing, as the western scale divides the octave into 12 notes, and then does LSD while smoking crack before inventing the notation for those 12 notes and related "keys". If we ditched the oddball half-step from E to F, we'd have 6 letters with sharps and flats giving 12 notes/octave, and it would all make much more sense when compared to the 7 notes/octave of the Thai scale.
You can divide up the octave many ways and still find pleasing harmonies - interference patterns between nearby notes being themselves notes which must fit with the chord. You can use a traditional scale, or do your own oddball thing (as Rush did on later albums, where the scale is offset a bit from where we expect, making it sound like a tape played at 80% speed).
Dear moderators: "Troll" is not a synonym for "I disagree with this".
That said, I disagree with this.
We've known since the investigation of 9/11 that suicide bombers are not necessarily dead-enders except in the literal sense. Economic powerlessness might play a role in the political phenomenon of extremist violence, but it is not a necessary element of the profile of a professional extremist. These people often come from privileged backgrounds and display average to above average job aptitude.
Mohammed Atta's life story makes interesting reading. He was born to privileged parents; at the insistence of his emotionally distant father he wasn't allowed to socialize with other kids his age, and had a lifelong difficulty with relating to his peers. At university he did OK but below the high expectations of his parents. He went to graduate school in urban planning where his thesis was on how impersonal modern high rise buildings ruined the historic old neighborhoods of the Muslim world.
That much is factual; as to why he became an extremist while countless others like him did not, we can only speculate. I imagine that once he decided modernity was the source of his personal dissatisfactions Al Qaeda would be attractive to him. Al Qaeda training provided structure which made interacting with his new "peers" easier than ever before. And martyrdom promised relief from the dissatisfactions of a life spent conscious of his own mediocrity. Altogether he was a miserable and twisted man -- but not economically miserable.
The question is *why* more men than women want a career in science (if that is true).
Is it due to some innate biological difference? Is it due to discrimination or harassment when they try to enter science? Is it due to a wide range of subtle societal pressures that are difficult to quantify?
I think the best we can do is to look for and eliminate any detectable discrimination and try to ensure that women have the same opportunities as men.
One thing to do is to study why the ratio of men to women is quite different in different technical fields.
You're overstating the capabilities of Windows 3.0 (Multi-tasking? Not with most apps) and understanding the capabilities of System 6 and 7 (Hierarchical filesystem? Yeah, but with much longer filenames). Windows 3.x was a usability nightmare, but it didn't really matter, because MacOS didn't see any real improvements for a full decade after that, letting Microsoft catch up and then surpass Apple in the operating system game.
Stop treating everyone as children. Adults are moral entities with agency, and can damn well decide on their own whether to wear a seatbelt or not.
I find it fascinating what we freak out about, versus what we tolerate.
Exactly: we seem t have a collective fetish for forcing others to make the same choices that we would, instead of respecting one another as people just like us, each with the right to find his own distinct path to happiness.
Shamefully, I actually read TFA. It has a lot of great background on the problem, and is a fine read for someone who hasn't ever looked into cosmology before, but it actually has less information than the Wikipedia article on using the 21cm "hydrogen line" to observe the "dark age" of the universe. Prettier pictures than Wikipedia, though.
And that point is encapsulated in a single adverb: still. "Still" is what makes this news; it wouldn't have been news twenty or thirty years ago.
I am old enough to remember when genital equipment was considered employment destiny. When my wife went to oceanography graduate school the sysadmins of the school minicomputers were all female. The all-male faculty called them -- I kid you not -- "Data Dollies". Data dolly was considered a good job for a technically inclined woman because it paid well for an entry level job, involved computers, and was an easy job to hand off when you quit to marry the professor you'd snagged. Plus they'd have a hard time getting work in industry. Clearly that was a transitional moment because there were a substantial minority of women graduate students in the program, but *no* female professors, much less senior administrators.
But given the strong cohort of women in that class, it is surprising the thirty years later there is still a lingering perception in this country that science isn't for women. But maybe it shouldn't be surprising. Change doesn't happen instantaneously, nor does it necessarily ever become complete. When I was in college the notion that women had to become full time homemakers was still predominant -- not among students, but of people over thirty or so, practically everyone in positions of hiring and authority. That attitude seems weird and foreign to a young person today; I expect it's hard for a young person to grasp how pervasive and indeed how genuinely oppressive that belief was. It's a bit like the difference between the way I experience watching Mad Men and the way my kids do. I actually *recognize* that world where smoking was everywhere, big shots drank during office hours, and "womanizing" was a word people actually used without irony. It was fading fast, but still there. To my kids it's like an alien civilization in Doctor Who. So yes, the news that many Americans see science as a profession that somehow belongs to men is a bit like discovering a Silurian in the closet.
The women of my generation fought hard to establish a beachhead in male dominated professions, and if they're sometimes a bit snippy about it, well they earned the right. It wasn't easy to be an oddball among your peers and freak to your parents, teachers and and people in authority generally. And this was at a time when there was no such thing as geek chic to offset the disadvantages being an oddball. Being a geek was bad, period.
Now that cadre of pioneering women is at or approaching the apex of their careers. They're still a minority in their age cohort, but they left a wide open hole in their wake for the next generation. It's taken awhile for that hole to fill up because when opportunities open for a group they go for more high-profile professions (47% of medical students are women, as are 48% of law students). But in another generation I am sure the view that science belongs to one sex or another will be a truly fringe belief.
It was the same then as it is now; in any random group of humans, at least 1 in 10 are homosexual.
The actual percentage, as has been shown repeatedly in research, is around 1.5% (one point five percent), not 10%. So called ""transgender" adds a fraction onto that. The 10% figure is a misunderstanding of poorly conducted research that has been taken up for propaganda purposes by advocates.
Ancient Greece and Rome also commonly practiced pederasty. Do you think that enobles it for us today?
You don't need "antigravity" (which in all likelihood is impossible). Diamagnetic hoverboards would be possible... if we could make ridiculously powerful, compact halbach arrays in the board. Also you'd need a clever mechanism to detect and deal with flying over ferromagnetic material, or otherwise it's going to smack into your board really hard.
I mean have you really already forgotten the stink over google trying to ram G+ and real names down on YouTube? From Google Drive to even spying on kids emails the simple fact is Google is all about connecting the dots, its what they do, where their income is coming from, and the more they can gather on you the more money it can make from its REAL customers, the advertisers.
Can you actually find torrents for academic journals? That would be quite a public service by whoever's taking the time to scan them.
Do you think businesses print money? They have to take in more than the cost of doing business is. How is this possible if it is not achieved by passing the costs along to the customers? There is nothing vile about it. It's simple economics.
My rebuttal was that years and years before that, marriages had nothing to do with the churches of today, and maybe nothing to do with any church at all.
So your opening sentence was flawed on that basis.
lol.. there is no flaw at all. What is so hard for you to understand here? I DID NOT give a complete accounting and did not intend to. For fucks sake, how many times does this need to be said? I do not care about before or anything. It is completely irrelevant.
Exactly, what you gave was not a comprehensive history of marriage. My point exactly. Thanks for noticing.
Is it your point to echo my own point? If so, you win the internet. I said this in the original post.
That is what you said. Please refrain from saying that in the future. It would be most appreciated.
If you want to specifically limit yourself to certain periods or countries, where it is accurate, that would be much improved.
lol.. Stop, just stop pretending to be a moron. Sorry for going for the insults but you seem to be insisting things that never were said were. I never said in the beginning, or always or on this specific date, I never even said it was absolute, that is all inventions of your own minds. What I said is correct, in the past churches and religions generally controlled marriage. You know this to be true and admitted it but are stuck on some bullshit about periods when it wasn't.
Just drop it, you are not adding anything to the conversation and doing little more then pedantic trolling.
That seems to indicate me you think there are non-Christian religious institutions you want to consider, and that would take you outside of Ireland, or into its ancient history if you want to discuss Celtic marriage. I guess the jews weren't invented until well after the Christians. Is that what you are trying to say? And yes, pagan religions had marriage ceremonies too.
Anyone? Yes, they have, history has been asserted as the role model to follow, especially with marriage, which is treated as a "sacred" and "unchanging" and "eternal" tradition that is exclusively and solely the province of the "church" or other "religious institution" so yes, they have done so.
So that's why you are acting like an imbecile. You are pissed that people don't like gay marriage and banned it forever and somehow thing going after me will vindicate it or something. No, I nor anyone in this thread asserted history is any role model. For fucks sake, all I did was explain how modern government became entangled in something that they shouldn't even be involved with in the first place.
Go piss up a rope or something. You will be more productive doing that then you have demonstrated yourself to be here.
Do you want me to paste some of the filings made in regards Proposition 8, or Obergefell v. Hodges, or the advertising regarding this vote in Ireland? Or will you accept it as generally true without me doing so?
I can paste some crap too. Here is your problem, I simply do not care. I did not come here and say marriage should be a certain way or another way or whatever. I really do not care if you can marry your boyfriend, dog, sister, mother or whatever your fetish is. It doesn't matter to me one but at all.
Then I'll take this as implying a disavowal of those arguments, is that ok with you?
It doesn't matter, you took everything else and twisted it just so you can troll against it. I don't find having any opinion on how you twist and misaligned contexts will have any meaning other then further your trolling.
Sadly many don't know this. But no, even with the history being recognized as discretionary, you do need to get it right. Because sometimes it isn't what others, including yourself, say it is.
No I got it right. You are just hopelessly looking for an argument to win even if you have to create one that never happened.
PS, the Magna Carta, mentions marriages and sets conditions thereby, including the King's involvement. I kinda consider it part of the English legal system, and I wouldn't consider it entirely religious either.
Actually, the magna carta gives the catholic church power over marital matters. It only mentions heirs in ward (
not of age) and a widows inheritance and the abilities of spouses to appeal for the life of their condemned spouse. Not the shell shocker you think it is and truthfully, it starts off strengthening my claims.
I wish the best to Britain, and to the rest of the people of Europe in their efforts to break the power of the unelected apparatchiki who have attempted to usurp their sovereignty.