A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And, wow. I think there are innate differences in the way men and women are wired -- certain genes linked to X vs Y chromosomes, certain stuff triggered by estrogen/testosterone/etc.

I think we may be emotionally wired differently. But I don't think it has got anything to do with scientific ability. I know it is not scientific, but I have hung around a lot of scientists, and I really don't think either men or women are inately more proficient. It is just numbers. There are more prominent men in science because more men go into science.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think we may be emotionally wired differently. But I don't think it has got anything to do with scientific ability. I know it is not scientific, but I have hung around a lot of scientists, and I really don't think either men or women are inately more proficient. It is just numbers. There are more prominent men in science because more men go into science.

Sexist fuck.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think we may be emotionally wired differently. But I don't think it has got anything to do with scientific ability. I know it is not scientific, but I have hung around a lot of scientists, and I really don't think either men or women are inately more proficient. It is just numbers. There are more prominent men in science because more men go into science.

I imgaine some of the same factors as to why there aren't as many female BIGLAW partners go into the equation as well. Hell, my father was a hard core research physician with a promising future in research, but the hours were killer and had he stayed on that track, it would have destroyed family life. He went into clincial medicine instead, which only required 60-80 hours of his week.

Plus, the old-boys network is still pretty strong in the Universities I'm familiar with. It sucks being the only girl.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's a great example of jack-ass planning that should not be excused by judicial/government intervention.

Another* thought re this: Many of you seem to be saying that if a government entity wanted to take the extra land in order to build and operate a particle accelerator, maybe it was jack-ass planning, but there's no constitutional objection to eminent domain. But, if the government wants to seize the land to sell it over to, say, Stanford to do exactly the same thing, that is verboten, constitutionally. Surely the public benefits of the particle accelerator are at least the same in either case (if not greater in the latter case, since bilmore and club will tell you that a private party will be much more efficient in spending money, etc.).


* Actually, the same thought as my RR hypo, but everyone ducked it, so I'll try again.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think we may be emotionally wired differently. But I don't think it has got anything to do with scientific ability. I know it is not scientific, but I have hung around a lot of scientists, and I really don't think either men or women are inately more proficient. It is just numbers. There are more prominent men in science because more men go into science.

Any real man would like to go "into science"*


Eva Silverstein with her favorite equations

*I gave you guys a chance to prevent this....

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think we may be emotionally wired differently. But I don't think it has got anything to do with scientific ability. I know it is not scientific, but I have hung around a lot of scientists, and I really don't think either men or women are inately more proficient. It is just numbers. There are more prominent men in science because more men go into science.

I think if it affects our ability to process information about people's emotions, it can also affect our ability to process information about numbers and spatial relations and stuff.

BTW, FWIW, your saying "It is just numbers" about science makes me think you are a relatively subtle trolling sock. You really think science is about numbers? Some of it can be reduced to numbers, but it's concepts.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Any real man would like to go "into science"*


Eva Silverstein with her favorite equations

*I gave you guys a chance to prevent this....

She's a hottie, and I bet she goes for leathermen. Thanks, by the way, for acknowledging your fucktardosity (i.e., that I am your muse) on the new avatar. A muse and aMUS[E]ing -- that's me.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Any real man would like to go "into science"*

Eva Silverstein with her favorite equations

*I gave you guys a chance to prevent this....

http://www.angryflower.com/dating.gif

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Another* thought re this: Many of you seem to be saying that if a government entity wanted to take the extra land in order to build and operate a particle accelerator, maybe it was jack-ass planning, but there's no constitutional objection to eminent domain. But, if the government wants to seize the land to sell it over to, say, Stanford to do exactly the same thing, that is verboten, constitutionally. Surely the public benefits of the particle accelerator are at least the same in either case (if not greater in the latter case, since bilmore and club will tell you that a private party will be much more efficient in spending money, etc.).


* Actually, the same thought as my RR hypo, but everyone ducked it, so I'll try again.

the difference, while perhaps not of constitutional relevance, is that once the government enters into the role of merely "facilitating" transactions between two private parties, rather than taking land for its "own" use, there is no practical check on the number of takings that are likely to occur--it's merely a question of how big the checkbooks of the buyers are.

BTW, let's address railroads, because there's an important distinction there: they are common carriers (or were), which meant that the public was entitled to use them, albeit at some (often regulated) cost. Another distinction is that many of those cases are over 100 years old, and our concepts of "common" in common carrier have probably changed somewhat--they were much more public utilities than we might think of them now.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
the difference, while perhaps not of constitutional relevance, is that once the government enters into the role of merely "facilitating" transactions between two private parties, rather than taking land for its "own" use, there is no practical check on the number of takings that are likely to occur--it's merely a question of how big the checkbooks of the buyers are.

BTW, let's address railroads, because there's an important distinction there: they are common carriers (or were), which meant that the public was entitled to use them, albeit at some (often regulated) cost. Another distinction is that many of those cases are over 100 years old, and our concepts of "common" in common carrier have probably changed somewhat--they were much more public utilities than we might think of them now.

Back in those days before trust-busting, didn't the guys who owned the railroads make recockulous amounts of money at it? Or am I incorrectly conflating them with the steel industry?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
She's a hottie, and I bet she goes for leathermen. Thanks, by the way, for acknowledging your fucktardosity (i.e., that I am your muse) on the new avatar. A muse and aMUS[E]ing -- that's me.

Fringey's post yesterday inspired this avatar- thank you fringey. Althouhg in a "cave paintings were derivative" line- when I first brought out labor day Hank someone else suggestd "biker hank" for a village people cycle.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Back in those days before trust-busting, didn't the guys who owned the railroads make recockulous amounts of money at it? Or am I incorrectly conflating them with the steel industry?

sure--they had monopolies. if they didn't make money, we'd be asking why.

What's your point? That they bought off the courts?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
http://www.angryflower.com/dating.gif

Holy fuck- even hotter than /Eva- if their periods co-incide then string theory becomes a "strong theory" correct Adder?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
sure--they had monopolies. if they didn't make money, we'd be asking why.

What's your point? That they bought off the courts?

No, that the use of eminent domain in building the railroad system was possibly quite a bit more about private gain than it was about common carrier blah blah blah. I mean, the public will be able to buy the condos at the development in New London, and buy memberships at the health club and buy services at the spa (and whatever else is being put in).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No, that the use of eminent domain in building the railroad system was possibly quite a bit more about private gain than it was about common carrier blah blah blah.

I never said common carriers weren't allowed to earn a profit--but they were at least open to the public. Your point goes to the under-regulation of the rates they charged, though, which is different (or at least is considered different as a matter of common carrier law, which posits that the principle evil to be combatted is price and service discrimination)