If you’re not the type who likes this sort of stuff, move right long – there’s nothing to be seen here.
Got this from Punzi
I also took the liberty of fixing the english on some of the questions.
If the women only tried…
Sexes split over one night stands
Many women are left unhappy in the aftermath of casual sexual encounters, a survey has revealed.
Thank God for an article like this, I’ll finally get to say something I’ve come to realize – that I could never bring up out of the blue.
While the article obviously focuses on one-night-stands, I personally have noticed something significant and worthy of mention as far as heterosexual relationships go. I encompasses most of (if not all) relationship issues a woman may experience – that even the more complex/controversial issues, like in the article, are merely subsets.
I tried synthesizing different opinions/perspectives of various women I’ve had deep conversations with regarding relationship issues they were having. I would probably say this would be a great follow up to a post I wrote 3 years ago, which a friend of mine reminded me of because of its “accuracy” (she was a woman by the way so shut up)
Before I proceed, I feel compelled to remind everyone that while there may be exceptions, we all know most issues, or at least issues being blown out of proportion, are almost always the woman’s doing. If you’re a woman and disagree, feel free to drop me a line and counter this claim. But before going off your handle, at least try to hear why I think this is the case.
Are you a visual thinker?
via Daring Fireball:
Here’s another question I was recently asked: when I see words in my mind, what font are they in? The answer: Helvetica. What font do you think in?
Suprisingly, I have about 5; depending on my state of mind.
Is the Scientific Method obsolete?
I got a kick reading an article by Wired’s editor in chief; which to me, was just intellectual masturbation (poorly executed at that), and hopefully would not be taken seriously. Then again, considering there are idiots who believe in “intelligent design,” I guess common sense would be too much to hope for.
The article suggests that given the abundance of available information through any form of media, statistical correlation supersedes causation. He [correctly] used Google as an example; wherein they are able to provide reliable search results by mere statistical analysis.
So basically, if you want to apply statistical correlation as truth, then one could suggest that hospitals kill people, because clearly the majority of deaths happen within their evil walls! And statistically, that correlation will increase over time… the horror! They must be destroyed.
Thankfully, Ars Technica was there to set things straight. But I personally can’t help being a bit fidgety, since Ars has been bought by Wired’s parent company – which is kinda ironic and amusing in a disturbing sort of way. It’s nice to know though that as of now, Ars still is a reliable source of intelligent information – let’s hope that never changes.
Some foxy lovin’
Just for the heck of it, I checked the stats on my site as far as what browsers my readers have been using. Here’s the low-down:
I have to say that I’m glad the stats aren’t as dismal as BP’s site the last time I checked. Looks like most readers are savvy enough to know that internet Explorer is evil. Still there’s still roughly half that are still using IE, and given Firefox 3 is out, it doesn’t hurt to spread the word. Read More