More use of arachidonic acid in bodybuilding

DZ wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> escribo@gmail.com <escribo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>> interesting theory. but it is only reasonable that a higher brain-to-
>>>> body ratio would be a positive fitness trait in urban environments for
>>>> both men and women. I fail to see any evidence that this is true for
>>>> men as it is for women. This theory doesn't account for this fact.
>>>
>>> I don't really put too much faith in the whole idea, but I could
>>> respond that intellect in males has always been considered sexy by
>>> women.
>>
>> That's why geeks are so irresistible...
>
> Geekery is an intellectual dysmorphism.
>
> That is, in its pure form. A geek is like a guy with huge arms he's
> grown from doing lots of dumbell curls, but who at the same time has
> those comical skinny "chicken legs".
>
> Chicks are not attracted to such aberrations.

That may be true, but you say that huge geeky arms are a plus. From what
you wrote I can only guess, that combined with chicken legs they are not,
so when they are? Is it better to have huge geeky arms and chicken legs,
or small arms and chicken legs? If abberation factor is of paramount
importance, the second option would yield better results, which would
somehow contradict your stance. Damn, I think I confused myself.

> Now, OTOH, if you're a geek who can do mathematics, fix a truck,
> change diapers, write a poem, prepare a breakfast, enjoy ballet,

Sorry about the ballet, but I have to draw a line there.

> make a lot of money, well you get the idea!

I think that at last you did.

--
Andrzej Rosa

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:40:42 -0700 (PDT), Taka <taka0038@gmail.com> wrote:

>> "Nothing sucks like a VAX", as those of us who worked on DEC UNIX used to quote.
>
>But VAX used to be the most stable operating system in the World,
>never froze. It was then stolen by Microsoft to use it as a base for
>their new operating system called Windows2000 and up which replaced
>the aging DOS. DOS did not have any multitasking capabilities and
>therefore future.
>
>UNIX is now in the hands of Apple to power their new operating system
>X and higher. But they had better sticking to their original
>graphical MacOS idea pioneered by Xerox.

We should note for the Coroner that brain death was in evidence at 6:40PM PDT.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is it better to have huge geeky arms and chicken legs,
> or small arms and chicken legs?

Well, in that analogy that would be a dimwit all around living in
mom's basement vs. a dimwit all around living in mom's basement, but
capable of skillfully hacking the neighbour network (from his Linux).

Chick's reaction is "No thanks!", but with a hue of creepy-yucky
bewilderment in the second case.

There might be some evolutionary reason for that too. We all carry a
load of slightly deleterious mutations, but (just because of
recombination) the total number segregates in such a way that some get
a lot more than the others. When you get a lot, bad things happen

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0730140621.htm
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0807....2008.994.html

>> Now, OTOH, if you're a geek who can do mathematics, fix a truck,
>> change diapers, write a poem, prepare a breakfast, enjoy ballet,
>
> Sorry about the ballet, but I have to draw a line there.
>
>> make a lot of money, well you get the idea!
>
> I think that at last you did.

cat /dev/random | post2internet

DZ wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Is it better to have huge geeky arms and chicken legs,
>> or small arms and chicken legs?
>
> Well, in that analogy that would be a dimwit all around living in
> mom's basement vs. a dimwit all around living in mom's basement, but
> capable of skillfully hacking the neighbour network (from his Linux).

In both cases you are (or I am) a dimwit. Ability to hack is a non issue.
It doesn't even exist, until a dimwit brings it up, when it becomes a
liability.

> Chick's reaction is "No thanks!", but with a hue of creepy-yucky
> bewilderment in the second case.

They don't care what you can do, until they can (or at least could) get
something out of it themselves. Hacking isn't one of those things, and
that's it. We are the same.

> There might be some evolutionary reason

Oh, another model? I'm all for it.

> for that too. We all carry a
> load of slightly deleterious mutations, but (just because of
> recombination) the total number segregates in such a way that some get
> a lot more than the others. When you get a lot, bad things happen
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0730140621.htm
> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0807....2008.994.html

I didn't really read it now, but I think I've seen similar stuff before
regarding malaria, so that actually would make sense, if not for the
context. ;-) Women don't like geeks, because geeks are simply boring.
Brains aren't all that sexy. Power is sexy, social status is sexy, and not
giving a damn is sexy, but brains only if they get something out of it.

Evolutionary it makes sense. Brains are useful, when they are useful.
Otherwise they are a liability. ;-)

>>> make a lot of money, well you get the idea!
>>
>> I think that at last you did.
>
> cat /dev/random | post2internet

You make money this way?

--
Andrzej Rosa

Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Is it better to have huge geeky arms and chicken legs,
>>> or small arms and chicken legs?
>>
>> Well, in that analogy that would be a dimwit all around living in
>> mom's basement vs. a dimwit all around living in mom's basement, but
>> capable of skillfully hacking the neighbour network (from his Linux).
>
> In both cases you are (or I am) a dimwit. Ability to hack is a non issue.
> It doesn't even exist, until a dimwit brings it up, when it becomes a
> liability.

My advice to a young woman who tries to snatch Dr. Rosa

(1) Try to call him at home.
(2) If the girlfriend picks up, ask for Sweetums.
http://www.google.com/search?q=sweetums
(3) Next say: "And who are you again?"

>> Chick's reaction is "No thanks!", but with a hue of creepy-yucky
>> bewilderment in the second case.
>
> They don't care what you can do, until they can (or at least could) get
> something out of it themselves. Hacking isn't one of those things, and
> that's it. We are the same.

We aren't quite the same considering that males are possibly evolved
to make as many females pregnant as possible (even if sticking with
one). OTOH, according to the good gene sexual selection hypothesis,
females are to an extent "programmed" to be evaluating your genetic
fitness. They don't want their children to have a load of damaged
DNA. So they are subconsciously looking for cues of good
genes. However, some damaged males, known as "cheaters", respond by
mimicking valuable traits (i.e. geekery is supposed to project an
overall high intelligence), and when that it caught, the reaction is
"Yuck whata creep!".

The same probably goes for 35+ graying guys who try to look younger
than they are and dye their hair. "Yuck whata (middleaged) freak!".

>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0730140621.htm
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0807....2008.994.html
>
> I didn't really read it now, but I think I've seen similar stuff before
> regarding malaria, so that actually would make sense, if not for the
> context. ;-)

The "copy number variation" is all the rage right now.

>>>> make a lot of money, well you get the idea!
>>>
>>> I think that at last you did.
>>
>> cat /dev/random | post2internet
>
> You make money this way?

I definitely make a heavy use of /dev/random
but I found that the quote I plagiarized didn't mention money,
although it mentioned pitching manure
http://www.elise.com/quotes/a/heinle...or_insects.php

DZ wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> Well, in that analogy that would be a dimwit all around living in
>>> mom's basement vs. a dimwit all around living in mom's basement, but
>>> capable of skillfully hacking the neighbour network (from his Linux).
>>
>> In both cases you are (or I am) a dimwit. Ability to hack is a non
>> issue. It doesn't even exist, until a dimwit brings it up, when it
>> becomes a liability.
>
> My advice to a young woman who tries to snatch Dr. Rosa
>
> (1) Try to call him at home.
> (2) If the girlfriend picks up, ask for Sweetums.
> http://www.google.com/search?q=sweetums

In our language version he was called the Animal. I bet women were crazy
for him. This guy had class, you know.

> (3) Next say: "And who are you again?"

"Well, I was just passing by waiting to be flattered. Thanks for being such
a nice creature, but you are probably boring." - Well, that sort of thing.
>;-)

>> They don't care what you can do, until they can (or at least could) get
>> something out of it themselves. Hacking isn't one of those things, and
>> that's it. We are the same.
>
> We aren't quite the same considering that males are possibly evolved
> to make as many females pregnant as possible (even if sticking with
> one). OTOH, according to the good gene sexual selection hypothesis,
> females are to an extent "programmed" to be evaluating your genetic
> fitness. They don't want their children to have a load of damaged
> DNA. So they are subconsciously looking for cues of good
> genes. However, some damaged males, known as "cheaters", respond by
> mimicking valuable traits (i.e. geekery is supposed to project an
> overall high intelligence), and when that it caught, the reaction is
> "Yuck whata creep!".

Well, really not. Intelligence is good to have, if you want high social
standing, for example. IOW it's a good thing to use, if you know how to
use it in social context. If you don't have this skill, you are as good as
a guy who is simply dumb. The "creep" thing doesn't even come up. A
bright guy who is socially inept is dismissed because he is socially inept,
not because he pretends to be someone else. And since when lying is such
an unforgivable sin in the eyes of a woman? They lie all the time, so do
guys who can get them.

> The same probably goes for 35+ graying guys who try to look younger
> than they are and dye their hair. "Yuck whata (middleaged) freak!".

I'm afraid you are wrong again. AFAIK dyeing your hair and even wearing
makeup works. Sorry.

[...]
>>>> I think that at last you did.
>>>
>>> cat /dev/random | post2internet
>>
>> You make money this way?
>
> I definitely make a heavy use of /dev/random

It's supposedly a clever thing, this /dev/random. It gathers entropy, you
know? First appeared in Linux.

> but I found that the quote I plagiarized didn't mention money,
> although it mentioned pitching manure
> http://www.elise.com/quotes/a/heinle...or_insects.php

I think that I can do all of that, but I still think he is wrong.

--
Andrzej Rosa

Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> We aren't quite the same considering that males are possibly evolved
>> to make as many females pregnant as possible (even if sticking with
>> one). OTOH, according to the good gene sexual selection hypothesis,
>> females are to an extent "programmed" to be evaluating your genetic
>> fitness. They don't want their children to have a load of damaged
>> DNA. So they are subconsciously looking for cues of good
>> genes. However, some damaged males, known as "cheaters", respond by
>> mimicking valuable traits (i.e. geekery is supposed to project an
>> overall high intelligence), and when that it caught, the reaction is
>> "Yuck whata creep!".
>
> Well, really not. Intelligence is good to have, if you want high social
> standing, for example. IOW it's a good thing to use, if you know how to
> use it in social context. If you don't have this skill, you are as good as
> a guy who is simply dumb. The "creep" thing doesn't even come up. A
> bright guy who is socially inept is dismissed because he is socially inept,
> not because he pretends to be someone else. And since when lying is such
> an unforgivable sin in the eyes of a woman? They lie all the time, so do
> guys who can get them.

Your critique assumes that I consider intelligence to be (almost)
everything, but I don't. Moreover, social skills do reflect aspects of
intelligence. When it's not there, there is dysmorphism, aka geekery.

>> The same probably goes for 35+ graying guys who try to look younger
>> than they are and dye their hair. "Yuck whata (middleaged) freak!".
>
> I'm afraid you are wrong again. AFAIK dyeing your hair and even wearing
> makeup works. Sorry.

Of course it works. The damaged male strategy is to mimic something he
doesn't have. It would be of no use if it never worked. I don't think
we're really disagreeing on anything, you stubborn Pole.

Geeks often fall in the category of Asperger syndrome and don't
reproduce well ...
But without those Aspergers there will be no real progress ...
What causes Asperger - one possible explanation is NO:

http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2007/...s-of-asds.html

Taka

Taka wrote:

> Geeks often fall in the category of Asperger syndrome and don't
> reproduce well ...
> But without those Aspergers there will be no real progress ...

We are very fortunate to have you, mister Taka. ;-)

> What causes Asperger - one possible explanation is NO:
>
>
http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2007/...s-of-asds.html

Finding a possible explanation is no biggy. Finding the correct one is
(though an idea that we should stop taking showers should count for
something, just for the sake of its weirdness).

--
Andrzej Rosa

DZ wrote:

> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>>
>> Well, really not. Intelligence is good to have, if you want high social
>> standing, for example. IOW it's a good thing to use, if you know how to
>> use it in social context. If you don't have this skill, you are as good
>> as a guy who is simply dumb. The "creep" thing doesn't even come up. A
>> bright guy who is socially inept is dismissed because he is socially
>> inept, not because he pretends to be someone else. And since when lying
>> is such an unforgivable sin in the eyes of a woman? They lie all the
>> time, so do guys who can get them.
>
> Your critique assumes that I consider intelligence to be (almost)
> everything, but I don't.

That's not what I mean. I try to say, that above average intelligence might
help a person in various ways, but a display of itself is of no value. It
may be through hacking, quotation from classic books, talking languages,
whatever. All equally useless. Now, let's talk money, power or humour...
Those things actually count.

> Moreover, social skills do reflect aspects of
> intelligence. When it's not there, there is dysmorphism, aka geekery.

Sure. I didn't try to dispute that.

>> I'm afraid you are wrong again. AFAIK dyeing your hair and even wearing
>> makeup works. Sorry.
>
> Of course it works. The damaged male strategy is to mimic something he
> doesn't have.

I suspect that successful males do it more often than the damaged ones.
That's one of the reasons why they are successful.

> It would be of no use if it never worked. I don't think
> we're really disagreeing on anything, you stubborn Pole.

I'm stubborn. Here we agree 100%.

--
Andrzej Rosa

Taka wrote:

> On Jul 26, 9:46 am, Lucas Buck <sbcp...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:22:05 +0000 (UTC), DZ <21...@3028312337.71354487.15072.31715.17391> wrote:
>>> Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>> This led to a celebrated bit of chip design: when Digital designed
>>>> their then-cutting-edge CVAX processor, on a spare bit of the die,
>>>> they wrote "CVAX: When you care enough to steal the very best" in
>>>> Russian!
>>>> http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creature.../russians.html
>>>> http://simh.trailing-edge.com/semi/cvax.html
>>> In Russian, it doesn't make any sense though. It's just a bunch of
>>> words put together:
>>> "?????... ????? ?? ???????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ??????"
>>> "????????" is not even a Russian word, should be "??????????".
>>> If you translate back, it is "SVAX.. When you ??? enough steal genuine
>>> better"
>> "Nothing sucks like a VAX", as those of us who worked on DEC UNIX used to quote.
>
> But VAX used to be the most stable operating system in the World,
> never froze.

VAX was the name of the computer, the operating system was VMS, later
OpenVMS.


--
Matti Narkia

http://ma.gnolia.com/groups/Nutrition

Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> If I had to hookup some grandma who never used a computer to
>> teh-internets these days, I would choose something like Ubuntu
>> Linux (encrypted, so she could safely forget the laptop with the
>> retirement accounts in the park after she's done feeding
>> pigeons). Well, maybe not 64-bit. Would be a lot less headache for
>> both of us than with Windows or even Mac OS.
>
> Probably true, but if you had to setup a rig for your niece or
> nephew, you'd be cursed and blasphemed together with this "stupid
> Linux".

What, they do that in Poland too? LOL!

--
Posted via UUCP