I found this programme to be a fascinating investigation into gender differences, which tries to find reasons to explain the career choices made by men and women.

Please don't be put off by the subtitles. Some of the interviews are conducted in English.

A foul on the pink is worth six points.

Indeed, and half of it will be committed by a woman against a man. There is a presumption in our culture that domestic violence is committed by men against women when, in fact, it is committed by *people* against other people. Lets not perpetuate the myth that men are evil, violent thugs who deserve a pat on the head if they manage to suppress their biological urges and get through the day without beating up their partners, and women are sweet angelic creatures who couldn't possibly hurt another living being.
http://www.batteredmen.com/straus21.htm
http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/abusiverelationships/a/male_abuse.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

I don't see anyone sticking up for their point of view yet, and this may be the first time that I've agreed with anything from Fox News, but I think these guys may be on to something. They may not be saying for the right reasons but it doesn't mean that they're necessarily wrong.

For a more intelligent, deeply discussed, better presented, well thought out, scientific, and female perspective on this subject try watching this video...

http://videosift.com/video/Fempocalypse

This sounds like the No True Scotsman Fallacy to me.

Thanks. I think I see what he was trying to show now. I think he was attempting to explain *why*

16^54 mod 17 = 15^24 mod 17

but he left out some steps and the whole thing became confusing.


I think it works like this.

Alice performs the calculation

16^54 mod 17

however, we know that the 16 came from Bob's calculation 3^24 mod 17 = 16. So if we substitute for 16 in Alice's equation we get

(3^24 mod 17)^54 mod 17
= 3^(24 * 54) mod 17


If we make a similar substitution in Bob's equation

15^24 mod 17
= (3^54 mod 17)^24 mod 17
= 3^(54 * 24) mod 17


So, this explains why both Bob and Alice get the same result when they calculate the shared secret number but, as you say, this is not the way the calculations are actually performed by either party.
>> ^messenger:

Confirmed, it's yet another a mistake in the video.
16^54 mod 17=1
AND
15^24 mod 17=1
It happens that 3^(24 54) mod 17 is also 1, but this particular calculation is never made on either end. Very sloppy explanation.>> ^Arg:
I was following that up until the 4:36 mark where the numbers 16^54 magically transform into the numbers 3^(24 54) without explanation. According to my calculator 16^54 is NOT equal to 3^(24 54). Could someone please explain?

I was following that up until the 4:36 mark where the numbers 16^54 magically transform into the numbers 3^(24*54) without explanation. According to my calculator 16^54 is NOT equal to 3^(24*54). Could someone please explain?

At first I started to laugh, then I just thought it was sad.

Haha, me too. She got me good

"Put two", on on both sides!!!! What do mean, "put two", on both sides???? YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, "PUT TWO", ON BOTH SIDES!!!!!1!11!oneoneone
>> ^robbersdog49:

I shouted at the screen before I got it...

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee... Plop!

I tried this out on some local speed bumps once when the company gave me a hire car for the weekend so I wasn't bothered about ruining my own suspension. It works. I got the car up to about 30mph and the suspension compressed while the chassis stayed level. It's definitely the smoothest way across them.>> ^sadicious:

An ambulance driver once told me "They are called 'speed bumps', not 'slow bumps'. Go fast over them." I tried it out with my normal-ish car and it went smoother then if I was going slow. The axle isn't elevated long enough for the shocks to push the frame up. Since the frame isn't up, it doesn't go crashing down. This only really goes bad if range of shock compression or the bottom of the frame to the ground is less then the height of the speed bump.
I'm not sure how that would apply to having 5-6 of them all in a row like that. Maybe most people in this area figured out the above technique and this is the way around it.

*edit* Oooops. I meant to reply in the thread rather than on your profile. Clicked the wrong link. *edit*

I tried this out on some local speed bumps once when the company gave me a hire car for the weekend so I wasn't bothered about ruining my own suspension. It works. I got the car up to about 30mph and the suspension compressed while the chassis stayed level. It's definitely the smoothest way across them.
In reply to this comment by sadicious:
An ambulance driver once told me "They are called 'speed bumps', not 'slow bumps'. Go fast over them." I tried it out with my normal-ish car and it went smoother then if I was going slow. The axle isn't elevated long enough for the shocks to push the frame up. Since the frame isn't up, it doesn't go crashing down. This only really goes bad if range of shock compression or the bottom of the frame to the ground is less then the height of the speed bump.

I'm not sure how that would apply to having 5-6 of them all in a row like that. Maybe most people in this area figured out the above technique and this is the way around it.

Ha. You mean Hicksville is a real place? All this time I thought that it was just a made up name used as an insult sort of like, Morontown, or Stupidland. So anyone described as coming from, Hicksville, must an unsophisticated country bumpkin from the back of nowhere.

Well, you live and learn

Wow! Was that really 21 minutes long? It only felt like about four because I was so totally drawn in. I could have listened to that all day.

Is there any more of this?

Hang on. Did the host say that the correct answer (question?) was, "What is he's missing a leg?"

Surely that's just as much gibberish as the answer Watson gave.