*cinema *music *dance

Here is my geeky/nerdy boss' power loader costume, but no baby/kid in it: http://hallert.net/powerloader/index.html ...

@bareboards2
you totally misunderstood my comment.
my point is that it is the ATTENTION that is the main focus,not the penis.

let me try this another way.

what if the girl was lesbian?
would male attention be her focus?
seewhatimsaying?

this attention seeking behavior usually starts young,when a young girl is unsure,insecure and vulnerable.(just like every other teen).
maybe they were the first girl in class to sprout boobs.
maybe she was a late bloomer and was nerdy and gangly all through high school.

in any scenario you wish to portray there will always be the common denominator that at one point she began to receive attention and that attention validated her as desirable,sexy even.
this may have led to dressing more "sexy" to garner even more attention.

the danger here is that the beauty of youth is transitory....it always results in entropy and if a woman finds validation solely in the form of attention,she will find it harder and harder to get the validation she has become accustomed to receiving.
this may lead to even more dramatic practices i.e:higher degree of provocative dress.bargaining flirtations for sexual promiscuity.actively seeking attention by way of nightclubs,bars and other venues where a source of attention may congregated.

we all wish to be desirable in one way or another and attention can be a powerful validation that we are desirable.the problem arises when the girl/guy is unaware of their own motivations to be validated and in the process allows themselves to become objects rather than human beings.

attention=validation *no penis required

men can be just as vulnerable to this validation seeking but our culture does not impose the same amount of pressure that young women have to endure and ultimately over-come.

what i believe you are saying,and its a point i agree with.is that young women should be more self-aware and be comfortable with who they are rather than what society thinks they should be.

the fact that i am male should not automatically disqualify me from expressing an opinion on female matters.i may fall short due to not owning a uterus but i feel my point is valid

I'm really starting to think Obama has a secret twin brother.

One is President Obama. He's highly intelligent and capable, but he's boring. He's stiff. He's nerdy. He's professorial. He's understanding of divergent views almost to a fault.

The other is Campaign Obama. He's just as smart and capable, but he's also loose, confident, funny, and interesting. He's a skilled communicator, and can be extremely persuasive. He fights for his principles, without demonizing his opponents. He's inspirational, and he's charming. He's who won the election in 2008...and then went into hiding.

President Obama was who showed up to the first debate. Campaign Obama better fucking show up at the second, or he'll just be Mister Obama next year.

That was really wasn't well done. Husky's I'm Nerdy And I Know It was so much better

Hahahah, this is so nerdy!

We'll get there. I'm sure @ChaosEngine will respond again, he's a last-word kind of guy.

Hey @ChaosEngine, I agree, the video is stupid, but I wasn't commenting on the video, I was commenting on your gender-bias'ed ideas about what careers suit which sex.

Male nurses? WTF AM I RIGHT.
>> ^Unsung_Hero:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^KnivesOut:
What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?
Christ, would you please go back and read my post? I've already said I want "more capable, passionate scientists".
>> ^KnivesOut:
The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?
You I doubt you'll get "more smart people". The percentage of "smart people" will stay the same as it roughly always has. You'll just get more mediocre people doing things they're not good at.
That said, more scientific literacy can't be a bad thing. But I'm not arguing against more people in science. I'm asking why we need more of insert-demograhpic-here in science. I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is. This kind of thing just feels like quota filling.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.
I'm not. That's a pretty selfish attitude to be honest. I would rather see those people doing something they're good at, or at least something they like.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.

I don't disagree with promoting science.
So far, even if you agree with the goal and methodology, it's a complete fail. This wouldn't convince a single teenage girl that science is cool. The ones that think it's nerdy will have that confirmed to them by this desperate attempt to be cool and the ones that like science will be disgusted by this patronising bullshit.
Now if there are barriers to women in science, they should be removed.

I just wanted to be part of this extremely long quoted comment. Are we near the record yet!?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^KnivesOut:
What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?
Christ, would you please go back and read my post? I've already said I want "more capable, passionate scientists".
>> ^KnivesOut:
The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?
You I doubt you'll get "more smart people". The percentage of "smart people" will stay the same as it roughly always has. You'll just get more mediocre people doing things they're not good at.
That said, more scientific literacy can't be a bad thing. But I'm not arguing against more people in science. I'm asking why we need more of insert-demograhpic-here in science. I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is. This kind of thing just feels like quota filling.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.
I'm not. That's a pretty selfish attitude to be honest. I would rather see those people doing something they're good at, or at least something they like.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.

I don't disagree with promoting science.
So far, even if you agree with the goal and methodology, it's a complete fail. This wouldn't convince a single teenage girl that science is cool. The ones that think it's nerdy will have that confirmed to them by this desperate attempt to be cool and the ones that like science will be disgusted by this patronising bullshit.
Now if there are barriers to women in science, they should be removed.


I just wanted to be part of this extremely long quoted comment. Are we near the record yet!?

>> ^KnivesOut:

What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?

Christ, would you please go back and read my post? I've already said I want "more capable, passionate scientists".

>> ^KnivesOut:

The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?

You I doubt you'll get "more smart people". The percentage of "smart people" will stay the same as it roughly always has. You'll just get more mediocre people doing things they're not good at.

That said, more scientific literacy can't be a bad thing. But I'm not arguing against more people in science. I'm asking why we need more of insert-demograhpic-here in science. I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is. This kind of thing just feels like quota filling.

>> ^KnivesOut:

I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.

I'm not. That's a pretty selfish attitude to be honest. I would rather see those people doing something they're good at, or at least something they like.

>> ^KnivesOut:

I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.


I don't disagree with promoting science.

So far, even if you agree with the goal and methodology, it's a complete fail. This wouldn't convince a single teenage girl that science is cool. The ones that think it's nerdy will have that confirmed to them by this desperate attempt to be cool and the ones that like science will be disgusted by this patronising bullshit.

Now if there are barriers to women in science, they should be removed.

It's a super food retreat! That was incredibly nerdy but somehow pretty funny.

>> ^legacy0100:

My god that kid is terrifying LOL LOL LOL


Are you referring to the nerdy/geeky guy at the end? If so, then that is an actor. He is in many television/TV shows/series (e.g., Chuck) and movies.

I didn't know this topic caused fights. This is my first time seeing it on the internet. I happened to figure it out by myself a few months ago, and ran it by a nerdy friend who said they are synonymous. So hopefully others haven't seen it either and will enjoy yet another one of Vi Hart's amazing videos.

Besides, this is the Sift. People here are a bit more open-minded to new concepts and changing their understanding of things than in the average internet joint. I predict a 9.999...sion-free sift (your comment excepted). >> ^VoodooV:

not this crap again. You do know this proves nothing other than how easy it is to start an internet fight.

nerdy, quirky, campy, tacky, but awesome that she said yes

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I've been talking to some of my Chinese colleagues and they tell me that there are VAST amounts of traffic to MegaUpload type sites throughout Asia that are dark to the Western world because of the language barrier.

This problem isn't going to go away. The copying cat is out of the bag, but there is a big upside that a lot of people don't acknowledge:

Millions more eyeballs are watching movies than would have is they weren't shared. The trick is harnessing this in a "free" setting. In the short term, we're probably talking about embedding things into the movies that are hard to strip - like product placements - as annoying as they are.

In the long term there may be other creative solutions. I was listening to this very nerdy podcast about the old Infocom text adventure games like Zork - and they mentioned their use of "feelies" as a form of copy protection. Perhaps, as movies become more interactive - this will be an option.

(1)......NASA responds by buying MySpace & they claim ownership of the ENTIRE known Universe.

(2)......Correct, it flops because you can only watch THEIR programmes.

(3)......They change their name to "Amazonflix" & are sued by a small porno company with the same name.

(4)......Not a chance.

(5)......See (4)

(6)......Well, at least we agree on something.

(7)......Too nerdy for me, I'll take your word for it.

(8)......See (7)

(9)......I honestly didn't know they had oil.

(10)......YouTube being aware of this invades the site in a sneak attack & sets about destroying it.....realising only too late that most of the embeds are from it's own site & ends up destroying itself from within.