Printable View
But it is looks nonetheless. A specific look might be more attractive to one male and not another but it is looks first and foremost. It doesn't matter what kind of person she is, what her accomplishments are or what her abilities are if she is not attractive in his eyes, i.e. she doesn't look good to him, he's never going to be interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
This is why I added the caveat about long term companionship. If a man is looking for a friends with benefits type thing or a one night fling, he will overlook all manner ugliness in her personality provided she is attractive enough. In contrast, a woman can overlook a man's unattractiveness in looks if he is charismatic enough. No amount of charisma can make an unattractive looking woman attractive to a man as it can for a man looking to attract a woman. This is the basic difference between a man and a woman in the mating game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
It's the post race!Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Are you sure? Some women are nice, some are just plain horrible. I maintain that it is a combination of looks and content that is ultimately attractive or repulsive to any particular man. As we get to see how women look before we get to know them looks are the first point of focus, and a physical match can last a few weeks or months, but for a relationship to last any longer it also necessitates an intellectual and emotional match. I envision that over time men will be willing to accept less than their perfect looking match to get their perfect intellectual and emotional match.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
For one night perhaps, but not much longer, at least if he is astute. Although I know a fellow who is really into nasty women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Also perhaps, but I think you are talking about a two way street.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
I am not convinced Niya, I am not sure if the relationships you are talking about will actually last. If a couple is not matched physically, intellectually, and emotionally then I doubt it will last very long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
What physical attributes do you value in a woman Sharky?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Focusing on the biggest, tallest, and most overbearing man is a very primitive approach that many species of animal adhere to like the elephant seals I just mentioned. Further, I would view any companies actively discriminating against high calibre little men as quite dim, almost certainly unfriendly, and unlikely to progess further than achieving some sort of limited boyish success. Who wants to work for that type of company when you can work for a friendly and enlightened company that actually cares for its staff instead? 1337Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
We had some story book that featured her assisting some young girl as something of a mentor. I don't remember anything about the story other than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
I doubt any company does that (outside of some professional sports leagues) directly. The fact that the average height of CEOs is FAR above the average height of the population at large doesn't mean that the company is actively discriminating against average or shorter people. It's not a random process that produces such a lopsided result, though. That doesn't mean its conscious, but it is happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
In general, I agree with you.....and then I go to Wal-Mart.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
You said that "Tall men are treated differently (better) than shorter men, and this translates into better average job advancement" and that means you are saying that there is a lot of active discrimination against short men particularly in many companies where they preferentially promote taller men based only on their size and a larger than life attitude. I actually agree with you, I have met and witnessed many folks and companies who treat short men as inferior and designed only to serve their gigantic masters. I also found them to be very dim, if they were machines they would be dumb terminals, and also morally questionable, typically being consciously involved in some type of criminal activities. Even so short prime ministers and presidents are often elected to run the countries of the world, meaning there are also large segments of society that either do not see being little as a disadvantage or view it as preferable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
It's an average. That doesn't mean that EVERY CEO is tall, just that they are taller than the average for the society. There are short prime ministers and presidents, but is the average prime minister or president at the average height for their society? Once again, Google provides:Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
The average height of the presidents is 5' 11". The average height for men in US society is just under 5'8", but that is just for current society, We have gotten taller as our diet and health improved, so one might expect that the average for US presidents was even further abover the average for society in the 1776-1900 range. Here's an article that shows the heights and more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights..._United_States
Note that since the age of television, the shortest presidents were Truman, then Carter, and they are neither is in the bottom quarter of height. Note that the article goes on to say that the taller candidate doesn't always win, but they won about two thirds of the time, and that also shows that the average height of candidates is higher than the average for society. In fact, of the main contenders for the presidency, there are only a few that were shorter than the modern average male height in this society. The vast majority are above average in height.
You have your average heights a bit off there Sharky, Wiki says that it is 176.3 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in) for All American males 20+, and 178.9 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in) for White Americans 20–39 (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templa...ound_the_world). Although I am not convinced that Wiki bases its numbers on census data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Also that articles outlines that "The overall average height of U.S. presidents is roughly 5’9″, which is also the average height of American males.":
http://www.themodestman.com/the-shor...-s-presidents/
To double check I calculated that the 43 presidents listed had a total collective height of 7536cm or an average of 175cm (5 ft 9 inches). I can't double check the average height data for the rest of society but I have to assume it is approximately correct, meaning that the average height of the presidents in the U.S. roughly parallels the average height in the rest of society.
The article I cited also indicates that:
'You’ve probably heard the “statistic” about the role of height in presidential elections. It goes something like this:
“Since the advent of the televised debate, the taller of two major-party presidential candidates usually wins the election.” '
'When you look at the actual statistics, it turns out that the taller candidate has [only] won 53% of all U.S. elections.' meaning that height is a very unreliable or meaningless predictor of presidential success.
I also noticed that in many cases when the taller man won there was only 0.5 to 1 inch difference essentially making any conclusions regarding height meaningless.
Well Bambi, you looked at different web sites than I did. I suppose I should have linked to whatever census information site I got those numbers from, but I didn't, and don't feel like going looking for it again. It's all crap anyways. Height hasn't stayed the same over time. As populations eat better, their average height increases. In grad school I stayed in a dorm built in the 1800's. The doorway to my room was shorter than I am by a few inches. That was good enough for most people, at the time, and I suppose it is still good enough for most people, but you don't find doorways that short anymore (it was 6 to 6-2" and not exactly level due to some settling of the foundation over the century).
So, comparing the average height of people today to the average height of presidents over the last couple centuries is kind of innacurate. A better measure would be to compare the average heigh of each president to the average height of the male population at the time, but I wasn't able to find that information.
By the way, here's the site I used for the average height of the presidents:
http://www.presidenstory.com/stat_tal.php
You can check those stats, as well, but it still doesn't matter if you compare them to the modern average height of US men. The 10 shortest presidents were all from the 1800s and earlier. The jump in height may have been since 1910, or later.
I missed the chance for a foque joke.
Oh really? You're into foque humor?
Without having the data in front of me I can only suggest that the average heights in various countries of the world have increased and decreased overtime for a variety of reasons, and that stunted growth due to malnutrition is only one of those factors that only impacts the average height when a large proportion of the country are effected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
As height and weight varies over time the next issue is trying to determine the optimal average height and weight.
Getting too small, like the Vatican City, may result in a strange mouse like outcome due to insufficient capacity
http://images.firstcovers.com/covers...n-973022.jpg?i
while trying to grow ever larger like a fish, gator, or snake generates a desire and motive to take over the universe.
http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs...h.jpg?ts=93246
Thus the West may be in danger of growing too large, shifting towards a focus on the largest continent, and turning silver. Some have even begun to call the U.S. Chimerica.
Without any further data I was only able to conclude that the average height of the U.S. presidents roughly matches (or is slightly less) than the average height of U.S. males.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
That site doesn't provide the data to check the calculations, and if the Wiki page re the presidential heights is correct then those numbers are clearly incorrect and ostensibly designed to generate a false myth regarding presidential height. The true average height of all U.S. presidents is slightly less than 5'9.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Or slightly less? So, two sources disagree with you, and you have concluded that presidents are shorter than the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
In other words, you have decided which of the data points is right and which is wrong and are comparing that to the current US average male height, right?Quote:
That site doesn't provide the data to check the calculations, and if the Wiki page re the presidential heights is correct then those numbers are clearly incorrect and ostensibly designed to generate a false myth regarding presidential height. The true average height of all U.S. presidents is slightly less than 5'9.
By the way, your source in 56835 is incorrect. The average height of the presidents isn't 'about 5' 9"', according to both of the sites I linked to, both of which shows the heights of the presidents, the average height is 5' 11" over all time, which at over 179cm is taller than the average US male in your own figures.
I don't know where you got the figures you said you checked, but you calculated the values wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
So far you have only provided one source Sharky that says the average height of U.S. presidents is 180cm (5'11):Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
http://www.presidenstory.com/stat_tal.php
However as I already outlined, that article does not provide the source data for the average height calculation meaning the reader has to simply believe and trust that the writer is correct and is not artificially inflating the figure. I have already manually calculated the average height of all the U.S. presidents provided by Wiki here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height..._United_States
I originally calculated that the 43 presidents listed had a total collective height of 7536cm or an average of 175cm.
However, I just redid the calculations, to double check my own work, and found that I didn't include one of the presidents to get that number.
So my revised numbers are 7729 cms for the 43 presidents which is an average of 179.74 cms or 5 feet and 10.76 inches.
I found the average height of men in the U.S. here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templa...ound_the_world
The average male height for all Americans 20+ is 176.3 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
White Americans males 20–39 have an average height of 178.9 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
Which means that the average height of the U.S. presidents is about the average height of white males in the U.S.
Hmmm in this case you are right, after double checking my numbers I did locate an error.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharky
However, what is the optimal average height and weight?
According to Wiki the average human weighs 62kg,
but in the U.S. the average male weighs 88.3 kg (194.7 lb) and the average female weighs 74.7 kg (164.7 lb).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_weight
By comparison:
"The adult cheetah weighs from 21 to 72 kg (46 to 159 lb)" - Wiki
Wild male gorillas weigh 135 to 180 kg - Wiki
"The size of adult lions varies across their range with those from the southern African populations in Rhodesia, Kalahari and Kruger Park averaging around 189.6 kg (418 lb) and 126.9 kg (280 lb) in males and females respectively compared to 174.9 kg (386 lb) and 119.5 kg (263 lb) of male and female lions from East Africa." - Wiki
"Most adult female grizzlies weigh 130–200 kg (290–440 lb), while adult males weigh on average 180–360 kg (400–790 lb)." - Wiki
"Adult male spotted hyenas in the Serengeti weigh 40.5—55.0 kg (89—121 lb), while females weigh 44.5—63.9 kg (98—141 lb). Spotted hyenas in Zambia tend to be heavier, with males weighing on average 67.6 kg (149 lb), and females 69.2 kg (153 lb)." - Wiki
COURAGE WOLF!!!
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instanc...0/10734292.jpg
Actually, Bambi, I made almost the same error you did, initially. The president you left out was Lincoln, probably due to a copy/paste quirk from the web page. What I did differently was divide by 42 rather than 43, so my calculation came out to a fraction of an inch lower than the true value. Having corrected my mistake, I came up with the same result that you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
The difference in the average height of men 20+ vs 20-39 is telling for a couple reasons. The more interesting is that we begin to shrink sometime in our 30s. All the presidents have been old enough to have seen some shrinkage. I wonder whether the reported heights were their maximum, the height when elected, or something else?
Whatever it is, Taft wasn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
I was in the pool!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Not at all. You're engaging in a debate on an interesting topic and are putting forward your arguments pretty well. My prior post was really just calling you out on the feigned wide eyed innocence of comments like 'the "objectification of women" whatever that means'. I don't think there can be much debate that the sort of comic book art you were posting objectifies women, it clearly does. The interesting question is whether that's acceptable and where the lines get drawn (no pun intended).Quote:
You guys may think I'm joking or trolling here
Objectification of both men and women has gone on throughout history. You've only got to look some of the carvings archaeologists have dug up to see that. It's hard to argue that Michael Angelo's David isn't an objectification of the male form. We've been doing it since we first painted on cave walls. Sometimes we call it art, sometimes we call it pornography and deciding which is which can be pretty damn difficult at times.
Personally I didn't find the pictures offensive (although I'm rather disappointed I didn't see the one with the visible nipple - I missed out there) but I'm also aware that whenever I opened post race at work I'd scroll through them pretty quick because I didn't want anyone looking over my shoulder to get the wrong idea. That's probably a pretty good indication that they didn't really belong on a professional forum. In a comic book forum or an art forum, on the other hand, they'd be right at home. So my take would be, cool art, wrong venue.
Of course, this is chit chat and the rules here are a bit looser than the rest of the forum so it's much more of a grey area than if you'd posted them in, say, the database development section. Grey enough, in fact, that myself and other moderators have been in the thread and hadn't felt the need to police it - even if I, at least, was aware that they were "on the line". Fortunately we're blessed with a final arbiter for grey areas... and his name is Brad.;)
Hell yes!Quote:
by that definition the entire movie industry is based on objectification
BTW, where are you from? I'd always assumed you were American but only because I tend to assume that of forum members by default (there's just so damn many Americans on the internet)
When it comes to lines, Niya grades on the curve.
I'm not so sure. If I was David, I'd be feeling a bit short changed. Maybe he was in the pool, too?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I always assumed that, too, though on this forum...there's clearly no Brita' filter. The forum has British roots, and still a pretty strong British influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Yes - there was visible nipple and a whole lot of "gap" - I was trying to figure out how to hack all this as a member only site but Pay Pal required Brad's home phone # - and I only have his mobile...Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Plus I was trying to do it in VB6...
I thought the whole point was that David slayed the "bigger" dude with just his pea-shooter...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
A real estate developer in my town has a full-size bronze replica of David in front of his main buildings. The local PTA wanted to stop the day care buses from looping the parking lot.
Opinions are so one-sided...
Why does the POST's I just made above have "RE: VB6 is DEAD!"????
.-- .-- .-- .-.-.- ...- -... ..-. --- .-. ..- -- ... .-.-.- -.-. --- --
Yep, it turns out that I didn't include Lincoln the first time I did the calculations hence the lower number which I only noticed when I double checked my double check.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Shrinkage heh. Actually I am more interested in determining the optimal average height for humans as that would assist in determining the optimal height for cybermen. I think the key initial issue is becoming aware that there are problems associated with making cybermen either too small or too large. I imagine that many folk either focus on the tallest or the smallest and completely dismiss those close to the average and their view on average height is probably the same i.e. if they focus on the tallest then they want the average height to grow indefinitely, if they focus on the smallest then they want the average height to shrink indefinitely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
"Males in most hyena species are larger than females,[19] though the spotted hyena is exceptional, as it is the female of the species that outweighs and dominates the male." Spotted Hyenas are the largest species of hyena and in Zambia the males weigh "on average 67.6 kg (149 lb), and females 69.2 kg." - WikiQuote:
Originally Posted by Niya
The gray wolf (largest wolf) has "males averaging 43–45 kg (95–99 lb), and females 36–38.5 kg (79–85 lb)." - Wiki
For African wild dogs the "Adults typically weigh 18–36 kilograms (40–79 lb)." males are usually 3–7% larger. -Wiki
Speeds are said to be:
Greyhound...........74 km/h (46 mph)
African wild dog ...71 km/h (44 mph)
Hyena ................60 km/h (37 mph)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_animals
However, this BBC site states that "The 2006 edition of the Guinness Book of Records records the highest speed at which any greyhound has been timed at (in 1994) as 41.83 miles per hour [67.3 kph]."
source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-london/plain/A8246225
So there seems to be quite a bit of exaggeration going on re speeds, so be very wary.
Barrk reminds me of a spotted hyena.
"Despite their enormous size, brown bears are extremely fast, having been clocked at speeds of 30 miles per hour (48 kilometers per hour)."
Source: http://animals.nationalgeographic.co...ls/brown-bear/
Thus any large brown bear will probably have quite a lot of difficulties against a pack of African wild dogs, wolves, or spotted hyenas. Wiki confirms that "the individual power of the bear against the collective strength of the wolf pack usually results in a long battle for kills or domination". As far as I can tell the brown bears aren't fast enough to catch the faster dogs including hyenas, wolves, and African wild dogs which relegates the bears to scavengers in areas where they both compete, and that means that the bears often follow the dogs around when they are hungry. Smaller female bears are in danger of falling prey to a pack of dogs, although a pack often chooses not to fight the larger male brown bears, even if they are likely to win, as the fight may result in the death or serious injury of one or more members of the pack. However, if a pack of dogs was forced to fight a large male brown bear, where the collective weight of the pack weighed less than or equal to the bear's weight, I would put my money on the dogs.
I have seen some documentaries where the presenter interprets the dogs' refusal to fight large male bears as submission, e.g.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmfX-bogZdU
However, I don't agree with the interpretation. The bear in the video is clearly behaving as a scavenger and following the wolves to get some food and the bear is not fast enough to catch and kill any member of the pack. The dogs are clearly the dominant predator frequently taking the female bears and cubs as prey and certainly capable of taking the larger males even though there is a larger risk involved. All the dogs have to do to kill the bear is get one or more of the pack to distract the bear while the rest bite it on the ass.
William Howard Taft was 5 ft 11 1⁄2 in 182 cm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
So you reckon 6ft tall and
Based on the Robinson formula (1983), your ideal weight is 164.9 lbs (75 kg)
Based on the Miller formula (1983), your ideal weight is 161.2 lbs (73 kg)
Based on the Devine formula (1974), your ideal weight is 171.1 lbs (77 kg)
Based on the Hamwi formula (1964), your ideal weight is 177.2 lbs (80kg)
Based on the healthy BMI recommendation, your recommended weight is 136.4 lbs - 184.3 lbs (62 -83 kg)
Hmmm at around 80kg that is heavier than cheetahs and hyenas, more like a small bear:
"An adult grizzly living inland in Yukon may weigh as little as 80 kg (180 lb), while an adult coastal brown bear in nearby coastal Alaska living on a steady, nutritious diet of spawning salmon may weigh as much as 680 kg (1,500 lb)." - Wiki
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-12GzbxKp5K...grylls_08.jpg?http://static2.beanscdn.co.uk/module..._sting.jpg.jpg
B.T.W. that really did happen to Bear Grylls and his face really did swell that much.
Alternativly the Japanese Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus japonicus), weighs "between 60–120 kg for the adult male and 40–100 kg for the adult female".
Louisiana Black Bears are heavier than I thought.
Heh, yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Whoops, that was probably me. I accidentally posted in VB6 is dead then used my magical modding powers to move the post into here. Guess it changed the title at the same time.Quote:
Why does the POST's I just made above have "RE: VB6 is DEAD!"????
Modding Fail!
I've been sick the past two days.
Throwing up.
Fever.
Sleep.
Blah :sick:
Pressure getting to you, old man?
Nope, I think it was bad steak.
There's no such thing as bad steak. Steak is always good. Must be Psychosematic.