Although I know how fast computers are getting it's only very recently that I've fully registered how far things have gone.
I recently downloaded Microsoft's 'Small Basic' and have used it for a few mathematical investigations. Yesterday I ran a program involving nested loops which would have involved carrying out a calculation and performing a test a million times. It took barely a second to finish !!
Tuesday, 26 April 2016
Saturday, 23 April 2016
Private Parts in Public Places
Recent debates about who should use which public lavatory have set me thinking about what reasons there might be for segregating the sexes.
Urinals seem to be the key. They must be cheaper to construct, and are certainly quicker to use, than cubicles, and yet are only useful to those who have functioning penises. On the other hand, those using urinals might be shy if observed in the act by others without penises. Freudians used to talk about 'Penis Envy'; perhaps some men are afraid of that even if few women are actually envious.
It therefore seems sensible to have urinals, and to restrict access to those able to use them.
Cubicles, on the other hand, may be used indifferently by people of any physical configuration, except that women sometimes complain that men who use cubicles standing up can make a mess.
That suggests public lavatories with three area: a common area with cubicles anyone may use, an area with urinals only open to those equipped to use them, and a third area with cubicles accessible only to those unable to perform standing up.
Converting existing lavatories would take a while, and a rule segregating people according to their possession or lack of a penis would be most inconvenient to enforce,so the only sensible interim solution is that people who look like women use the ladies' and those who look like men use the gents, which is what already happens most of the time.
Absurd legislation to the contrary in at least one US state appears to me to be just irrational spite by vindictive ignoramuses.
Urinals seem to be the key. They must be cheaper to construct, and are certainly quicker to use, than cubicles, and yet are only useful to those who have functioning penises. On the other hand, those using urinals might be shy if observed in the act by others without penises. Freudians used to talk about 'Penis Envy'; perhaps some men are afraid of that even if few women are actually envious.
It therefore seems sensible to have urinals, and to restrict access to those able to use them.
Cubicles, on the other hand, may be used indifferently by people of any physical configuration, except that women sometimes complain that men who use cubicles standing up can make a mess.
That suggests public lavatories with three area: a common area with cubicles anyone may use, an area with urinals only open to those equipped to use them, and a third area with cubicles accessible only to those unable to perform standing up.
Converting existing lavatories would take a while, and a rule segregating people according to their possession or lack of a penis would be most inconvenient to enforce,so the only sensible interim solution is that people who look like women use the ladies' and those who look like men use the gents, which is what already happens most of the time.
Absurd legislation to the contrary in at least one US state appears to me to be just irrational spite by vindictive ignoramuses.
Tuesday, 19 April 2016
The Abolition of Women
I've just read that Young Greens no longer refer to female members as 'women', preferring to call them 'non-men'.
see: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/18/green-party-scraps-women-non-men-transgender/
I suspect that is biologically unsound. I gather that the 'basic' human form is female, so there would be a stronger case for referring to men as 'non-women'.
An amusing possibility would be to combine both neologisms to produce an infinite regress.
see: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/18/green-party-scraps-women-non-men-transgender/
I suspect that is biologically unsound. I gather that the 'basic' human form is female, so there would be a stronger case for referring to men as 'non-women'.
An amusing possibility would be to combine both neologisms to produce an infinite regress.
Sunday, 17 April 2016
Second Choice
As the election of Police and Crime Commissioners approaches, I note that we shall be allowed a second choice.
That is a feeble approximation to the Alternative vote which the Government felt unable to introduce in parliamentary elections without holding a referendum, yet there was no referendum about the election of the Commissioners, nor, so far as I know, has there been any demand for such a referendum.
That is a feeble approximation to the Alternative vote which the Government felt unable to introduce in parliamentary elections without holding a referendum, yet there was no referendum about the election of the Commissioners, nor, so far as I know, has there been any demand for such a referendum.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
Posts
