About the male-female thing: it seems to me that the body suits are a more drastic change from male briefs compared to "conventional" female suits.
Conversely, the change from the Duke Kahanamoku suit (forums.usms.org/showthread.php to the brief represented a greater change for men than that era's women's suit to the present ones (mostly a change in leg and arm coverage). So, as Geek asks: what era do we freeze the technology into?
Max Planck had a take on this for the development of Physics: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (see en.wikipedia.org/.../Paradigm_shift). We can replace 'scientific truth' in the above with the 'technological development' and have a perfectly applicable adaptation of Planck's statement.
One thing I have learned in 66 years of being alive. You simply can't win an argument one-on-one with anyone. There is too much personal ego and emotion involved. The only arguments that can be won are the purely formal ones judged by a group of supposedly neutral individuals. That's why science can develop at all and that's why our esteemed councilor from DC can win cases occasionally. Otherwise, arguing is just a waste of time.
Hmmm. Does that mean that I should find something more productive to do? But wait, it's so much fun to show everyone how smart you are and how incredibly dense the other guy is...
About the male-female thing: it seems to me that the body suits are a more drastic change from male briefs compared to "conventional" female suits.
Conversely, the change from the Duke Kahanamoku suit (forums.usms.org/showthread.php to the brief represented a greater change for men than that era's women's suit to the present ones (mostly a change in leg and arm coverage). So, as Geek asks: what era do we freeze the technology into?
Max Planck had a take on this for the development of Physics: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (see en.wikipedia.org/.../Paradigm_shift). We can replace 'scientific truth' in the above with the 'technological development' and have a perfectly applicable adaptation of Planck's statement.
One thing I have learned in 66 years of being alive. You simply can't win an argument one-on-one with anyone. There is too much personal ego and emotion involved. The only arguments that can be won are the purely formal ones judged by a group of supposedly neutral individuals. That's why science can develop at all and that's why our esteemed councilor from DC can win cases occasionally. Otherwise, arguing is just a waste of time.
Hmmm. Does that mean that I should find something more productive to do? But wait, it's so much fun to show everyone how smart you are and how incredibly dense the other guy is...
