×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Man Uses Drake Equation To Explain Girlfriend Woes

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the less-math-more-social-science dept.

Math 538

artemis67 writes "A man studying in London has taken a mathematical equation that predicts the possibility of alien life in the universe to explain why he can't find a girlfriend. Peter Backus, a native of Seattle and PhD candidate and Teaching Fellow in the Department of Economics at the University of Warwick, near London, in his paper, 'Why I don't have a girlfriend: An application of the Drake Equation to love in the UK,' used math to estimate the number of potential girlfriends in the UK. In describing the paper on the university Web site he wrote 'the results are not encouraging. The probability of finding love in the UK is only about 100 times better than the probability of finding intelligent life in our galaxy.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

538 comments

Stunt (4, Funny)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758526)

Common, this is just a stunt in order to get his picture all over the net in order to find a girlfriend !

He must count on the fact that girls will try to prove him wrong or that girls will be pleased to be the one in a million girl.

Brilliant tactic although... ;-))

Re:Stunt (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758612)

*sob*

I knew there's a downside of my attempt to make painstakingly certain there's no pic of me on the web...

Re:Stunt (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30758926)

naw -- you're probably better off if they don't know what you look like.

idle (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30758790)

WTF. This belongs in idle where I won't see it.

Re:idle (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30758864)

Agreed. How does this in ANY way belong in the science section of slashdot?

Re:idle (5, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759114)

How does this in ANY way belong in the science section of slashdot?

Right. Any story about a mathematician finding a girlfriend should be in the science fiction section.

Re:Stunt (5, Funny)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758880)

No no no, this was a bad idea entirely. Now if he does find someone, he won't be able to tell her "you're the only one", he just proved there are 25 other women he would like to be with!

Re:Stunt (4, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759220)

"Hey, I want to settle down. And as soon as I find the right small group of girls, the seven or eight women who are right for me, my wandering days are over, buddy!"

Re:Stunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30758948)

Common, this is just a stunt in order to get his picture all over the net in order to find a girlfriend !

I thought it was quite an uncommon approach actually

Re:Stunt (1)

lcarnevale (1691570) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758970)

Quite brilliant indeed, but I think approaching a girl and just talk to her will be less time consuming and with A LOT more of success rate than this, shall I call it "experiment"?

Re:Stunt (5, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759014)

I wouldn't be surprised if the probability of a person finding a girlfriend is inversely correlated to how likely they are to attempt to calculate the probability of finding a girlfriend. ;)

Re:Stunt (2, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759084)

Common, this is just a stunt in order to get his picture all over the net in order to find a girlfriend !

Either way it debunks the Drake Equation in a humorous and easy to understand way. That gives it a plus in my book.

Re:Stunt (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759196)

In only needs debunking if you assume Drake was a drooling moron, the equation has served very well when used as a device to frame that particular discussion.

Re:Stunt (0, Troll)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759190)

He’s not really shining a nice light on himself. More like a loser who fails at women, and uses some ridiculous “explanation” to justify why he’s not a failure. (Not saying that he is, though.)

I know exactly why he’s not getting a girlfriend. It’s very simple, once you get it. Unfortunately a real (nearly scientific) explanation takes 24 hours of video time [btjunkie.org] , since it’s so hard to put it into words.

wellll. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30758530)

What about...

fraction of women who would find him attractive.
fraction of women who are hetro/bisexual.
fraction of women who wont think hes a dick for assuming love is as easy as guesstimating a few numbers.

Re:wellll. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30758838)

1) he assumed 1 in 20
2) he ignored this bit
3) he assumes 1 in 10 will get along with him

Next time just RTFA before you ask dumb questions.

passive and whiny (2, Interesting)

drDugan (219551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758568)

The pdf:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/phd_students/backus/why_i_dont_have_a_girlfriend.pdf [warwick.ac.uk]

After getting Fox news coverage and front page Slashdotting N* is
now significantly higher than the paper estimate. Think 10-100x.

f(L) is fraction of people in London from N*. Why limit
yourself to London? You or your partner might move, travel,
visit friends, soon even if you're looking for love!
Even within London, the author doesn't count people movement -
those who come to London over time.

Further, the author forgets that most all people *like* to find
productive partnerships. Unlike SETI, where we have no evidence
that the other party is looking for us, we know that women like
to find great men just as much you want to find an "attractive,
age-appropriate woman with a University education".

Worst, the author spent time write why he "can't find" a partner
when he would be better served getting out there doing activities
he loves with other people and having a great time life. Then
other people will find him, and help find others.

Truly be yourself and it is uniquely attractive.

Re:passive and whiny (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758680)

I agree with what you say, most of the time people just don't put the effort into it. Not only that the guy sounds like a bit of a douchebag, why would you EVER use mathematics for human relationships? Sounds like a bad idea of limiting your horizons and he assumes he knows what kinds of women would be able to charm him or get along with.

If there is anything about my experience with human beigns is - you don't know shit and have to keep pushing on and meeting people, if you add up all the people you've ever met in your life (not alot for some nerds lets face it), statistically speaking they focus too much energy into their own self directed pursuits and not enough into just relaxing and meeting others.

Re:passive and whiny (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30758808)

Yeah I've heard this attitude before, to quote some random person on the internet:

"Math and science are cold and hard and mean. And male and white. Wrong answers kill puppies." - Joanne Jacobs

Also yes, he's disgusting douchebag, but since he's going to college, young, his face doesn't suck and not a midget he does have a girlfriend. Women are every bit as shallow as men. They are much more self-righteously dishonest about being as shallow as men though.

Re:passive and whiny (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758956)

You sound like someone who doesn't have much in the way of standards. Sorry, but there are a lot of things (totally side from looks) that make a person totally un-datable and the sad fact of life is, unless you have no standards, the overwhelming majority of people in the world are un-datable - which then leaves only a small group of people for you to date, which then makes it even harder to find "the one".

Face it, even if you spend every minute of your life "relaxing and meeting others", there's still an extremely high chance that you won't find "the one".

Re:passive and whiny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30759352)

apply statistics in the other direction. Considering how many people say they find "the one" and the relative ease with which they find them (considering how few people as a percentage of the population people actually meet) leads only to the conclusion that on this densely populated planet there must be several women who, with time, you could end up thinking are "the one" for you.

This isn't gonna help. (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758582)

Writing a paper relating love to reason and math may actually change the probability. Love is not reasonable and can not be reasoned with.

Re:This isn't gonna help. (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758646)

Actually it's not reasonable, but predictable. There is actually a (more or less) general consensus on beauty. Basically it revolves around our liking for healthy looking partners that look like they could be partners to viable offspring with.

Generally, the pale, skinny (or grossly overweight) basement dweller isn't it.

Re:This isn't gonna help. (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758836)

I said love not beauty, there is a significant difference in the two. Beauty is much closer to lust than love.

Re:This isn't gonna help. (5, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758918)

Love, too, is surprisingly predictable. Take two people who would not automatically rule each other out romantically, put them in frequent contact with each other, give each a significant need (sexual or not) that isn't being met in their life but is met through the other, and odds are surprisingly high that they'll end up in a relationship. And there are all sorts of actions that dramatically increase the odds. For example, confessing your feelings to another person tends to encourage them to reciprocate even if they hadn't had the feelings before. That's why the #1 and #2 rules for if you're trying to avoid having an affair are that if you develop feelings for someone else, immediately cut off contact with the person insomuch as is possible and *never* confess your feelings to them.

Re:This isn't gonna help. (2, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759214)

What are the #1 and #2 rules for avoiding stabbing a random stranger on the street?

It seems my booklet got lost in the mail, so I thought I would ask you.

Re:This isn't gonna help. (1)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758652)

Sounds like someone doesn't understand Statistics.

Re:This isn't gonna help. (3, Funny)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758886)

Sounds like someone doesn't understand Statistics.

Of course not! 90% of people don't, and 150% of people know that. Duh!

Re:This isn't gonna help. (2, Funny)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758658)

So what you are saying is love is affected by the uncertainty principal and to observe it or attempt to quantify it in a meaningful manner fundamentally changes it?

Re:This isn't gonna help. (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758902)

Love is not reasonable and can not be reasoned with.

So love is like the terminator. I'll be Backus.

You'd get more lovin' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30759092)

If you were Bacchus.

So essentially (0)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758596)

He's set personal standards that are virtually impossible to meet. That would be his problem, not the female population's.

Re:So essentially (2, Insightful)

IshmaelDS (981095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758826)

He's set personal standards that are virtually impossible to meet. That would be his problem, not the female population's.

Are you kidding me? All he wants is a person around his age, living in the same city, with a university education, and that he finds attractive. That is not "virtually impossible" the only thing there that is probably different than 90+% of what everyone is looking for is the university education, and I wouldn't even be sure it's that different. Now, having said that I don't think using math like this is all that great an idea, though it could work.

Re:So essentially (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759058)

and that he finds attractive

That is precisely where his personal standards are guaranteed to out of sync with reality. It's not really a problem for anyone but him, though... whatever predisposition he has in this department is unlikely to get propagated any further in the gene pool, as he's unlikely to reproduce.

Re:So essentially (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759086)

His standards of attractiveness alone only apply to 2.5% of his age group (5% of females). Those are ridiculously high standards. Then he narrows it further by requiring them to live in the exact same city (yeah, nice goal, but it doesn't always work out that way) and have a similar education.

Compare this to the average high school where every other kid pairs up with someone in the same school. What does his Drake equation have to say about that?

The Bundy Creed (3, Funny)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759306)

Hooters hooters, yum yum yum.
Hooter hooters, on a girl that's dumb.

What's all this education he's looking for?

Re:So essentially (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30758888)

luckily for him, HE GOT THE MATH WRONG.

He forgot that women are picky too, so the fact that he's got a lot going for him makes him much more attractive to women in his target group than if the selection was random.

Re:So essentially (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758998)

I skimmed the TFA and saw no mention of what his standards are.

It sounds more like you are a typical nerd and your only standard is "female who will talk to me". People looking for a real relationship have standards, even if it means that they'll end up alone for life - it's better to be single than to end up marrying the wrong person.

Re:So essentially (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759074)

Actually, I have a gorgeous wife who also happens to be quite intelligent. I've got standards, all right... they're just not so far out of sync with reality that I've failed to find a mate. His are.

Re:So essentially (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759206)

Oh yes, wanting more than just "smart and pretty" is "out of sync with reality". How about some pretty simple things such as "having shared hobbies" and "similar values / religion" or "similar sense of humor". It doesn't take a long list of what you're looking for in a significant other to realize that it's pretty damn hard to find someone you can have a real relationship with.

Re:So essentially (1)

trentblase (717954) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759116)

He assumes only 1 in 20 women are attractive enough. Maybe I'm a horn dog, but it seems that if you lined up 20 random women MY AGE, I would find more than one attractive enough to give a chance. Either he's not accounting for correlation between the age requirements and the attractiveness requirements, or he seems extremely picky about looks.

Re:So essentially (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759228)

I dunno, have you seen the average person, regardless of country? The typical person is pretty damn ugly. Granted, I'd probably say 40% are attractive enough, but I don't have a predefined idea of what makes a girl pretty - I go by "does what they have work for them". That's why I've dated a huge variety of girls. Sadly, I've also realized that all girls are soul-sucking bitches.....which could also lead to why the guy in TFA has a hard time finding a date - maybe he's wanting a girl who's actually not a psychotic evil bitch?

Re:So essentially (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759210)

Ah but life's so much more interesting if you meet a few of the less than perfect matches on the way, and your standards might get in the way of getting to know the person that is the best fit.

Holding out for "the one" is a fools errand.

Re:So essentially (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759330)

I'm not talking about looking for someone "perfect", but living "happily ever after" with someone you can't stand only happens in movies and marriages that are covering up affairs.

Sorry that I'm not foolish enough to marry someone totally wrong and have the bitch take all my money and possessions.

Fussy much? (1)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758604)

[Drake calculated that] of the 30 million women in the UK, only 26 would be suitable girlfriends for him.

There comes a point where being too particular about a mate becomes an evolutionary disadvantage.

Long story short (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758608)

This guy is being too picky and unwilling to compromise

Re:Long story short (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758986)

Tyrol: How many of us ended up with the people we really wanted to be with? Got stuck with the best of limited options? And why? Because the ones we really wanted, the really loved, were dead, and dying, or turned out to be Cylons and they didn't know it. If Boomer had...
Adama: Listen.
Tyrol: If I had known...
Adama: Let's - let's go.
Tyrol: No. No. I didn't know.
Adama: Let's go home.
Tyrol: I didn't know. So I buried my head in the sand, and I took it, and I settled. I settled for that shriek. Those dull, vacant eyes. The boiled cabbage stench of her. And why? Because this is my life! This is the life I picked! And it's fine, but you know what? It's not! I didn't pick this life! This is not my frakkin' life!
Adama: What the hell's gotten into you? Don't do this. Don't do this to her memory.
Tyrol: You know what? I'm sorry if I'm not going to do this the way you want me to, or the way you might, but I will not make an angel out of someone who wasn't an angel. But I can see you have. And now you've come down here to be in my club. But you're not in my club. You don't know what frakking club I'm in 'cause you never ask the right questions.

What are the odds? (3, Informative)

newsdee (629448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758650)

He should try lottery or SETI@Home next. From TFA:

But in the end Backus defied the odds. Asylum reported that Backus has a girlfriend of about six months. "She's from London," he told the Web site. "And she meets all my criteria."

Good for him, but not very good for his theory...

Re:What are the odds? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759378)

Good for him, but not very good for his theory...

Please allow me to quote Howard Wolowitz from the Big Bang Theory:
"But a better way to look at this is that I'm getting sex and you're not, and that's delightful!"

In Soviet Russia... (4, Interesting)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758704)

...the chicks actually dig intelligent guys.

Really.

So do chicks from just about any eastern bloc country for that matter.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (2, Funny)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759006)

So basically you're telling us what we already know - that it's only American (and possibly Canadian) girls who only want to date morons.

Such garbage... (4, Insightful)

Taikutusu (1479335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758708)

http://xkcd.com/384/ [xkcd.com]

Congratulations, you can google some numbers and stick them into a formula. You're brilliant, and it's oh so funny to come up with bullshit statistics like "only 100 times more likely than finding intelligent life in the universe".

Self-evident reason... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30758714)

Oh come on, it's obvious. He doesn't have a girlfriend because he is the type of guy who would use the Drake equation to figure out why he doesn't have a girlfriend. Duh.

Ironically (4, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758728)

One of the reasons he can't find a girlfriend is because he is one of those people who USE the Drake equation. But seriously, look at his Criteria.

Backus found that of the 30 million women in the UK, only 26 would be suitable girlfriends for him. His equation looked at the total number of women in the country, then narrowed it down using relevant factors including the number of women in London; the number of "age-appropriate" women (those aged between 24-34); women with a college degree; and those who Backus would find physically attractive.

Okay - so how do you POSSIBLY apply a statistical analysis on something as subjective as a womans physical attractiveness?

Re:Ironically (1)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758988)

> Okay - so how do you POSSIBLY apply a statistical analysis on something as subjective as a womans physical attractiveness?

He assumes he finds 1 in 20 women attractive. Note that this number does not say anything about WHAT he finds attractive in a woman, since that information is irrelevant for the equation. I don't see why this wouldn't work and how the 'subjectiveness of a womans physical attractiveness' would interfere.

Re:Ironically (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759266)

He assumes he finds 1 in 20 women attractive. That sounds like a number he is pulling out of the air.

Basically what he's saying is that given 20 Women standing in front of him, he would only find ONE of them not-repulsive enough to date.

I know its the UK and they are the home of messed up teeth, but that is SUPER high standards.

Maybe thats why he has trouble finding a girl. If the 19 girls he sees on a regular basis disgust him so much...

Re:Ironically (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759242)

The more important question is: How does he think he will meet enough women at all, when he’s sitting in his basement, doing Drake equations?

The simplest rule to meeting the right woman: Meet as many women as possible!
Obvious, isn’t it? Yet nobody actually does it. Instead people usually search the Internet for help.

Problem in applying Drake equation (1)

HydroPhonic (524513) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759368)

The problem is exactly in the question. . The chance of *finding* love is infinitesimal. The possibility of *making* it OTOH....

It's obvious to everyone (except him) (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758750)

It is intuitively obvious that anyone who's inclined to "use the Drake Equation to explain girlfriend woes" is significantly less likely to have a girlfriend in the first place.

You have to hand it to the guy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30758772)

He did provide rock-solid proof of why he has no girlfriend. Sure, it's not the reason he though it was. But hey, lots of things were invented by accident. Like rubber, and the space shuttle!

Geography fail! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30758802)

Warwick is near London? Who wrote this summary? I know Coventry is the city that dare not speak its name, but this is ridiculous.

Looking at the criteria he used... (1)

newsdee (629448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758870)

I know the whole thing is probably not to be taken too seriously, but looking at the paper I would say there are at least a couple of shaky assumptions.

First he's defining a rate of people who live in London. That ignores people moving in or out, or even people willing to move closer. So the figure should be higher I think.

Then he mentions he will only find 5% of "physically attractive" candidates. In other words, he is limiting himself outside of 2 times the standard deviation of the population. That's a really sample of the population. In other words, guy's too picky :-)

Re:Looking at the criteria he used... (4, Informative)

horza (87255) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759134)

Then he mentions he will only find 5% of "physically attractive" candidates. [snip] In other words, guy's too picky :-)

When was the last time you were in London?

Phillip.

Well, there's your problem right there! (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758874)

Perhaps he would do a lot better if he stopped refusing to date non-aliens?

Drake equation aside... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30758896)

Something similar was done in 1999. http://en.nothingisreal.com/wiki/Why_I_Will_Never_Have_a_Girlfriend

This man is not studying in London (5, Informative)

Goodgerster (904325) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758904)

He is studying at the University of Warwick, which is near Coventry. It is far away from London. He is "studying in London" in the same sense that all Californians are residents of San Francisco. Has FOX News' target audience never heard of any English city besides London?

Re:This man is not studying in London (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759028)

Has FOX News' target audience never heard of any English city besides London?

London is a city in Connecticut, right?

Missing factors. (1)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758936)

Apparently he has no attraction value, since that is also one of the keys of finding a potential girlfriend. Anyone with sufficient attraction (for instance, fame, money) would be hard-pressed to escape from potential suitors/stalkers/paparazzi.

Re:Missing factors. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30758984)

He mentions Physical Attraction, but I don't know how on Earth he would arrive at a number.

Re:Missing factors. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759304)

For the next 100 women you see, write down "I would" or "I wouldn't" for each one of them.

Count the "I would"s. If you manage to do so in a location where you see women in general, rather than some location specific group that you are not attracted to (say, outside of a Curves or an old folks home), the number will likely be fairly reasonable.

If "I wouldn't" doesn't work for you, just add " tell people about it" to each phrase.

This seems very familiar (1)

RandomPrecision (911416) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759046)

From here [nothingisreal.com] .

I guess it's not exactly the same, as the previous one didn't use the Drake Equation...but close enough for me to raise an eyebrow.

All I know is... (1)

Falconne (792743) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759120)

All I know is, if a girl asks you how much you love her, using a pie chart is not the way to go.

Lonely People Lower Their Standards (1)

rebmemeR (1056120) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759124)

...and I'll bet he lowered his. Asylum reports Backus has had a girlfriend for six months. Or maybe his GF *is* an ET alien. Did you ever see Laliari in the movie Galaxy Quest? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-vccWZPSyQ [youtube.com] @1:50 Backus asserts he is "mostly a heterosexual male". Why the ambiguity? Is he pondering that he's a lesbian trapped in a man's body? Woody Allen understood the Drake Equation: "The good thing about being bisexual is that it doubles your chance of a date on a Saturday night."

Wrong country (1)

horza (87255) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759224)

The problem is looking for an English girl. They think they are much better looking than they really are, and expect too much. It would be more interesting if he compared the chances of Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America.

Phillip.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30759244)

hmn.

on the one hand, his heart must be *truly* klingon, and on the other, his heart must not be *truly* klingon.

He - or Drake equation - is wrong (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759310)

Well, if he correctly applied the Drake Equation, it seems the equation is wrong - the odds are clearly much higher than the equation predicts.

But more likely, the formula makes assumptions his case doesn't meet, or he did it wrong.

Non-story.

Maybe (3, Funny)

CharlieG (34950) | more than 4 years ago | (#30759366)

Pesonally, I think he doesn't have a GF because he's the type of geek who thinks of explaining why he doesn't have a GF with the Drake equation

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...