>A little over a decade ago the first human genome was sequenced at a cost of 3 billion dollars. Now, you can spit in a tube, FedEx it to a sequencing facility (at room temperature - no ice required), and a few weeks later FedEx will deliver a USB drive with your genome sequence on it - all for just a bit over a $1000 dollars

Bad example - because the human genome didn't need to cost that back then. It was one of science's greatest mistakes, and it's correction was the biggest breakthrough in genetics since the discovery of DNA. Long before we sequenced the human genome we had sequenced a bunch of "simpler" animals like frogs and newts and things - and they were coming in at around 80-billion genes.
So naturally we assumed that a much more complicated being like a human would have a much longer genome - many orders of magnitude more. So we built a super-computer for the kind of load we were expecting: that's where the 3 billion dollars went.
Except when we were done - it turns out the human genome was much, much shorter. In fact it only had about 32-billion genes. Figuring out why and how a more complicated creature can have much simpler genes completely changed our ideas of how genes worked. The entire science of genetics was turned on it's head - it was an expensive mistake but it paid off - it also made all the ideas that linked racism, sexism or classism to genetic inheritance thoroughly disproven - it's literally not POSSIBLE for them to be true, in order to BE true - human genes would have to contain significant brain structure encoding which they definitely do not and cannot because there aren't even enough of them to program 1% of our brains. The genetic contribution to human brains consist of "suck nipple when inserted" - that's about it.

That said - they never needed that 3-billion dollar computer, which is why this is a bad example.

There is nothing the least bit socialist about either Clinton or Obama - as a socialist, believe me I wish there WAS.
Please educate YOURSELF about what "socialism" means before spouting nonsense and calling "independent thought".

Hint: if the words "authoritarian", "state" or "government" is anywhere in the sentence, it's NOT socialism. There is even a very large branch of socialism called "anarcho-socialism" which is completely stateless yet socialist - in fact, anarcho-socialism would be more correctly called "classic-libertarianism" as that is what "libertarian" meant until the 1920's and it's STILL what Libertarian means anywhere OUTSIDE Britain and America: anti-state anarchistic socialists.

Unfortunately it also wouldn't hurt the cops responsible - it would hurt the insurance companies. Considering the severity ...

I would rather suggest each police department be required to maintain a fund to pay out cases like this - and if you cost that fund too much, you are demoted, beyond a high enough barrier - you are automatically fired.
Money in the fund that wasn't needed at the end of the year could perhaps be paid out as bonuses - to reward the good cops, though this would need to be subject to very careful auditing so that it doesn't turn into an excuse not to report things. Perhaps you could go so far as to say "the left overs will be divided as bonusses only among cops who have filed reports of misconduct or willingly testified against bad cops".

Different people have different brains - and it's also influenced by the type of work they do.
I work long hours very often, much of my free time is spent on DIY projects, sometimes electronic, sometimes around the house - occasionally just spending a day watching movies with my daughter is bloody nice - because it's so rare that I have the opportunity to not be chasing a goal.

It's anything but obvious.

Nope - I even quoted it so that you won't get it wrong - parent in that thread said "Nerds are...", and you went ahead and replied "you forgot..."

You painted with a broad brush, and I called you out on it - all the abuse in that story is directed *to* nerds, not by them, and you happily joined the mob.

What mark? I got busy, it was a weekend after all, so for the fourth and final time, I ask you can point out the upvoted comment that you claimed was made that said "women are unsuitable for tech". You actually claimed that many such comments were made, IIRC, not just one.

(I actually understand: you have to *believe* that it exists. Because if it doesn't exist it means that you were part of the mindless mob. You don't want to believe that you'll be part of a mob.)

He said he's Asian, so it's highly probable that someone in his ancestry endured all of that.

(PS. Every race was oppressed at one time or another. The line is drawn with the question "how far back was $FOO's oppression?", and not "were $FOOs ever oppressed?")

That's a different thing to what the article author is claiming. He's distancing himself from a group, he is not affiliating with a group. You, for example, are allowed to distance yourself from whichever group you want to, and you frequently do - you distance yourself regularly from equality groups/people whom you perceive as not being tough enough on males.

That's basically how group affiliation works.

Considering that men die more often on the job, more often off the job, in more violent ways and with higher chance of fatal disease and* kill themselves more often, I seriously wonder what it is "they" fear...

You really won't let this go, will you? Fair enough:

This post over here refers to all geeks. You reply to the post that refers to all geeks over here and add an item - " for being whiny virgins who feel they should have got a free supermodel".

When one refers to $FOO unqualified like you did, you refers to all $FOO. You could have said "$FOO, in general", "many $FOO", or even "some $FOO", "$FOO, usually", etc...

Now, how about addressing the fact that you said, in that thread, that *most* of the comments derogatory to women are upvoted, hmm? Now that I've shown you where you called all nerds whiny, you could show me where the upvoted comments that were derogatory to women are in that story?

(PS, I know you can't; this is not the first time the that claim "most /. commenters are mostly misogynistic most of the time" are made, and then the claimers go silent when asked for proof...)

This has drifted somewhat - lately the people calling themselves feminists are promoting a "check your privilege" narrative, and are insane. The people calling themselves MRAs are promoting a "women are users" narrative, and are insane. The rest of us call ourselves egalitarian (and are not necessarily sane either, but it varies).

Really, it's an embarrassment to the human race that so many people are willing to self-identify with nutjobs like the authors of jezebel (or similar), or the author of the article in question.

No one pays to see me :-(

Wait, AC's are saying this and you extrapolate that to "most slashdot readers"? AC's post GNAA and similar shit too - do you also think that nerds have opinions on homosexual negro men? If not, why not?

Browse at -1. Please. I did, and most of the comments derogatory to women are below 0. And you know what, I *want* to believe that you saw posts at 2 or above saying that women are unsuitable for tech, but I haven't seen one. Care to link to one, *even* *if* *AC*? I'm not convinced that you are just repeating the narrative instead of actually reading the comments. I read the comments I didn't find the posts you seem to be talking about.

So you understand why most posters here are refusing to take responsibility for something some fuckwit AC said about women not belonging in tech, and suddenly they are being told by SJW's that they are misogynistic if they don't see it? That they don't see it because of their privilege? You won't take responsibility for something you actually said, do you not understand why the rest of us won't take responsibility for thing we didn't actually say or do?

Which is precisely why the EU would not want Greece to break away from the Euro. Because Greece is a sovereign nation they can peg the value of the scrip (Drachma) to whatever they want. It will be set artificially high on the day of the break-away and all debts will be considered in Drachma (sovereign nation, remember!). A year later when they finally pay (and the drachma is 1/10th of it's value) the creditors get an effective 1/10th of their debt while the debtor gets to settle their debt for 10c on the Euro.

The value of the labour is not what sets a country's currency value anyway, it's the value of the country.

There's always one reason - with a single currency between a group of countries the weaker economies will always be at a disadvantage *because* they have no control over the money supply. Without control over the money supply you can forget trying to control the economy. This is the primary reason few countries use commodity backed-currencies (gold, silver, etc) - they have no control over the supply of the commodity and hence they cannot control the economy.

I use a money clip instead of a wallet. It matches my sunglasses. And I always carry a harmonica. Other than that, boring stuff... keys, fob, phone, earbuds, bank card, credit card, identification, lighter, cigarettes, and sometimes a cigar cutter.

That's the problem with gold and silver - you have to actively trade goods and services in order to accumulate it. What happens when technology and human innovation and efficiency proceeds at a rate several orders of magnitudes greater than the mining of gold and silver[1]? With gold/silver you cannot match value against currency in a stable and consistent manner. With fiat money you can.

[1]Like with the mass-production of the transistor, or the last two decades of efficiency improvements due to computers, etc.