If you think this then you misunderstood what I said. Last paper I wrote went through about a dozen different people.

However, if they received information, and not just the usual constructive criticism, then the person should be cited. Merely having males review the paper doesn't mean that a male viewpoint has been considered in said paper, which is what I was trying to get at.

by telling carriers that they can't charge more for premium levels of service

Close.

The original plan was to tell carriers that they can't make Vonage and Skype a premium level service (add the voip package for only $15/mo!) to prevent them from competing with their phone service (only $9.99!). Or make Netflix an unusable service to stop customers from cutting cable. Or make browsing Amazon difficult because Barnes & Noble paid them to. Or sell 90% of the bandwidth they sold to me to their "fast lane" partners, while the sites I actually want to see get the last 10% of the bandwidth I paid for.

Much like the Occupy Movement, nobody took control to keep the message on point and eventually the whole thing devolved into a flaming mess, helped along by the telcos themselves spouting bullshit about how network neutrality meant you couldn't pay more for faster internet.

Men are constantly portrayed in both advertising and entertainment as buffoons and simpletons when they are anywhere near the kitchen, the kids, or the laundry. Everyone laughs when a man is kicked in the balls by a woman in a TV show/commercial. Where's the fake outrage about that violent sexisim in the name of humour?

I strongly suspect the paper was a "joke", and the reviewer was sarcastically reflecting the paper's bias back at the authors.

Finishing up a 300 level statistics course at the moment, and this fits right in with it.

You have the 'null hypothesis', which is what you're trying to reject/not reject. So 'Women's papers are just as good as the Men's' is, crudely speaking, a valid null hypothesis. You do all your math and you either reject it(p=.95), or fail to reject it(insufficient evidence say that they aren't). Other options include Men's papers being better, or women's being better.

If they did so and didn't cite such in their paper, then they're bad at writing papers. If they did cite such, then he's a bad reviewer.

Then there's my usual answer - you generally get things like this when two assholes meet. So they might of written what he saw as a biased paper and reacted poorly.

Just as they have blind auditions for musicians.

It's possible this paper (which was on gender differences) is a piece of crap.

It's also possible the reviewer is sexist.

It may even be that the females who wrote the paper are sexist and the paper is a pile of crap AND the reviewer is sexist.

Hard to say without seeing the paper and the data it was drawn from.

In a gender blind society, we can't assume the females or the males are always right or wrong. It may even be from different points of view that different people will feel one or the other was right or wrong.

While there is a long history of "productive" riots in the u.s. going all the way back to the 1700s, I agree with your point that these riots are ill targeted. There is no easy focal point for the rage because the entire way society is setup is against this group.

I think the drug war has a lot to do with it. One arrest and few businesses will hire you for a good job so you can't get money legally to buy products so you are mad at everyone for not hiring you and for carrying things you can't afford to buy but which TV shows you "should" have. On top of that instead of having a neutral police force, you have a police force that actively enforces the law unequally-- calling the white kids parents (no record) while arresting the black kids (so now they have a record) and telling them "trash goes in back."

To an outside observer. I don't think it's the same in the inertial frame.

is your definition of that due to your political positions or is it a moral absolute?

Actually, it's pretty easy to decide if something is a moral absolute or not: If it's OK for everyone to do it then you can, if it's not OK for everyone to do it, then you Kant.

Before we call this real, we need to put one on some object in orbit, leave it in continuous operation, and use it to raise the orbit by a measurable amount large enough that there would not be argument regarding where it came from. The Space Station would be just fine. It has power for experiments that is probably sufficient and it has a continuing problem of needing to raise its orbit.

And believe me, if this raises the orbit of the Space Station they aren't going to want to disconnect it after the experiment. We spend a tremendous amount of money to get additional Delta-V to that thing, and it comes down if we don't.

Or does that thing look like giant space sex toy?

- there is absolutely 0 wrong with providing a company with a promise to buy scheduled services on the clock without interruptions and to pay for the service whether or not you can use 100% of its capacity that day.

If I want to start a shipping business I can talk to an import/export broker and work out a schedule, where regardless of my circumstances I will ship 1 container every 2 days with him on a clock and because of that certainty of payment he will give me a much better price than he could anybody else.

As to Rockefeller's 'secret deal to prevent shipping for others' - baloney. The so called 'secret deal' was no such thing, it was a discount that Rockefeller was getting that nobody else could get because they would not ship a supply of that much oil on the clock, whether they have it or not that time and pay for a prearranged amount of delivery as promised.

Rockefeller was absolutely right and the reason that oil never went below 7 cents was exactly because government destroyed his company and did not allow him to find new ways to increase demand by lowering prices even further. Nobody was finding any better way of doing business in that time, otherwise they would have won against Rockefeller and that is all there is to it.

Microsoft had a temporary monopoly for a very good reason: they provided the computing platform that nobody else could provide at the price and just because you can't accept that doesn't change that fact. Microsoft and others also pushed hard enough in the market that competitors actually had to innovate to become competitive in that market, which is how free and open source software came to existence.

As to me being 'religious' about free market - I cannot stand hypocrisy of the modern society that will vilify the individual and promote the collective and use the force of the collective to oppress the individual. If I am 'religious' about anything that would be the belief that individual freedom tramps every so called 'societal good' that you can come up with that is based on lies, oppression, destruction of the individual, theft from the individual, slavery of the individual by the collective.

First they came for the kiddie porn...

1. They don't need their streets torn up. My area is finally getting natural gas, and the 4" pipe is larger than what fiber needs. They're just pushing the pipe through, they can do that with the fiber.

I just wish that I had been around when this was proposed to suggest that as long as they're at it, run fiber with the NG pipe...

Yeah, but the power company building a fiber network shows that there's *demand* in that city! /snark