Here ya go, AC.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pu...
http://kff.org/other/state-ind...
http://scholarship.law.cornell...
http://www.americanbar.org/con...
https://docs.google.com/spread...
http://www.indiana.edu/~emsoc/...

I can only assume that you'll return the favor. :D

I was just a kid in the 70's, but I'd suggest that the overall employment of women was a key part, but far from the whole, of this issue. Specifically, while there were very few women who were doctors back in 1970, the medical profession had large numbers of women performing medical work: nurses. Similarly, in the legal profession, there were a good number of women fighting to break into the profession as lawyers (as opposed to clerical workers,) with generally disheartening results.

While overall employment of women back then was decidedly lower, those women who did seek employment were virtually guaranteed to be excluded from positions "not suited" to women. It took generations of coordination, organization, education, training, and flat-out grit to overcome this--and we're still far from "done".

And then BSD will switch to a systemd-like framework, and all of us who are a little less emotional about our choices of system software will die laughing.

Well, we could look to both the legal and medical professions.

For example, back in 1970, about 8% of all doctors were women. Today, roughly 1/3 of all doctors are women--hardly parity, but a significant improvement, nonetheless. Similarly, about 1/3 of all lawyers are now women; back in 1970, that number was closer to 5%.

So what happened between the 1970s and today in the legal and medical professions? For one, there was a concerted effort to even make these professions accept that there was a problem. In both the industry and the public eye, it was generally accepted that women weren't lawyers or doctors because women simply weren't cut out for that kind of work--it was too demanding, too rigorous, too technical, too high-stakes, and required an 'instinct' that women just generally didn't have.

Additionally, there was a very active and ongoing effort to encourage women to enter these fields--efforts that took a long time to gain steam, as these fields require years of specialized study and training on top of a sound primary and secondary education. Professional organizations dedicated to supporting and encouraging women in these fields were created. Major existing professional organizations--like the AMA and the ABA--started paying attention to the issue, as well.

Today, you won't find many people defending the position that women are somehow less fit to be doctors or lawyers than men. That's gone. It took a long time, and it took a lot of people--mostly women--fighting a grueling and protracted battle against a broader community that was, at best, condescendingly tolerant of them, so long as their numbers were small enough and they accepted adapting themselves to life in a man's profession. You still see gender disparity, both in pay and people, and you still see a lot of the vestiges of the old system that need to be retooled, but there's been real progress.

Getting a solid number on how many women are employed as software engineers/programmers is tricky, but one recent effort compiled information from around 200 companies and found that about 15% of software engineers are women. Certainly not as bad as the medical and legal professions in 1970, but a far cry from what you'd expect--and, frankly, a far cry from where software engineering and programming has been in the past.

So here we are, in 2015. There's a lot to be done. We've barely even begun to accept that this is a problem yet, and the backlash against this concept is virulent, to put it lightly. That said, there's momentum building, and I'm hopeful that we're finally--finally--starting to move in the right direction.

The system won't be burned down, but the system won't survive in its current form, either. With any luck, 40 years from now, we'll be looking back on this with the same incredulity as we do on the legal and medical professions of yore.

This is why I've been pushing to argue in favor of reducing fossil fuel use not from an environmental point of view, but from an economic one. People can bury their heads in the sand when it comes to science, but people always listen when money is involved.

Even though the US imports about a third of our petroleum, that's still equivalent to hundreds of billions of dollars per year leaving our economy. If we transition to renewable energies, that money stays around a bit longer.

Renewable energies might have a larger up-front capital cost (but not by much, and it's getting better every day), but the long term costs are overwhelmingly favorable.

With the current crash in oil prices it should be clear that our economy is in the hands of foreign interests. We are hostages to international petroleum markets. Let's develop domestic sources to free ourselves from foreign influence. Remember: There's no reason why oil couldn't have been this cheap all along, and the price only went down right when we were posed to start reducing imports in favor of domestic natural gas production. We're being played!

(Oh, and if we happen to mitigate the environmental damage we're doing in the process and avoid global catastrophe, I guess that'll be a bonus...)
=Smidge=

Jordan Hubbard, you know, that guy that has a little influence in the FreeBSD project, seems to think that systemd is a pretty good idea (Slideshare transcript).

They wanna roll Blackberry's well-regarded but proprietary secure messaging system into Samsung's home-grown mobile security application. Duh.

The way I understand it is that if an ISP hosts $BAR, and I file a takedown request asserting the ownership of $BAZ, in the mistaken impression (intentionally or not) that you are hosting $BAZ, the takedown request is valid, even though the actual content does not match $BAZ.

Well, no. The Shuttle's SRBs were a lot more than just a tube full of explosives.

They had thrust vector control; hydraulic power units, gimbal nozzles, control hardware. Electrical subsystems. Self contained navigation hardware. Range safety hardware. And of course everything was triple or quadruple redundant for reliability.
=Smidge=

Atheism is what you call someone with no belief in a higher power,god. etc

By definition atheism is not a belief. Stop trying to turn it into one.

"Science is self correcting, meaning it is flawed. "
no. that's why it isn't flawed. Science is self correcting based on new data. A scientific field isn't complete, but science as a field and method isn't flawed. It would be flawed if it didn't change based on new information.

haha. no, read the references. They are pretty much excuse making and cheery picking to confirm their belief.

" And wouldn't the existence, and even the sometimes contradictory accounts of the Gnostic gospels, provide a more evidence of an actual historic figure whose image was "stomped over", rather than one made up out of whole cloth?"
No, why would you think that?

Nope. In fact it looks like 'Jesus' is an combination of at least three people. Based on dates of events, location, from different letters.
Of course the bible was written by men how said 'These 12 people are honest, wouldn't lie or make things up, and never checked them.
If you look at cults* and their behavior, you see striking similarity with the apostles, and other religion older the Christianity.

Then it gain political power and the rest is bloody history

Which is why it's alarming that the religious right is gaining so much power.

*for brevity, cult will be short hand for small start up religion