So... now you're the person who wants them to be destroyed. You know, the evil, mustache twirling villains from your own post not 20 minutes ago. I mean... you were presenting that as outright evil. And now it's the highest calling?

Really?

Oh, look, an article objecting to a specific methodology, that in no way was made illegal.

Okay. Those are equal. Yep. Look, your objection requires people to believe in a huge-criminology wide conspiracy to suppress data, whereas my objection just references a law on the books.

I'm not even going to refute what you're saying, because, hell, Straus is a criminologist, and I'm not. But I will accuse you of willful false equivalence. Don't do that.

And I'm reminded about someone who objected to this line of reasoning saying "who cares if its social and political, let people make their choice".

And while I let that vacuous line of reasoning slide before, I'm going to nip in the bud here and point out that if you don't care about that, you also shouldn't care about us people trying to effect social and political changes.

It's a problem because it's clearly fucking systemic, and caused by social factors.

It's not just "fewer women that men" enter the career.

It's that "fewer women than used to, where every other intensely technical field has had the opposite trend"(this article)
It's that People are more likely to pick men for mathematical tests that both genders are proven to do equally well on, even when in the test cases where the specific women are known to outperform the specific men
It's that sexism is actually cited by women leaving the field
It's that gender based social norms enforced on children clearly influence their likliehood to enter a sex-typical field

These aren't just whatever, "it's just people making choices". It's clearly social and political influence.

We keep statistics, yes, but only in the context of criminal law.

To study, say, gun ownership as a matter of public health, as a risk factor for overall mortality, is illegal(with public funds).

Or, and this is crazy. I'm totally aware of your argument, made that clear, and also made my contempt of the exact nonsense you spewed readily apparent, and I don't want have anything more to do with it.

In your imaginary land where any people are this hostile, what do you think is done with leftover embryos from fertility treatments, right now?

Do you think they're all frozen forever, just in case someone needs a spare implanted in their uterus?
Do you think that maybe they get grown in secret cloning vats that let them turn into human beings?

Or do you join us in reality land where they're put in a nice clean chamber labeled "biohazard" and hauled off by a medical waste company to be sterilized and destroyed. You're just going to have to learn to live in a reality where huge numbers of embryos are destroyed by the human body, excreted out unnoticed, and untold others are created in a lab so that desperate people can have children, only to be disposed of for a host of reasons, like in-viability or that previous implantations "took". Reality just doesn't treat them the way you imagine they are currently treated.

Did you not see that disclaimer at the bottom of my post. Please, consider shutting up instead of what it is you're actually doing. This is not a debate worth having again and again and again and again.

Nah.

People coming in and demanding proof of things their politics made illegal to study are really annoying.

It's similarly illegal to study gun violence under a US public health research grant, even though every other class of mortality is nominally okay.
In my state, it's illegal to use state funds to research the effect of global warming on coastal water levels.

People who ban researching things for political reasons(rather than say consistency with existing laws outside of research) are harmful. There's something very wrong with the notion of not researching things that might reflect negatively on your ideology.

Considering it's essentially* illegal to study, you can wait forever, you ignorant ass. Your policy proving itself right doesn't justify anything.

(Also this wasn't stem cells at all).

*If you want to argue against this point on minutia that ignore the reality of how preliminary medical research is performed, please just shut up.

In fact, a (totally free) google doc spreadsheet can have a built-in customizable webform that lets you add rows with validation.

About the only reason you'd want something more complicated is if the sign-up process flows more like a wizard than a form.

Yeah, not-for-profit corporations tend to be, on average, pretty scummy. That's not to say the intent of the law that allows them is bad or that all of them are.

Just that most have the majority true:
*Earning a profit. Not to distribute to shareholders but to "grow".
*Paying their executives exorbitant salaries that just so happen to replace the large sums that regular CEOs usually get from profit sharing.
*Using "not for profit" as a shield against unethical behavior, as if qualifying money as "profit" is the only way it corrupts.
*Charging market prices for services.

Some combinations of these are okay, but others are just shitty. I try not be too cynical a person, but when I hear a company describe itself as "not for profit" my first thought is "tax system gamer" and not "charity".

The only error in your post is that most people can't bring themselves to care enough about Microsoft anymore to go as far as hating them. Say what you want about 95 through early XP era blue-screens, they were recognizable.

Now, though, windows is basically synonymous with white collar office work, and not a lot else. A lot of people don't even use it at home for internet browsing anymore.

You thought wrong.

There's a lot of reasons, if you're an OS developer, to have an app store, but security is pretty low on them.
#1: It lets you control what applications are available on your platform. No worrying about someone treading on your toes, selling something you sell.
#2: It gives you a cut of every app sold. This means that you can make your OS a loss leader, and take your profits from the sales of people making things people actually like.
#3: Building your brand. Marketing poisons everything. People talking, even occasionally, about your company's store, versus some website or store where they bought something is good for the recognizably of your other crap
#4: Yeah, okay. A gesture towards quality control
#5: Yeah, okay. A gesture towards security.

Or, you know, its whiny legalism that doesn't understand the intent, meaning, or purpose of the law.