It has repeatedly been pointed out to you that women with fewer choices, such as in the 80's or in current day Iraq and India, go into CS. Are you really that intellectually dishonest that you would continue insisting that the current dearth of women in CS can not be due to choice regardless of how many times it's pointed out that women with fewer choices go into CS?

Seriously though - you do this for every clickbait anti-men article that comes up, and you get told the same thing every time you make this assertion. You even went so far once as to say that perhaps the west ought to copy the Iraq model. Although you *do* tend to go quiet every time it's pointed out though, so there's at least an upside; you won't throw this "issue" out until the next discussion, at which point someone will again point out that places with fewer female rights have more CS females. Then you'll go quiet again.

Enough people posted links refuting your assertion of "marketed to boys" to make you look like a moron, hence there's no need for me to join in - it's obvious you are wrong. The question I want to ask is: now that you have been provided with evidence that your assertion on science toys is absolutely disconnected from reality, will you change your mind or try to change reality? Will you ever, in the future, post this particular assertion no slashdot, after being thoroughly refuted with actual evidence? Are you going to post the same assertion, knowing full well that the same refutations will be provided, with the same evidence?

The reason I ask is because I notice a tendency for the evidence-less side to pretend that the evidence doesn't exist, purely on the off-chance that no one bothers to post it. For example, that men have it easier than women. Or decline in numbers is due to sexism. etc ... etc etc etc. It would be nice to think that you would never post this garbage assertion ever again. Go ahead. Be nice.

Nope. when confronted by the assertion "it must be sexism" we call it out (rightly) as a bullshit assertion. Women now have more freedoms in employment than they did back then. They are now exercising their options for other careers. If you want to return to a place where more women enter CS/STEM, you are free to go to theocracies which demand that women can't even show their faces in public. Those societies have more women in STEM.

The problem (for you, anyway) is that the fact that women, when given a choice, choose *not* to do CS, is that it breaks your ideology. Back when they had fewer choices they were found in CS. Now that they have *more* choices you find them elsewhere. Your narrative that the decline in numbers is disconnected from reality.

You're absolutely correct - women now have more choices. That's what changed - other professions became open to them. Society changed to give women more freedom. Women didn't like it before, but they had fewer options. Now they have a lot more options so they don't have to work at a job they don't enjoy.

Look at my posting history, you blithering idiot. I'm in full support of gay rights. Calling something that is unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal" is incorrect. You can also say "it's perfectly normal for someone to act on the urge to kill", considering that there are more attempted murders per population than there are homosexuals. You can't really say "$foo, which is $y% of the population, is normal but $bar, which is also $y % of the population is not normal".

(PS. There's a difference between not normal and abnormal. Look it up. I never called homosexuality abnormal.)

You are not, as you seem to believe, arguing for your political ideology; you can even leave homosexuality out of the discussion - the question is only "Is an occurrence rate of less than 10% enough to satisfy the assertion of 'this is a normal occurence' or not?"

That's the only question - is a 10% rate of occurrence enough to call a characteristic normal?

You answer "yes". I answer "no".

(PS. Your answer leads to the assertion that child-molesters, rapists, sociopaths, psychopaths, mental illness sufferers (plus a range of other characteristics) are all "normal". Most people would not agree with your assertion that rapists are normal)

Firstly, you realise that you;re defining a word using the word itself? Secondly, outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc. I suspect you mean that something is normal if it occurs naturally, in which case you would then have to concede that serial killers are normal as they occur naturally, and planet-destroying asteroids are normal 'cos *they* occur naturally too, and sociopaths are normal because they occur naturally too. This is a (psycho)path you don't want to go down :-)

Regardless of what you *suspect*, what we *currently know* leads us to believe that homosexual relationships are most certainly not normal.You can argue that they are natural, that the characteristic does not diminish the individuals worth, that they are worth having in society, that that homosexual individuals deserve to be treated the same as the rest of the population, and I'd agree with all of that. You can argue that they should have all the benefits (or lack thereof) of marriage and I'm right behind you (not in *that* way you dirty pervert :-)).

However it's hard to agree that a characteristic that occurs rarely is normal, nevermind what the characteristic is. It occurs *rarely*. That means it is not common at all.

It's usual for some percentage of the population to be homosexual. That percentage is both significant and not apparently diminishing.

Homosexuals are part of the normal sexual spectrum, which has been with us since time immemorial. It's not like it's something that cropped up recently, or only appears now and then.

You seem to be twisting your own words to make the word "normal" appear in your definition. Homosexuals are part of the sexual spectrum, period. Adding the qualifier "normal" to that sentence makes no sense - what the hell is an abnormal/not normal sexual spectrum? The only reason to specify a "normal" sexual spectrum is to push the word "normal" in there somewhere. It's not needed - the sentence makes (more) sense without the "normal" qualifier.

Homosexuals *are* part of the sexual spectrum, but they occur on that spectrum relatively infrequently. That makes them not normal. Homosexuality is not the norm. It is rare.

Firstly, you realise that you;re defining a word using the word itself? Secondly, outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc. I suspect you mean that something is normal if it occurs naturally, in which case you would then have to concede that serial killers are normal as they occur naturally, and planet-destroying asteroids are normal 'cos *they* occur naturally too, and sociopaths are normal because they occur naturally too. This is a (psycho)path you don't want to go down :-)

Regardless of what you *suspect*, what we *currently know* leads us to believe that homosexual relationships are most certainly not the norm.You can argue that they are natural, that the characteristic does not diminish the individuals worth, that they are worth having in society, that that homosexual individuals deserve to be treated the same as the rest of the population, and I'd agree with all of that. You can argue that they should have all the benefits (or lack thereof) of marriage and I'm right behind you (not in *that* way you dirty pervert :-)).

However it's hard to agree that a characteristic that occurs rarely is normal, nevermind what the characteristic is. It occurs *rarely*. That means it is not common at all.

It's usual for some percentage of the population to be homosexual. That percentage is both significant and not apparently diminishing.

Homosexuals are part of the normal sexual spectrum, which has been with us since time immemorial. It's not like it's something that cropped up recently, or only appears now and then.

You seem to be twisting your own words to make the word "normal" appear in your definition. Homosexuals are part of the sexual spectrum, period. Adding the qualifier "normal" to that sentence makes no sense - what the hell is an abnormal/not normal sexual spectrum? The only reason to specify a "normal" sexual spectrum is to push the word "normal" in there somewhere. It's not needed - the sentence makes (more) sense without the "normal" qualifier.

Homosexuals *are* part of the sexual spectrum, but they occur on that spectrum relatively infrequently. That makes them not normal. Homosexuality is not the norm. It is rare.

Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal". The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".

Your terms, coincidentally, involves saving Disney a chunk of money. Money that will of course find its way to the execs who thought the idea up in the first place. And your new employer will probably sooner or later be thinking along the same lines. It's lose-lose, no matter what you do.

The best thing to do is to unionise *and* stay. They try to pull this shit again and executive heads will roll.

Firstly, I never claimed $222/year. Secondly, almost every commercial (i.e. have money to spend) dev team can have their own private enterprise git repo on a number of different VPS's out there for chump change. A few years ago it was different, it was expensive to host your own server. Now it's cheap. Host multiple ones in different sites and you also get redundancy and backup, probably for a lot less than the enterprise github plans.

It might not be worth it - this scenario will no doubt play out again. You'll move to version X, and make thousands of code changes to make the move. In about five years your successor will find some bug in version X that is fixed in version X+5. Unfortunately, architectural changes would be once again required, much like now. It's a vicious cycle.

Your best bet is to continue using the current library and simply not use it's URL parsing functionality - write your own small function to do just that one thing. Every change to code raises the probability of fresh bugs appearing, regardless of unit-tests.

You - I linked to one of the myriad of studies that display the well-known inverse correlation between IQ and religious conviction. No text, just the link, and it was deleted in about 8 hours :-)

Websites tend to like disqus discussions - by removing all the dissenting voice they can present a "this is what the general readers think" picture which might only be a minority view of the actual readers.

Not the spanish ones.

(NOTE: The spanish ones *will* come, yuo just won't expect them)