It's pretty much exactly what you're saying. By the way did anybody ever say anything about making CS more hostile to women for... why again? Just for shits and giggles? No, they didn't, but you needed a boogeyman.

That's because of of the circular privilege rhetoric. Men are privileged and any time you provide evidence proving otherwise that's actually just proof that men are so privileged their privilege "backfires" and hurts them. It's impossible for anything, no matter how bad it is, to not be male privilege.

And you keep missing the point. You're demanding the entire world stop what it's doing and bend over backwards to get more women into a degree program that's a mere 10% or less of all degrees conferred while men are barely over a mere 1/3rd of graduates in the first place.

"What it actually means" is you're using a pathetically insignificant problem to justify making a catastrophic problem even worse. And by the way nobody ever said the solution is to "make CS biased against women". That's a complete straw man you just made up because you need to fabricate victimhood even where there isn't any.

Women are nearly 2/3rds of all college graduates and overwhelmingly dominate every single measure of academic achievement we have, they are either a majority or near 50/50 in every STEM field save for computer science which itself accounts for 10% or less of degrees conferred.

Women are also majority of voters and control an overwhelming majority of household wealth and income, to say a majority of voters are "discouraged" from using their rights is beyond bullshit and into the realm of pure absurdity. Today women can rape children and force their rape victim to pay child support and men they rape aren't even counted as rape victims. Male victims of female domestic violence are more likely to be arrested than their abuser and nearly half of all men who seek shelter or help as domestic violence victims are accused of being the abuser themselves.

And trying to even *talk* about any of this or ANYTHING other than the "men bad womenvictims" narrative will get you bomb threats, death threats, and even shut down by outright felonies. Those who dare to do more than talk have been the victims of shootings or bankrupted and driven to suicide.

You're right about one thing though. There are real gaps and there are artificial barriers to equality. You're just wrong about who's putting them there and why.

Yes, and one of the foremost women in Linux wrote an article about it once: http://www.linuxjournal.com/co...

The data shows that women are nearly 2/3rds of all college graduates and overwhelmingly dominate a majority of STEM fields except for one or two where they're near 50/50 and CS, which accounts for 10% or less of all conferred degrees.

And that is exactly the problem. Men are constantly told they're privileged and to stop whining and suck it up. Women are constantly told they're oppressed and everything is an earthshattering act of victimization.

Fearmongering and disempowerment rhetoric are what keep women out of CS... which is only 10% of conferred degrees, while women as a whole earn a little under 2/3rds of all degrees including a majority of STEM fields.

There are other possibilities that are in principle quite observable. I would actually favor either condensed matter nuggets or axions to WIMPS, but that may be just me.

Can't be brown dwarfs, thank's to micro lensing constraints. Can't be supernova, as it was present before the microwave background. It could be smaller compact stuff - see this for the current allowed holes in the condensed matter mass spectrum, and this for some ideas and references for an alternative DM theory involving condensed matter.

Frovingslosh is saying dark matter doesn't exist. He's wrong. He's saying the effort devoted to finding out what it is is fruitless. He's wrong on that too.

And you know this how?

The Dark Matter is still there, as something (we don't know what). This doesn't "dim" the existence of DM as an effect* at all. What this does is (again) dim some faint hopes it might be WIMPS. It doesn't constrain other models / theories at all.

* : even if the DM is MOND, or some other gravity correction, it might not be matter, but the effect would still exist.

vein hope

Artery hope?

Or is it a vain hope that educated people should be able to spell?

Yes, I know. But it's the end of a long day on the road, and I feel like bitching about something....

Can you construct a falsifiable hypothesis involving -human- design, bearing in mind that present-day design is -fact-?

You don't have to, you just ask the guy that did it. I don't think you can actually falsifiably prove that something is designed, but falsifiability isn't the only way we know things. Science isn't the only way of knowing things, and things can be true even if science cannot establish their truth.

In this way, we can say that aliens probably exist, and it's plausible that they have visited here in the last billion years, but if you wanna make it scientific, you do have to show me how you know this happened. The problem is, you can't hypothesize that aliens participated in evolution without first establishing that aliens exist. Without any particular clue as to what the properties of aliens are, their actual existence becomes an ontological question that science alone cannot resolve. You have to establish the physical properties and nature of aliens empirically before you can actually do any inferences with them, otherwise they could do anything, they could have the power to rewrite your brain to make you think they created us when they didn't. You have to have an account of aliens that's epistemologically grounded, and inferential science cannot supply that, that's beyond science.

Then, as now, inferential support for entities from empirical knowns is science. Witness the Higgs boson.

Here's the question though. What are the empirical knowns pertaining to alien or trans-dimensional beings, or their interference in evolution?

Can you construct a falsifiable hypothesis involving trans-dimensional beings, or ETs, or something else, and Earth's natural history? Or any hypothesis of any kind? What experiments would we run? What observations can we make? I'm not sure that this counterproposal is actually scientific. Just because it doesn't require a deity doesn't mean it's "science."

You're getting way ahead of yourself, what you have to do first is find the aliens, and then when we meet them you'll be able to make some hypotheses. People believed atoms existed for thousands of years. But atoms weren't actually science until people in the 19th century devised experiments to observe them; until then there was "Atomism," a branch of philosophy, and atoms were mystical, pseudoscientific entities.

If Lavoisier, or Leibniz, had proposed a bomb that could destroy entire cities with the power of millions of tons of gunpowder, everyone would have called him a crank, and they'd have been right. Where would his evidence have been? And sure, they were entitled to guess or make prognostications, but should those have been taught in school as science? Should the King of France have spent millions of francs trying to invent Leibniz's bomb?

Your position is pseudoscience. This may only be for the time being, but its condition today is the issue.