The abstract lists significant % changes for the low-carb group - but doesn't show the numbers for the low-fat group. If the change is significant but tiny then it may as well be insignificant.

Contrary to the typical libertarian viewpoint not all opinions matter or are worth considering.

My kingdom for mod points...

Okay grandpa. Just FYI don't be scared of all those loud things out on the roads. They're like buggies only without horses. No they're not run by magic.

init scripts are already a mess of incompatibility across Linux distros. So what if systemd is "yet one more" different? At least it brings proper process management.

This is data mining. If you compare enough things you'll find strange correlations. There is little plausible reason to believe there is an actual causal relationship here.

These are also "irrefutable correlations":

US spending on science, space, and technology correlates with Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation:
http://www.tylervigen.com/view...

Number people who drowned by falling into a swimming-pool correlates with Number of films Nicolas Cage appeared in
http://tylervigen.com/view_cor...

Per capita consumption of cheese (US) correlates with Number of people who died by becoming tangled in their bedsheets:
http://tylervigen.com/view_cor...

I didn't say we can't have "machines that fly." But that we won't have a machine that performs the functions of a "machine that can fly" and a "machine that drives on roads and fits in my parking space at work."

AKA a "flying car."

Perhaps more like "we'll never have flying cars."

Click the panel itself. Brings you here:

http://geekwagon.net/projects/...

Very nice example of confirmation bias. You went looking for everything that supported your belief.

Now go look at the down-modded ones as well. As I said - anything not toeing the line is at 1 or 2.

"2 hidden comments"
> How about hiring qualified applicants?
>> "2 hidden comments"

Notice how you only see one side of the conversation?

http://apple.slashdot.org/stor...

I await your action and apology. Very clear pattern of up-mods for misogynistic crap and down-mods for anything not toeing the line.

What a stupid thing to do...

I replace "terrorist" with the word "peace loving hippie" and therefore can conclude that there is no terrorism!

So you're saying he also shouldn't hire any whites either then right? Because that would, by your calculation, discriminate against all other non-white groups too!

But wait - using your logic we've now shown that it is immoral to hire *anybody*. So something must not be right...

Perhaps it is your definition of "discrimination" as "hiring person A rather than person B." Well that is certainly discrimination by a strict definition of the term and is perfectly acceptable.

BUT what we're talking about is "racial and gender discrimination" which is favoring one population over another based on biological rather than qualification attributes. So that's a bit different. From experimentation we know that men will be judged more competent at certain tasks (math, programming, other "male subjects") than women (from double-blinded tests done using the same exact resumes with recognizably male or female names). And we know this affects everybody (men and women across different groups). Then we can assume that Apple is probably discriminating (on at least a subconscious level) against women already if they aren't aware that they are since nothing will have been done to off-set this effect.

So some people would propose off-setting that amount consciously rather than allow it to continue as an unconscious bias in corporate hiring philosophy. They do this by changing hiring methodology (perhaps removing names from resumes, doing phone and remote interviews rather than in-person, etc.). Perhaps they take the percentage they know to be 'bias' and give a slight advantage to the minority (in some cases they will break the tie in favor against the internal bias).

So *this* is what you think will be "reverse-discrimination" then? Offsetting a known bias? I'm interested in hearing how you may think this is wrong - and even *more* interested in hearing your solutions to the problem.

Careful. Your assumptions are very telling. Did you know college girls are often much more likely to be steered away from "male subjects" by counselors? Or to be questioned "are you sure you want to do this?" rather than encouraged? And to be given menial tasks as grad students rather than challenging ones which, while harder, have greater payoff?

Did you just disregard all of the evidence that supports the above (and yes, there is evidence for it) and replace that with "girls don't like hard work?" Or were you genuinely ignorant of the above? If the latter then this is your opportunity to learn. If the former then I'm afraid you have some critical thinking skills to work on.

Obligatory XKCD even: http://xkcd.com/385/

Your assumption is so horribly flawed. That is to say - you're assuming that the only reason to drop out is due to not being "obsessed with computers enough to excel." To begin with only a small percentage of students are "obsessed" with their subject. Others may be good, great, poor, etc. There's a spectrum. And I would say that the 5% females who did graduate are the ones who were obsessed. But to assume that all 95% of the remaining men *were* obsessed is just flawed reasoning.

When I was in school learning about the resistor color code a *teacher* told the students about the mnemonic "black boys rape only young girls but violet gives willingly." Sadly it's the only one I still remember...

But tell me - what does that do to inspire black students and girls to continue learning about electrical engineering?