You may be correct in some respects, but not in others.

I will admit to having a bias here. I am a male who works in childcare, and seem to enjoy it far more than many my colleagues (including the women). My experience suggests that neither men nor women have an advantage here in terms of ability to care for or our desire to care for children. There are differences in how we approach our responsibilities, but it is unclear whether it due to biological or social factors. Obviously those observations are non-scientific in nature, and I'll admit that it could influence me to "cherry-pick" studies.

On the other hand, there are problems with your assertions. The first is that the "feminist" claim has no basis whatsoever, beyond particular people's points of view. The second is that a properly conducted study does constitute scientific proof, though clearly the reproducibility of results is desirable and contradictory results can invalidate the study. The third is that there are studies about the role of men in childcare and education. I am aware that such studies are outside the scope of parenting, but they do research the role that men perform in child development outside of the traditional context.

Exactly how is disproving stereotypes feminist shit?

At the end of the day, some men are good fathers just as some women are good mothers. There is nothing special about that, even though societal prejudices seems to believe that is the case.

Now if you choose to live up to the male stereotype, that's up to you. If you choose not to have children, that's fine. Personally, I don't care if you live up to the stereotype and have children (as long as no harm is coming to your children).

But also realize that some men do have a paternal instinct. In those cases, the prejudices against men (or same sex couples) represents a direct harm to them and it has the potential to harm their children.

So live your life how you want, but please ditch those stereotypes so that others can live their life how they see fit.

(Oh, and what is it with this "stay-at-home-dad" nonsense? Many children are being raised in families where both parents work these days. In the 80's we called it latchkey kids. These days we call it two-income families. Not only is it a common situation, it ain't exactly new.)

Lemire is right, spreadsheets are terrible for complex models that need to be modified. He is right for precisely the reasons he outlined.

That doesn't mean that spreadsheets are useless. If you have a standard form where you're only modifying values, rather than functions, spreadsheets are great. There is a low barrier to entry and they are good for communicating results. But as soon as you need to audit or modify functions, you are jumping all over the place and it is easy to make mistakes. Yes, there are ways to consolidate your code (at least in spreadsheets that support scripting), but you are going to take so much time learning how to use the advanced features of you spreadsheet that may as well learn a dedicated programming language in those cases.

And the reality is that it's pretty easy to learn how to use programming languages these days. Not as easy as using a spreadsheet, to be sure, but even the standard Python distribution can handle most of the vulgarities of loading data into memory and storing it properly (i.e. you don't have to worry about parsing or data structures too much). By adding the appropriate modules you can do some decent visualization of data. In some cases the visualization will be better than spreadsheets, and in others spreadsheets will have the lead. And that's just Python, which I chose as an example because I'm familiar with it. The reality is that there are much more appropriate domain specific languages out there.

On the other hand, Wikipedia is a lot more credible than most of the books and magazines containing "medical" advice. Not all books, to be certain, because there are many that are vetted by professionals for accuracy and completeness. Yet it seems as though the vast majority of books that are meant to be accessible to non-professionals are doing little more than push a POV. Because those books cannot be edited by third parties, as the Wikipedia can, there are few avenues to criticize inaccurate information. Those few avenues that do exist are also limited to readers who are willing to do additional research to vet the reliability of their sources.

When everything is said and done, trust a good doctor. If you're seeking independent medical advice, ensure that you're spending the time to learn enough about medicine so that you aren't being mislead by disproven or inadequately researched alternative medicine. Oh, and spend time researching the sources as well.

But when everything's said and done, I'm not surprised that the "Wikipedia's accuracy is "above 0%." It's not as good as professional resources, but it's nowhere near as bad as some of the stuff pushed by publishing houses.

At the end of the day, it will be users who decide between Firefox, Chrome, IE, Safari, and the multitude of other options out there. These users will make their decision based upon a variety of factors. For some it will be access to DRMed content. For others it will be a completely open source product. Of course there are other reasons too.

I'm guessing that the Mozilla foundation tried to figure out what their user base wanted, and came up with the answer that content would keep more users than excluding the DRM module would. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. Only time will tell.

Something tells me that autonomous cars will always have a manual override. There are times when it will be easier to take direct control of a vehicle than to communicate to a computer what you want done (e.g. parking in a particular way to load or off-load cargo). There are times when computers make very poor decisions, either being too safe or too dangerous, because of poor or outdates information. (Consider the periodic quirky routes generated by GPS navigation systems.) There are also people who need to take their vehicle off-road, particularly in rural areas.

Any autonomous vehicle that can be overriden should have a licensed operator. Their license should also have certifications regarding where and when autonomous controls can be overrident. That will be particularly true in the early days, while bugs are being worked out of the system.

At $120/month for a pass, you're probably paying less to use transit than you would pay for gasoline. On top of that, you don't have the expense of purchasing and maintaining a car, insurance, or parking.

On top of that, people who cannot drive or cannot afford to drive usually have access to cheaper bus passes. Those who live in walkable or bikeable communities have the choice of paying a single fare when they need the service, rather than having to deal with the full expense of car ownership for the few times that you do need a car. (Well, I suppose there are taxies and rentals -- but those aren't cheap either.)

I'd have a hard time identifying a legitimate climate skeptic because my background is in astrophysics rather than climatology. (Simply put, I could critque anything based upon solar flux but not much else.) That said, I have seen legitimate and illegitimate critics in terms of astrophysics. The former do a pretty good job at advancing the science, even though their message takes longer to propagate than it should. Then again, that is probably more of a defence mechanism against poor ideas than anything else. The illegitimage critics are typically ignored, and do nothing for or against the science. Then again, astrophysics is mostly apoltical, while climatology is very politicized. In that case the illigitimate critics seem to have more weight than they have earned.

I was in unusual circumstances a few years back, which made social gaming not only necessary but desirable. (Necessary in the respect that there were very few alternatives for socialization, since we were working in an isolated area.)

I learned an important lesson from that: accessible multiplayer games can be a lot of fun. The only requirement is that there are a bunch of people in a room, and that those people want to have a good time. Once the games become online multiplayer, the lack of face-to-face interaction removes huge chunk of the fun. Once the games become too complex, skilled players do all of the winning and novices do all of the losing. (And how many people have fun when they are consistently losing?)

Now I can't speak for Ouya since I've never used the platform, but Nintendo did a good job of it with the Wii. From what I've seen of Android games, developers have done a good job of creating accessible games. (But since I've only ever played Android games on tablets, I don't know what face-to-face multiplayer is like.)

I've found that young vs. old is a trade-off.

Older workers frequently have a better work-ethic in the workplace, and have more experience to draw upon. Younger workers have a better work-ethic in terms of the amount of time they are willing to dedicate to work and frequently (but not always) contribute new ideas.

What it seems to come down to is: do you want experienced workers who will contribute more per hour, but who will also draw a firm line between their work and personal life, or a young worker who is willing to put in the extra time, even though a lot of their time will be spent relearning what a more experience worker already knows?

I suppose software development also has other factors. Some products depends upon experienced developers (e.g. anything considered mission critical) while other products depend upon fresh ideas (e.g. most software targetted at consumers).

Has there been a corresponding increase in service? By that I mean the number of channels delivered for the given tier, since cable companies usually pay the broadcaster a certain rate per channel.

(I don't subscribe to cable, so I don't know how things have changed over the decade since I've left home.)

It is not that science is rejecting scepticism. Heck, scepticism is fundamental to science. The issue that legitimate climate sceptics face is that they are trying to disprove a large body of evidence that is both diverse and mature. If sceptics want to prove their point, they have to collective evidence that is also diverse and mature. That is no simple feat.

That is also making a huge assumption: that the climate sceptics are legitimate. I'm sure that some sceptics are, particularly when it comes to critiquing particular pieces of evidence. On the other hand, they seem to be a tiny minority. Most of the debate that I see comes from people who have little understanding of science, nevermind climate science.

Try to find strong or independent "princesses" that can serve as positive role models and encourage her to express her interests in constructive and creative ways.

This doesn't mean that you should give in to her desires. You should be taking away toys that create destructive images of womanhood (impossible body image, subservience to the patriarchy, etc.). On the other hand, forcing a child to be what you expect of them is equally destructive.

I would be hesitant about classifying him as a 'grumpy old man.' As the interview pointed out, he does use more modern software for non-writing tasks. He simply chooses to use an older computer for his writing because it does what he needs and it doesn't interfere with his work.

The thing with new computers, as with any other technology, is that they have benefits and drawbacks. Writers commonly cite distractions as a problem. These include everything from the urge to edit or format their writing to early, to temptations like the Internet. (Heck, some readers prefer printed books and dedicated ereaders to avoid distractions.) In other cases, writers don't want to mess with their workflow once they have figured out something that works. None of this involves being a grumpy old man, anti-technology, or whatever else you choose to label it as.

The other thing is that we're talking about production machines here. Many people avoid upgrading production machines because there is a lot of overhead to deal with. For example, turning off all of those features is something that you may have to perform with each software upgrade and it is almost certainly something that you have to perform with each hardware upgrade. If you are in the middle of a project, or picking up on an old project, data must be transferred between machines (in the case of hardware upgrades) and there may be issues with the portability of your files between different versions of the software (in the case of software upgrades). While the latter probably isn't an issue for a novelist upgrading between versions of their word processor, it is certainly true for an author who is switching word processors (which Martin would have had to do at some point if he wanted to stay current) and it is true for people who create more complex documents.

Now if Martin was griping about his publisher being unable to handle WordStar documents while expressing a fear of modern computers, you may have a point. The thing is, he isn't. Something tells me that the people who are translating his writing into a book aren't complaining about this quirk either -- if for no other reason than Martin's success.

The most important thing is to gain employment experience before you graduate, and the more the better. If at all possible, get a job that is somehow related to your career objectives. This will help you gain experince, find direction, and develop relationships that will help you later on. If that fails, try to find work that will have skills that are transferrable to your desired industry. Even mundane office work will allow you to acquire the skills required of technical workers, even if those are soft skills (e.g. how to interact with managers). If that fails, take anything -- but continue to look for something that will lead you down the career path that you desire.

The reality of the matter is that the hardest part of starting your career is entering the job market. Part of that is just getting people to recognise that you exist, but part of it is being able to function in the workplace. Businesses are far more likely to look at you if they already know who you are, see that you have relevant experience, or know that you can function in the workplace (e.g. interact with colleagues, can take initiative, have a good work ethic, etc.). Unfortunately a fresh college graduate with little work experience only touches upon those with their schooling. On the other hand a fresh college graduate with four years of work experience has a much more solid foundation.