I think it depends on the job. People hold stereotypes and biases. For nurse, nanny, chef, doctor, housekeeper, waitstaff, painter, etc.. I doubt this hold.
Yes, some of those are lower paying but not all. For a housekeeper I much prefer a woman. We were once looking for a programmer who could
telecomute and I got openly laughed at for suggesting trying to find a stay at home mom. The assumption was that those type of people didn't
program. Although that assumption obviously isn't true, that's the bias. Likewise if you have a moving company and need to hire a lumper you're
going to be naturally biased against women. It's a catch 22 as the best way to reduce those biases (where they are unnatural) is to get more
people of the opposite sex into that profession. We've largely succeeded in the medical doctor field but even there I've heard women getting
insulted when someone mistakenly thinks they are a nurse instead. Some professions (firefighting, lumping, and I would argue programming) are
naturally biased against women and we can't do much about that.

Not sure where you live but here on planet earth most women are way better at networking than men are.
You completely lost any and all credibility when you tried to imply that men are better at networking.
On a somewhat related note, I've noticed more and more women moving into sales as it pays
better than average and they get to use many of the skills they are good at like networking.
Women are also becoming doctors more and more frequently, as again, this is a good paying job that
utilizes alot of their natural skills. Women exceed men in college degrees now and have almost
caught up as medical doctors: http://kff.org/other/state-ind...
Programming is not one of those professions so tech companies are fighting an uphill battle.
It would be far better to spend that time/effort encouraging women to go into the medical field
and other high paying jobs where their natural skills like nurturing (and networking) can be advantageous.

base bases are always in base 10.

Even that bar is way too high for current technology. Give me an AI that can outthink a rat.
You can put a pair of glasses on a rat connected to a webcam and a rat can easily find
food. Put that same webcam on a rc car and no AI in the world is even close to being
able to compete. Based on current technology it would probably be easier to train a rat
to drive the rc car to find food than it would be to train a computer.
That's my definition of intelligence. Something that can accurately navigate in the real world
and learn. We're not remotely close.
The only good news is that once we master the "rat" then it would probably be trivial to
ramp up it's intelligence where it can read and then easily pass the turing test.
Let's work on getting a computerized rat before we bother with trying to get human level
intelligence as you need the first before you can have the later.

Businesses are NOT not hiring women. The practice of paying men (or breadwinners) more for the same job is a thing of the past.
If a man and a woman apply to the SAME job with the SAME qualifications then they get paid the SAME. There is actually a little
bit of data showing that a woman actually get paid MORE all else being the same. The problem is that there are far fewer women
that want certain type of jobs. You can attempt to change personal preferences but should we really care if people are freely
choosing their careers and some people chose careers that pay more while others choose careers that pay less?

From what I've heard, that's actually part of the problem, not the fix.
High end chocolate uses ALOT more actual cocoa beans than cheap chocolate.
Cheap milk chocolate is 15% or less cocoa where high end chocolate can be 50% or more.

This is actually the real solution, cheap cocoa is the problem. The solution will be that prices will rise
to compensate until there is an equilibrium. If this becomes a significant problem then chocolate will probably go
the way of other things like maple syrup, vanilla, and honey where cost sensitive places will switch to artificial or
diluted alternatives while people who are willing to pay the price can still get the good stuff.

My guess is that the article provides part of the answer. The need to have scaffolding (and employees) anyways
to do repairs and other tasks so you already have the sunk cost of the scaffolding so the robot would have to be
considerably cheaper or be able to use the existing scaffolding.

As that glass is extremely think and presumable durable, I personally don't understand why a cheap roomba
outfitted with pressure washer (and something to catch the water) couldn't do the job.

I was thinking the same thing. When I was a kid, setting off blackcats (firecrackers) in the bathroom
was not unheard of. This makes that even more appealing.
My biggest problem with these type of systems is that the cost/reward is so lopsided. There is
so much more effective ways of saving lives than trying to protect yourself from a 1 in a million event.
Children are way way more likely to be injured by their parents at home than they are by a school shooting.
A tornado or a fire is probably also way more likely to injure a kid at school than a school shooting.
There have to be better things to spend money on than expensive equipment that based on probabilities
will likely never be used.

As an aside, we probably already have similiar laws on the books. I'm pretty sure you can't just download
and listen to every private 911 call. You have to have a legitimate reason to want to access them.

I think the key is that you shouldn't be able to request access to the recording unless you personally were involved
and/or there is a court order. A police's bodycam should be like video surveillance video. A nosy reporter (or a youtuber)
shouldn't be able to just request hours of footage without a legitimate link just as a reporter can't force walmart to
release their surveillance videos. It should be archived and relatively easy to get to for interested parties but not
the general public. A compromise might be a small screen public viewing room that doesn't allow recording devices
where someone could watch the tapes and then once they find what they are looking for then do an official request
for that section of the video along with what they are going to do with it.

That's kindof my point. "gnome desktop" and "gnome pos" would both be your "desktop environment" aka "GUI"
It's pretty hard to argue that a graphical POS doesn't fit the definition of a GUI. It's graphical and it's the user's interface.

Gnome's trademark is for "software for creating and managing a computer desktop" which a PoS definitely is.
Gnome's trademark is also for "software for use as a GUI" which again clearly describes a PoS.
A PoS is definitely a GUI, a rather simplistic one but definitely a gui. The fact that gnome also runs on multiple tablets
and has also been previously deployed as a PoS should only strengthen their case. It seems very clear-cut to me.

How do you figure? They are both the frontend GUI, window manager, and most visible portion of the environment.
If you asked an uninformed newbie what OS they were running on either system the most likely answer would be "gnome"
though neither "gnome desktop" nor "gnome PoS" are operating systems when a normal thinks of an operating system
they think of the window and gui management system. Yes, gnome is a full fledged desktop environment but that's like
saying I can market bottled water under the name "coca cola" because water isn't a soda. They are both still beverages.
Likewise, "gnome Pos" and "gnome desktop" are both "frontend gui and window managers for the underlying OS"

I agree that if it was in a different domain they might not have a very strong case but a PoS is basically a simplified
GUI so I think there is a very strong case that there could be potential confusion between a computer running gnome desktop
and a computer running gnome PoS. I have no idea why groupon would want that confusion unless they think they
can steal some of gnome desktop's reputation.

I would start by creating self contained units that can survive equally well in the sahara, antartica, and underwater with minimal* air exchange with
the outside. Salt water, cold, and sand are notoriously hard on equipment and if a single type of unit can survive in all 3 environments then they
might have a fighting chance. My guess is we have very little that can survive 80 years in any of those 3 environments without repair materials
being sent and I don't see mars being self sufficient for a very long time.

* the only reason I say minimal is that there is no reason even on mars that you couldn't do outgassing or ingassing of needed or unneeded
gases. It doesn't have to be 100% self contained if there is some way to regulate correctly the amount of different gases in the environment.