Many of them have a picture of the packaging, even the ones that dont show them on the initial page, you willfully dishonesty fuck.

Now shut the fuck up. People that care about the facts and of the well being of little girls instead of their own fucking selfish and dishonest hero complex are talking.

This I've got to see.

Nothing marketed to a specific gender here on the first page.

Thats Toys'R'Us, pretty much the gold standard example of marketing towards children... So we see that you can't actually show a gender bias in science kits. You lied. You imagined it. Doesn't matter what the reason is, in either case the core of your argument is so blatantly false that you definitely should have known. We can only conclude that you are willfully ignorant due to motives unrelated to being accurate.

Now what sort of weight should we put on the statements of people such as yourself whose motives are unrelated to being accurate? Zero. None. Nada. We should in fact ignore your arguments and statements with extreme prejudice because it is seemingly only with prejudice that you make statements.

Lets examine the logic shall we? (I know.. I know.. you HATE that)

a) LEGO used to just be blocks, and the just-blocks legos were used by both boys and girls
b) LEGO now makes engineering-type sets which boys prefer and home-making-type sets which girls prefer.

You then argue that:

1) It is marketing that moved us from (a) to (b)
2) We need to use marketing to undo the evils of marketing
3) Marketing is bad
4) Marketing is good
5) All hail marketing

If as you illogical morons argue that marketing is the problem, then the solution obviously isn't marketing, that in fact the worst thing to do would be to use the dark powers of marketing to control the minds of girls.

Then again, I never met a liberal that didnt want to enforce their will onto others by any means necessary.

The proper way to handle this, would be for the courts to be able to order a closed investigation, conducted by a forensic computer/network specialist within law enforcement, to look in to the Comcast customer's potential involvement from a technical aspect, in order to determine if it's reasonable to reveal their their identity to continue the case.

Except what is "reasonable" is considered a "fact", and its not law enforcement thats supposed to decide what the facts are. It is judges that determine what are and are not "facts."

Intel set aside $45 billion a few years ago just for stock buy-backs. Then another $20 billion about 6 months ago for the same purpose. Thats the sort of cash they accumulate that they dont have a good idea what to do with.

ARM has a market cap of only $25 billion, so I think that you have grossly failed in your assumptions.

Don't get me wrong.. ARM is an amazing company. Their profit per employee is quite impressive. Never-the-less, Intel is constantly looking for ways to invest that kind of money. They just don't think that ARM would be a good acquisition. Far cheaper to license ARM IP as needed than to buy it.

I guess then that the shortage of workers due to only taking internet applications has forced them to raise wages, right?

No? Then something about your argument is complete shit. You figure out what it is.

So lets double down and get even more tax payer money in on the game...

I am failing to see your logic, perhaps because I am not looking so desperately for a reason to justify this move by the fcc.

I don't think that the word "charity" means what you think that it means.

IEEE floating point has both positive and negative infinity, as well as positive and negative zero. IEEE also took the trouble to define division by these signed zeros as resulting in one of these signed infinities.

So strictly speaking, computers already can and do return a default value for division by zero. Its just not the value that this guy wants.

Yes. $1,000,000 taxi medallions.

..and if banned, they would still have no choice.

Amazing bit of "logic" you have.

The way I am reading the comments, the issue is that the buggy SSD's are flagging physical blocks as RZAT or DRAT when a trim request on a logical block is ignored. The bug presents itself later if the SSD performs wear leveling that swaps out the logical block with another, the bug being leaving the physical block tagged RZAT or DRAT.

Funny that "force of law" only sounds sinister in some cases. Now go back to the books and figure out why it does in this case.

I remember when it wasn't considered a problem to be satisfied inexpensively.

Some people are satisfied with transfats, while others are satisfied with telling others what to do. One of these has higher hidden costs, the supporters of the later telling us its the former.

"River, we're not telling people what to think. We're just trying to show them how."

Proves the point, doesnt it?

Do you really want people who will be shown to be wrong within 40 years to be making force-of-law decisions for you on the very things that they are wrong about? My guess is that its only not-a-big-deal when it doesnt directly effect your lifestyle choices.

First they came for the socialists...