Read this blog post which references actual studies and then tell me gender bias is not real. Can't read? I'll summarize it: send out a resume to a bunch of people. Sometimes use a male name, other times use a female name. Have the recipient rate the candidate and guess what? The resume with the male name scores higher in their estimation. When asked how much they would pay the candidate, the male is always valued higher. Even if the person evaluating the resume is a women.

Many orchestras now perform blind auditions, because they discovered that gender and physical appearance of the candidate skewed their perception of the candidate's performance. There are studies that test people's cognitive abilities after the most subtle forms of "priming." Stereotype susceptibility is a real thing, proven in study after study. Remind a group of asian girls they are asian before they take a math test, their scores increase. Remind them they are girls, their scores go down.

We are social animals, even those of us that lack social skills, and constant social pressure has real world ramifications. It amazes me that a site of self-professed nerds is populated with so many people that don't question their own biases.

It's an example of treating one's principles as more important than profits. They don't wish to participate, even indirectly, a nation killing it's own citizens. Isn't that within their rights?

And you seem to be a really unpleasant person, regardless of your genealogy and orientation.

The behavior of random humans has no bearing on the validity of a scientific theory. In said human's defense:

1. Creationism is not a theory, it's a mythology.
2. Intelligent Design is not a theory, it is an argument from ignorance thinly veiled in the language of science to bolster creationism. ("It's too complex to understand, therefore God did it!" is not science. It wasn't when Newton invoked it when he could not solve orbits with more that two bodies, and it's still not today.)
3. Teaching either of these as "science" undermines science and that pisses people off.
4. Angry people behave angrily.

1. They can claim they are reducing government interference in the free market.
2. They can claim a victory against evil environmentalists and the "Big Green" lobby.
3. They can blame the original law on Obama and claim to have thwarted him (the reality of the law pre-dating Obama is not relevant.)

Because mercury causes autism!

None of this has anything to do with evolution. You are talking about physics, cosmology and abiogenesis (the first "replicators"). Presumably evolution began from those replicators, before the single-cell organisms.

Faith is believing something without evidence. There is a ton of evidence that supports evolution as the most viable explanation of the diversity of species on the planet. It's survived 150 years of predictions, experiments and challenges.

The specific claim is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Whoever told you this either does not understand the second law of thermodynamics, or is outright lying. The second law of thermodynamics only applies on average across the entire system and in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, the Sun pumps huge amounts of energy into the Earth which in turn radiates it back into space. As a matter of fact, the energy coming in is in the form of high energy photons and the radiated energy is an even greater number of low energy photons. That energy fuels life on Earth (and therefore "fuels" evolution.)

Let me put it another way. If evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, so does a sperm and egg growing into a human.

Actually, it's easiest to believe whatever conforms to our beliefs and the beliefs of the social groups we identify with. But the ease of believing something is not a valid justification and in no way validates those beliefs. Relativity is really unintuitive, but if the GPS system did not adjust for time dilation it would not work. Quantum Mechanics does not match our day to day experience, but experiment after experiment validate it. Modern electronics would not exist without Quantum Mechanics. I suspect that even Newtonian Physics are not as intuitive as we "feel," we are just taught it at a young age and have a grown accustomed to the ideas. A few hundred years ago, it would have seemed absurd and completely counter-intuitive that the Earth orbits the Sun or that the wandering stars were other planets, etc.

That's great you voted your conscience. I voted for Obama for the living. Sadly that didn't work out so well, though I think Romney would have been even worse on most of the matters I care about.

Faith is believing something without evidence, there is a ton of evidence for evolution and none for God.

Pascal's wager is proof that religious dogma can cloud even great minds. It assumes that there is only one possible God, and it happens to be the one you believe in. But as there is no evidence of any God, much less a specific one, you could be in just as much trouble as an atheist. If you believe Jesus is Lord but it's Allah, you are going to burn. Mormon's burn if Joseph Smith was wrong. Muslim's burn if Mohammad was wrong. Etc... But what if God hates people who believe stuff without reason? Well then, I'm just fine, but you are going to suffer. Or maybe God's not an egomaniacal douche. Then everybody's fine.

What is the evidence that the universe is intelligent?

Really? By who's definition? Sounds like an assertion without any evidence.

Whoa... I feel like I just attended a lecture by the great American philosopher known as Ted 'Theodore' Logan.

Yes, but I don't understand how your post was moderated "Interesting." It's two assertions that try to define something into existence followed by two leading, but completely irrelevant, questions.

You're kidding right? I used to work for a huge hardware/software company back in the day. My "real job" was to work on the OS, but I was also sent all over the world to "save" $50-150 million dollar sales on multiple occasions. I busted my ass and did some pretty damn good work - if I say so myself. Know what I got? $500, a plaque and a pat on the back for going above and beyond. I also got to keep my job and got a minor promotion. Which is exactly what would happen to the union guy - he'd get a few hundred bucks, and a bump to his pay grade (aka, a promotion.)

I had the same thought. And to make the sample really meaningful, the N drives from each vendor would ideally come from production different lots.

True, but that's mostly because the summaries are total crap.

Yeah, but have you read Slashdot's comments?

What makes you think that scientists have hidden this discrepancy? They haven't, and every anti-AGW promoter has been shouting it from the rooftops (while they ignore or misrepresent all the evidence that supports AGW.)

Who claims to know everything? Certainly no scientist does. If they knew everything they wouldn't have anything to figure out and figuring out "how life, the universe and everything" work is the what science is about.

I have a friend that believes that if he lets go of a lead ball and wishes really hard, he can make it hover. I do not believe that. These are not equivalent positions, he is believing something without evidence, I am not.