Meh, the summary doesn't bring up any of the new stuff.

We *know* that exercise has an effect on the body. We *know* that exercising increases concentrations of growth hormones, anti-inflammatory responses, and metabolic rate adjusting factors. We *know* these adjustments are made through methylation patterns over enhancers/promoters.

Furthermore, there is no *change* in the DNA. Any alterations that occur do so on the back-chain of the DNA, which is normal behavior as the backchain is modified by ALOT of different factors. No nucleotides are being mutated or swapped by exercising (unless you imbibe strange and unhealthy body building substances).

Last, the adjustments made to the exercised cells are in *response* to the exercise rather than proactive as the summary suggests. It would after all be really freaky if your body started building up muscles *before* you started working out. That would actually freak me the hell out.

I think this is the best summary ever of #GamerGate. There are several books worth of stuff happening as a result of this, but this is the point of origin.

Can someone please explain to me what this whole "Let's convince/force/cajole/firehose women into CS" thing is all about?
*Why* is it so frikkin important all of a sudden? Why is there no similar push in any other field (think firefighter/truckdriver/constrution)?

Have I missed something important? Are women no longer considered smart enough to make their own choices regarding careers? Must we big smart men carefully explain to them why they *want* to go into CS?

What happens when this magical girls-only experience ends and suddenly the real world rears its ugly head with (God help us) *men* in the actual workplace? Perhaps we need to have some girls-only workplaces as well? But wait, what about when the workday ends? There might still be some *men* out and about. We need a girls-only city to make sure no disgusting boys hang around with their home-grown CS interests...

And now I'm all out of sarcasm. Thanks internet.

I guess my question boils down to: "Why force this interest? Why force this new brand of 'make-no-sense equality quotas' to *everyone's* detriment?"

Naah, much better to settle. Then you'll get that juicy ten year contract in the Silicon Valley lobby upon quitting your prosecutor's position.

I'm guessing you aren't a gamer.
I can tell you that as a gamer, we have very, *very*, different views on how to rate a game.
When I look at what games to buy, I consider the following:
Fun
Ported
Quality of controls
Interesting mechanics
Immersion
Replayability
Difficulty
Multiplayer
Stability

And none of those were on your list.
Why not leave the grading of games to those who actually enjoy the games? Or at least those who play them? I sure as hell don't wander into the competitive sailing scene and start demanding they rate their boats on how much they look like penises when squinting. Why do the same to games?

Yes, except in Norway cause that didn't work so well last time.

In war? Men get killed in combat, women stay at home.
In crime? Women get lower sentences, in some cases skipping prison time entirely.
In trouble? Heard about support groups for women? I sure have. A man's support from society when in trouble can be summarized as "walk it off and man up".
In court? Women win custody cases by default.

I'm not suggesting that being a woman is all peaches and cream, but get some perspective please. Life isn't black and white, and the gender debate isn't either.

How about dropping the pretense and going with 'sexy' instead?

Let's see you sell them games as "free of any sexy", "does not contain sexy", or the R rated "may contain traces of sexy".

Indeed, the purpose of prison is to correct behavioural traits that lead to criminal actions. That is after all why the success rate of prisons and even the legal system itself is measured in recidivism. One can however argue (and quite successfully so) that punishment is a tool for 'correcting' behaviour. Not the only tool, but it is available in every prison and does not require a degree or additional cost.

The first time I wanted to see what this 'fire' thing was about, I was duly punished with a burned hand.
When I forgot my key and kicked in the cellar window, I got duly punished with parental sanctions.
Both of these punishments corrected my behaviour.

Some people need a carrot to change. Some people need a whip.

There are already a hundred words that mean the same as 'metastable' and 'false' vacuum. Why invent two more? Why use the oxymoron at all?
It's exactly this kind of shit that makes me hide in the physics department and randomly jump out and donkey-punch surprised physicists on thursdays.

Don't hack the frack?
No hacking on our fracking?
The frack are you hacking?

We heard you like hacking, so we put some frack in your hack.

The possibilities are endless.