Yep, this is normal service in the UK. My broadband has been buggered since October, still no date for a fix. The government is no worse than, say, the average bank.

When did she lie? It seems like she just interpreted what happened differently. The facts don't seem to beer disputed, only the interpretation of them.

The law doesn't work the way you think it works. Just because she lost doesn't mean she lied and cheated and is a feminazi. It just means she couldn't convince a jury that on the balance of probabilities she was discriminated against. And actually there is still one claim still to be decided upon.

Let's wait and see if the judge brands her a feminazi, shall we?

Watch the first 10 minutes of this video: https://youtu.be/2BzDmZHYCrw

It explains a lot of the issues facing women (didn't mention the pay gap) and has a nice well designed study to back it up.

Things are improving, but the issue isn't "over" yet. We went from 35% of CS degrees going to women in 1985 to about 18% now. That needs to be explained, and if you just look at the data you it will be.

Your view is that of a dedicated capitalist who sees workers as tools for business and nothing more. The reality is that society needs children. Look at Japan where due to the things you mention the birth rate is very low. It's a huge problem for them because and their population is set to fall by 30m in the next 40 years.

More over most people do want children at some point in their lives. Most people are supposed to make the rules (democracy) so companies are going to have to respect that and make allowances for them.

Of course the rules should apply equally to both genders. You could argue that people who don't have kids should get more time off, or that people who do have kids should get some benefits because the burden they accept is beneficial to society and as we can see in Japan society needs to encourage that behaviour. Society wants well brought up kids too so making parents choose between work and their offspring isn't desirable.

How about people like you get a tax break, on the condition that in 30 years time you can't see any doctor under the age of 55?

The guy in the story says that there were some wireless options but they were extremely expensive. Just fine them the cost of the wireless service until they install the cable.

I use Keepass backed up a cloud storage drive and my home server. Even if I lose everything on me I can still go to any random computer and access the database file, and open it with a quick download of Keepass. In the event that I lost everything at the airport I'm sure I could scrounge give minutes of computer time from somewhere.

Australia is a common law country, right? Is it even possible for them to put you in a position where discontinuing an action is illegal, effectively forcing you to do it? Obviously they passed the law, but would it stand up in court?

I'm trying to think of some legal basis to challenge it. What if the canary required signing with two PGP keys to be considered valid, and one of those keys was held by someone outside Australia? The victim in Australia wouldn't be able to force them to sign the canary, but might still be found guilty for setting up such a mechanism in the first place.

Other providers like Tencent are offering a few terabytes for free, so the only real reason to pay Amazon is for their guaranteed service level... Which appears to be non-existent. So, I'm not sure why you would pay $60/year for this.

I like having unlimited on-line encrypted backups. If good software is available that supports Amazon I suppose that would be a selling point.

I imagine people made the same complaint about newspapers when black rights really started to gain traction and the last racist laws were being challenged/repealed. They definitely made the same complaints when gay rights and same-sex marriage was being introduced.

Actually the same-sex marriage "debate" has many interesting parallels to this one. Many of the anti-gay-rights people made similar claims to the anti-feminism people, e.g. gay people aren't interested in marriage and the whole issue is just an attack on straight people. There were claims that it was just a tax dodge, people wanting to marry their same-sex children or friends just to transfer money without any of it going to the government. All sorts of theories about how it was all nothing to do with the core issues: rights and fairness.

Don't worry, big improvements are being made, most of the major tech companies are making a real effort to sort this out. In a few years it will go away.

Here is a really good post on Oculus and why they are failing, rather than being an example of why there isn't a problem: http://killscreendaily.com/art...

If you want to claim that Oculus is proof women don't want to work in tech, you have to explain why their parent company (Facebook) manages to employ a 30% female workforce.

Your example of Oculus is misleading. They are almost 100% male, and yet companies like Facebook are around 30% female, so clearly the problem is with the way they are hiring and not with women simply being uninterested in technology. They actually mentioned what the problem is in their Q/A session:

So they know the problem - very few women applied - but don't know the solution. Companies like Facebook clearly do know the solution, it's no great mystery. A lot of applicants come from networking contacts. Men tend to network with other men more than women, so it's a feedback loop that ensures most of the applicants will be male. Maybe they were not offering much flexibility that women look for to balance their work and family lives. There are books about this stuff, they could fix it if they wanted to.

Why are you trying to make it into some kind of gender war, where one side has to lose for the other to gain? It's not a zero sum game and it's not about women trying to beat men down. That's your take on it, not what mainstream feminists and companies that make an effort to hire more women are trying to do.

Your anecdote is interesting because it shows who people's preconceptions colour their perception of events. Let's look at alternative explanations of what happened, with no offence intended towards you.

It sounds like HR had identified specific issue in the company and was monitoring it. An employee was then promoted based on merit. If there is any fault here, it's that HR didn't make enough effort to check that other employees were given the same opportunities.

Someone had identified this employee as a valuable asset and decided it was worth making an effort to employ her. It turned out that they were right. Race and gender had nothing to do with it.

When these sorts of things get to trial there usually has to be more evidence than this, precisely because it can be interpreted either way.

That's certainly the current anti-feminist narrative. There is no problem, sexism is over and anyone who complains is themselves a sexist, usually a man hater. Same with racism, there isn't any of that any more and people complaining about it just want money and privilege.

If a company never hires women it's pretty easy to catch them in a sting where you send two more or less identical CVs, one with a woman's name and one with a man's. If the women's is rejected and the man gets an interview it's lawsuit time.

The only way to avoid being sued for discrimination is to stop discriminating, not to do more of it.