It's not a binary accept/reject, it's the amount of weight given to evidence.

Like EA would ever be that generous. 5 recharges, expiring after 24 hours, for 40 EA bucks (real value $19.99).

The grid needs to be privatised. Electricity is something we all need, like roads and other basic infrastructure. It should work for the general good, not profit.

The only acceptable solution (if you care about justice) is to stop putting so much weight on fingerprint evidence. It's basically worthless. The weight applied to DNA evidence needs to be scaled right back too.

Microsoft's mistake seems to have been allowing its US staff to access those servers at all. If Twitter can arrange it so that US staff simply cannot get access then it seems like they would be safe, because the law in the US can only require a person to hand over something they have. At least that's my understanding of it, perhaps someone can correct me but I think the onus would be on the government to show that the US staff have the information it wants.

The issue in that case is that a court has ordered access, it's not a problem with NSA hacking.

I welcome this move. As a European it protects my privacy a little more. It also punishes the US economically for the actions of the NSA, and unfortunately money is the only language they seem to understand. It's a shame GCHQ's actions are not having quite as dramatic effect on the UK, but for my part I have now moved all my servers overseas so there's a few quid gone.

Hothotware.com reviews are pretty shitty too. Bog standard benchmark suite, and no mention of critical missing features like OPAL V2 (or eDrive as Microsoft calls it, basically proper encryption support) or how it handles unexpected loss of power in real world conditions.

Android has been announced before the iPhone came out. Apple copied Android as much as Android copied them, for example with the notification shade and app support.

The iPhone was an evolution. The interface was nice, but not quite as revolutionary as was made out at the time. That was just the Apple hype machine, which started to look increasingly silly as every new device was described as "revolutionary, again" because it had a slightly better than average screen or half working voice input.

That started long ago with he Men's Rights movement. It got a bad name pretty quickly because it was basically a bunch of misogynists. I mention this because I'd love to see a real masculinist movement, but if you want to start one you need to be careful not to let it fail like previous attempts did.

You don't know what the word "literally" means, do you?

English is kinda fundamental though, without that the other stuff is kind of hard to master.

You are making two massive massive assumptions. You assume most guys are interested in STEM, and you assume most girls are not. Neither of those appears to be true.

Even if those assumptions were true, so what? Boys can already study STEM just fine in mixed schools, they don't need a boys only one. So what would the point of building one be? Just to satisfy some childish "she has one, so I must have one as well" feeling?

Watch a couple of minutes of this: https://youtu.be/2BzDmZHYCrw?t...

I linked to the right place for you. Those are real girls, with real experiences. They are being discouraged by a variety of factors. I'm afraid your anecdote is not data, but the study that video is based on absolutely is.

There was a professor on the radio talking about this the other day. It was BBC Radio 4, but I can't find the details now. Anyway, they were saying that when they looked at it they found that children with less self esteem actually tended to do better. Particularly Asian children and girls where were less confident than boys on average. It seems that having too much self esteem makes it harder for children to accept failure and learn from it, or to take chances (such as volunteering information in class or groups) because of the possibility they may be wrong.

That's my point, you are agreeing with me. This isn't discrimination at all, it's providing facilities for each gender that are suited to them but don't disadvantage or advantage either.