"Women can do just as much mental heavy lifting as men."

Bullshit because if they could, they would. I think it's pretty naïve to think that while nature made fairly substantially different hardware for substantially different purposes that it loaded exactly the same control software because it got lazy all of a sudden. Now maybe women can perform mental heavy lifting of a different sort but honestly, when they talk about patriarchy, when they talk about barriers to entry that they (for lack of understanding) call "bias," what they really mean is "our brain processes don't fit into these fields created and run by male thought processes." The proof to the fallacy of your statement is your statement needing to be made in the first place. Women can't do as much (male type) mental heavy lifting as men because if they could they would and if they were, they wouldn't be complaining about the difficulty of competing in male intellectual endeavors. The "bias" they perceive is the bias of the square peg not fitting in the round hole.

This woman's argument is poorly made at best and (I think) intentionally disingenuous at worst. She makes allusions to gender bias without ever really making the statement directly (which is, I believe, because she can't). She makes claims about difficulties that essentially are not faced by a particular gender but rather EVERYONE - man, woman, child, parakeet etc. And then finishes with a lot of talk that vaguely centers around equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome is a pernicious piece of feminist logic because it tacitly supports and endorses INEQUALITY as a means to an end as long as women control it and are the main beneficiaries which is EXACTLY the behavior they decry as being so unjust in the first place. It is hypocrisy and as usual, women are just fine with it as long as they benefit.

Did Rovio use a system already identified as being fraught with privacy concerns? Yes. And as long as it made them money, they didn't pay more than lip service to the issues (just like all the other companies built on Google's system - so don't I'm raging on just Rovio).

It has long been established legal reasoning that people benefiting from an illegality are complicit in that illegality. I consider it hypocritical for Rovio or any other developer to simply say, "Hey, it wasn't us, we just used and profited from the system." Rovio made a choice, at the least they can stand up and show some integrity and tell us they knew this system was bad but they were more interested in the money. At least then I can respect them for being forthright. As it is though, they're as dirty as the rest and liars to boot.

"United States export control regulations prohibit U.S. businesses, such as MOOC providers like Coursera, from offering services to users in sanctioned countries, including Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria."

Simple solution: Stop being a U.S. based business. The über paranoia, hubris and bullying attitude of the U.S. government has gotten out of hand. They are single-handedly destroying American technology businesses by eroding potential and existing customers trust (through the abuses of the NSA) and increasingly want to us U.S. corporations as a pawn in their geopolitical manipulations. In the era of globalism (promoted by that selfsame government on behalf of corporations over the welfare of its own citizens), now that same government demands adherence to nationalistic agendas. Pure hypocrisy and one that represents increasing risk to our fragile GLOBAL economy.

Well, those things and a self-loathing liberal dogma bent on supporting *anyone* but fellow Americans. It's kind of hard to be upwardly mobile when you have a certain hyper vocal segment of the society constantly shrieking about "privilege." Look no further than a recent idea floated in Michigan to give Detroit its own visas to import 50,000 foreign workers. American government doesn't want Americans. It wants nice passive, desperate foreign workers grateful for a pittance and always ready to kiss the king's ring. I say, fine. Let them have it. We'll see who laughs last.

The concept of "company town" gets a spit and polish for the 21st century. Good job repackaging yesterday's failed concepts, Detroit!

Keep re-reading it'll make sense to you sooner or later. If I have time I'll develop a pop-up book that you might find easier to digest but in the meantime, I'll give it a retry. In a field where the majority (notice that qualifier AC#1) of contributions were made by white males, the new breed of white males who have made their way to the top of the field now want to close the door of opportunity to successive white males behind them.

Good reading skills. If you look closely you'll see the qualifier "largely" in front of "created by white males." I did this for the obviously sexist and racist reason of being succinct while acknowledging that they were not the ONLY ones involved. It was my goal to make my point without actually having to list every single human being who has had a hand in the CS field in the last 100 or whatever years just to satisfy the literalists.

The problem is this: everywhere "non-minority" males compete and excel, they are accused of bias and the problem is resolved with constraints that increasingly cripple competitive males until whatever field the social crusaders are destroying looks enough like their paintings.

But there's a flip side to this as well, individuals who may have no real interest in a particular field are being herded into them at the prodding of these social crusaders. How is it any better for society to tell a female or a minority, "We don't like the field you chose so choose again and make sure you choose the one WE want you to be in." What sort of bias does that represent? If a person chooses not to take a choice based on a perception of bias in that choice, *AT THE LEAST* they have had an opportunity to exercise a choice. In the social crusader's paradigm, that person at the worst HAS NO CHOICE and at best can make another choice and endure potential public shaming. There are a plethora of articles out there of women being shamed for making choices in their own interest that do not hew closely enough to preferences of the dominating social crusader class.

"But the thing is, CollegeBoard AP CS exam records indicate that no Wyoming students at all took an AP CS exam (xls) in 2013, and only a total of 103 Utah students (xls) had reported scores. Let's not forget about the girls and underrepresented minorities, but since AP CS Exam Stats are being spun as a measure of CS education participation (pdf) and equity, let's not forget that pretty much everyone has been underrepresented if we look at the big AP CS picture."

That's the point. They don't care about "non-minority" males. PERIOD. Their only concern are the aforementioned "minority" groups.

The interesting thing is that in a field largely created by white males, the "new" white male beneficiaries of all who came before them now want to declare ownership of the field and decide who should and shouldn't have access to its rewards. Pretty grotesque, don'tcha think?

the government wastes three decades obsessed with studying the effects of cow farts on global warming.

Reefer madness for the 3d printer age.

Classic bureaucracy. Now we need protectors to protect the protectors. The question is who will protect the protectors hired to protect the protectors? It sounds to me as though those protectors will need protection at some point since one guard with a gun isn't much protection. Perhaps they'll need something with more clout such as a Department of Homeland Security Security which will have the necessary resources to provide security to Homeland Security.

"While I'm not saying SA isn't a misogynistic culture, you are not factually correct on some points." LOL... patriarchy not a strong enough world anymore? Now anything where males are in the majority is just misogynistic?

And why exactly does it have to be fair to women? Is Selective Service fair to men in this country? Are the alimony and child custody laws fair to men in this country? Even laws recently created in the age of "feminist enlightenment" are nt fair to men. VAWA anyone? IMBRA? "Preponderance of evidence?" There is nothing that irritates me more than the legions of self-righteous glass house residents in this counry looking down their noses at how other do things as if we're so much better. There are crimes against people that happen in this country that would make the citizens of other countries vomit in disgust. Yet here we are telling others how they should do it. Hypocrisy. The new American export.