How do you know that is the only way? Is that true of every lingering inequality? Some lingering inequalities do not even need to be fixed. For example, for a long time, people who didn't own land weren't able to vote. Then, we gave them the right to vote. But, it is still kind of unfair because they are making less money on average than people who own land. Likewise, if women have equal opportunity, but choose careers with good fringe benefits and lower pay, why is that a problem?

I think men and women are both trying to maximize their happiness, but because of the structure of society, different strategies are optimal. I assume that people are motivated by having the best possible mate and having the largest amount of money to spend. For men, in order to find the best mate, making money is a good strategy. For women, a higher salary has a negligible effect on attracting the best mate. Also, for women, getting a better mate is a more effective strategy for having lots of money to spend than having a high paying career. As a result, if you want to have an optimal happiness, it is not rational for women to waste their time optimizing their career when they could be spending more time finding an ideal mate. Now, I do not think this whole thing is the best for society. It would be better if women did not consider money when they picked their mates. It would be better if men could pick lower paying but more fulfilling careers without sacrificing their ability to get the best mate possible. But, I am not sure how society could get from where we are now to such a place.

In societies where there is the most gender equality where feminism is crammed down everyone's throats their whole life and where women have the most opportunity to pick whatever career they want, where the government provides universal free daycare, even a smaller percent of women choose STEM fields. Sweden spent like the last 50 years working really hard to educate their youth that men and women are exactly equal (except for a few physical differences.) And yet, men and women have increasingly gone into more segregated career fields. It seems like gender expectations are not responsible for less women picking STEM fields. http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

This seems like a really good opportunity for Google. They should start running their own journals. They make the rules of the game fair. They would likely get massive support if they did it. They would just need a large PR campaign.

How does it work when a company copyrights something rather than a person? Companies are people, now, right?

Why is it that they are less corrupt? Is it because they are more ethical or because they are not as effective for influencing policies that favor the people who want to spend money on bribes? If this was close to passing, wouldn't that shift things? I imagine that as an Evil Overlord of a large company's bribery division, I would then shift my focus to state officials in order to stop this from getting passed. A cynical person might point to places where they wanted to shift to using OpenOffice.org instead of Microsoft Office. It seems like large companies have tactical units that can be deployed to influence government on more local levels when it is in their best interests.

Do you have a source for that claim? Because it seems to contradict the point that we have survived for several thousand years with quite a larger population than 500 million

Do you have any sources for that claim? From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment "The Luddite events of 1811 were the beginning of humankind's analysis of whether it is possible for technological unemployment to be other than temporary and confined to particular industries and firms. Contrary to the Luddites' fears, technological advancement did not ruin Britain's economy or systemically lower standards of living throughout the following decades of the 19th century. In fact, during the 19th and 20th centuries, the opposite happened, as technology helped Britain to become much less impoverished than before. For this reason, some economists think that the general Luddite premise is fundamentally flawed, and thus they apply the term Luddite fallacy to it."

Unless there is a tie.

You mean like computers? One computer can do the math that it used to take large groups of manual labor to accomplish. So, now we have tech industry that employs far more people than the ones it replaced. And railroads put a lot of wagon drivers out of work. And yet, I'm sure the shipping industry spends billions of dollars per year. Historically speaking, replacing human labor with something more efficient has happened quite a lot.

Should we dig ditches using tea spoons? Because after all, using a shovel replaces dozens of workers using tea spoons...

I'm pretty sure if the guy plugged his laptop into the wall or his cell phone, no one would complain.

Against vehicles I would expect it would be done from a UAV instead. Speaking of which, if you could target aircraft with this someone would have a really bad day...

Is the summary misleading, or are they taking about 3rd party partners and not "affiliates" like the summary said. Amazon Affiliates just put a banner add on their web site. It is more like running an advertisement inside the state than it is like a car dealership.

The "F" in F-Droid stands for Free. That's not what I was thinking it stood for at first...

Yes. The right to remain silent is good for society. As far as talking to the police when you are pretty sure you will be convicted anyway... When exactly do you know that? Are you a lawyer? The evidence you think they have might not be admissible for some reason. The lab might screw up the forensics. The cop involved might be found to have planted evidence in some other case. They can and will lie to you about what evidence they have collected. So, yes, you may get a better deal by cooperating. But you should never do so unless you have a lawyer first.