I'm the straw man? The original post discussed an underwhelming involvement of women in this outrage over diversity in tech jobs. Its coming from politicians and CEO's and people not actually looking for tech jobs. This whole shortage of women in technology is a straw man and your argument that the numbers behind it don't matter is even more useless.

Saying women and men think the same is ignorant. Saying someone pointing out that difference is sexist is even more ignorant. Sexism is the derogatory treatment of women or men based on gender. I've never heard anyone say that helping others is a bad trait to have.

The problem you seem to have is with generalizations. Unfortunately, the human brain is incapable of not generalizing. Its the way we make sense of the world. So by your definition of sexism and racism (that the mere though that someone is different based on skin color or sex is racist or sexist), you are both racist and sexist and don't even know it. For you, me pointing out that a black man is different than a white man because of genetic mutation that increases melatonin in the skin, would be racist. To me, its just an interesting bit of science.

It's got nothing to do with numbers? Then what is driving this movement? Do you just feel women are underrepresented in the IT workforce? How the hell do we fix that?

If you can't make a quantifiable argument for the basis of your opinion, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and, frankly, deters people from having a real discussion.

While I really enjoyed Ex Machine, its not of the "2001: A Space Odyssey" level.

To reduce injury of the person in the autonomous car. A very simple solution here is to release the break and idle forward at sub-second intervals before a rear end crash. The crash will push the car forward anyways and this minor change in speed would reduce the whiplash caused to the people in the previously stationary car. We can start with low hanging fruit like this and move into better avoidance as the technology improves, like moving into a red light to avoid a crash in instances where there is no oncoming traffic.

I'd like to think that at some point these things would be able to prevent fatal crashes that would've been the other drivers fault.

Having been to the facilities that track space junk, I can say you have no idea what you are talking about. They contain some of the worlds most advanced equipment.

And not that I really care much about partisan politics, but the facilities are military with year over year increasing budgets. Military spending is typically associated with the republican party.

Insightful? You are a moron and this argument has no place in the discussion at hand. That's like arguing walking while intoxicated should be a DWI just like when behind the wheel of a ca,r because in both cases you are moving.

Just because someone is in a hospital or someone has Ebola, doesn't make them mentally ill, thus this law wouldn't apply anyway. Additionally, there are already laws in place regarding quarantine procedures in the case someone walks into a hospital with Ebola symptoms.

Or they could just call the cops...

Judging from the article, it will take longer than that:

And with both highly specialized robots and a full support staff, I'd bet this route is more costly than having minimum wage workers.

Still, it wont be that far in the future before we are visiting hotels with humans as the staff as an "awkward theater" of how it was before robots replaced people in the service industry.

Until the artist is forgotten because he pulled all his music from streaming services, so a new generation can't be introduced to it.

Foremost, Slashdot has a primary liberal readership (+50%), judging by its more politically polarizing polls.

Secondly, lets use a little common sense. Governments and companies are both run by people, which are fallible. The woman crying thief is at fault and the cops enforcing this silly claim are also at fault. I'll call you a lib because of the idiocy of your statements.

It's got electrolytes.

I think you are taking the statement too literally. While the idea of a fact is steadfast, what people interpret as fact is not, and can be molded.

Facts can be changed. Welcome to 1984.

I honestly doubt it. Either you add nothing of interest to a conversation, no opinions of your own, and only state bland facts; you say the right things to the right people all the time, and are as such a very manipulative person; or you are one of those who doesn't realize when they offend someone. Even if this wasn't the hyper-politically correct world we live in, it is impossible to please 100% of the people 100% of the time.