Where does the liability lie when a UPS truck backs over a baby stroller, or a FedEx delivery person loses control of a handtruck full of boxes and breaks someone's ankle? Where's the liability when an aircraft flown by DHL crashes short of the airport and burns a row of houses to the ground?

You make it sound like small plastic/foam flying wings with four battery-powered motors are the first dangerous thing that business has ever considered operating, and that there's no such thing as the liability insurance industry. Which means you're clueless about the real world, or just trolling. Or both.

It'd also be worth pointing out that the STEM "gap" isn't just in people choosing fields, it's also the fact that females score lower on all kinds of science tests and assessments. This bias shouldn't exist, regardless of what job people ultimately choose, unless you want to engage in some hoary stereotyping that "explains" why women don't have the "spatial acuity" for physics or blah blah.

Among mere practicing physicians, a group where men and women are basically at parity, women make 80% what their male counterparts do, and only 20% of medical school faculty are women.

There is the more fundamental metaphysical question -- even if we define STEM fields to include medicine and we can get the diversity to 50-50, why should we have to? Why would their be so many more male physicists than female ones (again without engaging in insulting stereotypes and gender essentialism)?

Why would we include biological sciences in the category of STEM fields? The whole point of defining the STEM fields the way we do is to exclude healthcare and medicine, because these aren't relevant to the economic development factors correlated to engineering, technology and basic science -- there is a gender gap in the basic biological sciences and medical research.

Well--- the whole point of something being an art is that it tells people what they want. If you make a game that's creative, it shouldn't matter who's rescuing who, or what clothes they're wearing, or how big the breasts are on the NPCs. If video games are an artistic medium, it means they have something to offer besides that.

When someone like Sarkeesian points out misogynist tropes in video games, that means that they're just that, tropes. They aren't essential to videogame storytelling and can be swapped out like building blocks. That what tropes are: conventions that have only minimal semantic purpose.

If you take the position that games are only worth playing if they obsequiously cater to player's expectations and demands, down to what the female characters must look like, what they must say and do, and what roles they must play in the story, that kinda means that video games can't be art. People don't go watch Lars von Trier's Antichrist because it's popular, or because it flatters their base demands for titillation --- and I don't think people play BioShock for this reason, either.

I get the feeling that a lot of gamers (1) don't really understand the purpose or method of media criticism, (2) think any criticism of a video game is directed at the people who play it, personally, and (3) are raging philistines who don't really understand the value of art apart from popularity or "the market."

And so, I find the attempts to "attract women" just so we can continue to hide our heads in the sand about the natural skew of participation due to NO ONE'S FAULT to be a wash.

Simone de Beauvoir and Jonathan Coe called, they say you've successfully substituted objectivity with male subjectivity. If women don't participate in Wikipedia, Wikipedia cannot be said to be "encyclopedic" -- everybody at Wikipedia up to Jimbo Wales accepts this fact without discussion.

Your proffered explanation of a "natural skew" is one of those classic examples of a Just-So story men tell each other -- what you should do is write an article on Wikipedia about it, and see how many [citation needed]s you get.

Those who are dead via saline solution can be told once they're... ummm... undead.

No you don't - just turn off the rockets and let it fall half way there (accelerating) under the other planets gravity, then turn around so that you slow down at the rate of earth's gravity pulling you back for the second half of the trip. All you need is the fuel to get to orbit and you're practically done.

*ducks*

Being that in most area we have the choice of only one broadband provider. So we are reliant on taking what we can get. If we can have Broadband internet at the Local Town level, vs. State or Federal level. We can have internet and still be close enough to local government to control what goes on.

MaBell on the other hand was just what everyone used in the US. So we had to suck it up and pay for a monopoly.

The thing is with a municipal Internet. the carriers can still dominate the market, as they could the the Towns ISP. It is that they just won't get paid as much as charging everyone $70.00 a month.

But we have laws, passed by the legislature, that mandate the FAA publish new rules specifically covering the integration of this sort of thing into the NAS by 2015. The Obama administration has said, though, that they won't comply with the law, and are taking every opportunity to hinder this sort of thing. There's a reason that outfits like Google are now spending money, hiring, and testing in other countries: because those countries are less hostile to ventures like this.

There's absolutely NO reason in the world why the tests that Google is doing in Oz couldn't be done with farmers just like those in the article, but living instead in rural Iowa or Ohio or California. But no, the administration keeps releasing increasingly bizarre, increasingly punitive, increasingly job-killing "interpretation" of the 2012 law, with spin that runs exactly counter to the plain language and intent of congress. Thank you, Mr. Obama, for chasing ever more innovation and growth out of the country.

Because it's sexist to respond to market forces?

Markets can be sexist, making the response thereto sexist. We can maybe say that that's an example of sexism without animus or overt chauvinism, but it's still sexism.

Besides, Sarkeesian's critiques start from the proposition that video games are a creative art form, just as movies or books are. Movies, books, artworks aren't made to slavishly respond to market forces -- they're made because, to some extent, some artist or artists wanted to make them, and to make them in just the way they are.

Its fine to be a sell out, just as long as some of the money goes to the cause that I like.

The best games are the ones I have played between the ages of 10-18.
The ones before that are too primitive, the ones after that are just full of eye candy and attempts to just harness a bunch of money.

Oddly enough a lot of my favorite movies and TV shows were during that time too.

I guess things were just better during the time where you didn't have any responsibilities.

But if Grandma has her checking or retirement account with Morgan/Chase, she's being helped right now, by the agency you say won't help her.

However...A Big Part of the issue was Ukraine wanted to join the EU and NATO, however the Ukrainian president at the time decided to side with Russia while most of the country wanted to be with the EU.

So we are in kinda of a gray zone here.

So, just out of curiosity, what do you get out of spinning your particular flavor of nonsense? Who benefits from you trying to convince people that - despite what they can see with their own eyes - Russia didn't just annex Crimea? That columns of Russian armor with their insignia painted over didn't just roll across the border into southeast Ukraine? Your contention has to be that those events didn't actually happen, despite untold thousands of witnesses pointing out the exact opposite. So, what's your point? What you're saying is so blatantly false and disingenuous on the face of it that - unless you are actually delusional - even you have to know it, even as you type it. So I'm genuinely curious. Are you getting paid to push propaganda, even as you say that propaganda is bad? Or are you just basically a low-grade troll that assumes his audience is utterly uninformed?