How's this for an idea: some form of visual media (video or drawings, whatever) depicting Muhammad and Islam in a very positive light, marketed and clearly honestly intended to educate westerners about the positive elements of the Muslim community and their history.

Then see if the kind of people who try to shoot people for drawing Muhammad throw a fit over even something like that.

Please note that I didn't say anything at all about men not getting a fair shake.

I said that people would be rightly skeptical of an article that was written entirely by men claiming men were not getting a fair shake, regardless of the rest of the article's merits. The fact that it's coming from an all-male source would raise some eyebrows, and quite understandably. Now apply gender equality to that and ask why it's wrong that that should be true with all the genders reversed, as is the case here.

I also suggested that if a reviewer said, of such a hypothetical gender-swapped scenario, "maybe the reason why men aren't apparently aren't getting a fair shake isn't due to bias against them but just because men generally don't measure up in this area" -- suggesting an alternative hypothesis, as academic reviewers frequently do -- that would (and I think should) be considered a sound critique, something that at least should be addressed in the paper. Now flip the genders again and you get the second part of this story, and suddenly that's an atrocity?

You're right, the comma after the second parenthetical should have been a semicolon for improved readability.

I'm sure if a paper with the opposite conclusion authored only by men was submitted for review, women (both reviewers and others) would be decrying that fact, implicitly because of the assumed tacit bias of the all-male authors (a plausible concern to be fair, but in both directions), and, if it was in fact the case that women had more articles published than men, suggesting that perhaps an alternative conclusion to systematic bias could be that women just are better in that respect would be a perfectly acceptable critique of the paper.

I think GP meant the denialists should just invest in green energy instead of spending so much money money protecting their fossil fuel interests.

As an American who agrees that the American view of the political possibilities is myopic, there is still a difference. To put it figuratively: one side thinks all kittens should be fed to vicious ravenous dogs to be maimed and devoured as the dogs see fit; the other side thinks there should be some limits on how much the dogs can maim most kittens and how many can be devoured in what circumstances, and further special protections for certain classes of kitten.

What do you mean, lets not feed kittens to the dogs in the first place? What are you, some kind of communist?

Yeah, it really is quite hard to explain answers to incoherent questions. Science can't even answer a simple math question like what do you get when you multiply 37 times the square root of giraffes?

Yeah, but when your "users" are more properly called "customers" -- or even more important, "potential customers" -- then some web dev's desire to preach the gospel must take a back seat to doing the job the way it needs to be done, rightly or wrongly.

It's fine to push for strict browser standards when the only people who will ever see your web applications are within your own organization. Public-facing sites are a different matter.

The work that lazy ass "I'm too good for that..." bastards won't do... While drinking Schlitz by the gallon on their trailer home porches

I believe he had nothing to say and said it anyway.

He apparently didn't read the history of the rocket science comment and landed WAY FAR off.

SpaceX doesn't qualify for the statement. They are building improved technology to go places in space, but he blindly used a comment that specifically was intended as a comparison against the initial space age where we were clueless and entering blindly to achieve something believed impossible with no fore-knowledge. SpaceX, while awesome doesn't fit his reference.

Kinda sad. Some people can be so clueless. More important isn't the could. Should Tesla flood the planet with their toxic batteries

my concern is that Tesla has no interest in using recycled lithium and favors landfill for lithium waste. They are intentionally poisoning our planet foe aeons.

They are traitors and should be jailed. In fact, since they believe they're involved in a "war on terror", maybe we should try them for treason under military law.

Also, I wouldn't trust the statement that the chancellors office didn't know anything.

Is he suggesting that as the rest of the industry abandons PCs to move into better solutions, he intends to remain hellbent on a known to be a technology which is obsolete?

Maybe he should try selling typewriter ribbons too

And people still fall for that argument, which amazes me to no end.

Yes, markets need liquidity.

No, markets do not need 5000% liquidity.

Everything is toxic in overdose, even water.

The real people to throw in jail are the ones who made it possible. The guys who deregulated the markets so much, the ones in oversight of the finance system who didn't see these things approaching and the people who dissolved all the protections of the real economy against the finance market because they were greedy for quick bucks.

Politicians, mostly, but we should also go after the lobbyists and their employers who influenced them.

Of course, that will never happen. Society rarely becomes self-conscious enough to get rid of its parasites.