Any felony conviction is a death sentence for someone who isn't into manual labor. Even if you don't serve a day. Unless you're Kevin Mitnick or Martha Stewart I guess.

Murder doesn't require intention that someone should die. An action where it is reasonably foreseeable that someone could die, and someone dies as a result, is murder.

It's a lesser degree of homicide, sometimes termed "murder", sometimes "voluntary manslaughter".

If a swatting call that results in death is murder, then a swatting call that doesn't result in death would be attempted murder.

This doesn't actually follow. An attempt does require intent, even if there are circumstances where the underlying crime would not.

1) Generate startup
2) Obtain domain name for stake in startup
3) Declare bankruptcy
4) Buy substantially all assets (including domain name) of startup.
5) Repeat

Woz is a fucking genius. So yes, he'd have been successful in today's climate. Or at worst an unsuccessful genius. Despite all the nonsense further up in the comments, ability exists and is not merely the result of practice.

I answered THAT question, and pointed out that it is a red herring; The "nerdiness" demographic is conserved by BOTH genders, with a tiny bias toward males. That's what the statistics show, and continue to show in other STEM vocations.

No. Almost every engineering field skews heavily male, as does computer science. Biology and health-related fields all skew female. Mathematics and Chemistry approximate parity and Physics skews male but not as heavily as computer science and engineering.

As for empirical study, the rates of CS involvement with women closely followed those with men until about the 80s, when the home computer showed up on the scene, and the advert material focused almost exclusively on male demographics.

Utter bullshit. In 1972, women made up about 20% of computer programmers in the US. This narrative about the personal computer is a recent fabrication. In fact, women's participation in the field hit a local maximum around 1984.

There was an earlier era starting during WWII when women were the majority of programmers in the US... but it was a VERY small field during WWII, and I don't have figures before 1972 so I don't know when that changed.

As a few ACs have colorfully pointed out, foreign language in high school is useless. You can go in, take the course, pass with flying colors, and not be able to speak or read beyond knowing how to greet someone.

I imagine computer science education in high school is equally useless, so the change is of no real consequence.

The problem is that having received a death threat, Sarkeesian and her allies feel they should be able to silence anyone who criticizes them on the grounds that those people contribute the environment in which death threats occur.

I think you're misunderstanding Crowdrise. Lo Ping didn't donate all that money, it was donated by people who selected him as the "Team Member" to get credit for soliciting them.

Wow. First two paragraphs were right on the razor edge of Poe's law.

Gave it away with "right wing hugbox" -- that's not a term the people who are serious about what you said use all that much. Definitely a masterful troll, though. Bravo.

The web doesn't need more "free speech" platforms. One person's dissident is another person's obnoxious, hateful, PTSD-triggering, and/or actually murderous asshole.

People role-playing at PTSD in order to provide a justification to silence others trigger me. If my saying "Niagra Falls" triggers you, that's your problem.

(Bonus points: 8chan is run by a wheelchair-bound neo-Nazi who thinks eugenics would have kept him from being born with brittle bone disease.)

Have no idea about "neo-Nazi" or whether he actually thinks that, but it's probably true; most cases of brittle bone disease are inherited. Of course, in that case, eugenics would have prevented him from being born at all.

Yay, another "women are better than men" article, soon to be followed with an article that insists men and women are exactly the same so therefore gender disparities in men's favor mean discrimination.

Also: "Other thoughts she shares have to do with finding mentors and dealing with negative people"

You know what you do with negative people? You give them work to do. Because you damn sure won't get so much out of positive rah-rah people; they're positive someone else will do it and aren't willing to look at the challenges long enough to figure out a way to overcome them. Though they'll be happy to take all the credit once the negative people do so... no matter, the negative people knew that would happen.

Star Wars was the number one movie of 1977. It's one of the most profitable franchises of all time also. Still associated with geeks. Geeks are still outside mainstream culture; it's just that certain geek-associated things are in fashion now. You may as well claim 1%er motorcycle clubs aren't counterculture because Sons of Anarchy is popular.

Nutrition science is terrible, and the close watch on it paid by various agencies (private and government) is even worse. Every time some case-control study on some nutrient shows it's bad or good, it gets jumped on as some fad. Then of course it turns out to be random noise. Doesn't mean science doesn't work, it means many of the ways we have for teasing small signals from noisy data have a nasty tendency to false positives.

Unfortunately, nutrition science isn't terrible because nutrition scientists suck. It's terrible because it's hard; you can't really do repeatable controlled studies.

If there is a social bias, what is it? It seems likely programming in the 1940s US started with women because men weren't around. Unlike in other fields, there were no men to come back to programming jobs and send the women home, so it's not surprising it remained "women's work" (as an article in Cosmopolitan in 1967 claimed) for some time. However, by 1972 only 20% of computer programmers were women. It's not clear when the switchover happened; the 1967 article may have been an anachronism.

That there was a social bias in the 1940s and an opposite one in the past 40 years is one plausible explanation. But another is that there was a bias in the 1940s (due to wartime conditions) and when that went away, factors other than social bias, that were themselves being overshadowed by the wartime bias, asserted themselves. Inherent ability certainly seems unlikely (particularly given the number of people in the field without any). That women find computer programming less interesting than men do, or find other things more interesting, seems more likely. This could be inherent, or it could be due to socialization, but given that there has been a push to get more women into CS for a very long time and instead things have been going the opposite direction argues against socialization IMO.