With wedge issues, this is true. But a lot of issues have a significant slant between corporate and non-corporate interests. These types of issues are heavily weighed towards corporate interests because that's where the money is.

There's no good reason decisions like this can't be made by a jury.

I've never been in an interview where they asked for memorized framework and library facilities. As a web developer, I get questions about data normalization, graph theory, and complicated SQL JOINs.

That doesn't explain why women CS graduates have been in decline since the 80s.

I'd really like to know how the computer education in private girls schools is going. There are no silly boys to distract the teacher from focusing on the girls in that setting. So one would expect private school girls are far more likely to enter a career in software, correct?

Absolutely. If Gucci noticed a dearth of designers in the handbag industry and decided to use their considerable wealth to attract heterosexual male designers, that's their concern. Their money. Their right. Their "speech" if you will. As a consumer, you have a right to not buy their products.

Private enterprise is not a government body. They are not held to the same legal framework as government. That said, a public university basketball team taking funds from the government has no right to discriminate. Our money. Our rights.

Three words: P D F.

Mt. Gox disappearing is good for BTC. From what I've been reading, people who left their money in Mt. Gox accounts have mostly been blaming themselves for trusting an untrustworthy organization. The signs were all over the place that people should pull their money out. And judging by the decline in volume at Mt. Gox, it seems most people did already. And observers need to know that these exchanges are not secure places to keep their money.

Anyone who willingly lets someone they hooked up with over the internet hold hundreds of thousands of dollars of their money should know the risks involved.

That's bullshit. I know well over a dozen working software engineers making above $150k. Get better at your job.

The only difference I can think of is that the generated code will be larger because 64-bit operations take more bytes. This may have an effect on caching and branching.

Any merchant using a strategy of selling their BTC at the end of each week would have benefited from price gains against the local currency over the long term. There's plenty of good reason to hold on to them. Of course, once the price settles, that will no longer be the case, but we're probably still a long way from that.

In theory, BTC quantity will cap at some point and the expected increase in economic activity combined with the very gradual loss of coins to things like hard drive failure will make BTC act like a slowly deflating currency. This amounts to approximately the same thing as interest.

That's one approach. I think most people who are actually concerned use a mixing service.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mixing_service

BTC is a lot like cash. If you choose to hand over a giant wad of cash to someone to hold for you (like these people did), you are at as much risk as would be expected.

You can always hold onto your own coins if you want to realize the promise. Of course, then you need to handle your own security and backups.

My personal interpretation is that any project on GitHub that has no explicit license is covered under a very permissive BSD-style license (without any attribution requirements).

Typically a license grants you rights and informs you of your restrictions if you choose to exercise those rights. In this case, with no explicit attribution or GPL-like openness stated, but with forking a right implicit to public code on GitHub, I am led to believe I can take everything, then make closed modification to the software for my own personal or commercial use.

In other words - unless this is your intention in publishing on GitHub - you should definitely include a specific license.