Yeah, because the "regulated" taxi industry *never* has these problems.

Is that the only kind of distinction that exists - the world is purely binary? Or could be that a regulated industry has fewer of these problems. Is that not better to a lesser extent?

The problem, as always, is that people like you think that "regulation"

So what is a person like me then? Is that something that you are capable of understanding based on a jokey response to a request for a sketch. Wow, your deductive power of reasoning must put the great Sherlock Holmes to shame. Either that or you over-generalise so freely that you are not even aware when you do it. You know, like an idiot.

Perhaps you should spend an hour or two reading about cognitive dissonance, and try to spot the analogy to the point that you were trying to make with Regulatory Capture. I'll warn you - your world view is about to get a dramatic overhaul.

Oh. So after all of these insults and attempts to deflect you finally mention what evidence.

Yeah, well done. I've already replied to that.

Hello and welcome to Uber.

We are going to pretend that we offer you a service like a taxi, you know - licensed and regulated so that we manage to keep whack jobs out of the driving seat and you can feel a measure of safety in your journey.

But instead, for half the price we are going to send you some completely random fucker that we have no real record of. He could be anyone, and probably is. So basically you are hitchhiking with all of the associated risks, but you are paying us for the privilege.

Yay for Uber. Please feel free to call* and ask questions if you survive your trip.

* actually not really, this would push up costs. But you know, it's the thought that counts.

Remarkable. Well that certainly narrows it down. Well done you.

One hundred years ago may have been the end of a long period of change in attitudes towards children. The drop in child mortality rates heralded a change in how parents treated their children. wiki

This is where modern etiquette seems to become so tricky. So when somebody uses that phrase I should correct them and say "Don't you mean Islam is a religion of slaves?".

Wow. So you disagreed with my claim that there was no evidence. But you also claim that there is evidence. But you won't say what it is.

Amazing what a flexible view of reality you have, are there any other mutually exclusive angles that you want to rave about?

You quoted a point. You argue that the context of that point was not what you meant. You are an idiot.

Classic passive aggressive troll games, ignoring points, shifting, insults. Later loser, you are just not good enough at this to make it interesting.

It is extraordinary that there is no hard evidence? Should be easy for you to provide a single counter-example then.

You did argue that point - by taking a quote from that discussion. Have you read the manual or are you just picking it up as you go along?

Hilarious. You should do this for a living.

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you just wrote?

No. But I do see I gaping logical error in your response.

Is a young girl constrained to playing with pink and fluffy toys?

No. But you seem to have assumed that my answer would be yes.

Explain your sexist attitude in what toys little girls are alloed to play with.

Your query seems to be invalid as it is based on an incorrect assumption.

In my world, if a girl wanted to play with Tonka toy tractors, that is what she would get to play with.

Glad to hear it. Tonka toy tractors are an excellent toy for anyone.

But if she wanted to play "Disney princesss", she could do that too.

Excellent, and indeed why not? I asked how we would see a bias if there is a systematic bias in the toys available for girls. If they are restricted to "market deemed acceptable female toys" then they are being excluded from certain choices. Saying that we should not do this does not exclude girls from choosing whatever kind of toy they want. It simply means that they should have a real choice, that somewhere among the 2000 rows of pinky fluffy little princess variations there would actually be a Tonka toy tractor, and not that she would have to head over into the "boys" section to get that real choice.

And sorry, but sexist attitudes like yours are pretty piggish, You don't have the right to tell me what toys my daughter can play with.

So how does that sound when you read it back?

Interesting material. I skipped the video but I dug out the original article. The experiment design is neat and seems to show a clear preference, but there is something a little odd about it. Why is the red pan (wholly inanimate and very culturally dependent) more popular with the female sample than the doll? This does water down the hypothesis that the authors loosely sound out in the discussion than it is the animate / inanimate distinction that provides an explanation for the differentiated interest. Nice experiment, it seems to have been cited heavily - has anybody achieved sharper results.

It's lovely that you think that I'm some kind of social scientist, but really: point to a single piece of hard evidence that proves that girls are hardwired to develop interests or traits in the absence of social feedback.

Ah, but under slashdot rules and regulations disagreeing with the hivemind is trolling. Doesn't bother me, I've had karma to burn forever, including the inevitable sockpuppet accounts that will modbomb me for a few weeks until they get bored and move on.

Well a bias in females IS systematic, just like it is for males, the system being biology.

Definitely true anatomically, but there is no evidence that is true behaviourally.

It it compels both sexes to different preferences and behavior.

By confusing anatomy and behaviour you have just asserted a claim that has no evidence. I am not saying it definitely false, as I have no evidence either, but I am saying that at this point in time we don't know either way.