Alternatively, if the reason is that the "culture" of technical workplaces is hostile to women, then that culture should be named and shamed until it changes because it is morally reprehensible to treat people badly, even if the current members of that culture don't think they're doing anything wrong.

What if it is "hostile to women" without treating them badly? For instance, perhaps it consists largely of unattractive men who enjoy making jokes about obscure subjects?

Not a manly thing? They literally call that policy "Operation Eliminate the Macho Effect".

Indeed; as I said on the earlier article, it appears it is not sufficient to encourage women; one must discourage men as well.

And bogus FTDI marking on the package.

Maybe. I haven't cut open the device they're housed in to see it, and I doubt too many buyers of the final device have. Since the driver can't see the marking on the packaging either, it doesn't seem relevant. The makers of the device probably know the chips are fake no matter what they're marked.

What makes these chips "fake"? Internally they're very different, so the only thing "fake" about them seems to be that they have the same USB endpoints as the "genuine" chip.

No, that's nonsense; there was no "data entry" degree. A while back I checked to see if the gender disparity numbers for computer science were skewed due to a decline in "business programming" or any other computer related degrees; they weren't. The related fields followed the same pattern as computer science itself. And it was in the 1970s, not the 1980s, that the existence of a CS degree (rather than a specialization) become commonplace.

Note that the gender disparity graph for computer science is unique. If you look at NPRs graph (and don't listen to what they're saying, which doesn't match their own graph), you see that for a decade before the peak, the percentage of women in CS rose much faster than it did in other fields. Then you get that unique 1984 peak, a sharp decline, and a long slow decline followed by another sharp decline that was general.

The rise of the personal computer is certainly tempting to explain that peak. But it's a peak in degrees granted. IMO, it's a little bit too early if the problem was boys having early exposure to computers which was denied to girls; the personal computer barely started taking off in 1979, the year before 1984 graduates would have been entering college. But certainly there could be other reasons related to the personal computer.

Red light violation ticket costs are way out of proportion with the potential damage done. For example: I go through about 40 traffic lights as part of my daily commute. If I sneak through only one of them every day, then I could potentially owe about $40,000 in fines each year.

And if I go out at 2am drive to the nearest deserted red light and just drive backwards and forward through it, I can rack that up in a single evening. I'm not sure what your point is? That you can deliberately hang yourself on the law if you are an idiot? Ok... I'll give you that.

In 10+ years of red light cameras here, I've never gotten a ticket from one, ever, and I drive through at least 3 to 4 protected intersections a day. And I don't count myself as a qualified driver ed instructor or anything else. I go days even weeks at a time without seeing the camera flash at any one; so its not like the general public has a difficulty with the concept.

I'm certain the safety aspect of a few extra cars going through the end of a red doesn't constitute enough of a safety issue to warrant fines at that level.

It does if you want them to stop doing it. Because a normal person isn't going to get 40,000 in fines, they are going to get 1 or 2 and then "figure it out" and stop getting them. But if the fine is $5 they won't care unless they ARE getting them daily.

Anyone with $40,000 in annual red light camera fines shouldn't be on the road, because if nothing else, it means they are incapable of "figuring it out".

If a rule is being ignored, then it's probably a bad rule.

Like stopping for red lights? Is that a bad rule?

Also, I assure you that a few extra cars getting through a red light doesn't promote gridlock at the next one

Traffic jams can arise nearly spontaneously via something like 'butterfly' effects. A few cars sneaking through the red (and in turn delaying the traffic moving crosswise as a result) can disrupt traffic in both directions leading to congestion "waves" that lead to jams where it would otherwise not occur. It doesn't take much at all to disrupt traffic and create waves.

There's a demo on youtube where they asked drivers to simply drive on an even circular track at 30km/h maintaining the same distance from the car in front, and within a short time there was a conjestion wave causing cars to have to stop completely when it hit them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Its amazing how little it takes to disrupt stable traffic flow.

The state of traffic engineering is pretty dismal.

No argument. But saying that, traffic is much more complicated than regular fluid dynamics, and good mathematical models are hard to come by. And then to top it off you've got various political meddling overriding otherwise good design.

Your opinion that red light cameras would help with traffic flow is just a gut feeling, not data

Within a couple months of red light cameras being added the situation where 1 to 10 cars would stream through the red light during each cycle during rush hour had ceased.

That much is a fact not an opinion. Sure, whether or not it improved traffic flow is question for debate. Presuming the traffic light timing is engineered properly its a reasonable speculation, but I'd be happy to see a study funded.

I strongly suspect that adding a red light camera to an intersection would not allow more people to go through per hour.

I don't think you realize how much congestion can be alleviated by regulating flow properly. Getting more cars through one intersection only to have them completely gridlock a little further in is a net negative.

I'd further suspect that enforcing the signals reduces aggressive driving and road rage -- because people get irate when they have a green light and a stream of traffic running the red light prevents them from starting, and only reinforces the urge to run the red light yourself when presented with the situation.

Even if it helped, a traffic circle would help more

Maybe. I like roundabouts, and traffic circles. I supported having one put on my street during the public consultation period when they were reassessing the intersection. But they don't work everywhere. Roundabouts aren't easy to navigate for large trucks so they don't make sense on truck routes, highways, etc. And and proper multi-lane traffic circles need space -- are you proposing we knock down downtown skyscrapers to put one in at every intersection? How exactly is that a simple cost effective solution without conflict of interest?

so why bother with a solution that costs good people money

That's just it. Red light cameras don't cost good people money. Good responsible people don't habitually run red lights*, so its a non-issue. The cameras, with the threat of a fine, were effective at altering good peoples behavior at intersections, which was the goal. I've never gotten a red light camera ticket; my wife has never gotten one. We both drive through camera protected intersections every single day, we aren't even conscious of them.

Policing should not be automated.

I generally agree. But I'm not outraged by red light cameras.

Alhtough I do think any enforcement revenue collected by automated systems should simply be paid back to the residents as a dividend against their property taxes. It shouldn't go to the police. It shouldn't go to general revenue. It shouldn't create entities dependent on the money.

* Speed enforcement is completely different because the conflicting objectives of driving with the flow of traffic combined with speed limit changes, terrain changes, vague signage, plus the imprecise nature of vehicle speed measurement means that yes, the majority of good responsible conscientious drivers DO habitually exceed the limit, at least sometimes, by a little.

Running a light that is obviously red is very dangerous, so it is rarely done on purpose.

Running a late red on purpose is very dangerous and nobody does it on purpose. And people who do it by accident aren't going to be any more deterred by a red light camera, because if they'd realized they it was a red light they would have stopped, with or without a camera.

However, in some cities I've been in, during rush hour, at busy intersections I've observed a pattern where the light is green and cars flow through the intersection, the light turns yellow, and cars continue to flow, the light turns red and cars keep flowing through. Its not particularly "dangerous" because traffic is heavy enough that the opposing lanes are all stopped and backed up themselves, and they won't start while the intersection still has an uninterrupted stream of cars flowing through it, even though they might have a green light.

Another related pattern is left turns on regular green lights, where by law (at least where I live), a car can 'establish' itself in the intersection during a green (or yellow), and then when oncoming traffic clears, it completes its left turn. It might enter on a green, and have to wait until yellow, or even red before completing the turn. And this is legal.

But again, I often see cases where multiple cars complete the turn, even cars not 'established' in the intersection, but several cars queued up, the last several are entering the intersection on a red, and again this is only mildly dangerous as opposing traffic has been stopped, and is waiting for the intersection to clear, and again the cars running the red are part of an uninterrupted stream.

I've seen it in some cases, where more than half the opposing traffics green light is blocked by a constant stream of red-light runners. Each one 'secure' that as long as they are in the stream, opposing traffic isn't going to start.

Red light cameras effectively curb this undesirable behaviour.

This is supported by a large amount of data that show that accident rates either stayed flat or increased in almost every case

Provided they don't mess with the timings, there may be a rash of relatively miner rear ender as drivers adjust to the idea that they can't run red lights anymore. And this isn't necessarily a 'bad thing'. A bit of mild short term pain for long term gain, and a reason why looking at the accident rate doesn't tell the whole story.

Here's the real question - why do people continue to push red light cameras for safety when there is real data that shows that red light cameras have no net positive effect on safety?

Red light cameras as revenue generation is asinine. And red light cameras for 'safety' is dubious at best.

But they can improve traffic flow by enforcing the timings as displayed by the lights. (per the scenarios above). And indeed they are an appropriate solution here.

And I generally support responsibly installed red light cameras. (Ie those installed without tampering with yellow duration).

The average responsible driver will never run afoul of them.

I despise speed cameras though. (And not because I get speeding tickets, but because they are misused in ways that are just disgusting... I was recently in Melbourne, and the tolerance there is crazy low. They automatically ticket people for doing 62 in a 60. And they'll do things like set up traps just in front of the 100km/h sign -- and ticket people transitioning from 50/60km/h to 100km/h as they approach the sign (since its not technically 100km/h until after the sign...)

That's not about safety. That's not about traffic flow. That's just revenue generation.

When you say "seems" are you to referring to anecdotal comments rather than research?

For an earlier comment here I did a Google Scholar search on the rate of sex-crimes before and after countries changed pornography laws, and some of those studies included changes in the legality of child pornography. It seems that every scientific study found the same result - countries where child pornography became legal experiences a decrease in rates of child molestation, countries where child pornography became illegal experienced an increase in rates of child molestation.

-

Why does that child have a tube up his butt?

-

Comparing different cultures with each other doesn't work, you can't determine weather differences are due to the availability of pornography or to a wide range of other cultural factors.

What you do is compare a single culture with itself, before and after a major change in the availability and content-range of porn. In fact a substantial number of such studies have been done, across a substantial number of countries. The results are consistent. Increases in the availability and content-range of pornography are generally followed by a decrease in rape and other sex crimes, or at worst no change in those rates. This result also extends to a smaller number of country-cases that included child pornography becoming legal. In every such case rape, other sex crimes, and child molestation always decreased. Countries where child pornography changed from legal-to-illegal had increases in child molestation rates.

A Google Scholar search can turn up a variety of such studies. Here are links to one two of them.

Abstract one:
The Danish liberalization of legal prosecution and of laws concerning pornography and the ensuing high availability of such materials present a unique opportunity of testing hypotheses concerning the relationship between pornography and sex offenses. It is shown that concurrently with the increasing availability of pornography there was a significant decrease in the number of sex offenses registered by the police in Copenhagen. On the basis of various investigations, including a survey of public attitudes and studies of the police, it was established that at least in one type of offense (child molestation) the decrease represents a real reduction in the number of offenses committed. Various factors suggest that the availability of pornography was the direct cause of this decrease.

Abstract two:
Pornography continues to be a contentious matter with those on the one side arguing it detrimental to society while others argue it is pleasurable to many and a feature of free speech. The advent of the Internet with the ready availability of sexually explicit materials thereon particularly has seemed to raise questions of its influence. Following the effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed pornography to a society previously having forbidden it allowed us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the change. As found in all other countries in which the phenomenon has been studied, rape and other sex crimes did not increase. Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.

I wonder what the world would look like if we had legislators who legislated on the basis of evidence and reality rather than ideologies and soundbites.

-

If you were paying attention, I explained exactly how to prevent an article from being deleted. Include a couple of independent Reliable Sources talking about the topic, saying things that can be used to build an article. Once you have that then primary sources can help expand the article if used properly, but we have rules against articles built solely with primary sources because primary-source-only articles raise a shitton of problems.

What the hell are you ranting about? Not only does Wikipedia have an article on Pokemon, we've got literally hundreds of Pokemon articles. That includes a list of SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINETEEN pokemon running up to Number 719: Diancie.

I would personally be delighted if the world got over it's nutty fascination with football. However the fact is that the world does treat football as important, and there does exist an crazy amount of Published sources Taking Note of every minute facet of football. As a Wikipedia Editor I accept it's not my place to delete other people's football contributions based on my opinion of football's level of "importance". If someone complies with Wikipedia policies, if their article satisfies sourcing requirements etc., then I'll either leave the article alone or I'll work to improve it. Hell, some of my most resent edits were fixes to professional Wrestling articles, which I consider about 42 level lower than football in stupidity. Football is a genuine idiotic violent sport, Wrestling is a fake idiotic violent sport. ~~~~

-

In rural Illinois you'd pay $500/month mortgage on a reasonable 3 bedroom home in a safe middle class neighborhood, in Dallas you'd pay maybe $700, in Albuquerque you'd pay $800, in Miami you'd pay $1200. So, the biggest gap there is $700/mo. That's $8,400 a year.

In suburban NJ you'd pay $2000. Plus another $1000 in taxes. In Silicon Valley you can double or triple that mortgage payment. You just haven't included the highest-priced markets.

Which is why, although I admire libertarian economics, I'm not libertarian myself. I know people who have had their livelihood destroyed by organized cyberbullying built around pure hate for the "wrong" opinions.

For a libertarian, a billionaire that decided to spend millions in a wide multi-front campaign to utterly destroy the life of someone, everyone they love, and their friends and friends of friends, using as many indirect proxies as possible, would be an entirely fine thing provided he didn't use direct violence, only speech.

That's not how a healthy society is build, that's ideology. Libertarians, liberals and conservatives, are all of them, each in his own peculiar way, disconnected from the real world. And we all suffer due to this.

Well, every generalization has its corner cases that require careful thought. So while I agree that trolling per se shouldn't be outlawed, there may be certain uses of trolling that should be criminalized.

Take the libelous component of cyberstalking. At the very least this could be an aggravating factor in impersonation. Also, the law already recognizes libel as wrong, but it requires the harmed person take civil action. The Internet exposes more people than ever to reputation harm, but not all those people have the money to hire a lawyer. Social media have created a whole new vista for defamation, much of which is *practically* immune from any consequences.

So I do not in principle object to a law that criminalizes *some* forms of defamation, particularly against people who are not protected by the current laws. But I'd have to look at the the specific proposed law carefully. Just because people *claim* a new law would do something doesn't mean it does, or that's all it does.