Except of course, if you read the article (I know,must be new here) Ford actually _won_ the Pinto case and while they had previously (before the court case) agreed to install that plastic wall, the expert opinion was that it wouldn't actually accomplish anything and wouldn't have made any difference in the specific situation of the court case.

It's like saying horses should all be recalled because someone might fall off of them. Pintos were no more dangerous than other similar cars from all the other car companies. It's just how small, light cars were built in the days of high gas prices and associated regulations. Technology has advanced since then, but there are still trade-offs.

What most people "know" about Pintos is largely media-driven, not factual.

I'm in AZ also and are familiar with the race you're talking about. I knew they were utility-company supported, didn't see anything Koch related. Do you have a news report or campaign financing source or something I can look it showing major Koch money involvement somewhere?

Apparently we've reached a consensus among this scientifically literate community that AGW isn't proven, then? ;)

I wonder how long it will take for the school to be half filled with boys who like STEM topics and figure out that if they claim they "identify" as female, they get to go to this school and be surrounded by girls as a bonus?

Is this place just meant to have an entrance exam specifically designed to ensure just the best min-maxers get in?

Here's what was dropped by the editor from the original story submission:

Male economists were the only university STEM group found not sexist in their hiring.

No word yet on what steps universities are planning to take to remedy this apparent bias in hiring.

I find it interesting what he chose to cut out. I guess you can either argue it's for brevity, or because they want to avoid controversy in the original post, but compared to some of the other posts I've seen, maybe not...

Anyway, I found that male economists difference in the study interesting, but it's also fun to see that the researchers assumed (as conventional wisdom in their field) the exact opposite result until they realized no one had actually done any empirical work on it, then their work turned out the opposite of what "everyone" in their field thought it would. So I commend them for having the honesty to do actual science.

Exactly. Doing the math another way, if you want the equivalent of a 25% reduction in home and industrial water use (what the State government is calling for), you need to reduce agricultural use by only about 6% to get that same savings in water.

I don't think you understand how little water is used in CA for household and industrial vs. Agriculture.

I have a solution for your CA home water issues.

Ready? Stop voting for Democrat environmentalists.

The science is in. If you divert millions of acre-feet of water to fulfill environmental regulations, you can't use that water for other stuff. If you stop building reservoirs and dams to store water while increasing water usage, you won't have enough water. If agriculture water prices went up enough that the agribusinesses used 12.5% less water, then every residential and industrial user in CA could use 50% more water.

Yeah, well, Obama's smoking habit is statistically more likely to have impacted his daughter's asthma (his example) than global warming ever will.

I guess there's no good having a boogeyman if you can't blame everything you've ever seen as a problem on it...

Let's see, Presidential election results after 1964, your chosen "they've been dying" since landmark:
R
R
D
R
R
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
So 7 R to 5 D... yeah, looks like an ongoing landslide for the D's over that time.

Current Congress? House = R, Senate = R
Current States? R's control 70% of the state legislative bodies.

Basically the ONLY level of elected office the Republicans don't currently control is the White House, and if you think Hilary is going to win that in 2016... well, you can keep going with your wishful thinking there...

No. Happily, the Hugo's have multiple categories and multiple works/people nominated per category.

Ideally, SF awards will be for the best SF works as voted on by SF fans, not taken over by literary elitists (the same type of folks who used to look down over their noses to say SF wasn't real literature, if they deigned to notice it at all) who want to use it to push their latest social cause.

The Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies slates weren't about not having women and minorities win. Both slates included several women and minorities and even some left-wing writers who had to be publicly "horrified" the wrong people liked their work.

They're about wanting Hugo nominees/winners that reflect science fiction and what they consider the best story, rather than the last decade or so style of being nominated because the author is a leftist non-white male who includes the properly politically correct representatives in their story, even though the story itself isn't remotely the best SF story of the year. They're about wanting the winners to reflect SF fans, rather than just a small insular group of NY elites in the publishing business. Looking at you, Tor.

If you wonder why there seems to be a big gap of 12-15 years where not a lot of new good SF authors came out in book form, except from Baen, it's because the literary elite decided SF should be about identity politics instead of about science and speculation. SP/RP are about taking the field back for real SF that the fans of SF like, not the kind where it's "important" because it shows a woman musing about how the evil corporations are ruining the environment but if only her homosexual boyfriend would wake up from his coma they could live happily ever after mutually respecting each other in hipster anguish. -Gasp-

We also discussed the challenge of recruiting more women to open source projects and women in the KDE community.

Why?

How about asking about the challenges of recruiting more GUI designers, or more programmers, or more QA testers, or more of some group KDE specifically needs more of. Why ask about women?

It's almost like there's some sort of additional agenda beyond just interviewing the KDE folks....

Have they considered asking economists about the effects of price controls on water for agricultural uses?

Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct one... if you hold down the price of water, people (especially larger users) will use more of it, not less of it...