When was the last time you saw more than a tiny fraction of women showing interest or excelling in something like engineering or computer programming?

Out of interest who is the only person to have won two science Nobel prizes in different disciplines?

My university had something like 95% male engineers, 5% female. And the brightest were always guys.

Mine was about 85% guys and the smartest in my year was female. Not only got the top exam mark she was excellent at the practical side too.

Just because they might be rare doesn't mean truly astoundingly bright female scientists and engineers don't exist.

I mentioned this in another thread, but other shows like "The Flash" depicts every single fracking woman as a supersmart, unmatched computer or mechanical engineer, programmer, physics whiz, etc. What universe does this show even take place?

A truly realistic universe where a guy can run at 1000 miles per hour?

Requiring that you demonstrate any interest in the issue you say is your primary interest is not arbitrary.

Except that's not what you're doing. You're requiring me to know the answer.

Which you're using as an excuse to evade and be intellectually dishonest.

Go on then. Demonstrate it.

http://stackoverflow.com/

You mean you do potentially mass commits before checking, or even before compiling or running unit tests because problems with compilation and unit tests can - and will - occur when refactoring/renaming of artifacts is done wrong?

Sure, why not? git suppupports quick branching. I can make a branch, do mass commits, do the testing then squash the commits before merging if I like.

Okay, the most powerful super in the setting is one SQUIRREL GIRL!

I don't know the background and I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but on the off chance you're not, "Squirrel girl" is about the least bad-ass name since Pillow Man.

  http://smbc-comics.com/index.p...

No, using an IDE means you are a productive programmer

That is demonstrably false.

Moving past a text editor is a big help.

Only if you consider a text editor and commandline tools to be a throwback to previous decades. They haven't stood still, you know...

Refactoring support matters

Euch: sure it would be nice, but last time I checked the status of C++ refactoring tools, they were far too buggy to be reliable. Things may have changed since then. Also, the refactoring tools tend not to work on half of the languages I use regularly...

Code completion (intellsense, etc) support matters too.

Editors have this now too. You can run it in vim variants. Personally I only like it a bit when I used it. I find I ended up coding to make intellisense happy (top to bottom) rather than than the way I preferred. When I went back to using an editor, I didn't go and enable it.

I find intellisense works nicely for massive and not awfully well designed APIs better than it works for algorithmic coding where you're using much fewer primitives.

Anyway that's besides the point: you can use it in editors too.

Add in things like smart templates, etc.

I don't know what they are, but the first link on google was for a text editor.

I've used IDEs and I've used the unix environment for programming. I know about all those things, but I still prefer text editors. Part of it is that they work on a lot of different systems, where as IDEs tend to be limited in scope (in practice). I've never seen an IDE that has good support for Octave/Matlab, shell, awk, C++, GNUplot at the same time for example.

They also have weird-ass build systems on the whole that do things in a much more complicated way but with no extra utility compared to GNU Make for example.

Integrated debuggers are nice---for certain kinds of code. By chance I happen to often work on the sort of code where printf debugging shines.

I also hate it when other people use IDEs because frankly most people who "know" IDEs don't and do stuff like check in projects with absoloute paths, so they fail to compile anywhere except the original user's machine etc.

You can use an IDE that support multi-file undo, so it doesn't take 2 hours to sort out the mess. i.e. you could actually be productive instead of retarded.

You mean like git?

So far your argument seems to just be to insult what you don't understand.

If you'rebjust going to invent arbitrary barriers, then no, we're done. I thought you were an entertaining person to debate with, but you're no resorting to cheap tactics like moving the goalposts or setting up arbitrary criteria when it looks like you're losing. I though you'd come up with something better. Shame.

So, I guess we're done.

isn't perfect ... no one disputes that.

That's my point.

It's not perfect. Well done! Have a cookie!

But you're still intellectually dishonest. You are insisting that in order to know that the system is broken I must know how to fix it. This is of course the kind of sophistry shennanigans I have come to expect from you: argue every point but the central one in order to obscuate your lack of logic and understanding.

Unless the exhortations are false?

Well that ALSO indicates something fucked up in the justice system, right? A system which gives imperfect results is not perfect.

citing a reform

Just because I don't know how to fix it, doesn't mean it's not broken. Trying to equate the two is intellectually dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself for stooping so such low tactics.

I'm outraged by theses stupid politicians trying to regulate away our freedom to do business with whomever we wish.

They're not though. As far as I can tell you're still free to bargain for rides however you want on your own land. Now once you start doing such things on public roads where your decisions affect third parties, well, then it's reasonable the government gets involved.

Or do you think you should have the freedom to impose arbitrary risks on other people?

Wow logic fail. While you are correct that the lack of exhonerations doesn't mean the system is foolproof, the existence of them means it is provably not foolproof.

If you believe that you need double blind statistically rigorous trials to infer from the existence of a single exhoneration that the justice system is not foolproof then your understanding of statistics is so lacking that it is impossible for me to educate you.

I ask you again... Offer a reform.

Try learning to read. I said I don't know of any reforms which would make the system good enough. Note: just because I can't think of a way to make the system good enough doesn't make executions magically error proof.

As to ruling powers... they are the authority in that area and it is not for me to judge.

Merely declaring by fiat doesn't echonerate you from the consequences of your choice. If you knowingly release someone like that then you bear some responsibility.

I'm making this point so you understand I'm not bloodthirsty.

You really don't get it do you? It was never about bloodthirstyness and not executing because killing is "wrong". I don't understand what part of your brain is missing that renders you unable to grasp such a basic point. You almost had it for a moment when you thought I hadn't realised whay my point was and "revaled" it to me with great flourish. But now it seems to have vanished from your mind again.

blah

The fact that exhonerations happen mean that the system is not robust enough for the death sentence. It's useless exhonerating someone after killing them.

You can't be against a couple false executions every DECADE if you're completely fine with probably thousands and thousands of false imprisonments.

You have this strange attitude where if I'm against executions, I must be for false imprisonments or somehow an execution offsets false imprisonments. I'm going to say the same thing I've said 3 or four times already which you keep on ignoring:

Both are bad. Executions are worse because prisoners can be relased and compensated where as executees cannot be.

Why not throw the switch?

Sure if everyone does their job properly and we're actually sure that guilty people are guilty then OK. Except that the legal system is demonstrably that good.

Go rape and murder the rest of the planet for all I care. You're someone else's problem and they accepted you.

So if the ruling power of a country accepts them then you don't care if the person goes and rapes and murders citizens who had no say?

What I meant to ask was if you have any recommendations as to how the legal system be reformed such that you'd be MORE comfortable with the execution.

Reforms no, not as such, because it's generally hard to know how well something would work out well in theory rather than in practice. About the only thing that would convince me would be statistics showing that it has got better, for example lowering the number of exhonerations successfully, but not by merely failing to exhonerate people.

It's still tricky though. No system is 100% perfect and you're always going to have a better chance of atleast partially rectifying a fuck up with life imprisonment than execution.

that your level certainy is unobtainable and thus unreasonable.

Unobtainable yes, unreasonable no, that only follows if you take execution as a system to be an axiom not a logical conclusion of reasoning.

Like I said, I don't have any objection to execution in principle, but I don't see any way of making it actually be reasonable given the justice system we have or, frankly, any I can conceive of.

Currently your solution is to execute people and just accept that innocent people are going to get executed. I don't see that as a reasonable solution.

And please, keep it relevant to executions.

Oh screw off. You went off on a big whine about how people only objected to the legal system when executions came up and I brought up many, many examples of where people complain about the legal system otherwise. So stop being a nitwit and complaining about me giving you examples you asked for, OK?

Please copy pasta the same response to your idiotic complaints about points you asked me to make.