I completely agree.
Actually yours is a better summary of exactly the point I was trying to make.

Interesting. I haven't seen quite the same in terms of female developers usually being better than average, but I've definitely seen that female developers are very rarely average. I worked as a contractor for a while so saw a lot of different cube farms and the pattern of female developers I kept seeing almost exclusively, is either "good to very good" (but never the best) or more often "very bad but the boss has a blind spot and/or keeps giving her free passes apparently just because she's female".

...or maybe you're just mixing with the wrong guys.

You've also got 5 tickets. Its just that someone else with 5 tickets is telling you that you only have 1 ticket and you're allowing yourself to believe them.

>> obviously, the tech world has a problem with sexism.

Sorry but its very not obvious to me.
I've worked as a software developer for 35 years, for many different employers in several different fields and countries, and haven't yet seen anything other than environments that encourage women developers, treat and pay them equally, and mostly actually cut them more slack than the guys get.
The girls were obviously getting an easier time than guys during my CS degree at university too.

This line shows it all for me:

"The truth is, if you are a woman, and someone threatens to murder you online, it's overwhelmingly likely that no help is coming, and you're on your own."

Why is she making this a gender-specific issue?
Does anyone else see the inherent sexism and wrongness of her thinking here?

Unfortunately this is just another perfect example of a massive problem in society now from many women and most PeeCee media outlets blatantly promoting the idea that a politically correct society just automatically understands that a women's life and rights are somehow intrinsically more valuable/important than a man's, so women should get extra special protection just because vagina.

You might as well ask Do you text while driving?
It amounts to the same thing.
Personal convenience over following the rules.

I've been driving for 35 years, Most of that time I've lived in or near major cities/traffic, driven to work and back every day, and in all that time have only ever been rear-ended once (by a dumb woman paying more attention to her Google smart phone than driving her giant SUV).

I was initially thought this must be a ridiculous stat that Google have made up in a lame attempt to justify getting human drivers off the road, but If the figure is actually true then something else must also be going on with that car, and/or the unpredictable way its driving. For me thats good enough reason on its own to make self-driving cars illegal and get them off the road.

>> I will go to any extent necessary, to never allow this on my vehicle.

I completely echo your sentiment but already see that the car manufacturers and legislators are already removing such freedoms of choice from us. New US laws have already been made that all new cars must include tech to spy on drivers and new tech is being added to remotely control cars.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ne...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wh...
http://rt.com/news/remote-car-...

I quite seriously expect the value of old pre-computerized cars to go up significantly just because of stuff like this, however you can bet the legislators will also keep finding new ways to get cars they cant spy with or control off the roads.

Netanyahu is a warmongering idiot. All he ever seems to do is passive-agressively invent reasons/excuses to stir up more shit and more reasons to use military force against muslims and steal more land.

I'm not suggesting the muslims are white as snow either but it boggles my mind why the US keeps sending money/arms to Israel and automatically backs them up no matter how blatantly they make trouble.

Israel is like the irritating little kid in the school playground that makes everyones lives hell, and only avoids getting a well-deserved pasting because he has a giant brother and knows to never go anywhere alone.

>> you might start wondering to what extent the data you generate while driving might be analyzed or shared with advertisers.

Fuck advertisers. I'm FAR more worried about them sharing it with my insurance company and law enforcement.

This is basically a way to force you to have the equivalent of one of those "safe driving" widgets in your OBD2 port all the time, and to completely automate sending you speeding tickets for every small infraction.

>> per capita driving has peaked in the U.S

citation please. ..and anyway even if per-capita driving ratio has peaked, the number of 'capitas' is still growing i.e. the US population is still growing, (atlhough admittedly not by much) and the average age of cars on the road is rising, so the net result is we're still seeing an increasing number of cars on the road year-on-year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Either:
1) The artificial rhino horn has no more real benefit than the real one: Ignorant chinese masses will never question their long held beliefs so will just conclude the artificial horn doesn't work as well as the real one so demand for real rhino horn (and poaching) increases.
or...
they make an artificial rhino horn that has more (i.e. actually has some) benefit than the real one because they also included actual drugs in the mix. Ignorant chinese masses have their dumb belief that rhino horn actually does something confirmed so demand for real rhino horn (and poaching) increases.

Get a lawyer to send them a letter saying you've already informed them multiple times you're not even a customer, and will now sue for harassment if they don't cease further communications with you.

There is no way the can target just terrorists, so this has bulk data collection of everyone in the UK written all over it.
Normally I think Cameron is OK but on this point he's making himself look like a complete fool and is clearly a dangerous enemy of fundamental human rights.
If nothing else he needs some basic lessons in information theory for even implying that its always possible to decrypt messages. Its not even possible to always know when some data just contains an encrypted message.