It is WAY to late in the game for anyone to be using the bad math of counting only one person per household. That argument has been made too many times, and refuted too many times for it to be considered an honest mistake.

Wrong, the precise definition of an MRA is what misandrist call men who believe in EQUAL rights for all. You can try to rationalize your misandry all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you are no better than any other bigot throughout history.

That is what is called a lie of omission. The article is not about a program that teaches girls how to code. It is a program that teaches ONLY girls how to code and EXCLUDES boys.

Or, perhaps it doesn't have anything to do with testosterone, but instead has everything to do with it being made absolutely clear from birth that some people will have to work for everything they get, while others can choose to work. It would be interesting to see what the percentages would look like if you took children who were raised with the expectation that they will never have to work vs. being raised with the expectation that if they don't work, they will starve and be shunned by the opposite sex. I don't think that you could find that without it looking just like a gender difference.

I would suggest you start linking to those programs. Clearly none of the people complaining that they don't exist know of their existence. You claim they exist, yet don't provide any links. If you start linking to these programs, you will be able to not only better support your argument, but you will also help any Slashdot reader who would either like to enter into those fields, or have son's who might want to enter those fields.

Of course, we should expect to see those programs called out as sexist as well.

You read a headline about a program having successfully discriminated against a group and knew right away that someone would find a way to turn the good news of discrimination into something to complain about? Do you read what you write before you press submit?

When you refer to someone as an MRA, you out yourself as a misandrist.

And the slut shaming begins. A male complains about being discriminated against, and you start pointing out why it is his fault. You are no better than someone who claims a raped woman was "asking for it".

It is filled with socially awkward beta males because they are working on their computers Saturday nights while the teen girls are banging the alpha males. I can tell you that if more girls would have wanted to have sex with me in high school, my technical skills would have been far lower.

So, the non-mysoginist explanation of what is deterring women from the field is that women are not being deterred. They are just not being attracted to the field because they are at a disadvantage due to the fact that they spent their youth treating men as sex objects instead of studying technology.

Politico actually makes it sound like a grand conspiracy: http://www.politico.com/story/...

Particularly convenient for an administration that publicly "joked" about using the IRS as a harassment tool just the prior year.

Don't forget that the year prior to the misconduct, the president "joked" about using the IRS to attack rivals.

Describing how to commit an illegal act does not make it legal.

This is a common problem with software.

You make the same mistake on calculating minimum wage as every other person who would rather see it removed completely. The US government engineers inflation on purpose. Whether this is a good idea or not is irrelevant because it is what is happening. That means, if we don't (and in fact we don't) at the very least, peg minimum wage to inflation, then we are in fact lowering the minimum wage year after year. Worse yet, it is at at compounding rate. This means that any argument against raising the minimum wage is in practice an argument that there should be no minimum wage at all.

The other part of your argument is also flawed. We already see the education bubble causing businesses to require degrees for jobs that were done just as well in the past by people who did not spend 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars on a degree. We simply do not have enough high skill jobs to employ 300 million people. We also do need lots of people in those unskilled positions. The reason that those unskilled jobs can pay so low is because you not only have all of the non-degreed people trying to get them, but you also have a large portion of the degreed population seeking out the same low skill jobs because their simply are not enough high skill jobs to employ them. Thus, having even more people becoming degreed does not mean more people will earn more money.

More likely the reason that this is happening is because the qualifying courses appear to be online courses. This means the courses are incredibly cheap for ASU to offer. My guess would be that Starbucks is paying pennies on the dollar for these courses compared to normal, in person courses at ASU. ASU would not want to offer these on the open market, as it would undermine their existing revenue sources. So, they "partner" with Starbucks. Starbucks gets to offer what appears to be $10k of dollars in benefits to part time employees while paying almost nothing for it, while ASU gets to sell low cost courses without cutting into their current revenue stream. It is win/win for Starbucks and ASU. Actually it is win/win/win. Since at worst the Starbucks employee gets his club card (which is all many degrees actually end up offering), and at best, the employee actually gets to learn something while getting their club card.