Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Can we stop trying to come up with a reason? (Score 1) 25

by i kan reed (#48198021) Attached to: NPR: '80s Ads Are Responsible For the Lack of Women Coders

And I'm reminded about someone who objected to this line of reasoning saying "who cares if its social and political, let people make their choice".

And while I let that vacuous line of reasoning slide before, I'm going to nip in the bud here and point out that if you don't care about that, you also shouldn't care about us people trying to effect social and political changes.

Comment: Re:Can we stop trying to come up with a reason? (Score 1) 25

by i kan reed (#48197985) Attached to: NPR: '80s Ads Are Responsible For the Lack of Women Coders

It's a problem because it's clearly fucking systemic, and caused by social factors.

It's not just "fewer women that men" enter the career.

It's that "fewer women than used to, where every other intensely technical field has had the opposite trend"(this article)
It's that People are more likely to pick men for mathematical tests that both genders are proven to do equally well on, even when in the test cases where the specific women are known to outperform the specific men
It's that sexism is actually cited by women leaving the field
It's that gender based social norms enforced on children clearly influence their likliehood to enter a sex-typical field

These aren't just whatever, "it's just people making choices". It's clearly social and political influence.

Comment: Re:I'm still waiting... (Score 1) 53

by i kan reed (#48197825) Attached to: Cell Transplant Allows Paralyzed Man To Walk

It's almost as if some people just really want it to be legal to destroy human embryos.

In your imaginary land where any people are this hostile, what do you think is done with leftover embryos from fertility treatments, right now?

Do you think they're all frozen forever, just in case someone needs a spare implanted in their uterus?
Do you think that maybe they get grown in secret cloning vats that let them turn into human beings?

Or do you join us in reality land where they're put in a nice clean chamber labeled "biohazard" and hauled off by a medical waste company to be sterilized and destroyed. You're just going to have to learn to live in a reality where huge numbers of embryos are destroyed by the human body, excreted out unnoticed, and untold others are created in a lab so that desperate people can have children, only to be disposed of for a host of reasons, like in-viability or that previous implantations "took". Reality just doesn't treat them the way you imagine they are currently treated.

Comment: Re:I'm still waiting... (Score 3, Insightful) 53

by i kan reed (#48197743) Attached to: Cell Transplant Allows Paralyzed Man To Walk


People coming in and demanding proof of things their politics made illegal to study are really annoying.

It's similarly illegal to study gun violence under a US public health research grant, even though every other class of mortality is nominally okay.
In my state, it's illegal to use state funds to research the effect of global warming on coastal water levels.

People who ban researching things for political reasons(rather than say consistency with existing laws outside of research) are harmful. There's something very wrong with the notion of not researching things that might reflect negatively on your ideology.

Comment: Re:I'm still waiting... (Score 2) 53

by i kan reed (#48197557) Attached to: Cell Transplant Allows Paralyzed Man To Walk

Considering it's essentially* illegal to study, you can wait forever, you ignorant ass. Your policy proving itself right doesn't justify anything.

(Also this wasn't stem cells at all).

*If you want to argue against this point on minutia that ignore the reality of how preliminary medical research is performed, please just shut up.

Comment: Re:non profits are run like for profits. (Score 1) 56

by i kan reed (#48197407) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Event Sign-Up Software Options For a Non-Profit?

Yeah, not-for-profit corporations tend to be, on average, pretty scummy. That's not to say the intent of the law that allows them is bad or that all of them are.

Just that most have the majority true:
*Earning a profit. Not to distribute to shareholders but to "grow".
*Paying their executives exorbitant salaries that just so happen to replace the large sums that regular CEOs usually get from profit sharing.
*Using "not for profit" as a shield against unethical behavior, as if qualifying money as "profit" is the only way it corrupts.
*Charging market prices for services.

Some combinations of these are okay, but others are just shitty. I try not be too cynical a person, but when I hear a company describe itself as "not for profit" my first thought is "tax system gamer" and not "charity".

Comment: Re:Recognition (Score 2) 101

by i kan reed (#48196211) Attached to: 'Microsoft Lumia' Will Replace the Nokia Brand

The only error in your post is that most people can't bring themselves to care enough about Microsoft anymore to go as far as hating them. Say what you want about 95 through early XP era blue-screens, they were recognizable.

Now, though, windows is basically synonymous with white collar office work, and not a lot else. A lot of people don't even use it at home for internet browsing anymore.

Comment: Re:So you have to install an app... (Score 1) 93

by i kan reed (#48195823) Attached to: Delivering Malicious Android Apps Hidden In Image Files

You thought wrong.

There's a lot of reasons, if you're an OS developer, to have an app store, but security is pretty low on them.
#1: It lets you control what applications are available on your platform. No worrying about someone treading on your toes, selling something you sell.
#2: It gives you a cut of every app sold. This means that you can make your OS a loss leader, and take your profits from the sales of people making things people actually like.
#3: Building your brand. Marketing poisons everything. People talking, even occasionally, about your company's store, versus some website or store where they bought something is good for the recognizably of your other crap
#4: Yeah, okay. A gesture towards quality control
#5: Yeah, okay. A gesture towards security.

Comment: Re:Easily done: (Score 1) 239

by i kan reed (#48194689) Attached to: 3D-Printed Gun Earns Man Two Years In Japanese Prison

They is one major academic publication, by one Dr. DB Kates that they can cite their "millions" thing from but any sort of serious analysis of the methodology of the thing raises huge problems.

#1 It's a phone based poll, where they used percentage of respondents as an analogue of the population. This, in-and-of-itself is pretty reasonable.
#2 The crucial metric of "percentage of respondents who say they used a gun to defend themselves in the past 5 years" is well under the 3%ish of people who freely lie on phone polls, even on subjects where they have no incentive to lie. For closer to 50% response rates, this tends to balance out, as the lies get evenly distributed. For very small margins it becomes a huge problem. This is exacerbated by heavily politicized gun owner respondents have a known motivation to lie.
#3 Through no fault of the criminologist who ran the study, people like, the GP condense that above mentioned 5 year statistic into 1 year. There are statistically meaningful ways to do this, but piling all 5 years as happening in the last year is dumb.
#4 The results were glaringly inconsistent with the overall rate of crimes occurring. Crimes deterred by guns being a greater number than actual police reports when less than half the US population are gun owners is grounds to be suspicious. In conjunction with #2 it's grounds to say that the study provided no meaningful insight.

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.