What does it matter how many girls are doing what?

Young women are going to do precisely what they want. No one is stopping them from pursuing computer science or engineering careers. These fields pay well. There are many clear and obvious incentives to pursue these careers. If young women tend to choose other careers more often than young men, this does not represent a problem in need of a solution.

Promoting a class based on its female participation rate is absurd.

Free trade is good. Getting government out of the business of telling businesses how to do business -- is good.

Doing this in secret....not so good.

This kind of secrecy does to trust in government what tariffs and regulation do to the economy, undermine it.

The EPA can continue to undermine the economy in pursuit of fairy tales.

This is, belive it or not, the biggest political scandal within living memory, possibly in all of American history.

An arm of the federal government targets citizens for intimidation based on their political beliefs, likely at the behest of the White House. When the jig is up, the miscreants do everything they can to lie, obfuscate, and destroy evidence.

Political revolutions have started over less.

So yahoo hires the best people for the job, and this is supposed to be news?

I'm sick and tired of whiny losers complaining that they can't get a job because of their ethnicity.

NO. You can't get a job because you SUCK. The job market does not care what color you are, what church you go to, or where your ancestors migrated here from. The only thing the job market cares about is your ability to produce value. If you can't do it, the market will choose someone else who can. If you can do it, then welcome to the winner's circle my son.

This nonsense about juding a company's hiring practices by the skin of their employees is woefully pathetic peurile garbage.

We now live a country where one's property can be stripped away just because someone else doesn't like it.

I'd like to quote the great philosopher Nelson Muntz, who so eloquently said:

HA HA!!

Republican Party hacks are hereby on notice that the conservatives you depend on to get elected can and will remove you from office if you displease us.

Why on earth would anyone use a holiday celebrated by socialists as their marketing buzzword?

Knowing absolutely NOTHING about this effort, I'm instantly opposed to it on this basis alone.

This is like calling your new computer system the CyberStalin. Anyone who would do so is either ignorant, crazy, or evil.

There is a concept from marketing known as branding. Brands are not merely a convenient name by which your company or product is known. Consumers respond to brands themselves, either positively or negatively. This is known as brand equity.

A brand with good equity will sell a product simply by having its name attached to it. A Calvin Klein shirt will sell for more than a comparable shirt from a less famous brand. Likewise, a brand with bad equity will inhibit sales of an otherwise good product.

Brands that become toxic are abandoned. The company will change its name, or change the name of the product, or release a new product under a new name. Phillip Morris changed its name to Altria for example. IBM sold off its hard drive business to another firm when their "Deathstar" line of drives became irredeemably associated with poor quality.

Ideas also have brands.

When an idea keeps getting rebranded under new names, it means the people peddling that idea are having a hard time. The more familiar potential consumers (believers) of that idea become with it, the more likely they are to reject it. So the people who want to push that idea repackage it under a new name and try to pretend it is something different.

I'm not surprised that global warming / climate change / climate chaos / etc has been given yet another name. I'm just surprised that it took them so long to think one up.

It is the market that will determine whether Tesla has potential, not its competitors.

If you're working with people who are comfortable with technology, then making such a transition should not cause too much pain. Annoyances yes, especially with file format compatibility issues, but nothing too serious. You'll be answering lots of questions, but the questions themselves will be from a position of needing some details filled in, not failure to understand basic concepts.

On the other hand, if you're working with people for whom computers and technology are PFM (Pure @#%$ing Magic) then ANY CHANGE, no matter how trivial, will lead to nervous breakdowns. For such people, use of a computer involves memorized incantations (if not outright prayers) based on mouse movements, clicks, and magic words typed into the screen. If these change, even slightly, they will be utterly lost and terrified -- and they'll blame YOU.

If this is the case, then you're going to have to create a standardized installation of Linux with a normal desktop interface (Cinnamon, KDE) and then TRAIN your employees on how to use it. Mint is a good choice. I'm using the KDE version of Mint 16 on all my workstations. The cinnamon version is also perfectly usable. There are of course other options. The key is to create an environment that is as close to what they know as possible. Not necessarily in terms of how it looks, but how it BEHAVES.

Even so, there will always be some differences that will trip such users up. You guys might have to hire a temp worker whose sole job will be to train and support your employees until they learn the new incantations.

The good news is that moving from XP/Vista/7 to a normal desktop Linux distro will actually be easier than trying to retrain these employees to use the malware that is Windows 8.

Future victims of this criminal organization should sue Symantec.

Class action lawsuit.

I also think that criminal charges for aiding and abetting would apply as well.

"Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn't live up to it," executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker wrote. "We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it's because we haven't stayed true to ourselves. We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act. We didn't move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry. We must do better."

The only way this statement would make the least bit of rational sense is as an apology for capitulating to the mob who called for Eich's head.

But sadly, that isn't how this statement was intended.

I'm genuinely disgusted that the Mozilla Foundation would behave this way. How can I trust a group to produce valid products when they have no integrity?

How will this affect the central mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Muslim outreach?

There are lots of Muslims in Russia NASA might not be able to reach now.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

He called it "Much ado about nothing."

Insensitive clods, idiots, and outright jackasses get to express themselves just like everyone else.

That they do so is not a crisis to be solved.

But it is a great excuse and cover story for efforts to deny freedom of expression.

Not all are fooled.