Well, that was a lot of unnecessary rage, but I think I see what you're exploding over. I omitted the word "some" when I wrote "women don't care to learn it even if it is available to be learned..." and you're right, that was legitimately unfair of me. There are many women, perhaps even most, who do not want to just be a wife and a mother. Thank you for bringing the omission to my attention.

My point was that although all women are perfectly capable at studying math in great detail, many/some prefer not to - which is probably why this bias exists.

This is getting effing ridiculous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ7DBG3ISRY

I had a similar experience.

I was educated at home by my mother who is a civil engineering major while my father, who is also a civil engineer, worked to provide for myself and four siblings who were also home educated.

What I find interesting about this article is that I find the same bias within me, despite being given the most obvious evidence to the contrary - my mother is clearly an intelligent, well-educated woman who is also quite adept at teaching. I think the reason I have this bias is because, despite being the worst damn student in the history of home-education, I honestly have found myself better at mathematics than women I met in college. Even my wife, who has a Bachelor's of Sciences in Nursing struggles with basic (and by basic, I mean things like dimensional analysis - so maybe, semi-basic?) math concepts sometimes. I personally find myself quicker on the draw when it comes to math. My wife is still freakishly smart and the best damn nurse you'll ever find, but math isn't her strong suit.

I'll be the first to accept that research shows that women are just as able to learn math as men are - anecdotally my mother showed me that was true, but I will also point out that the bias probably exists because women simply don't care to learn it even if it is available to be learned. Let's be honest, many women are still stay at home mother's and see no need to learn advanced mathematics. My wife probably didn't care as much to learn math growing up because she just wanted to be a wife and a mother. I think that's OK.

I understand the value in combating the bias from the point of employers who might pass over an otherwise well-qualified woman, but I see another result from debates like this and that is women feeling like it's wrong for them to just want to be a mother. I would argue that no, it's not wrong. There's nothing wrong with a woman not caring to spend time learning something she probably won't use in a job. Education is important, absolutely, but I find that many women still want to live out their maternal instincts and should be allowed to do so without being judged.

It bothers me too. In my opinion it's part of a subtle temptation and accidental attitude that is very common in humanitarian/NGO/missionary work.

Let me explain.

I am a missionary working in Sub-Saharan Africa trying to fill a hole in the medical care here. In a developing country there are expected and predictable shortcomings in the medical system and I find myself trying to help cancer patients where the State cannot. Now, the tempting mindset is to hope that the State never actually develops enough to do what I do, thus, I never find myself redundant and always feel needed and like I’m filling a purpose. That is, of course, a horrible thing to hope. Of course I hope my service is redundant soon and of course I hope that what I do won’t be needed soon. That would mean fewer people were suffering! That would be great! It would also mean I’m no longer needed and I could find myself and my family in some trouble looking for a new place to serve.

The “I hope the problem never goes away so I never find my cause pointless” mindset is what is likely going on here. Erin McElroy of the SF Anti-Eviction Mapping Project likely dedicates her (his?) entire life or, at minimum, most of his (her?) emotional energy on this project and so any progress Google and others make to help things get better means Erin is more and more redundant and less and less needed. That is a scary thing for someone who lives for a cause and therefore, while fighting for their cause, there is often a self-defeating hope that the cause never actually succeeds.

That’s just what I’ve noticed in the “I have a cause” field at least. YMMV.

OP seems to think Valve's aspirations are deplorable for consumers.

The more companies (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Valve) who vie for control of the modern omni-market, the better it is for us. Someone tell me how more choices is a bad thing.

Valve, you can send me my check in the mail, please.

I'm afraid I disagree here.

The example you give regarding DotA (game mod from WC3) implies that Steve Feak (aka IceFrog), the original creator of the DotA got nothing for his creation. That's just untrue. Unless Feak was an idiot (which, I suppose he might be - I've never met him), he knew he wouldn't receive compensation from Blizzard for spending hours creating DotA for WC3. What he did receive was a name for himself in creating one of the most best damn game mods ever. That name allowed him to go on to create League of Legends with Riot Games.

Will a guy like Feak have a problem getting a job at a game design company that sells RTS after creating a game that inspired an entire genre (MOBA)? Doubtful. I'm going to take a gander and say that his investment into DotA not only brought some (I don't know how much, I'm guessing a lot) greenbacks with LOL, but that it also secured him positions at companies in the future.

People will jump at this for the same reason, because it gives them an opportunity to create (which is fun) and experience creating good content (necessary for a job). Blizzard makes money with their creation and the creators get what they want. Win for both parties.

I truly hope that people aren't so naive that they spend a year making a terrific mod in SC2 and then look at Blizzard with trembling lip and say, "You pay me no money for my mod?" You need a job before you get paid.

Why the hell is this here? There have already been like 50 other stories about how important Snowden was/is and now /. feels it's important to post a ridiculously redundant story of their own that is JUST A BUNCH OF OTHER LINKS to other news sites? WTF /.?

Seriously...

wtf???

You need to watch this: This video will hurt. Be prepared for your ears and head to start hurting when you turn it on.
This video is especially relevant to the issue at large. The "Nocebo effect" is real and creates real symptoms in people. We need to understand that people who have these symptoms are not simply making them up, THEY IN FACT HAVE NAUSEA/HEADACHES/TROUBLE-BREATHING/ETC. and we need to be compassionate to that.
This is a complex issue and one that requires patience and understanding. When people complain of health effects due to wifi, power cables, or other things they don't understand they should be taken seriously, despite the fact that these technologies have no scientific reason for causing those effects.

Absolutely, I agree with you. There does need to be such a separation. As a man of faith, myself, I feel it is necessary to separate my spiritual beliefs from my social responsibility as a voter. I wish more people did the same.

However, I think that if the people of Oklahoma (which is dead center in the oft-called "Bible belt") want to have the 10 commandments on the grounds of their state Capitol then Satanists in New York should leave the hell alone. If there was a large community of Satanists in Oklahoma (which I doubt), their complaint may be valid. On the other hand, if we were putting monuments of specific faiths on the Federal Capitol grounds, then I would side with the Satanists (which feels weird to say) and agree that if we have one, we should have them all - so it's probably best to have none.

My point is that the beauty of state government versus federal is that you can be more specific to the people living in the state itself. If a bunch of people in a community want to have their community centered around their faith and they all agree, then just leave them in peace*. New York Satanists are just trolling Oklahoma. Their "proposal" is nothing more than flamebait.

*Disclaimer: if the community of faith results in the malicious brainwashing and/or exploitation of the members, then this statement is negotiable.

I need to buy a new desktop anyway. Newegg, my money's coming your way.

It looks like you don't understand what GP was asking (at best) or you don't understand the summary/primes.
I think the GP was asking if there are always less than 600 between primes. The answer to his question is "no". The higher you go the larger gaps can be between primes. There can be untold millions/billions/trillions etc. between two distinct primes. This proof shows not that there are never more than 600 between primes, but that there are an infinite number of pairs of primes that are separated by less than 600. The difference is small but important. There may be two primes separated by a vast number, yet the higher you go there will always be a pair of primes coming up that are separated by less than 600.

For example:

The numbers
2^57,885,161 - 1
and
2^43,112,609 - 1
are primes. They have 17,425,170 and 12,978,189 digits in them. They are the largest two primes we know of. They are separated by a bunch of numbers in between them, almost 5,000,000 DIGITS (note digits not numbers) and all the numbers between them are composites. HOWEVER, the next largest prime may simply be (2^57,885,161 1) + 600 because there will always be a chance that there is a prime coming up less than 600 away from the current highest prime.

This is getting closer and closer to proving the long held belief/hope that there are an infinite number of primes separated by only 2. NOT that EVERY prime is separated by 2 from every other prime. That would be obviously false. Simply that there are an infinite number of primes salted throughout all those impossibly high ones that are only 2 apart.

While I agree with you, I can't blame these mega-corporations. Lawmakers have a tendency to pass laws that would crush private industries unless they intervened. My guess is that most of this money isn't spent trying to push some agenda, they're simply trying to protect their business from meddlesome lawmakers.

We'll need a government that doesn't screw with the private industry before the private industry agrees to stop screwing with the government.