Horvath has a background in marketing and virtually no examples of code to be found anywhere. Being able to sprinkle a little script onto some markup does not make you an engineer.

And keep in mind that this is not the first time she's played the sexism card. Horvath led a 'geek feminism' campaign to get rid of a rug (yes, a rug) because she objected to the word 'meritocracy'. Because we all know that meritocracy is a myth and that everyone's contribution to Open Source is equally important. Focusing on the people who actually write code is just sexism. *Gag*

The feminist argument is that women are interested in programming and capable, but cannot get into the industry because they are being discriminated against. According to them, the work environment is hostile. But how can that be true?

If you write code, the ultimate judge of your job performance is a machine. The compiler doesn't magically switch to hard mode because the coder lacks a penis. An executable won't somehow crash in the presence of a vagina. This is as ridiculous as the argument that women fall behind in math because an equation will be solvable or not depending on who is trying to solve it.

As mentioned elsewhere, IT/Software is about as close to a meritocracy as you can get, in large part because the work involves unthinking machines that simply cannot be biased. It is also heavy on independent work. Your coworkers are keeping you from writing code? Did they steal your keyboard?

Oh, wait, we're already there:

Selfies at funerals

Seriously, people, learn some respect and manners. It won't kill you.

Mr. Haselton, we already - from your previous articles* - know that you are a statist. Please go shill for the state/ administration / party elsewhere.

I am curious about why you (or anyone) would cheerlead for totalitarianism. You are never going to be able to turn off your telescreen while you enjoy cigarettes and coffee. You will never be a member of the Inner Party. You will never be the boot. You will be the face under it. So answer, if you can, why are you pushing for your fellow citizens to be stripped of their rights? What is in it for you?

* Your first 'question' cannot be answered because you have set conditions that preclude any answer other than the one you are looking for. Your second was equally flawed. All of your rants omit essential facts concerning the history and context of the fifth amendment and indeed the first eight amendments.

From the fine article:

If you are looking to nudge or control popular opinion, knowing who is at the center of a sphere of influence makes the job a lot easier.

The Supreme Court has ruled that you have no expectation of privacy when disclosing information to a third party not covered by privilege. Boyfriends /girlfriends are not covered.

People (women, according to the FA and others) may have copyright claims, but a better suggestion would be to have enough common sense to not distribute intimate pictures to third parties. But, that's "victim blaming", and we can't have that, can we?

"Aplology"?! *facepalm* Sorry, ladies and gentlemen, I think I need more coffee...

As predicted in Slate, Guido Barilla (yes, that's his name) issues meaningless apology. For those counting at home, this is actually the forth one. Now what?

Tracking and blackmailing rich and powerful people is not new. Hoover's personal files were used to do just that*. It was the entire point of COINTELPRO. The NSA is simply following the path of other alphabet soup agencies to consolidate power for themselves and their political masters.

* For example, we know that Jackie O. had a lesbian fling because an item of her correspondence obtained for Hoover's personal safe was misfiled. Can you think of any reason for the FBI having a love letter like that other than blackmail?

Unfortunately, Slashdot doesn't provide a " -1: Commenter is an idiot option", so I'll have to try to provide you with a clue. Brace yourself.

We are not discussing health insurance, and the ACA does not provide for it. The ACA is about health care coverage, and that is different.

Insurance is intended to protect against unforeseen or rare events, not expected costs. Auto insurance covers against collisions and theft, but it doesn't provide payouts for oil changes, tune-ups, tire rotation, etc. Homeowner's insurance will pay to repair or rebuild your home in the event of fire or disaster, but does not cover costs associated with maintaining the property or structure.

Actual heath insurance would cover serious injury or illness but would not cover regular doctor visits, routine check-ups, most medications and so forth. But that we don't have health insurance, we have a sorta-kinda-halfassed subsidy program for heath care we mistakenly refer to as insurance. And it is price opaque. In other words, you do not see the actual amount of the subsidy. You have no idea what the true cost of service is.

And that is the problem AlphaWolf was talking about. If it was obvious up front that you would be charged twelve dollars for a generic aspirin, no one would pay. If you knew that you were going to be billed 175 bucks for waiting an hour and than having a fifteen minute chat with a doctor, no one would go. Health care coverage hides cost and distorts the market, driving prices up.

Imagine that auto insurance worked the same way as so-called heath insurance. When you needed an oil change, you would take your car to an approved facility, hand over your insurance card, pay a co-pay and then get a paper saying 'paid by insurance'. With no dollar amount. An oil change might cost a hundred dollars. And why not? If you only pay the co-pay, what do you care if your insurance company gets bilked? It's not your money, after all.

You may notice that many of the replies so far advocate population control* as the solution to climate change, aka anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

* Forced sterilization, mandated use of birth control and so forth.

A quick question for AGW proponents: do you want to give control over who can and cannot have children to the same people who gave you the TSA?

When a minority group is under represented in a particular field, the explanation is always bias, without regard to any other possible causes. My examples were intended to illustrate the logic failure of that argument.

Only an idiot would claim that men are discriminated against in maternity wards because it ignores the fact that men can't get pregnant. Likewise, claiming that one of every two Americans are women and therefore one of every two software developers must be a woman or else sexism is also absurd. *

Not everyone has the talent or inclination to work in a given career. The fact that some groups seem sparsely included in some jobs does not mean there is bias in the field.

*Substitute minority group or career as needed.

You are missing the point.

The argument that because group A constitutes Y percent of the population and therefore should/must also make up Y percent of persons in group B, otherwise group B must be hostile to group A is absurd.

It is like claiming that because 40 percent of all voters are Republican, then 40 percent of Democratic Party members should be Republicans.

Unless, of course, you find a way to make computers care about what the person writing code on them looks like. Good luck with that.