The point of the ".01% of comments" argument is not to justify those comments, but to illustrate that sexism does not seem to be integral to FOSS. The same argument can be made using your 10% black argument; if 10% of FOSS developers are black, and only 1% of comments or discussions have racist overtones, it can be safely assumed that racism is not an integral part of the FOSS movement.

Of course there are sexists involved in FOSS, just as surely as there are racists, homophobes and any other type of bigot one can imagine. FOSS is made up of the whole, world-wide body of people who choose to participate; there is absolutely nothing standing in the way of a neo-Nazi who wants to upload the mp3 player s/he just wrote.

The author of the article, on the other hand, is making FOSS sound like an organization whose leaders are specifically not allowing women to participate. When the only thing necessary to participate is a computer, an internet connection and the will to program something that will be distributed for Free*, the concept that anyone at all can be kept out against their own will is patently ridiculous.

Maybe women aren't by-and-large attracted to FOSS. Maybe there are social pressures that discourage it. Maybe women who ARE interested find it more difficult to join a particular project because the people who run that project are, themselves, sexist. None of these things are even remotely reminiscent of the intrinsic sexism that was present in, say, 19th and 20th century business. It's a hell of a lot easier to start your own project fork on github or freshmeat than to break into an industry where your clients are as likely to be sexists as your competition.

Anyway, even if there are sexists involved in FOSS (pretty much guaranteed, as is any other form of bigotry), the fact that they exist does NOT indicate an "industry prejudice".

how in the hell is the wording of the tenth amendment vague? "if the constitution doesn't say the feds can do it, and doesn't say the states CAN'T do it, then it's the states responsibility, not the feds'"

I'm constantly amazed by a given person's willful inability to READ what is WRITTEN. Everybody thinks that there's got to be some hidden message. There IS NO "General Welfare Clause". It's the "Taxing and Spending Clause", (article 1, section 8, clause 1) which outlines how the feds are allowed to collect taxes. Section 8 then goes on and defines what topics the feds are allowed to regulate, and finishes up with the "Necessary and Proper Clause" which says "Congress gets to make all the laws it needs to fulfill the FOREGOING POWERS".

I'm getting away from the Libertarian camp, mainly because free markets can only work in situations that aren't natural monopolies. Lots of infrastructure falls into the natural monopoly segment, therefore cannot be adequately served by the free market.

having said that, President Washington hit the nail on the head with his farewell address:

I don't know enough about the health industry to categorically state that the Feds have no business in it. I don't really trust private enterprise with my health, for the simple fact that there's a lot more money in treatment than in prevention or cure. I CAN, with a simple reading, state that the Feds have no right to meddle with it until a Constitutional Amendment has been passed giving them the right to do so. It really doesn't take a huge leap of faith, you just have to read the big C without trying to make it say things it doesn't say..

Isn't that what almost EVERY SINGLE big wig from EVERY SINGLE industry in the country has been doing for decades? people only pay attention to economics when the statistics are in their favor. Otherwise they do everything in their power to change what are, effectively, almost immutable laws of human nature.

The First Amendment also guarantees public airways to be censorship free, since the Feds can't pass laws abridging the freedom of expression. That doesn't seem to have stopped the FCC from pushing the Moral Agenda, though..

The US ruled the 20th Century because it was the only major country that survived WWI & II relatively unscathed. Depression and War are fantastic excuses for Federal largess, unfortunately it's not so clear that it's actually helped us in the long run.

It's not the taxes, it's using them for unconstitutional means. Article I Section VIII says nothing about "promoting the general intertubes..."

So, what the Feds did was say to the states, "Any state that doesn't raise it's minimum drinking age to 21 forfeits federal highway funding." The supreme court said "you can't do that; since choosing not to agree to the proposition is infeasible, it amounts to coercion." Then the Feds said, "Fine, SC, how 'bout 'any state that doesn't raise it's minimum drinking age to 21 forfeits 5% of federal highway funding?" and the SC said, "yeah, that's cool..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

The 'pedia says 10%, I swear i read 5% somewhere, but whatever. For what it's worth, I utterly detest the fact that the federal government seems to think a person is competent enough to choose the leaders of the nation, or die defending their country, but can't be trusted with a bloody glass of wine at dinner...

See, that's the great thing about our "centuries old constitution". the framers knew they hadn't licked everything, so they stuck in Article 5 and said, "Yeah, so, if we forgot anything, this is how you put it in..."

Thing is, we haven't been playing by the rules. Which is fucking depressing when you are playing a game that lets you to change the rules whenever the hell you want.

people always bring in "the general welfare" clause. Read the text (Hint: it's not in the Preamble).

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 1

Everybody says this little piece gives the Legislature the right to provide for the general welfare. Unfortunately, it doesn't. It gives the Legislature the right to collect taxes, provided they're for the common defense or general welfare. "Common Defense" is defined through Cl. 12-16, same section, defining the right to form an Army, Navy, and Militias. "General Welfare" is not defined anywhere. Hence, "General Welfare" as a separate concept is non-existent.

All the greedy little bastards need to do is pass an amendment defining general welfare and us pig-headed Libertarians will have to shut the fuck up. But do they do it? No. They don't. Personally, I think it's just because they're assholes, and they like thumbing their collective noses at us. "Neener, neener, we don't have to follow the Supreme Law of the Land, but if you don't pay your parking tickets we're going to lock your ass up!"