> What the? This is a government reportable, not a money making product. You do the bare minimum and if it doesn't work you claim the "well we tried" card. If you do the bare minimum, and it doesn't work by making it look like you discriminate by gender when in reality there are more complex reasons for the apparent disparity that you could've shown with actual effort, not only have you failed, you've probably screwed yourself harder than if you told them to kindly shove it. One does not fuck around when asked for important data, especially when the results of that report can screw you over and the person asking has the power to do that screwing (the DoL).

I will respectfully disagree with this. While it's reasonable to say something like "the strategies and goals are different," saying "nothing transfers" is just an indication that you're not thinking broadly enough. Both require focus, the ability to remain calm and predict moves in tense situations (or as tense as things get, depending on how seriously you're willing to take any individual game), a love of thinking and games, a degree of patience, and the willingness to persevere for any hope of actual improvement. And as much as you could claim that those are all self-evident, not all of them are. Both Chess and Go, while DRASTICALLY different in play style, strategy, and objective, share a lot of common requirements in order for serious improvement and enjoyment, which doesn't translate to other things. Just because they're both strategy board games doesn't mean things translate as easily - after all, not to be disparaging, but you can't say the same thing about something like Checkers. In fact, while the objective in checkers is much more similar to chess than that of Go, it is Go that requires a lot more of the same things. That definitely speaks to something.

It took some backtracking, but I think what the Telegraph article was referring to was this: http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/social-networking/2013/11/24/what-will-we-learn-from-the-fall-of-facebook/

For starters, unless I'm mistaken about which article they're talking about, the study wasn't conducted in 8 countries, but one: namely, the UK.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the small bubble where I live, my friends and I still regularly use Facebook as a means of interaction (I'm currently 16). Sure, we also use Instagram and Tumblr and Snapchat - those are all there (but for the life of me I have yet to figure out why Snapchat is as popular as it is...). But Facebook is still the primary method of chatting, sharing information, posting pictures, whatever. And yeah, we have Twitter accounts, but Twitter is more for public broadcasting, whereas Facebook has the ability for targeted posting... kind of. In any case, I wouldn't say Facebook is DEAD. My friends all across the country (US) do say that they use Facebook more than other methods of communication out of sheer ease of use.

According to wikipedia:

Yes, Google hands over data to the NSA. Would you rather that they didn't, got sued, and then were forced to fork over even MORE data, possibly along with money? At least this way, as long as Google has some oversight, we can be sure that the NSA doesn't have complete and total access to EVERYTHING. Every single claim is still reviewed by lawyers before anyone gets any information on anybody/thing.

Moreover, Google collects a lot of data, yes, but ANONYMIZED data. Heck, you can always see what they have collected on you, if I remember correctly, if you have a Google account. Anything actually tied to you, furthermore, gets deleted after a set amount of time; I forget exactly what that time is. I think it's searches are kept with IP/account identification for six months, then anonymized at the end of the 6 months, and I don't know how many years it is before it's fully wiped. But this data does not stick around until the heat death of the universe with all personal details attached, despite what many believe. And sure, you can claim that that's what they SAY and that they might keep it longer, but by the same argument they don't do any of this and store no information at all. Either trust the information you're given or say nothing at all. We have no reason yet to believe they've been lying, so there's no reason to do so.

As for the NSA... there's not much we can do right now. The average citizen can do exactly nothing about that right now because the average politician isn't WILLING to do anything. No matter who we elect, nothing is going to change. Sure we can recall a few people, make some noise, but we saw how long that lasted with SOPA - that is, not at all. We need support of major companies and access to lobbyists to actually change anything going on here. Until then everything is just wishful thinking. Though if anyone has any feasible solutions, I'm completely open to hearing them. And I'm pretty sure the NSA collects a LOT of data. That or Google is bugging your telephones too, and the NSA is just requisitioning those bugs. Whichever you think is more likely.

I see what you did there with the "buzz off" bit. Very clever. :D

sentence* Not used to slashdot formatting....

This would be akin to saying that watching slapstick comedy encourages violence ~50 years or so ago (did that happen? I wouldn't be surprised). Or saying that reading novels with violence in them will do the same any number of years, decades, or centuries ago. The only way to put this is that this is just fearmongering. Saying video games make people fat and lazy? At least that's somewhat acceptable, by virtue of what a video game is and how they are designed these days to suck up as much time as possible, forcing you to continue playing. Even if it isn't necessarily universally true, it's not that much fo a reach statement. But saying that the subject material of entertainment will cause changes in those being entertained is really silly. I guess the problem is that whenever someone shoots up a school and they find that they (or for the needlessly pedantic, he/she) has been playing Grand Theft Auto 500, they automatically assume that correlation implies causation. Which, obviously, isn't true. For example, these people also all read books, drank water, ate food, breathed air, sat, slept, talked, laughed, and cried. Should we say that these, too, cause people to become violent and insane? FEAR THE DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE! I think the sad part is that my parents have actually said all the things I mentioned in the first paragraph...

It would be nice if there were something like that. Unfortunately, schools aren't interested in something like that. They like their Windoze. We have exactly 5 macs on campus, all used by the school newspaper crowd. Only our tech admin knows what Linux even is. And even the Comp Sci class is about Java, not programming (at least not beyond the first chapter).

It's unfortunate the way technology education is going. And I live in California, near the Silicon Valley, so you'd think it would be better.

I'm currently a junior at high school, and really, the tech curriculum can't even be called that in my opinion. The best, and most in-depth, course at my school is Computer Science A AP (There used to be a B, but that was cancelled). I'm in it right now, and I basically sleep through all the classes. While it's true that for anyone who hasn't at any prior programming experience it's a bit more of a challenge, I only had a bare-bones introduction to C (not even a lot of pointer stuff, I had stop going to classes early), and even the object oriented stuff is not that hard. Granted, it's still early in the year. But in comparison, the rest of the tech curriculum is just Word Processing 101 and Microsoft Office. There's very little in the way of how computers work or how to program (Comp Sci AP is the only programming class). And it's a little depressing when you hear someone in your class say, "Wow, X person built a computer by himself," and you respond, "That's not too hard if he just bought the parts and put it together," and their next line is "But it's really hard. He must have programmed it himself and stuff." I think half the problem today is insufficient technology education in schools, which is why the "Tech Guy" stereotype even exists. And don't even get me started on the terrible security of my school district...

While it's true that state sponsored terrorism has occurred in atheist states (mostly communist ones), we're not talking about a government. We're talking about PEOPLE killing other people in the name of atheism. I have yet to hear of a single instance of an atheist having his views attacked and killing or conducting terrorist activities because of in the name of atheism. And if it has occurred, it's certainly not with the same frequency as other religions. What Stalin did was politically motivated, not "religiously" motivated (insofar as it could even be called religious if it's atheism that we're talking about). NOTE: I'm not attacking any one religion, or even religion as a whole; I'm merely making a point. If I have offended anyone because it seemed like I attacked their religion, I do apologize sincerely.