Slashdot Mirror

This chart is a little bit dated, but makes the argument for socialized health care quite clearly.

With grade inflation, I find using GPA as a metric of "success" sadly suspect. What correlation is there between SAT scores* and success in life after graduation?

*Under the old model. Not to be confused with that thing they call an SAT today.

As I mentioned, before adjusted GPA is a good measure of *relative* performance. People with higher GPAs from a specific high school have better college success than those with lower GPAs, although normalizing the grade inflation between different schools is hard.

There are some studies that indicate higher SAT scores can lead to higher incomes, but this was a secondary correlation that is only significant when you corrected for different bachelor degrees (which made the most main difference in future income). The main effect in all of these studies is actually graduating from college (vs not graduating from college after 6 years).

For me, most of what that says is if you can put up with all the bullshit about studying for SATs and doing busywork assigned by professors, it correlates to how well you can get along in a corporate world so you earn a better income. Since the correlation between *wealth* and IQ is apparently much lower.

https://thesocietypages.org/so...

that is why thinks like universal background checks have 97% approval rating

There are some things we need to clean up in the law.

We also ignore the fragmentation of background check data and the sheer amount of stuff that never gets forwarded to NICS. The NRA brings this up now and then to try and divert the conversation from legislative changes, so it's not a favored Democratic talking point; yet these new laws won't actually work if we don't fix the damned background check system.

We also need to deal with the criminal justice system and focus more-strongly on behavioral health services. This, of course, isn't a favored Democratic talking point either, because the Republicans keep trying to attribute every shooting to mental health (and no, these people aren't all crazy; the ones who are mostly would be tame if they had encountered proper BHS, too).

There's a lot of talk about assault weapons bans now, and I worry Democrats will pass a new ban and do nothing else. Maybe people don't need AR-15s. They certainly don't need 30-round magazines (how about a rifle revolver with 6 shots, no modification?); and bullet design has a huge impact on how deadly a shot from any given firearm really is, but where's our conversation on that? Here's the thing: the data doesn't suggest the 1994 AW ban helped.

Conservatives love that argument; they don't like the argument that we should regulate bullets or patch up a few minor problems in our existing laws, but what do you expect from the GOP and the NRA? Democrats don't like that argument because it sounds too much like agreeing with the GOP.

The problem is I can't ignore well-constructed arguments with FBI data that shows the trend in overall homicides following the same shape as the trend in firearms homicides. That's actually better data than that which raised my original concern: what in the hell is happening post-2004 that wasn't going on pre-1994, and why did approximately nothing change in the number of mass-shooting deaths during the ban in relation to the prior decade?

Of course there's a visible impact, if you look hard enough at the graph. It's there. If you cut it back to just the number of mass shootings, it's less-obvious, while this new trend is just as obvious.

There's other data that suggests the number of homicides is going up, but the homicide rate is going down, while the suicide rate and the number of homicides from mass shootings is going up (i.e. more Virginia Techs, fewer back-alley murders).

So we need:

• Legislative tweaks to eliminate e.g. straw man purchases and whatnot
• Accountability so that NICS background checks actually catch people disqualified from gun ownership instead of showing up clean for domestic violence convicts and drug traffickers
• Criminal justice reform as an ongoing effort so as to strongly focus on behavioral health and the reduction of crime in general, reducing the likelihood anyone will be in a position in which they'll likely commit a homicide
• An examination of the ballistics involved in bullets, and a discussion on what we want to do there with regard to public safety (police ammunition), hunting rifles, whatever self-defense firearms people are allowed to carry, and the intersection between these (a hunting rifle might need ammunition in excess of what we want to regulate so as to reduce the potential injury and fatality in a mass shooting)
• Limitations on loadable ammunition size (magazines, belt feeds, revolvers) and rapid-fire mechanisms (full-auto and burst-fire weapons in civilian hands, which we already regulate, although we need to ban bump stocks)

Democrats are talking about:

No, the difference is we used to lock up the crazies, paranoid schizophrenics and the lot for everyone's safety, then the ACLU destroyed the system and we turned all the mentally ill out on the streets...

Check out the graph: https://thesocietypages.org/so...

In 1974(?) the ACLU case happened, and the number of mass shootings has been climbing ever since.

In a free society you cannot eliminate all risk, but involuntary incarceration clearly needs to be re-instituted for the mentally ill...

Fortunately for us in the USA, we have a constitution that prevents gun grabbers like you from trying to take our guns (and we actually own guns, so even if you abrogate the constitution, you are still stuck trying to confiscate 300,000,000 guns from 50,000,000 gun owners who will fight you if you try confiscation by force.)

In the US, your odds of dying in a mass shooting are minuscule, less than 100 fatalities a year https://thesocietypages.org/so... out of 340,000,000 people. It is sensational and tragic, but dogs and bees combined kill about the same number of people each year. https://www.washingtonpost.com... no one is screaming to ban dog ownership or demanding bee licenses. Your odds of dying from medical mistake (500,000 deaths per year) are orders of magnitude higher. Gun murder rates in most of the US (outside of certain inner cities dominated by minorities) are on par with murder rates in Canada and Northern Europe, and unlike those places, we have the option and capability of defending ourselves. OTOH guns save hundreds of lives every day, usually just with defensive warnings or defensive brandishing, which is enough to deter most assaults, rapes and muggings. Further, our democracy is protected by gun ownership. All the disarmed countries are one charismatic leader away from another Nazi Germany. And there is nothing they can do to stop it if it happens, no fundamental backstop to tyranny of their own government...

The truth about freedom is that there is a cost. As a US citizen, I say 100 deaths per year is reasonable in a country of 340,000,000, If there were more law abiding citizens with concealed carry, the country would be even safer. If you are afraid of guns and a gun grabber, you might want to educate yourself on actual facts instead of the spoon fed propaganda you have been force fed for years. Try something like https://www.amazon.com/More-Gu... sorry, it is a "chapter book" that requires at least 3rd grade reading comprehension.

Can you cite where that "information" came from?

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2017/07/05/algorithms-replace-your-biases-with-someone-elses-biases/:

But as Wexler’s reporting shows, some of the variables that COMPAS considers (and apparently considers quite strongly) are just as subjective as the process it was designed to replace. Questions like:
Based on the screener’s observations, is this person a suspected or admitted gang member?

And:

The New York State version of COMPAS uses two separate inputs to evaluate prison misconduct. One is the inmate’s official disciplinary record. The other is question 19, which asks the evaluator, “Does this person appear to have notable disciplinary issues?”
... An inmate’s disciplinary record can reflect past biases in the prison’s procedures, as when guards single out certain inmates or racial groups for harsh treatment. And question 19 explicitly asks for an evaluator’s opinion. The system can actually end up compounding and obscuring subjectivity.

By definition, you can't claim that system is objective when it calculates a number based on "an evaluator's opinion".

A few more nightclub dress codes:

http://media.npr.org/assets/im...

No athletic wear, baggy clothing, and chains.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/...

No athletic wear, du rags, bandanas, baggy clothing, or ball caps.

https://thesocietypages.org/so...

No athletic wear, sideways backwards baseball caps, baggy clothing, doo rags.

http://www.afro.com/wp-content...

Baggy clothing, flat bill hats, chains, athletic apparrel.

Many of the dress codes prohibit "work boots", which is because a lot of black people like wearing Timberlands.

Jim Crow laws were not the work of progressives. The whole point of them was to thwart the progressive agenda and preserve the status quo. They were about as regressive as you could possibly get.

Science at the time said that black were genetically inferiors to whites, and progressives saw segregation and eugenics as the rational response. That is, segregation was "the progressive agenda" at the time, and Jim Crow laws were consistent with it. http://bfy.tw/9SHj

Nazism were not in any way shape or form based on the progressive tradition.

Again, you're disputing basic historical facts. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response; my parents lived through this and were subjected to the "scientific" studies of Nazi scientists. You need to read up on your history, instead of political propaganda .

No one is ever required to disclose their race, religion, or sexual orientation. While various questionnaires may ask about them, you are always permitted to leave them blank.

People are even permitted to lie on them, which I and others certainly do. In addition, these questions don't have an objective, verifiable answer: although for some people, the answer is clear, for many it isn't; race or sexual orientation simply aren't well-defined categories.

Which then raises the question: given that the information is not verifiable, has no objective meaning, and is not statistically representative, how can it possibly be used to accuse and penalize companies for discrimination? Obviously, the current situation can't stand: either you end up with government-defined categories and mandatory responses, or you can't use this data at all as part of law enforcement.

You still are totally avoiding the main subject of this conversation: your claim that anti-discrimination laws are harmful to peace, prosperity, equality, and liberty. I have asked you again and again to provide evidence of that, and you have yet to offer a single shred of evidence

You have already cited the evidence yourself, you just refuse to see it. If you look at economic progress, there was no obvious change in slope when the civil rights act was passed, and that is for all provisions of the act.

Here are high school graduation rates: no effect of the civil rights act

Ditto for median household income: no effect of the civil rights act.

The one thing where you see a big change in social indicators around the civil rights act is illegitimacy, and that's a change for the worse.

So, even minimal fact checking tells you that the civil rights act had no great practical effect on major indicators of progress for African Americans. Its repeal of racist laws and government policies was a moral victory, but beyond that it is massive government interference with no clear benefit.

If you want more analysis, I have told you to read the works of Thomas Sowell as a starting point (there are many other books, but he is an engaging writer, and has credibility and personal experience).

The problem isn't that I have failed to give you evidence, the problem is that you have shown yourself time and again to be resistant to it. Instead of reading up on the history of progressivism, scientific racism, eugenics, or reading up on criticism of affirmative action, you simply and uncritically dig up links to articles that restate your own misconceptions. And, yeah, it's not surprising that you can find such links: obviously, a lot of people have the same erroneous beliefs that you do.

Tell me about it:

https://thesocietypages.org/so...

Quite a lot. See, when they can't pay repeatedly, the state will start garnishing their wages AND hit them with a fee for not paying the fine. And then a fee for not paying that etc. It's pretty much like compound interest.

So with that extra 25%, they won't be able to pay it out for longer, and hence the state (and similarly "helpful" private companies that it subcontracts to) can milk them for longer.

http://thesocietypages.org/pap...

Since PETA claims the Holocaust wasn't wrong.

Since eating a hamburger or a chicken sandwich is perfectly fine, morally speaking, by comparing eating a chicken sandwich or a hamburger to the Holocaust, they are saying that there was nothing wrong with said Holocaust.

Here is an article from The Society Pages about dead people who won't vote:

Black people in the U.S. vote overwhelmingly Democratic. They also have, compared to Whites, much higher rates of infant mortality and lower life expectancy. Since dead people have lower rates of voting, that higher mortality rate might affect who gets elected. What would happen if Blacks and Whites had equal rates of staying alive?

These articles are interesting, but the conclusions are too simple: It is too simple to say that if things were different then people would act as if things were the same.

The site Sociological Images has data about the rate that cops kill and are killed in the USA. This article is a comparison between the use of guns in the USA vs the UK, but it does highlight the USA rates per civilian population per police population pretty well.

They cause crime. That's demonstrably true. It's just that crime falls so much that additional gun deaths are masked. Then this happens: http://thesocietypages.org/soc...

Genetically predisposed to be uninterested in CS. As in, hundreds of thousands of years of evolution created a genetic predisposition to be interested or not interested in a field that has only existed for half a century?

Just because the field has only existed for half a century doesn't mean that the predispositions aren't older than that. Humans are genetically predisposed to be better at riding a bike than a fish even though both have been around for much longer.

Yes, because, among other reasons, fish lack knees.

How many female professional race car drivers do you see?

For decades, women were not allowed to be professional race car drivers. Now, they're able to, and so there are now several, both in F1 and NASCAR. Are you going to suggest that women genetically evolved to become race car drivers over the past 80 years?

There are certain things about computers and cars that more boys than girls are attracted to.

Sure. For one, marketing. But you'd have to be crazy to suggest that that's due to genetics.

There are obvious exceptions like my daughter who likes sports and frogs more than her brothers but on average you will find more of one gender than the other attracted to certain activities and I don't see a problem with it as long as everyone is allowed to freely choose their own interests.

Yes, but again, that has nothing to do with a genetic predisposition. Now, if you were to say that you find more women than men menstruating or bearing children, or more men than women having color blindness, then you could point to a genetic predisposition. But to say that boys like computers because of genetics is just silly.

Not to mention the fact that most programming used to be done by women, back when it paid significantly less.

How about their pull their heads out of political correct land and realize male brains are better at logical computer tasks. Male and female brains process thoughts differently. This is known science! Female brains typically work well with relational thoughts and can piece multiple things together but lack solid focus on solving one individual problem. Male brains compartmentalize thoughts and like to process one thing to completion then move on instead of jumping around quickly to different thoughts, problems, or topics. Males are better at most computer work because of this and that's the end of it. Females don't work with computer science fields because they don't enjoy it and aren't good at it.

Lolz. Back in the 1960s, the same exact argument was made for why women were better at computer work. What's the difference between then and now? The amount that a computer programmer is paid compared to the minimum wage.

maybe some groups have a genetic limitation to the likely of above average intelligence.

There is no maybe, every study that has ever looked into this since the dawn of science has confirmed this.

Your statement may be accurate, but probably not in the way you mean. If you seriously want to look into the history of scientific views on race, you might start here.

Yes, for most of the history of science, scientists have claimed that they had "proof" of the inferior intelligence of one race or another. The funny thing is... the race that is "stupid" tends to change depending on the time period or the background of the authors, suggesting most historical methodologies were probably flawed. Unless, of course, you actually believe that the Jews and Asian people of the 19th century were actually so very stupid (as scientists of that time said), but recent IQ tests seem to put them at the top. And if you believe that all these scientific "tests" are valid across different eras (which is rather preposterous if you look at their "methodologies" for determining "superior" races), then your genetic heredity hypothesis runs into problem -- otherwise, how do you explain the giant jump in intelligence for Asians and Jews in "scientific" studies in the past couple hundred years?

It's kinda like the fact that back in the early 20th century, Jews were the stars of professional basketball, lauded for their supposed athletic prowess, their craftiness and stealthiness ("scheming minds"), and their shortness, which was supposed to give them an advantage on the basketball court by allowing faster maneuvering closer to the ground. Of course that sounds like nonsense today when basketball is dominated with large, tall African-American players, but we still seem to want to find some sort of genetic explanation for the "natural athletic ability" of certain races.

Hell you don't even have to ask science, every average Joe on the street knows this already from life experience.

I know average Joe. He often harbors some racist views, either overt or latent.

But just in case you're young and everything you've ever read has been sanitized by the Academic Department of Purethought: the highest average IQ of any human race/group belongs to Ashkenazi Jews.

The problem is that you have to accept that (1) IQ tests actually are a reasonable measure of the only type of "general intelligence" that counts, (2) that IQ can't be influenced significantly by experience or life conditions, and (3) that there are no other confounding variables that could make comparisons between vastly different groups problematic.

I don't accept any of these. First, IQ tests measure something but many scientists have severely criticized them as the only possible measure of "general intelligence." And second, there are many, many known confounding factors, including environmental factors and life experience, that make comparisons difficult between races.

I'm NOT saying that no racial differences exist. I'm saying that (1) even if they do exist, the tests are mostly written by smart white people to evaluate smart white people, so they may not accurately measure useful intelligence in other cultures, (2) there are way too many confounding variables to give a lot of accuracy to comparisons, and most of the differences seen at face value are very likely not to turn out to have meaningful genetic or racial sources.

If you were to go to, say, Japan or Russia and say to a scientist, "Some races have higher geneti

It's totally cool to say something about Nigerian runners having long legs, or say "white men can't jump, hahaha" or "Asians are short" but if you say some people are genetically gifted in intelligence sets off everyone's alarm bells.

Actually, I would say it's pretty much not cool to say things that are intentionally stereotyping people, even when it comes to physical ability. There are short Nigerians, tall Asians, and white men who can jump in the world. And our preconceptions about "athletic prowess" often also harbor weird stereotypes that we may not even be conscious of. My favorite example of this is the stars of professional basketball in the 1920s through early 1940s. You know who they were? Jews. Often specifically short Jewish men. At that time, basketball hadn't yet been dominated by only tall guys, "dunking" was not yet common, and it was a much more aggressive game than it often is today. Short ("well-balanced" and "fast"), "crafty, scheming" players with high intelligence were considered to have superior skills for the game -- which fit perfectly into Jewish stereotypes. (See here or do an internet search if you don't believe me.)

You may think this is an abberration, but such arguments have been made throughout history, for athletics as well as for intelligence.

I'm not saying that one can't find measurable differences between races -- certainly, on average, one can. The question is always what such differences mean. So, when it comes to intelligence, do IQ tests really show differences of "innate intelligence" between races, or have we just not properly controlled for educational quality or home environment or whatever? And what exactly about "intelligence" are we measuring -- there's a lot of disagreement even among educational psychologists who study this stuff about what exactly "general intelligence" is. Just because one group of people scores a few points above another group, does that mean the second group is actually "stupider" or does it mean that they just don't have certain skills the test tested, while they have other cognitive abilities that could allow them to perform just as well in real-world conditions if they were given the chance?

Again, I'm not at all saying such differences don't exist. I'm saying it's really hard to measure them accurately, and even when we do, we need to really identify what precisely we are measuring and what valid conclusions we can draw from that data.

Otherwise, we might just be doing something like assuming that Jews are the best at basketball without ever conceiving of the tall guy who can dunk the ball and do other things on the court that would completely change the game.

Nice try, but "cut" and "cut" don't always have the same value. In most countries with government-run healthcare, the government has a pretty damn good incentive to take the smallest possible cut - tax rates are high already (because healthcare is included), and voters hate taxes. Compare that with an ecosystem of for-profit companies that collude and fix prices like there's no tomorrow... And even if the government would start cracking down on these practices, they still would have expenses that a government-run healthcare doesn't have: advertisement, paying dividents,... You just can't set up a for-profit company and get away with minimizing your profit.

And then there's another thing: poor people in the US who don't have health care often don't go visit a doctor when they have symptoms, instead waiting until things get very bad and they end up in the emergency room. Guess what? Letting the regular medical channels take their due course and intervening early in a disease usually costs a lot less money than intervening late and in an emergency setting. And guess who has to foot the bill for these extra costs? No, it's not the hospitals, they just pass the check on to those patients who can pay their bills. Who pass the check on to their insurance companies, who pass the check on to everyone who has health insurance. So in some sense, the US has been having some demented form of "socialized medicine" since long before the debate on Obamacare even started, only the system is set up the most costly and inefficient way imaginable. All for the sake of keeping up the appearance that it's not - *gasp* - socialism.

So there's an explanation why the tax + health insurence cost in the US summed together is equal or (most often) larger than the tax rate in most developed countries with government-run heath insurance. And you get a whole lot more for your taxes in these countries to boot, like roads that aren't full of potholes, bridges that aren't on the brink of collapsing, decent public transport,... and the same quality of health care.

See also http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/04/26/cost-of-health-care-by-country-national-geographic/

It just means a small group made a big enough noise to be heard.

Ah, right... the silent majority opposes all those crazy politicians, but still keep voting 'em right back into office.

Your statement is as incorrect as saying that society as a whole has determined that marijuana should be illegal

Why yes, it is, which is to say it's not incorrect at all. Marijuana's criminalization started when it was identified as a "poison" because of its psychoactive properties, so it got lumped in with narcotics. That gave it a mildly bad reputation that continued to decline as propaganda swayed public opinion. By 1937, when it was pretty fully criminalized, the public didn't really oppose it.

but in fact that's wrong and many polls show a majority of people favoring its legalization.

Now it is, yes. Slowly, politicians are recognizing that, and will continue to do so. This doesn't mean that representatives are independent of their constituents, but rather it illustrates that there is an obvious delay between a change in public opinion and political action.

The will of the people isn't always reflected in our laws.

Nope. Often this is a good thing, because on the whole, people are stupid and short-sighted. When it comes to a personal issue, like "I don't want to pay for an archaeologist", they choose one way. When the issue is phrased differently, like "I want my children to know about the native culture in this area", they choose differently. It's the job of government to figure out what specific policies lead to the greater good. The people, by vote or by petition, simply set that long-term target.

When they are out of whack, people feel morally justified in breaking those laws.

People feel morally justified in everything they do, because people are very strongly biased, regardless of laws or any fixed morality.

Based on the responses here, aside from a few stick-in-the-mud types who sound like complete douchebags, I'd guess your average citizen would say "No that's stupid, this couple shouldn't have to pay."

Whether the couple should or should not have to pay is not actually the issue at hand, despite the muckrakers' drivel. As far as I can tell, nobody actually involved in the case is saying that the landowners should pay. Rather, the default state for the law is that the landowner gets the bill for legally-mandated work, just like they have to pay for their own smoke detectors, circuit breakers, sanitation, structural repairs, fireman access, et cetera. If the expense is unreasonable in the circumstances (as this appears to be), the government can assist, for the benefit of society, but that decision hasn't been made yet.

All we have here is a half-baked story about something unusual happening, but not yet concluded. Since it's at a stage where it's easy to get commenters riled up in a nice Two Minutes' Hate against the government, it gets wide media attention.

Okay, you got me; the pinnacle of the gender divide in tech communities on the internet. :)

In Canada it's a little better—most M.D. students in 2010 were female. On the medical front, a lot has changed in the twenty-two years since Dr. Conley walked out.

As for physics—while it's not entirely politically correct to point this out, there is a genetic basis for a gender difference in mathematical ability, the behaviour of which appears to be linked to the X chromosome: girls' math ability tends to be more average, whereas boys (after puberty) show a more extreme distribution and have a higher frequency of great success and great failure.

It's tempting to chalk this up to social pressures, but the same bifurcation is visible in traits as basic as height and appearance, which are known to be the result of a large number of genes acting in concert (in addition to diet and stress.) There's an obvious evolutionary reason for all of this, too, which means at the very least that we've been holding beauty pageants backward all this time. This is nothing to cry over: people will still be whatever they want to be, and algebra is not the totality of human experience, anyway.

But that all being said, it certainly doesn't justify sexism—only headcount ratios, and even then they should be something like 1:3, not the pitiful sausagefests that actually occur. The good news is that we live in interesting times.

Also, Card is right about gay rights being in opposition to democracy...

Not anymore: http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

And even if opinions weren't rapidly shifting, there would still be the demographic factor to consider: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/11/05/support-for-same-sex-marriage-by-age-and-state/

Treating gays and lesbians as second-class citizens does them actual harm for literally no rational, empirical reason. This is a very straightforward issue, lacking even the economic arguments associated with slavery, women's lib, etc. It's been obvious for many years how the gay rights struggle is going to go and how it's going to look to future generations. Can you really blame DC et al for not wanting to funnel money to someone on the wrong side? Another few years and they might as well be soliciting comics from the Klan.

The socialists are using terrorism as an excuse to sneak in their policies.

Because G.W. Bush was well known for his socialist policies... Take your retarded rant elsewhere.

Do I wish to deny the use of technology to amoral thugs who routinely abuse their power? Absolutely! Giving more power to the police has never worked out well, not for the US, not for any other country. Given their abysmal track record for protecting civil liberties why would I want to give them another tool to oppress people? Given their lax attitude towards real crime (ever report something stolen to the police?) and their attitude towards victimless "crimes" (they'll knock down doors and come in with riot gear to attack a suspected "drug dealer") why would I want to assist them? In most other countries the people act as a deterrent to police power. In the US you see this: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2011/11/original.jpeg in the rest of the world if a cop does that, you see this: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/07/05/world/sub-ukraine/sub-ukraine-articleLarge.jpg (both SFW images).

And to top it all off, their only checks end up being... other cops. No accountability to the people at all.

Perhaps. I'm unsure. The states rights issue is certainly a large potential sticking point. Left to their own devices, I have no idea if say Alabama would ever legalize gay marriage. I do have some hope that SCOTUS will find gay marriage constitutionally mandated for each state by either the commerce clause or the equal protection clause. If they do nothing of the kind, I can potentially see a deeply divided country where the west and northeast allow gay marriage while the south(east) and most of the middle don't. I don't know about the federal situation--I hope the gross inequality at least leads to federal civil unions in the next few years if not marriage proper.

I am also unsure about the general support for it by generation. The 65+ crowd is by *far* the most anti-gay-marriage (here's a graph using somewhat old data; better evidence exists). I think that either support will continue growing overall as it has in the last few years, or that generation will mostly die off in the next decade, and either way there will be a "super majority" of support.

The key portions of the civil rights movement took like a decade after things got moving. My hope is that we're at about the same starting place (maybe a few years in?) with gay marriage.

I'm reminded of a cover of the National Review, shown here, which depicted Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton, in the style of racist caricatures of Asians, a style you'd see in newspapers in the 1920s or 1930s. A lot of people complained, particularly Asian-American groups, naturally. About that time, I saw a television news show featuring a spokesperson from an Asian-American group, and the editor of the National Review. The editor said that, as the Clintons were not Asian, the cover could not be racist, and then he went on to accuse the spokesperson of racism, for suggesting that caricatures of the Clintons resembled Asian people.

It was the most spectacular demonstration of arrogant sociopathic sophistry that I can recall.

And it's only two because nobody ever bothered with rock'n roll.

Rules and Regulations for Public Dance Halls ("no beating of drum to produce jazz effect") and also, Nazi hatred for jazz (I think this one is my favorite: "so-called jazz compositions may contain at most 10% syncopation; the remainder must consist of a natural legato movement devoid of the hysterical rhythmic reverses characteristic of the barbarian races and conductive to dark instincts alien to the German people (so-called riffs)"...)

One example: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/12/02/american-vs-international-news-time-and-newsweek/

Don't want to think., methodically manipulated by media, the people behind this sort of dis-information targeting children should be removed from any position of influence or power.

A generation of consumer cattle.

Back in the 1960s programming viewed more like secretarial work. [thesocietypages.org] So I think it's equally likely that more men would have entered the field earlier, but didn't because programming was still seen as a "women's" job. Also I don't really buy the argument that women aren't interested in complex systems (or not interested in math, etc), when the gender disparity in other fields such as biology and statistics is much smaller or even more heavily weighted towards women.

Any woman not wearing a Burqa, of course.

Like this?

[NSFW in case your sarcasm detector is in repair]