75% of American Horse Association riders say... They wouldn't feel safe in a mechanical beast.
It's a popular but incorrect parallel to draw between (Horse and buggy whips vs Cars) and (cars vs something else). The new tech is*not* guaranteed to displace the old tech, but by doing the comparison you did, you make it appear that it is.
After all, I'm guessing that 75% of cue-cat users didn't want to use it, 75% of VHS users didn't want to use Betamax, etc... the better tech doesn't always win.
Would you ask this question if they arbitrarily blocked pictures of people with blond hair, or would you see the nonsense then?
False equivalence; blond-haired people aren't 3%-4% of the population. When something is a statistical outlier, then guess what - it *isn't* normal, it's an outlier, same as people with less than 70 IQ points, or more than 150 IQ points, or people in the 96th percentile for shoe-size, etc.
After all, we don't teach kids that sociopaths are normal, and *those* people are greater than 10% of the population. How about criminals? You want to propagate the idea that being a criminal is normal because they make up more than 20% of a population? Violent criminals are something like 12% of the population, you want to go around calling those people normal?
That doesn't support your assertion that whites feel oppressed by brown skinned people. You don't have a link, do you?
You want a link that shows white people feel like they're oppressed by black people?
Yup. It's what you claimed
Here, with plenty of links to particular surveys:
None of those surveys asked white people "do you feel oppressed by black people?", so no - they don't support your factually incorrect statement. Rather, the survey in question reveals that whites think that "there is as much discrimination against whites as there is against blacks". Direct quote out of your own linked survey, which you really should have read before posting.
You know very well that there isn't a citation in the world that's going to convince you. You're just going to respond, "But that doesn't show what you said!" to everything I post. Because that's how you do.
It literally doesn't back up what you said! If your links do not support your assertion, what do you expect me to say?
Between the war on drugs, the socialisation of risk and privatisation of profit, uncapping of political donationa and corporate protectionism masquerading as free trade, working class people are pretty much being oppressed.
And the oppressing class is convincing them that they're really being oppressed by those dark-complexioned people over there.
You talk a good talk - link to your assertion above?
And feminists, of course, because nothing says "jack-booted oppressor" like some college girl who doesn't shave her armpits.
Link?
When Donald Trump says, "I love the poorly educated", he gave a glimpse into the mindset of the people who mean us absolutely no good.
You should perhaps reexamine why such an objectionable person is rising to power. Sure, constant name-calling is hardly "oppression", but it doesn't win you any friends when (for example) you punish people for saying #AllLivesMatter.
Well, no, that's exactly it, Trump's support has been pretty much consistently 25-35% (25 when he's low, 35 when he's high) throughout the entire campaign.
Computer programming has changed quite a bit. During my first tour through college in the early 1990's to learn general education, C++ was the teaching language of the day. During my second tour of college in the early 2000's to learn computer programming, all flavors of Java was taught since the college couldn't afford to renew the Microsoft site license. These days I hear Python is a popular teaching language.
Why did the college need a MS license to teach C++?
The lie in this case is the 1 in 5 figure. In reality it is much higher.
Much higher than you think if you take into account surveys done by people who need to see a certain result - look at the survey which claims that 1 in 4 women are sexually molested or raped on campus.
One of the questions, IIRC, was "While drunk, did you ever have sex with someone you wouldn't normally consent to have sex with?", and counted that as a rape. Even if all other parts of the survey work were accurate, it's easy to get the result you want by asking the right question.
The only reason females of our species haven't done away with us already, is that we were the only route for children. If we lose that, there is no way they'll put up with us any longer. We're doomed, I tell you, doomed !
What makes you think that men currently *are* the only route for children? A single man, throughout his life, can provide sperm cells for hundreds of thousands of women, yet we haven't gotten to that state yet?
The ability to grow sperm cells won't suddenly make women think "Oh - I don't need a man to have a child" because they already have that option, and yet are not choosing it.
Should you be required to log into your PC in order to install an OS?
Actually, yes - the BIOS can be secured with a password. If the user of that particular model motherboard so wished, they could arrange it so that you need to login into the BIOS to allow booting off installation media.
That's because they behave like sub-humans and should be treated as such
That's a harsh way to talk about the Israelis. I know they're government is made up of racists and war criminals, but they're still human beings.
There are two horrible groups here - one of them throws people off of the top of buildings for being homosexual, the other doesn't. Why does your support automatically go to first group?
If there's a whole bunch of murderous people living together, and you know about this, and they hate you and want to murder you, and you insist on moving in right next door to them all, then yes, you are stupid, and I for one won't mourn you when they murder you because you made yourself and easy target.
We've seen that argument before: "She was just asking for it, getting blind drunk with a group of boys she didn't know..."
We've not actually seen that argument fly, but we have at least seen it before.
That makes sense because they lost their male anatomy which any man will tell you is at least 30% of their worth.
Little boy pulls down his shorts and says to the little girl "I've got one of these and you don't ha ha!"
Little girl pulls down her shorts and says "I've got one of these and my mommy says with one of these I can get as many of those as I want!"
It's a buyers market.:-)
You just pointed out that men have a lifetime experience in marketing, the men that are useless never procreate. This sort of explains things
The third was a buck against his analysis of OpenSSL's Heartbleed vulnerability, which he claimed was vulnerable due to the use of an internal ring buffer allocator rather than malloc(), instead of by virtue of not performing bounds checking (there were *several* points he was wrong on).
I have to agree with Theo on this one - if the OpenSSL devs used malloc rather than their own pool the bug would have been discovered on day two of release. Sooner, ever, if they had run valgrind on it.
Understand that maintaining an internal pool of memory (allocated once at startup) means that tools like valgrind cannot determine out-of-bounds errors.
They call it a "Digital Cam" because when you graph valve lift vs time it literally looks like a square wave.
I doubt that - if you drop the valve too quickly it's going to bounce, so no square off-the-cliff graph for the valve closing bit.
I'm not saying that they cannot do it, I'm saying that it's stupid to do so. Open the valve as fast as you want to, but closing it needs to be done gradually, which is why the closing surface of the cam lobe is gradual and not simply cut off.
If you cut a notch in the cam after the stationary point you too can have a square fall-off-a-cliff valve closing profile. However that still gives you valve bounce.
None of your stats show anything but a vague correlation.
You doubted a correlation even existed, now you call it vague? What happens when you run those numbers through a basic statistics tool and it tells you that there's a strong correlation? Go ahead and do it if you feel that that is a are weak correlation (I assume that is what you meant by "vague" - we normally refer to correlations as either strong or weak, not vague).
There is no evidence of a causal link.
I never said there was. I said that an inverse correlation between two variables rules out a positive change in one variable causing a positive change in the other variable. This is still true.
It's basic science - if you assert that rise-in-$A causes rise-in-$B, and we find that most rises-in-$A correlate with fallings-in-$B, then it's pretty obvious that rise-in-$A does not cause rise-in-$B.
You assert that sexism-against-women causes low-female-cs-rates. The real-world observation is that sexism-against-women is correlated with high-female-cs-rates. The real-world observation contradicts your assertion.
How can you tell that it's not due to, for example, differences in Western / post-Christian cultures and Middle Easter / Islamic cultures? That seems like a far more probable cause,
I'm not trying to explain it. I'm pointing out (repeatedly) that the correlation we observe in the world is not "sexism-correlates-with-low-female-cs-rates" as you appear to believe, but it is in fact "sexism-does-no-correlate-with-low-female-cs-rates". You are trying to explain it, but your explanation is contradicted by the observation. I'm merely pointing at the numbers and saying "these numbers weaken the argument you're presenting".
especially since Islamic culture tends to separate men and women so the problems western women often describe in co-education environments are obviously going to be greatly reduced.
In fact, if you look at the University of Tehran's web site, you will note that women do in fact have a wide range of options. As wide as men. If anything, it is men who are socially pressured to limit their choices, while women are more free to choose. At worst, their choices are considered to matter little so they are free to study whatever they like.
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. You say only one of the references on Wikipedia is peer reviewed, but I counted 12.
Great - you give 59 references knowing full well while you do so that that the large majority of them have no support for your position. But, once again, you haven't read those 12, have you?
They go into extensive detail about the reasons for there being a decline in women in CS, citing both interpersonal sexism and institutional sexism.
They can do so. However observation of societies with sexism contradict their extensive arguments. When you make an argument that $X causes $Y, only a single counter-example is needed to falsify it. The world provides many.
Empirical observations always trump explanations!
If you present an argument and facts contradict it, you can only change your argument to match the facts; you can't change the facts to match your argument.
I did not imply that it is, I said that it disproves your assertion. If you make an assertion that $X causes $Y, and we find an inverse correlation, then we can be pretty sure that $X does not cause $Y. You asserted that $ISM causes $OBSERVATION. I contend that assertion by observing that $ISM is actually inversely correlated to your $OBSERVATION.
And I doubt the correlation. Do you have any evidence to support your conclusion, like a peer reviewed study?
You would doubt it; your ideology fails if the correlation of "more options for girls" = "Less girls in CS". Let's look at my observations, shall we?
Iran (few female rights): females account for 70% CS and STEM graduates (source)
Gulf region (so few female rights they can't even display their face in linked photo): females account for 60% CS and STEM graduates (source)
Qatar (few female rights): females account for 60% of CS and STEM students (source)
Malaysia (few rights for women): females account for 52% of CS undergraduates (Peer reviewed source)
The best countries for female rights have fewer female CS graduates than the worst countries for female rights. This is directly observable.
Now that I got some of the numbers, you just know that I'm going to repost this list (not a link, the actual list) every time you make the incorrect assertion that sexism *must* be responsible for the dearth of females in CS.
My position is backed by evidence. Women's experiences, detailed and comprehensive studies. I'm on my phone now so ask again tomorrow if you want a list, but Wikipedia has a good article about it with 59 references: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
You've given a list of 59 references, of which only one academic article supports your position (somewhat tenously, but there you go). As it is clear that you did not read your own references, I'll leave it to you to figure out which one supports your $X causes $Y position. The other articles all repeat your mantra - that there are fewer females in CS - but none of them address the glaring issue of why this is not
So, your argument is that there used to be an artificially high number of women in CS because they had fewer other choices, and now that more options have been opened up the percentage is returning to some kind of "natural" level?
That is not my position - my position is that your oft-repeated mantra "the decline in females within CS is due to sexism" fails due to the most basic counter-example - namely that female autonomy correlates highly with non-CS professional fields. It doesn't matter how often you repeat that statement, mere repeated assertion won't make it true.
That seems unlikely, especially given that you have not explained why the "natural" level isn't 50% (I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying you need to explain your reasoning).
Why should I explain why the "natural" level should or should not be 50%. I am not claiming that it isn't - all I'm doing is pointing to observable evidence; namely that female autonomy is very highly correlated with non-CS choices. This actual evidence (not conjecture, but actual raw numbers) contradict your speculation about sexism causing low female numbers in CS.
Once again, for the benefit of anyone who is reading, I point out that the assertion "sexism is to blame for low number of females in CS" is directly contradicted by actual evidence: in places with sexism, there are more females in CS and in places without sexism there are fewer females in CS.
Or are you perhaps saying that the decline doesn't indicate things have got worse, merely that they stayed at the same level of badness since the 80s?
Please elaborate.
What makes you think it's "bad" (whatever the hell that means)? You cannot see past your ideology, which considers low numbers of females in CS to be "bad". Males dominate other intellectual pursuits, yet you don't consider it "bad". Females dominate yet other intellectual pursuits, and you don't consider that to be bad either. What's so special about CS that a disparity in numbers is a bad thing, if bigger disparity in numbers in other measures isn;t a bad thing?
PS. I doubt that this will be the last time I have to present you with actual evidence, raw numbers, showing that your assertion of "sexism is responsible for low numbers of females in CS" fails due to the low numbers of females in CS only occurring in societies with high female autonomy, and that high numbers of females in CS occur in societies with fewer freedom for females.
It doesn't really explain why there are fewer female programmers, as a percentage of the total, than there used be.
This has been asked (by you) and answered (by everyone else) again and again and again ad nauseum. You get told this at least twice a month. Let me try again:
Women in the 80's had fewer career choices than women today.
I'm actually genuinely curious at this point - why do you continue this argument? It's been debunked multiple times, yet you still try so hard. I'm not being facetious - I'd really rather like to know. It's now beyond the point of being commonly accepted knowledge - when women have choice they flock to areas other than CS. Time and time again.
Only a fool would ignore a pilot who's adept at surviving crashes. You sort of make my point for me.
I'd prefer one who avoids them, but YMMV. Especially since him surviving doesn't imply that his passengers (or the poor bastards on the ground) do.
As for the rest, I would parody it - but I can't come up with anything that does so better than the original.
Of course you can't. You apparently live in a world where expecting people to be treated with respect is some newfangled idea that won't catch on, right?
Friends do it too, mine (including my father) are quite happy to come over and drink my shitty beer without even offering to pay for another kit or bring any with them.
One more thing - my dad get's to criticise my taste in whatever the hell he wants to. He gets a free pass. The man never got more than a grade 6 education and worked hard his whole life to the benefit of his four children. He made plenty of sacrifices to make sure we all got a shot at university. He worked in a factory (still does, actually, and he's past 70) doing hard manual labour and working as much overtime as they were willing to give him in order to ensure that his kids had a chance.
He's had three heart attacks since his 40's, so yeah, I bite down my responses and swallow my pride when he comes over and say stuff like "Do you have to buy the cheap beer?" and "Your welding/carpentry/auto-repair/house-building is shit - why don't you pay someone to do it?"
Recently he's been saying "Maybe this marriage will work out"... but for that one I don't actually blame him:-) My parents would be devastated if they knew that I don't actually care to sacrifice too much of myself to make a marriage work.
Slashdot Mirror
If your PC can run everything that the console can, why bother with the console?
75% of American Horse Association riders say... They wouldn't feel safe in a mechanical beast.
It's a popular but incorrect parallel to draw between (Horse and buggy whips vs Cars) and (cars vs something else). The new tech is*not* guaranteed to displace the old tech, but by doing the comparison you did, you make it appear that it is.
After all, I'm guessing that 75% of cue-cat users didn't want to use it, 75% of VHS users didn't want to use Betamax, etc... the better tech doesn't always win.
Would you ask this question if they arbitrarily blocked pictures of people with blond hair, or would you see the nonsense then?
False equivalence; blond-haired people aren't 3%-4% of the population. When something is a statistical outlier, then guess what - it *isn't* normal, it's an outlier, same as people with less than 70 IQ points, or more than 150 IQ points, or people in the 96th percentile for shoe-size, etc.
After all, we don't teach kids that sociopaths are normal, and *those* people are greater than 10% of the population. How about criminals? You want to propagate the idea that being a criminal is normal because they make up more than 20% of a population? Violent criminals are something like 12% of the population, you want to go around calling those people normal?
You want a link that shows white people feel like they're oppressed by black people?
Yup. It's what you claimed
Here, with plenty of links to particular surveys:
None of those surveys asked white people "do you feel oppressed by black people?", so no - they don't support your factually incorrect statement. Rather, the survey in question reveals that whites think that "there is as much discrimination against whites as there is against blacks". Direct quote out of your own linked survey, which you really should have read before posting.
http://www.vice.com/read/white...
You know very well that there isn't a citation in the world that's going to convince you. You're just going to respond, "But that doesn't show what you said!" to everything I post. Because that's how you do.
It literally doesn't back up what you said! If your links do not support your assertion, what do you expect me to say?
And the oppressing class is convincing them that they're really being oppressed by those dark-complexioned people over there.
You talk a good talk - link to your assertion above?
And feminists, of course, because nothing says "jack-booted oppressor" like some college girl who doesn't shave her armpits.
Link?
When Donald Trump says, "I love the poorly educated", he gave a glimpse into the mindset of the people who mean us absolutely no good.
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
You should perhaps reexamine why such an objectionable person is rising to power. Sure, constant name-calling is hardly "oppression", but it doesn't win you any friends when (for example) you punish people for saying #AllLivesMatter.
Well, no, that's exactly it, Trump's support has been pretty much consistently 25-35% (25 when he's low, 35 when he's high) throughout the entire campaign.
That's a pretty damn big window there.
Computer programming has changed quite a bit. During my first tour through college in the early 1990's to learn general education, C++ was the teaching language of the day. During my second tour of college in the early 2000's to learn computer programming, all flavors of Java was taught since the college couldn't afford to renew the Microsoft site license. These days I hear Python is a popular teaching language.
Why did the college need a MS license to teach C++?
The lie in this case is the 1 in 5 figure. In reality it is much higher.
Much higher than you think if you take into account surveys done by people who need to see a certain result - look at the survey which claims that 1 in 4 women are sexually molested or raped on campus.
One of the questions, IIRC, was "While drunk, did you ever have sex with someone you wouldn't normally consent to have sex with?", and counted that as a rape. Even if all other parts of the survey work were accurate, it's easy to get the result you want by asking the right question.
The only reason females of our species haven't done away with us already, is that we were the only route for children. If we lose that, there is no way they'll put up with us any longer. We're doomed, I tell you, doomed !
What makes you think that men currently *are* the only route for children? A single man, throughout his life, can provide sperm cells for hundreds of thousands of women, yet we haven't gotten to that state yet?
The ability to grow sperm cells won't suddenly make women think "Oh - I don't need a man to have a child" because they already have that option, and yet are not choosing it.
Never heard of a vasectomy, have you? If you don't want to father kids, then it's your responsibility to ensure it doesn't happen, not hers.
If she doesn't want to have kids, then it's her responsibility to ensure it doesn't happen - I don't know when she ovulates, she does.
Yep - all those fundies who are against abortion need to get their tubes snipped (male AND female. We don't need any more Duggar clans.
Actually all those *women* who don't want abortions should get their tubes snipped - men get no say in abortion.
When I studied Game Theory [...]
From what you wrote, it doesn't sound like you *had* studied game theory.
Should you be required to log into your PC in order to install an OS?
Actually, yes - the BIOS can be secured with a password. If the user of that particular model motherboard so wished, they could arrange it so that you need to login into the BIOS to allow booting off installation media.
That's the big advantage of an electric car, no range anxiety, unlike with a petrol car.
No one gets range anxiety when they can fill up anywhere on their route in less than five minutes.
(Is this one of those things where you think that if enough people repeat it enough it will become true? Those approaches hardly ever work).
That's a harsh way to talk about the Israelis. I know they're government is made up of racists and war criminals, but they're still human beings.
There are two horrible groups here - one of them throws people off of the top of buildings for being homosexual, the other doesn't. Why does your support automatically go to first group?
If there's a whole bunch of murderous people living together, and you know about this, and they hate you and want to murder you, and you insist on moving in right next door to them all, then yes, you are stupid, and I for one won't mourn you when they murder you because you made yourself and easy target.
We've seen that argument before: "She was just asking for it, getting blind drunk with a group of boys she didn't know..."
We've not actually seen that argument fly, but we have at least seen it before.
That makes sense because they lost their male anatomy which any man will tell you is at least 30% of their worth.
Little boy pulls down his shorts and says to the little girl "I've got one of these and you don't ha ha!" Little girl pulls down her shorts and says "I've got one of these and my mommy says with one of these I can get as many of those as I want!"
It's a buyers market. :-)
You just pointed out that men have a lifetime experience in marketing, the men that are useless never procreate. This sort of explains things
The third was a buck against his analysis of OpenSSL's Heartbleed vulnerability, which he claimed was vulnerable due to the use of an internal ring buffer allocator rather than malloc(), instead of by virtue of not performing bounds checking (there were *several* points he was wrong on).
I have to agree with Theo on this one - if the OpenSSL devs used malloc rather than their own pool the bug would have been discovered on day two of release. Sooner, ever, if they had run valgrind on it.
Understand that maintaining an internal pool of memory (allocated once at startup) means that tools like valgrind cannot determine out-of-bounds errors.
They call it a "Digital Cam" because when you graph valve lift vs time it literally looks like a square wave.
I doubt that - if you drop the valve too quickly it's going to bounce, so no square off-the-cliff graph for the valve closing bit.
I'm not saying that they cannot do it, I'm saying that it's stupid to do so. Open the valve as fast as you want to, but closing it needs to be done gradually, which is why the closing surface of the cam lobe is gradual and not simply cut off.
If you cut a notch in the cam after the stationary point you too can have a square fall-off-a-cliff valve closing profile. However that still gives you valve bounce.
None of your stats show anything but a vague correlation.
You doubted a correlation even existed, now you call it vague? What happens when you run those numbers through a basic statistics tool and it tells you that there's a strong correlation? Go ahead and do it if you feel that that is a are weak correlation (I assume that is what you meant by "vague" - we normally refer to correlations as either strong or weak, not vague).
There is no evidence of a causal link.
I never said there was. I said that an inverse correlation between two variables rules out a positive change in one variable causing a positive change in the other variable. This is still true.
It's basic science - if you assert that rise-in-$A causes rise-in-$B, and we find that most rises-in-$A correlate with fallings-in-$B, then it's pretty obvious that rise-in-$A does not cause rise-in-$B.
You assert that sexism-against-women causes low-female-cs-rates. The real-world observation is that sexism-against-women is correlated with high-female-cs-rates. The real-world observation contradicts your assertion.
How can you tell that it's not due to, for example, differences in Western / post-Christian cultures and Middle Easter / Islamic cultures? That seems like a far more probable cause,
I'm not trying to explain it. I'm pointing out (repeatedly) that the correlation we observe in the world is not "sexism-correlates-with-low-female-cs-rates" as you appear to believe, but it is in fact "sexism-does-no-correlate-with-low-female-cs-rates". You are trying to explain it, but your explanation is contradicted by the observation. I'm merely pointing at the numbers and saying "these numbers weaken the argument you're presenting".
especially since Islamic culture tends to separate men and women so the problems western women often describe in co-education environments are obviously going to be greatly reduced.
In fact, if you look at the University of Tehran's web site, you will note that women do in fact have a wide range of options. As wide as men. If anything, it is men who are socially pressured to limit their choices, while women are more free to choose. At worst, their choices are considered to matter little so they are free to study whatever they like.
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. You say only one of the references on Wikipedia is peer reviewed, but I counted 12.
Great - you give 59 references knowing full well while you do so that that the large majority of them have no support for your position. But, once again, you haven't read those 12, have you?
They go into extensive detail about the reasons for there being a decline in women in CS, citing both interpersonal sexism and institutional sexism.
They can do so. However observation of societies with sexism contradict their extensive arguments. When you make an argument that $X causes $Y, only a single counter-example is needed to falsify it. The world provides many.
Empirical observations always trump explanations!
If you present an argument and facts contradict it, you can only change your argument to match the facts; you can't change the facts to match your argument.
Correlation is not causation.
I did not imply that it is, I said that it disproves your assertion. If you make an assertion that $X causes $Y, and we find an inverse correlation, then we can be pretty sure that $X does not cause $Y. You asserted that $ISM causes $OBSERVATION. I contend that assertion by observing that $ISM is actually inversely correlated to your $OBSERVATION.
And I doubt the correlation. Do you have any evidence to support your conclusion, like a peer reviewed study?
You would doubt it; your ideology fails if the correlation of "more options for girls" = "Less girls in CS". Let's look at my observations, shall we?
Iran (few female rights): females account for 70% CS and STEM graduates (source)
Gulf region (so few female rights they can't even display their face in linked photo): females account for 60% CS and STEM graduates (source)
Qatar (few female rights): females account for 60% of CS and STEM students (source)
Malaysia (few rights for women): females account for 52% of CS undergraduates (Peer reviewed source)
Now let's see what the top ten feminist countries in the world look like:
Finland: 32% female CS students (source)
Sweden (possibly the largest number of female rights in the world?): 22% CS grads (source
Norway - newest figure I can find on line is from 1999, so ignoring it for now
New Zealand: less than 33% female CS graduates (source).
UK: 13% female CS graduates (source)
Canada: 27% female graduates (maths and CS) (source)
USA: 18% female graduates in CS (source
Netherlands: Can't find sources for this either.
The best countries for female rights have fewer female CS graduates than the worst countries for female rights. This is directly observable.
Now that I got some of the numbers, you just know that I'm going to repost this list (not a link, the actual list) every time you make the incorrect assertion that sexism *must* be responsible for the dearth of females in CS.
My position is backed by evidence. Women's experiences, detailed and comprehensive studies. I'm on my phone now so ask again tomorrow if you want a list, but Wikipedia has a good article about it with 59 references: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
You've given a list of 59 references, of which only one academic article supports your position (somewhat tenously, but there you go). As it is clear that you did not read your own references, I'll leave it to you to figure out which one supports your $X causes $Y position. The other articles all repeat your mantra - that there are fewer females in CS - but none of them address the glaring issue of why this is not
So, your argument is that there used to be an artificially high number of women in CS because they had fewer other choices, and now that more options have been opened up the percentage is returning to some kind of "natural" level?
That is not my position - my position is that your oft-repeated mantra "the decline in females within CS is due to sexism" fails due to the most basic counter-example - namely that female autonomy correlates highly with non-CS professional fields. It doesn't matter how often you repeat that statement, mere repeated assertion won't make it true.
That seems unlikely, especially given that you have not explained why the "natural" level isn't 50% (I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying you need to explain your reasoning).
Why should I explain why the "natural" level should or should not be 50%. I am not claiming that it isn't - all I'm doing is pointing to observable evidence; namely that female autonomy is very highly correlated with non-CS choices. This actual evidence (not conjecture, but actual raw numbers) contradict your speculation about sexism causing low female numbers in CS.
Once again, for the benefit of anyone who is reading, I point out that the assertion "sexism is to blame for low number of females in CS" is directly contradicted by actual evidence: in places with sexism, there are more females in CS and in places without sexism there are fewer females in CS.
Or are you perhaps saying that the decline doesn't indicate things have got worse, merely that they stayed at the same level of badness since the 80s?
Please elaborate.
What makes you think it's "bad" (whatever the hell that means)? You cannot see past your ideology, which considers low numbers of females in CS to be "bad". Males dominate other intellectual pursuits, yet you don't consider it "bad". Females dominate yet other intellectual pursuits, and you don't consider that to be bad either. What's so special about CS that a disparity in numbers is a bad thing, if bigger disparity in numbers in other measures isn;t a bad thing?
PS. I doubt that this will be the last time I have to present you with actual evidence, raw numbers, showing that your assertion of "sexism is responsible for low numbers of females in CS" fails due to the low numbers of females in CS only occurring in societies with high female autonomy, and that high numbers of females in CS occur in societies with fewer freedom for females.
It doesn't really explain why there are fewer female programmers, as a percentage of the total, than there used be.
This has been asked (by you) and answered (by everyone else) again and again and again ad nauseum. You get told this at least twice a month. Let me try again:
Women in the 80's had fewer career choices than women today.
I'm actually genuinely curious at this point - why do you continue this argument? It's been debunked multiple times, yet you still try so hard. I'm not being facetious - I'd really rather like to know. It's now beyond the point of being commonly accepted knowledge - when women have choice they flock to areas other than CS. Time and time again.
I'd prefer one who avoids them, but YMMV. Especially since him surviving doesn't imply that his passengers (or the poor bastards on the ground) do.
As for the rest, I would parody it - but I can't come up with anything that does so better than the original.
Of course you can't. You apparently live in a world where expecting people to be treated with respect is some newfangled idea that won't catch on, right?
Friends do it too, mine (including my father) are quite happy to come over and drink my shitty beer without even offering to pay for another kit or bring any with them.
One more thing - my dad get's to criticise my taste in whatever the hell he wants to. He gets a free pass. The man never got more than a grade 6 education and worked hard his whole life to the benefit of his four children. He made plenty of sacrifices to make sure we all got a shot at university. He worked in a factory (still does, actually, and he's past 70) doing hard manual labour and working as much overtime as they were willing to give him in order to ensure that his kids had a chance.
He's had three heart attacks since his 40's, so yeah, I bite down my responses and swallow my pride when he comes over and say stuff like "Do you have to buy the cheap beer?" and "Your welding/carpentry/auto-repair/house-building is shit - why don't you pay someone to do it?"
Recently he's been saying "Maybe this marriage will work out"... but for that one I don't actually blame him :-) My parents would be devastated if they knew that I don't actually care to sacrifice too much of myself to make a marriage work.