I don't think that's fair. My computer science education was seriously enriched by the community of students and professors at Stanford, even if I could have learned the basic material mostly on my own.
757 karma · joined March 18, 2009
I believe it doesn't even out until relatively late late in life, with male mortality being slightly higher at all ages. From the wikipedia article:
The "First World" G7 members all have a gender ratio in the range of 0.95–0.98 for the total population, of 1.05–1.07 at birth, of 1.05–1.06 for the group below 15, of 1.00–1.04 for the group aged 15–64, and of 0.70–0.75 for those over 65.
However, it's probably true that these laws will be tested in unexpected ways as everyone gains the power to communicate with "the public".
EDIT: Not to imply that it wouldn't be a huge deal anyway.
"Computers occasionally hang on one line of code and fail to move on to the next, and no one can reliably predict when that will happen."
Seriously, Wired?
For example, that bit about instant access to people and knowledge was probably said about the telegraph too.
In more general terms... if ~technology has been getting better with some short doubling time for hundreds of years... why is it that the NEXT doubling is supposed to be the really significant one?
"Our personal consumption in the U.S. is already in overdrive. It's now equal to 70% of our GDP (about double that of China and nearly a third more than that of Canada)."
This is a nonsense claim. GDP is defined as consumption + government spending + net exports. It doesn't seem obvious that increasing the relative share of government or exports would do anything for the environment.