Slashdot Mirror

Don't insurers charge red cars higher rates already? ;)

(No, it's a myth)

Everyone has different priorities. I considered ease of commute when getting a room or a job or a relocation and never had a problem. I saw a lot of my friends put more priority on having a car, and it made them happy, but they didn't delude themselves about the total cost. The money adds up and is part of why I own a few houses now.

Insurance may be cheaper where you are, where I grew up that was how much insurance was. According to this the average cost of a teenager policy is $2267, this is for someone who like myself was unable to use their parents policy.

You seem strangely defensive about owning a car. It is fine, I own one myself now, but I realize how much it costs. When I talk to young people about cars I try to mention my experiences. So many people regard a car as a necessity when it isn't. Seeing it as a necessity makes all the costs seem unavoidable and prevents some people from bothering to add them up. It is amazing how quickly the repairs, maintenance, accessories, and fuel add up. The average household spends 15% on car ownership, the 2nd largest expenditure. You can get quite a head start if you think logically about it.

Yes, it is.

Is the job dangerous? Of course

No, not especially. More dangerous than carpentry, less dangerous than manual labor.

Cops get a lot of undeserved mileage out of doing their so-called "dangerous" jobs. Unless you count atherosclerosis from excessive donut consumption, it's not a very dangerous job.

Caskets
Looking for Caskets?
Find exactly what you want today!
www.eBay.com

Life Insurance
Compare rates from top companies.
Save up to 70% on life insurance.
www.insurance.com

I know Mythbusters' results aren't highly regarded in the Slashdot community, but a recent episode they did showed that (at least for them) talking on a cell phone degraded their ability to drive in a similar manner that driving under the influence of alcohol did.

Wow, it took me two minutes to debunk both those claims.

Pretty big words from someone with two links in his post.

No, it doesn't. Prostate cancer deaths are 75% of breast cancer deaths.

Yes, it does. Prostate cancer deaths: 40,000 a year. Breast cancer deaths for this year are estimated at 43,000.

No, it doesn't. It gets 2x the funding.

If you only go by what the NIH spends, sure. The 2006 estimate for breast cancer research is $716 million for bresat cancer, compared to about $380 million for prostate cancer. However, there's the DOD's breast cancer program, which nets around $150 million a year. And then we can compare the funding that the national Office of Women's Health spends on breast cancer to the amount the Office of Men's Health spends on prostate cancer. Oh wait, we can't, because the OMH doesn't exist.

You could try to work out the numbers yourself, but I have a feeling you're not the kind of person who likes facts. Facts... they are so cold. Breast cancer versus prostate cancer stats.

Sorry, but the facts are deserting you faster than Republicans can distance themselves from Jack Abramoff. Here's another one for you: yes, prostate cancer strikes later in life than breast cancer, but women also live 5.7 years longer than men. But hey, we can only even out statistics when women are at the short end of the stick, right? Like how you'll hear complaints about "glass ceilings" and "pay gaps" but you don't see NOW wringing their hands over the fact that over 90% of workplace deaths and injuries are suffered by men.

Well, you have to scroll through a few pages of websites

No, I don't.

whose main existence is to either promote "Men's Rights" or criticize feminism

Yes, the women can have their Oprah, their Lifetime channel, their NOW, their decades of "women's rights" but if men raise their voice they're just a bunch of complainers.

reasonable source: the BBC. There you find the results of a 2001/2002 British Crime survey: "19% of domestic violence incidents were reported to be male victims with just under half of these being committed by a female abuser."

Looks like you skipped over the part of your article where they said "Figures on the extent of male victims vary considerably so it's difficult to state with any accuracy the true extent." I went with 35% because it is on the low end of the estimates. Studies of studies have pegged it more at 50/50. The problem with relying only on police reports is the fact that women are far more likely to report abuse then men, due to culture and outreach.

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark here and suggest that you are less concerned with gay victims of domestic abuse because your larger point is that men in heterosexual relationships are somehow "discriminated" against.

Wow, that's funny. It's funny because a consequence of domestic violence being culturally and politically defined as something male abusers do to female victums, is that violence in lesbian relationships is ignored.

Thanks for playing "make up facts"; you have lost.

Let me guess, you have a big poster on your wall of Nixon and his "victory wave" after he just resigned. You can quibble on the statistics, but even you are are right on all points it still doesn't change the fact that men are indeed getting the short end of the stick in many areas. 75% of the deaths deserve more than half the funding. 19% of the victums of DV would deserve more than zero support and respect. So to get back to the GP's point, yes it is easy to be a w