I was thinking of Guns, Germs and Steel when I read your comment. A fantastic book, by the way, if anyone else is interested.
I did remember that population dropped dramatically, primarily due to European disease. But I'm still surprised that (according to your Wikipedia link) the scholarly consensus is around 50 million (and, as you say, the highest estimates are 100 million). Thanks!
I had no doubt something like that was in the contract. What I wonder though, is how that holds up legally, given their advertising of channel packages. If that term of the contract was absolute, one month in to your contract they could change the price to $1000/month and cut everything but the golf channel. But I don't think they'd get away with charging their early termination / deactivation fees. So where's the line...?
I was considering switching from Comcast to DirecTV recently. Without Comedy Central (specifically The Daily Show and The Colbert Report) I wouldn't switch. But what if I had switched and they dropped one of the main channels I wanted? Would I have grounds to get out of a term contract? Would I have to go to small claims court if they resisted?
Replace "women" with "black people" and it's a racist statement, whether the hypothetical writer believed it or meant it as satire. As is, it's a misogynistic statement and you were troll rated.
Just the fact that you took this so far...
Yeah, I take your point. I'm sometimes guilty of this.
How is it, if you don’t condone something that there for you become afraid of it?
Ok, so give an alternative explanation. Why would someone block gay marriage if not fear of the wrath of god or the moral decay of society or some other nonsense? Simple spite, maybe? Sort of a "I know gay marriage is harmless, but let's mess with them anyway" thing?
If you don't like beer, don't drink it. But the people that instituted alcohol prohibition had the same sorts of religious, moral and practical fears about the demon alcohol that the people repressing gays have today.
I did. Maybe you think no statement can be misogynistic? I can't say much about flyneye personally, but I can comment on what he writes here.
A point meant to show how the situation is not as simple as the political correctness police want us all to think.
But wtf was your point? Are you putting up a defense of (or defense of the defenders of) anti-miscegenation laws as an analogy to the gay marriage struggle?
You provide a number with no context. It's a big country and therefore there is a lot of crime. But how do we decide if 8,208 is large number of hate crimes?
The numbers I cited show the percentage of murders (0.05%) and rapes (0.002%) that were labeled hate crimes. If I had numbers for other types of crimes, I'd post them.
If it's not working as intended, then you should provide some evidence of that.
In my 2 minutes of research I found this on Wikipedia: of the almost 17,000 murders and 90,000 forcible rapes committed in the U.S. in 2007, 9 murders and 2 rapes were considered hate crimes. That doesn't seem like it's being over-applied.
Are you a mindless follower of the bible? How many people have you stoned? If you can muster enough independent thought to reject some parts of the bible, then you can choose to be homophobic or not.
one could argue everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no preferential treatment.
And if you were only allowed to marry someone of the same sex, would you consider that preferential treatment?
Example, If a straight man hits a gay man, he can be charged with a hate crime, when a gay man atackes a straight man, he must have provoked it. where is the equality?
That's not how it works. If a straight man seeks out a gay man to threaten, assault or kill, that's a hate crime. The "must have provoked it" sounds like something you just made up.
As I understand it, hate crime legislation has two parts - harsher sentences and federal involvement. The reason for harsher sentences is that the attack is on a group, not just the individual. Picking a random gay person to beat up, or burning a cross on a lawn or lynching someone is terrorism against a group. Federal involvement is sometimes needed because local police and legal systems don't protect the rights of those protected classes.
One woman is almost far too much. Two women is hell on earth. More?!
Misogyny should be rated Troll or Flamebait.
I will end by saying marriage is an enterprise for straights to keep them together long enough to raise kids without killing each other or the kids.
Some couples actually like each other, and their kids.
They can already adopt. They can have tax breaks and insurance just like married. Marriage is for a man and a woman.
They don't have the same benefits everywhere, even in the U.S. And that's what the fight is over. Views are changing rapidly here, and at various paces around the world. But it's inevitable that your view will one day be as unacceptable as white-only lunch counters.
I'm not so down on the Firefox team, but it seems like Firefox OS will have a tough climb. What's the benefit for a phone maker? Is it more open than Android? Is the HTML5 core going to make development for it easier?
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking of Guns, Germs and Steel when I read your comment. A fantastic book, by the way, if anyone else is interested.
I did remember that population dropped dramatically, primarily due to European disease. But I'm still surprised that (according to your Wikipedia link) the scholarly consensus is around 50 million (and, as you say, the highest estimates are 100 million). Thanks!
I had no doubt something like that was in the contract. What I wonder though, is how that holds up legally, given their advertising of channel packages. If that term of the contract was absolute, one month in to your contract they could change the price to $1000/month and cut everything but the golf channel. But I don't think they'd get away with charging their early termination / deactivation fees. So where's the line...?
Hmm...so roughly equivalent to the population of Europe? I doubt it. Got a source?
I was considering switching from Comcast to DirecTV recently. Without Comedy Central (specifically The Daily Show and The Colbert Report) I wouldn't switch. But what if I had switched and they dropped one of the main channels I wanted? Would I have grounds to get out of a term contract? Would I have to go to small claims court if they resisted?
Not nonsensical. Other airports used to that weather use different surfaces. Nobody's claiming they can't resurface RNA's runways for hotter weather.
Why did you replace women with black people...
I was trying to teach you a(n apparently) new word, using a similar one I was fairly sure you knew already.
You forgot Hate-driving (e.g. not using turn signals) and Hate-hairstyles (e.g. the mullet).
Two women is hell on earth.
Replace "women" with "black people" and it's a racist statement, whether the hypothetical writer believed it or meant it as satire. As is, it's a misogynistic statement and you were troll rated.
Just the fact that you took this so far...
Yeah, I take your point. I'm sometimes guilty of this.
How is it, if you don’t condone something that there for you become afraid of it?
Ok, so give an alternative explanation. Why would someone block gay marriage if not fear of the wrath of god or the moral decay of society or some other nonsense? Simple spite, maybe? Sort of a "I know gay marriage is harmless, but let's mess with them anyway" thing?
If you don't like beer, don't drink it. But the people that instituted alcohol prohibition had the same sorts of religious, moral and practical fears about the demon alcohol that the people repressing gays have today.
Says who?
I did. Maybe you think no statement can be misogynistic? I can't say much about flyneye personally, but I can comment on what he writes here.
A point meant to show how the situation is not as simple as the political correctness police want us all to think.
But wtf was your point? Are you putting up a defense of (or defense of the defenders of) anti-miscegenation laws as an analogy to the gay marriage struggle?
Not what I asked, but the religious right's influence is well documented.
My data, from 2007:
9 / 17,000 murders considered hate crimes == 0.05%
2 / 90,000 rapes considered hate crimes == 0.002%
Your data, from 2010:
8,208 / X crimes considered hate crimes == Y%
Something's missing in yours. But why wade into the "is it overused" debate if the numbers don't matter to you?
You provide a number with no context. It's a big country and therefore there is a lot of crime. But how do we decide if 8,208 is large number of hate crimes?
The numbers I cited show the percentage of murders (0.05%) and rapes (0.002%) that were labeled hate crimes. If I had numbers for other types of crimes, I'd post them.
Did you have a group in mind that's being underserved due to insufficient political power?
criticism isn't automatic 'hate'speech
Of course not. What I responded to could be misogyny-as-a-joke, but it was certainly misogyny.
It's a preference for most people. it is not 'hate.'
Of course that's not hate. But what's that got to do with this topic?
If it's not working as intended, then you should provide some evidence of that.
In my 2 minutes of research I found this on Wikipedia: of the almost 17,000 murders and 90,000 forcible rapes committed in the U.S. in 2007, 9 murders and 2 rapes were considered hate crimes. That doesn't seem like it's being over-applied.
Just a reminder, since I obviously missed it too, to change the subject of your comment when replying in a thread like this.
God says man who lie with man is an abomination.
Are you a mindless follower of the bible? How many people have you stoned? If you can muster enough independent thought to reject some parts of the bible, then you can choose to be homophobic or not.
It's almost as if you're not familiar with the body of their work :P
He also got the quotation wrong. It's repressed, not oppressed.
one could argue everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no preferential treatment.
And if you were only allowed to marry someone of the same sex, would you consider that preferential treatment?
Example, If a straight man hits a gay man, he can be charged with a hate crime, when a gay man atackes a straight man, he must have provoked it. where is the equality?
That's not how it works. If a straight man seeks out a gay man to threaten, assault or kill, that's a hate crime. The "must have provoked it" sounds like something you just made up.
As I understand it, hate crime legislation has two parts - harsher sentences and federal involvement. The reason for harsher sentences is that the attack is on a group, not just the individual. Picking a random gay person to beat up, or burning a cross on a lawn or lynching someone is terrorism against a group. Federal involvement is sometimes needed because local police and legal systems don't protect the rights of those protected classes.
One woman is almost far too much. Two women is hell on earth. More?!
Misogyny should be rated Troll or Flamebait.
I will end by saying marriage is an enterprise for straights to keep them together long enough to raise kids without killing each other or the kids.
Some couples actually like each other, and their kids.
They can already adopt. They can have tax breaks and insurance just like married. Marriage is for a man and a woman.
They don't have the same benefits everywhere, even in the U.S. And that's what the fight is over. Views are changing rapidly here, and at various paces around the world. But it's inevitable that your view will one day be as unacceptable as white-only lunch counters.
The company started as a pulp mill in 1865 in the city of Nokia, whose name might be from the word for sable, marten or beaver.
I think it's too late due to the developer network effect (same goes for Firefox OS and even Windows Phone). But I'd like to be wrong about that.
I don't know why this isn't built in, but you can install this extension in Chrome to see PDF and PPT docs in a sensible manner:
Docs PDF/PowerPoint Viewer (by Google)
I'm not so down on the Firefox team, but it seems like Firefox OS will have a tough climb. What's the benefit for a phone maker? Is it more open than Android? Is the HTML5 core going to make development for it easier?