Even with the scholarship they were offering, we would have been stretching our finances to the breaking point. So, yes, it was a choice, but not much of one.

I believe that would violate the Geneva Convention.

"Look out! They've weaponized Jar-Jar!!!!"

Our public school is a high poverty district and, at one point, we considered private school. Then we saw the cost: $16,000 per year per student (we have 2 kids). They have scholarship programs but we heard from people that accepting the scholarship means you open your finances wide open to their scrutiny. e.g. If you take one family vacation a year, they'll ask you why you're spending money on that versus giving them the money.

We can't afford to move to a wealthier district either so, in the end, we're sending our kids to public school because it's our only option at the moment. Luckily, so far, our schools have been committed to doing the most with what they have (despite our governor's attempts to destroy the public school system).

Without the TV service, the ISP service might actually improve speeds and remove caps (which are really designed to make streaming videos expensive).

Without the ISP service, the TV service might go IP-TV to widen their customer base.

In fact, if the latter happened, you could cleanly separate the TV portion of the company from the ISP portion.

I might be willing to say "let them merge" if their merger also meant a split by services rendered.

Company #1 handles ISP service.
Company #2 handles TV service.
Company #3 handles content ownership. (e.g. NBC.)

I'm not sure where phone and other services fall in that structure, but those three are the important ones. With a breakup like this, you won't have Comcast ISP's monopoly being used to advance Comcast TV's profits.

There are so many times when I wish "Shibboleet" were a real thing.

That or "agree to concessions that they will only really abide by for a year or two and then will 'forget' about."

My guess is that the power of the ISS laser, if aimed at the ground, would cause less damage than aiming a laser pointer at the ground. For all of the sci-fi programs showing space-based lasers decimating cities, our atmosphere is very good at diffusing light and the ISS's laser isn't going to have the power needed to overcome this.

I'll admit that when people talk about the Holocaust (as in the event that occurred in Nazi Germany during WW2 as opposed to the generic term "holocaust"), they mean the 6 million Jews killed. That's because Jews were targeted above and beyond by the Nazis (at least as far as sheer numbers go). Still, it's a shame that the others aren't mentioned because they suffered and died alongside the Jews. Some of them even had a way out - something the Jews didn't have since they couldn't just convert and be allowed to be free - but instead of supporting the Nazis, opposed them which was a one-way ticket to a concentration camp (if not immediate death).

Maybe the poster was confused* about Holocaust deaths versus "general WW2" deaths (including soldiers, etc).

If you want to limit it to just the Holocaust, then Goebbels was guilty of (at least) being a co-conspirator in the deaths of 12 million people. This includes 6 million Jews and 6 million other people (political prisoners, gypsies, etc.).

* Chances are, the poster wasn't confused. Especially if one looks to the poster's previous posts. There's one calling evolution "not established science" there so I wouldn't be surprised if he would think that the Holocaust isn't "established history" either.

So if a woman is friends with a man, they can't hang out in private ever? And if the man decides that he wants more - and to force that "more" on her - then it's the woman's fault for hanging out with him without others around?

On the flip side, does this mean that women should regard all men as sexual predators? As a man, I'm offended by that.

And what happens when a sober woman hangs out with a sober man who overpowers her? Not all rape cases are alcohol related.

For some colleges, relying on local police instead of campus security would be a huge negative. The college I went to was in a bad neighborhood, but our campus was pretty safe. Generally, you could walk around the campus at night without any problem. Walk two feet off campus, though, and I couldn't guarantee your safety. The local police might have had a hand in this, but I doubt they kept only the college safe. More likely, it was campus security providing focused protection (of a kind that the surrounding area didn't have) and calling in the police where needed.

This is especially true if the local community places a high value on the person being accused. For example, if a small town's football superstar rapes someone and she reports it, she will be treated as a horrible person for trying to ruin the team's chance at the playoffs. Accusations will be made regarding her promiscuity and her general character. Her name will be dragged through the mud. And all of this before the case even sees one day in a courtroom. She might have to leave the town entirely while the football superstar will be hailed as a hero for having to go through such trying times while still scoring points for the local team. And if the football superstar had raped other women, they will be pressured into keeping quiet having seen how women who speak out are treated.

Does rape get falsely reported? Sure, but it also goes unreported out of fear of the victim becoming a target.

A car that knows you'll get in an accident before you do?

"Honey, should we be worried that the car's CPU just ejected itself from the automobile?"