Events like this are totally random and tend to be added to both groups equally. These events are mathematically unable to turn the counter the other way around, although they can make crimes statistics against gays and straights closer if they are the prevalent cause of murder (which they are not). Either way straights are still ahead in the death counter in any and all countries, no matter how homophobic or not the culture is.

What is important and the point in this exercise is to show that being gay does not make you more likely to .be murdered or assaulted, and that there is absolutely no evidence that points otherwise.

This is measured in exactly the same way all other demographic statistics are measured. By collecting and analyzing data. If someone is mugged or killed they do not evaluate their sexual orientation on the act, but the sexual orientation comes to light every time a crime is judged as a "hate crime", and it is a trivial thing to analyze court records.

Sure, there may be "hate crimes" that are not judged as such, as there may be normal and "hate crimes" crimes that aren't judged at all, but there is no reason or evidence to conclude that they are significant enough to alter these statistics.

Basically what we can see points exactly to what I say. What we cannot see I leave to your fertile imagination.

There is a LOT less violence against women, gays and transgender people than there is against men.in general..The average of assaults against gay men and transgender men is way bellow the average in assaults against men in general. But just because they are part of a minority their injuries and deaths are suddenly more important through some weird exercise of rationalization.

But the real questions are:

1) Are they better for having it?

2) Are all the others who formerly had some kind of health insurance better now?

3) Who is paying the bill?

Whenever you feel confused as if something is discrimination think on the opposite. What would happen if it was the other way around? See?

Exactly. And you know what. The more advanced the country is and the more chances women have to go into any profession they want the fewer of them go to STEM. There are more women proportionally to the population into TI in India than there are in Sweden or Canada, for example.

That is mainly because in poorer countries there are fewer options and people must take whatever they can.

What it shows is that most women do not want to have anything to do with STEM, and that is not a "cultural thing" as it gets worse exactly in cultures that have the most freedom and the least discrimination for them.

Here is the answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Do you know what the typical case is? Men working in degrading, dangerous or stressful professions that most women do not want to take, travelling to dangerous places, working late at night and many more hours. There is already equal pay for equal work, as long as the work is actually equal. I advise you to read Warren Farrel's research in "Why Men Earn More", it will be enlightening if you give it a chance.

No it does not automatically fix it, but it does allow anyone who wants to try and fix it, for any reason, to do it. On the other hand, as it is today, if anyone tries to start to charge in order to support XP, he would be automatically sued by MS, and the same would happen if by any means they felt that you, by some miracle, made enough money with MSDOS 1.0 to be worth their attention.

No, it wouldn't. Unless they sell their products, then yes, they would be forced to give support for as long as they decide to hold the copyleft. That is not a problem as copyleft is a reaction to copyright and this solution would make far more to control copyright than copyleft ever could.

Sure. In any sane world if you sell a book with any critical error, like a chapter missing for example, you should have the obligation to provide a fixed version to the customer or to give him his money back, and I personally like the obligation to fix factual mistakes any time in the future as long as they hold copyright too. Copyright is a privilege given by society and it should come with adequate responsibilities to society.

Same logic applies to security patches for OS.

That is why I told "commercial" products, as in things they sold to people.

They could just give up on the copyright of those products that are not their interest to support anymore.

At your orders, my good sir. Copyright is an artificial restriction imposed by the government to protect the developer. It has its reasons to be, but like all rules imposed by law a balance should be met between the good and the harm it does.

Copyright was never meant to be used as a means to make a product or service unavailable. Quite the opposite. If a company decides to sabotage their own product by either refusing to sell it, making it prohibitively expensive or denying support and forbidding others from providing this support it should lose this right.

But it is simple. Forget the source code. Just sign out any claim they have over the copyright and let the others who do not want to sign out take the liability.