The numbers I've seen are 5-7% for rape and 3.5% for consensual intercourse. The explanation being that often rapists target the most fertile women in the 15-25% age bracket.

That sounds quite reasonable to me actually. Most crime goes unreported, and rape being a rather shameful one, I wouldn't be surprised it often went unreported.

I don't know the statistics, but the numbers you quote don't seem that odd to me. It's not statistical evidence, but there have been many cases in the news where a sex offended got caught on a few reported cases, only to have many more victims show up once the initial story hits the news. See for example the recent paedophilia scandals in the church.

If anything, the statistical evidence points to a higher chance of getting pregnant from rape (5-7%) than from consensual intercourse (3.5%). Most explanations I've seen suggest this is because rapists often select the most fertile women in the 15-25 age bracket.

I think religion plays an important role in cultural evolution. It's why the religions that preach "go forth and multiply" in general are the successful ones.

Religion has shown itself as a very good mechanism for cultures to survive (and keep those in power secure). The power of religion should not be underestimated, it's survival of the fittest at the cultural level, and religions have proven themselves very good at that.

It's still higher than the average chance to get pregnant (3.5%) from voluntary intercourse. The best explanation I've seen for the number for rape being higher than that is that rapists often target the most fertile women in the 15-25 age bracket.

If anything, most studies seem to find that there is a higher chance ( 5-7.5%) that a rape victim gets pregnant than the average chance to get pregnant (3.5%). The explanations I've seen is that rapists will usually target the most fertile women in the 15-25 age bracket.

I have a lot of experience with being uncircumcised. And I can tell you that it's one of the most sensitive parts of my body and a great source of "pleasure". I would never voluntarily have it removed unless it was to save my life or something similar.

You're right that I don't know how it is to be circumcised but I definitely don't want to find out.

My opinion is that unless there is compelling evidence, which seems to be lacking here, you should not do procedures like this.

There are cases that seem to demonstrate a much clearer health benefit, like removing breasts and prostates in women and men to prevent a large number of cancers. We don't do that, at least until a cancer is actually detected, when it might be too late, so I don't see why we should do this.

So, you're basically saying it's for the same kind of reason that in the USA a lot of teenage girls get breast implants?

My experience is that the reason you have to choose between Gnome and KDE is the real problem: They need to do a lot of things that the OS should provide.

I think the problem is that there should be a common level between the kernel and the desktop so that the different widget toolkits have to do a lot less of the hardware abstraction. In my view this is where Linux has dropped the ball.

I think in part this is where the Linux kernel dropped the ball. Such a common layer should not depend on what desktop you use.

I find that in a lot of cases FOSS developers, and sometimes also MS developers confuse bling with usability. Apple is all about usability. As a side effect it often looks nice, but people confuse the message for the envelope it comes in.

If anything, the FOSS community is missing usability experts, or the people leading the projects listening to them.

The design of Apple products helps in selling the items and creating the image. The loyal user base ("fanboys") exists because Apple actually creates very useful products.

Apple plays for keeps, it wants to make sure it's existing customers are happy (and a bit locked in). I see that most clearly in the smartphone market, where my 3 year old iPhone 3GS is still being supported, while much newer phones aren't.

I ran Linux full-time from 1997-2007, so my experience is similar. Getting hardware to work reliably, especially if your company is tied to a certain vendor, is quite often a problem. And then it might break if you upgrade to a newer version of the distribution.

Next to that a Linux desktop lacks a lot of applications that are needed in a corporate environment. Things like a good groupware client. (Evolution is often broken). Most things are available for OSX nowadays, including MS Office.

And more than that, if you run into a problem installing a commercial application, you can usually get support if you're running on OSX. Linux support is often limited to one flavour of RedHat, if at all.

I used a Nokia N70 for years. The experience was nothing like the iPhone. I even wrote applications for the Nokia and I think it was one of the best phones at the time I bought it. I used it a lot.
I also owned a Windows Mobile PDA, the specs were good, but the user experience was bad. I used it less and less as the novelty wore off, which was a pity as it had been really expensive. I also owned the first iPod Video, although it took Apple 6 more years because I could actually buy videos on iTunes.

What Apple did was a real Paradigm shift. Making a normal browser useable on such a small screen was no small feat. Doing away with the keyboard and only having the touchscreen was the real winner though. It allowed to get away from seeing the smartphone as a very small PC to something more appliance like. No more menus to navigate to applications, music, pictures, phonebook and such. No more awkward small keys or tiny stylus. (And I don't have very big hands). But it was really the whole package, not just the device, but also things like the unlimited mobile internet, that made so much better.

I don't know where you live, but this is BS to me. I drive a Saab 9-3, so I'll use that to counter most of your arguments.

I have no idea what a Crown Vic is, but I can fit 3 adults comfortably on the backseat of my Saab 9-3, and that's not even a very big car. Something like an Opel Zafira will seat 7.

I again quote the numbers of my Saab 9-3. It has 17.5 cu. feet trunk space, the station wagon variant has 30, and if you fold the rear seat down it goes to 73 cu. ft.

Again, I just look at my Saab 9-3. It has a towing capacity of 1600 kg, or about 3300 lbs. It will tow anything smaller than a large boat or trailer home.

My 9-3 has a 155 hp engine on 1315 kg of weight. I have driven 190 km/h (120 mph) on German autobahns with little effort. This is the smallest (1.9 litre) engine for this model. The diesel version is slightly less powerful but has much better mileage. I get about 30 miles/gallon on my daily commute (largely 60 km of highway @ 120 km/h (75 mph)) My car is from 2001, newer cars get even better mileage.

If I have 1-2 bikes, I fold down the rear seat and put them inside. I have a bicycle rack for up to 4 bikes that goes on the tow hitch. I have no idea if I can have a roof rack, but I don't like them for aerodynamic reasons.

I think this is true for a lot of modern cars. Mine is quite good in this respect though although the A/C and turbo take up a lot of space.

Huh. Nearly all car models I know have a sedan and a station wagon variant. Peugot 207/307/407, BMW 3/5 series, Mercedes C/E class, Ford focus, subaru legacy/impreza, Kia cee'd/rondo, volvo V40/V70 are just a few that come to mind. I think most car models have a station wagon version.

This might be true. The spare in my car isn't full size and I know it isn't in many other cars. I'll give you this one. I think I've gotten a flat only twice in the last 10 years, so it's not a big concern for me. (I drive about 30k km/20k miles a year).

I've driven several SUVs, the last one a 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee for 4 weeks while in the US a few months ago, and I found performance rather poor. It didn't like hilly terrain at all. I've driven LPG but if you want to save on fuel, I find that going with a diesel is much better. A modern diesel can easily have the same amount of power and a lot more torque than a similar petrol engine.

The point is that the "customer" isn't who you think it is. For most movies and TV series, it's the TV networks.

This way they can have TV series X unavailable in country A so the TV network Q-TV can show it exclusively on their network, even though it aired in it's original country years ago.

It's a business model that's starting to fail, but it's where still most of the money is, so Geo-IP is used to keep it alive.