Male teachers are getting more and more rare, and discrimination is the reason.
Could it also be pay? I hear teaching (well, below college level) isn't particularly lucrative. And it is still at least partially the case that males tend to be the primary breadwinner. If you are making $40k a year teaching, or you could switch to software engineering or something and make $70k
I'm not saying it's not disrimination, either, I'm just wondering if we can really blame it solely on those sorts of societal pressures and not on economics, too.
a feast to mark the massacre of a bunch of native Americans
Er, citation needed.
I've seen one extremely frustrating EHR in action. And it's true, the UI is awful. I don't think it was a manger, though, it looked to me like it was designed by an techy, heh. I would have thought that generic non-techy PHB would want something like TurboTax.
And it's not just the UI, it's also the specificity that is sometimes required - like, in medical history, someone says they broke their arm. There's no selection for "broken arm," it has to be a specific bone. So, patient who broke your arm when you were 6... what bone was it?
Actually, it was Netflix running out of bandwidth, or rather their ISP(s).
Hmmmm. This is pretty different from what I've read... but I'll have to look into it mor,e perhaps I've either been misled or misunderstood what I've read.
They didn't pay for more bandwidth. You ALREADY paid for that bandwidth (say, 5mbit down). Comcast decided they didn't want to provide you 5mbit worth of Netflix, though, without Netflix ALSO paying, even though Netflix had already paid whoever they have as an ISP on their end.
This wasn't Netflix running out of bandwidth and having to increase their uplink speed, and it wasn't the consumer running out of bandwidth and having to pay to increase their download speed. This was Comcast deciding that Netflix was causing you (and your peers) to use too much of your already-paid for bandwidth. Comcast couldn't keep up with the consistent and simultaneous demand on what you supposedly had access to. So, instead, it throttled Netflix (which users saw as being Netflix's problem - hey, Netflix can't keep up!) and then charged Netflix to unthrottle (which users saw as Netflix "buying more bandwidth" so Netflix could keep up). In reality, it was Comcast that essentially oversold their bandwidth (you can have 5mbit down! oh, wait, nevermind, we can't supply all this bandwidth all at once; hey, a lot of it is being used by Netflix, maybe we could get them to pay more so it doesn't look like we were unprepared for demand on services we sold!)
This isn't unlike an airline overselling their flights. The difference is that when a flight fills up and customers who already paid for their tickets can't actually fit on the plane anymore, the airline doesn't start charging the destination more because the destination is using too much space on their plane. They give the customers who can't get on the plane at the very least a free transfer, and I think they get a free future lfight or something, too? Or a refund + flight? Something like that. In other words, the airliner realizes that part of overselling means that you have to deal with the consequences that occasionally come up with overselling... and "deal with" doesn't mean "charge someone else for your own lack of space that you sold as though you had more space than you actually did."
TL;DR: Comcast oversold their bandwidth and decided to make Netflix pay for it.
Is that really the case? I kept Vista up to date, but it never worked as well as Windows 7 on the same hardware. Even something as simple as file transferring was clunky on Vista, or hung, or was crazy slow. Boot times were different between Vista and 7...
I don't actually know about the internals of what changed, and I realize it was 6.0 to 6.1 (right? I think...), but it certainly seemed a lot different than a "rebranding."
If marriage is a religious institution then government has no business making any laws about it.
Quite true. The wikipedia entry on marriage licenses is quite an interesting read... e.g., "For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations."
Regardless though... religion is a pretty personal and, ah, religious institution, right? And yet, government's for all of history have made it their business to make laws about it.
the government has no obligation to bow to the views of some Christians
This is true, but in a democracy, is it a problem for a group of people to try to democratically change the country to be what they consider to be right and recognize what they think is the right explanation of who/what a marriage is between?
the government is legally prohibited from doing so by it's own constitution.
I actually think the government shouldn't be in the business of "marriage" licenses, because I don't think the government has anything to do with what marriage really IS. I can see how a government might recognize a marriage as being automatically a civil union, and I can see how those who value a traditional view of marriage would want the government to encourage that view, and I think it's okay for said supporters to try to democratically effect that change. But, myself, I think it should be separated. Government is a civil thing and thus should be in the business of making civil unions. Marriage is a religious thing and should be a religious thing.
If you want to not serve people who have divorced unbiblically... I see no reason why you can't not serve those people.
I thought those arguing in favor of homosexual marriage bring up that there are financial benefits TO getting married?
Anyways, the main point is this: maybe there are discrepencies (I agree, there are) and problems with the way people are refused service (refuse service to open homosexuals, not refuse service to college students who openly sleep around, or whatever). Ok, so we've established inconsistencies. So that means that, since the beliefs are inconsistent, or perhaps more generally, just don't make sense to someone else
Not forced to not violate other people's rights, but forced to violate your own beliefs. Forced, yes, to do something as simple as bake a cake for someone, take pictures at their wedding... or more non-simple things like officiate the wedding.
It wouldn't happen, but I can't imagine a minister of the Flying Spaghetti Monster thingy would particularly want to be forced to give Christian vows in a Christian ceremony to a Christian couple because somehow, the Christian couple has a "right" to THAT PERSON offciating their wedding. Because, you know, I have a right to make you do what I want you to do, even if you think it is wrong for you to do it?
Let's say I'm holding a pro-bombing rally. Let's say it's a pro-bomb-the-abortion-clinics rally (obviously, it's not explicitly that). And I want you to provide a meal for us. Should you be forced to do that, and not be able to say "No, I don't want to support bombing abortion clinics. I'm not going to provide food."
I'm a Christian, and I think someone should be able to refuse me service because you think my views are harmful. I don't think the government should be allowed to... but that's a different story... and yes, I do support separating legal and religious "marriage" things... i.e., you want to have a civil union for the legal benefits, fine. Pastors do religious ceremonies. Civil servants to civil ceremonies. I would view myself as "married" even if my state and/or country didn't think I was.
2. yet have it not work properly on any browser other than MSIE
What? My wife uses Firefox and Chrome with outlook.com every day. What doesn't work properly, exactly?
"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, preserved their neutrality." -- Dante