Our cars come with all these different paint jobs:

• Pink with orange dots
• Pink with orange rainbows (warning: rainbow contains only one color, but still recognized as "probably gay" by 52% of people polled)
• Pink with orange Jesus fishes
• Pink with orange swastikas
• Orange with pink swastikas (warning: car does not actually start)
• Pink with reddish-orange swastikas
• Pink with yellow swastikas
• Pink with orange Coca Cola ad

How many more paint schemes do car manufacturers need to offer? Your complaints about our cars' appearances ring hollow. Quit your bitching!

(And why do people keep bringing up the fact that in 1997 we purchased a radical new law that no person is allowed to repaint their car, and that no person is allowed to manufacture or sell paint? WTF does that have to do with anything?)

This. When I started an MS program in biostatistics, with a BS in math and an MS in computer science, I figured I already knew at least half of what I'd need to know. I was wrong -- the biostatistics coursework was the toughest I'd ever had.

That being said, a math BS is fine preparation for a statistics or biostatistics MS or PhD, and most graduate biostatistics programs, at least, come with excellent financial support packages; the TA and RA stipends tend to be quite generous, as such things go. And the job prospects once you get the degree are good too.

And thus it is revealed. People and classes can have that same baseline. It's not that we realize the class differences and there is elements of discrimination does not mean we are the cause of it. Hate crimes don't create hate crimes because the law exists - the laws exist due to the offenders, it is reactionary due to American society (and frankly others too).

There is no class, even those you say aren't protected, the un-named majority, that can't sue or be viewed as a victim for their so-called class. There is nothing in these ideals that elevates anyone in society over another - in fact it seeks to establish to the people the playing field should, in fact, be leveled. For your "people" to be afforded a certain baseline of opportunity we have to have recourse when someone pushes that baseline back/down/whatever to a person because of a class they saw/heard/assumed when they met with them, etc.

"Hardly" - It is not just hardly his fault. The action led directly to those consequences. You are telling me that shaming a man for sleeping with another man - and he kills himself - and that's not a hate crime - and it was hardly his fault? Are you on the defense team because I am getting that you are against all allegations against the man, for whatever reason. Seems to be either an incidental hate crime or one in which he was more negligent than aggravated... but I can't tell you if he meant to shame him for being gay or not. "Just kidding" doesn't cut it, he didn't know he was gay?

At what point of setting up a camera and recording are you responsible for your actions - something has to be done, at least there was a trial.

"Justice" - that word means whatever you want to make it mean. You can make justice an eye for an eye or even harsher if you say that is "justice" where ever you may be. Revenge and justice - who cares? The dead man isn't trying to take revenge. Given there is probation, counseling and other attachments to the short sentence, I'm okay with that. There is a potential there to land in prison for 3 years - or his life can be saved if he's not really dumb enough to do it again if he didn't actually mean to do it.

Anytime someone dies it's hard to swallow 30 days + attachments is enough to even resemble justice when there is a chain of events where said person on trial is along the chain of events that led up to such a situation.

And just why do you want to know where I work? So that you can complain to my boss that I made you look stupid and that he should fire me for that?

No, he wants to know where you work so he can complain to the politicians that your company is costing his company money.

Which is exactly the strategy that Cary Sherman of RIAA suggested when SOPA failed.

If it's about "Hollywood vs. freedom", Hollywood loses.

But if the debate can be reframed to "MPAA vs. Google", or "RIAA vs. Telcos", Hollywood wins, because they can just point the finger and say "Look, we're only saying the things we say because we work for Paramount, Universal, and other MAFIAA organizations. But you're only saying that because you work for Google, a telco, or an ISP, you're a lobbyist just like us!" and with the debate framed in a context that the politicians will understand, Ari and Sherman can easily demand a law that transfers wealth from "Northern California" to "Southern California" (by transferring the cost of preventing piracy from "Southern California rightsholders" to "Northern California companies whose customers happen to infringe on those rights").

Legality is established if you have access to those channels, those shows, that have already aired. You are essentially time-shifting. Mr. Rogers (RIP) would argue it.

What can't be done due to agreements between other parties not involved in the recording, transcoding and distribution of the files themselves is... distribute them (even after they air in this case mind you).

Movies, TV shows, music - they are restricted by who can distribute them, and that's the problem. It's like being able to have drugs (TV recordings for shows you [paid for and] missed) but no one can sell them but other parties who have agreements in place to be the sole distributor. And that's a civil matter except now we have laws against not agreeing to an exclusivity contract that you were never presented with. I don't even understand how some of these cases actually proceed when I think of how ignorant the argument is - however, I do understand very much so everyone wants to get paid.

There is your golden ticket, content delivery over the internet that is as fast and reliable as pirates that is freely shared and money changes hands to pay the original owners of the works.

As an American, I prefer to ignore your statistic for so many of us being creationists, and I am not interested in your so-called evidence that the figure is correct. The number just feels wrong, therefore it must be a lie. My gut tells me there aren't nearly that many creationists around here, because neither I nor the people I know, are anything like that!

Furthermore, I don't understand how many people could be creationists, so that's another argument that not nearly many of them could be.

Finally, your poll is biased and invalid, because .. because .. I want it to be.

Ask my family on how that one worked out.

I tried but they wouldn't answer the phone.

retailers such as PC World and Comet will be expected to say things like "this computer is better than that one because it is Windows 8 certified".

The heart of the issue is: "expected by who?" Evidence (it was lame but at least I cited something; what have you got?) suggests it's not the people who buy the computers.

I've come to like complexity in villainous characters. I know, I know, it's all the rage now; I'm just saying this is a bandwagon I jumped on. They can't all be Saurons, give me a Jaime Lannister now and then.