The US role on the eastern frotn in WW II is actually quite significant.

1) The US supplied logistical equipment (mainly in the form of trucks) to the USSR which was critical in their efforts.
2) The US involvement in the pacific gave the USSR a great deal of breathing room and prevented Japan from putting pressure on their eastern front.
3) The daytime bombing efforts kind of speak for themselves.

That having been said, it took both the Americans AND Russians to take down Germany. Both were critical.

That doesn't really change the argument of the GP though. The record of the US on civil/human rights has been better than most. It has kind of gone downhill in the last 15 years though. 9/11 did change our country, and not for the better.

I think you misread the idea of 'believing in science'. They are not talking about believing in it any specific science, but in the scientific method and the idea of a science as a model for determining the nature of the physical universe. Having faith in science as a process (pun intended).

I do agree though that the correlation technique is confusing.

As for the red flag, looking at the numbers they were dealing with (in the high 90's for the primed group in study 3) makes me think that the majority of both men and women put that number so high that it eliminated any gender based differences. That of course makes me wonder if the story was too morally black and white and if a more ambiguous story would have been better. On the other hand a really morally 'obvious' story might make a better basis for correlation. I would have to think about that more.

One other point, it has been noted in some other articles I have read on rape that slut shaming and rape denial is often MORE severe when done by women, although it is more common in men (sorry, no citation, can't find the damn article, so take this with a grain of salt). so perhaps the wording of the story caused both men and women who downgrades the wrongness to do so at similar rates? Just a thought. Without the text of the article it is hard to say.

It also would be helpful to repeat the study with other types of immoral behavior. (stealing, non sexual violence, etc) where our society does not suffer from problems of an ingrained culture of denial around certain types of crime. I would be concerned that rape culture

They do express some of my other concerns in their design limitations at the end.

Overall it is an interesting opening study. Not bad science, but it could definitely use some more structured follow up examinations.

Wish I had some Karma.

I would totally be for ending marriage benifits and returning it to a religious institution. But it will never happen.

Also, you have to consider the problem of shared resources. You cant get rid of civil unions totally because it would create massive issues from child custody and finances all the way down to spousal immunity. So you could in theory call all marriages civil unions and save the word marriage for non civil ceremonies.

But it won't change anything.

As for raising children, there is no scientific evidence of children raised by gay couple being better or worse off. I suppose it is possible that some situation could arise, but I am willing to bet a very large amount of money that anything that arose would fall into the normal deviation of child rearing. I am certainly not going to go on your gut instinct.

no, it won't. The church policies will be the same. The church will not change one bit under this pope, aside form maybe some window dressing. Anyone who thinks the pope really matters needs to examine how the church has worked in the last 200 years.

per se, but when a company releases DLC WITH the game, users feel that it should have been part of the game to start, not an additional charge.

If the same company released the same DLC 6 weeks after release, no one would raise an eyebrow.

Microsoft would be best served by making it free or nearly free for home use and subscription for business use. It is the same model they use for AV, and it works fairly well. Enterprise businesses need Enterprise level support and tools, they will pay because they have no choice.

Sure, you will probably lose some small businesses, but they were not going to upgrade anyway.

This way Office stays the defacto productivity suite, new users (kids) use it at home by default, and businesses have to either retrain every user on a new suite, or pay for office (hint, most will pay for office, no one likes being retrained).

I honestly believe that if that occurs the US would lose the root DNS servers for good. Which is not a horrible thing IMO.

This is what happens when you try to strong arm countries and, then, when the ruling goes against you, you ignore it.

B&A is going to make $21 million really fast. The question is who sets the prices....

It also makes the most sense when large groups can get massive discounts for healthcare coverage due to their buying power and the fact that it minimizes the risk.

It is a terrible system, and I believe it actually hinders innovation and risk taking in business (because people feel they cant afford to quit a job, start a small business, move, etc) but it does have some benefits for those trapped in the cycle.

Regardless, the system will collapse one way or the other in the next 15-20 years, and we will all end up on a single payer system.

People are reading this and applying the ban to multiple problems

1) Productivity. As someone pointed out, if it is a real 9-5 job, hourly, then the company can and should ban use during work hours (regardless if it is on a wifi conneciton on the ocmpany network). If you are exempt, and work as needed, including off hours, it should not be an issue.

2) Physical Security: Most phones can act as a usb thumb drive, so any company that feels the need to restrict thumb drives should also block those (again, assuming no wifi) on company machines. If you are not allowed to bring a USB drive in on your keychain, you should not be able to bring a phone.

3) Network security: This is the real issue, having the device on your network. There is a very easy fix for this. Use a certificate based wifi system with a hidden SSID for company machines. For non company machines (phones, laptops, tablets, etc), create a guest network using a password based crypto and transmit the SSID. Then isolate the guest VLAN. This allows phones and such to be on the WiFi network, adds convenience and minimize risk for company assets. The cost is minimal for most companies to maintain a standard guest network across all sites, and employees find it valuable. (CxO's in particular)

unless they are trying to steal guns. Guns are worth a lot on the black market (Im assuming, but it seems reasonable), especially good ones in excellent condition. All they have to do is wait for you to leave your house. Unless you're a agroaphobe, we all leave sometime.

A smart band of crooks could hit houses with a week of recon easily enough. Most gun cases or lockboxes are either portable or can be broken into without much effort.

A trained soldier with an assault weapon who has no fear of hitting innocent bystanders would mow down teacher with guns easily enough.

But arming teachers is just a silly idea. A shooter can just as easily spray a classroom from the outside, before a teacher even sees them. Unless you are going to put up bullet proof glass in all schools, or concrete walls. At which point schools have become prisons.

As the GP posted, the rarity of these event seems to be being ignored at the moment. It is just not that big a deal when looked at rationally. There are so many other ways we can save more lives. ROI my friends.

If belittling others is fun to you, you need to reevaluate your priorities.

The religious need our help, they were raised with a handicap which they need to overcome. Alternately we can leave them alone with this limitation as long as it doesn't affect us personally. Honestly I see both sides of the argument and respect the points both sides have.

The issue is not whether religion needs treatment, but whether we have the right to force that treatment on others.