Actually, there is a documented difference between the pay rate of men and women working the same job, with the same years of experience, working the same hours. A boss is more likely to give the highest possible raise to a man than a woman, and over time this causes the gap to widen. Especially for percentage biased raises.

I actually think the formal dress with her sword was chosen on purpose. Part of Mulan's character is her conflict between what is formal and expected and will bring her family honor, and what is brave and strong and important to protecting her family and her country. And Mulan believes both things are important. It makes sense to capture her in a way that symbolizes the two parts of her life so distinctly.

It depends on what the pin is for. Some pins are restricted to 4 digits, some are not.

Also @bethorien might have been referring to @karlboll comment.

"A mother should have the right to terminate the pregnancy at her discretion for a majority of the pregnancy" tend to be pro-choice.
Anything that falls in between on the spectrum results in discrepancy on which viewpoint they identify with. The fact is, there are more than two viewpoints and its difficult to shove everyone's views into these boxes.
Unfortunately because we have created a system of politics where only two parties will ever have a chance at most offices, we have an overwhelming pressure to conform our opinions to that of said parties.

I did not mean to imply that, but I see looking back how it would. The fact is, there aren't just two stances on abortion. We often boil the agrugement down to just two stances, but there are many who believe things like "A woman should be able to terminate the pregnancy only if her life is threatened by the pregnancy " or "A woman should have the choice to terminate the pregnancy only in the first six weeks". A majority of people are not extremists. An extreme anti-abortion viewpoint would be "Abortion should never be performed under any circumstances, including circumstances where both mother and child are not going to survive the pregnancy." An extreme pro-choice viewpoint would be "A woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason, including gender of child, at any point during pregnancy, including during the labor process."
People who believe "Most abortions should not be allowed" tend to be anti-abortion. People who believe...

The two have nothing to do with each other. Most people who are anti-abortion believe that the unborn child is a person with a right to live. Not necessarily that there should be more children in the world, or than sex should happen for the purpose of having children. Many people believe abortion is wrong, but preventing unwanted pregnancies is responsible and should be done.
Also, the above person is pro-choice, which is the opposite of anti-abortion. People who are pro-choice believe that a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy when she does not want the child or would suffer health risks for carrying the child to term.
People who are pro-LGBT believe that people should be allowed to choose their gender and sexual/romantic partners without discrimination. Most pro-LGBT individuals support same sex marriage. All peo-LGBT individuals support that LGBT individuals should be allowed to function in society without faving discrimination (ei.Can get a job, no hate crimes)

Tag me as well, it sould like an interesting read.

I have seen 425° on occasion

We only had 4 minutes, but that was enough. I assume you went to a larger school.

In high school they didn't care, but in Middle school we weren't allowed to bring bags to class. We also had long enough passing times we could get to our lockers between classes.

I actually think people don't just mean sex, I think they mean the role in the relationship.

When I was in school the rule was that you could bring bags to school, but not to class. And it was because bags would go on the floor and create tripping hazards.

I agree that the phone company analogy isn't good. However, YouTube also should have to follow laws which protect employees. There are a lot of people who make money on YouTube and it should be regulated as an employer.
The fact is, laws are not in place to deal with the evolving technology we have today.

Maybe, but there is a certain base amount of respect that everyone wants and should be given. Everyone should treat everyone else with dignity. You accept that this is another person who has feelings and make sure to consider this with your words and actions.

Maybe, but YouTube, being owned by Google, has a certain amount of "for the good of all" branding. People support YouTube in part because it's easy, but also because many people think of Google as "a good company". Making previously available educational content unavailable is a bad thing. Maybe YouTube isn't required to keep hosting it, sure, but we as a consumer base also have very reason to let our opinions on the subject be known. Consumer voices matter. Companies have changed their policies because they upset their consumer base. And that's good. Human spending has always had a bigger impact than government oversight on how good a company aims to be.

You made a claim that was false for two different reasons directly related to word use. I thought it was a more productive response than getting upset and resorting to attacks of character or argument about the legitimacy of the original post.

@police

It really isn't.
First, an anecdote is a short story. Its supposed to be about a specific circumstance and it's often used either to be amusing, or as evidence to support a claim. The above is not an anecdote, because it is not specific enough.
Second, the above post describes a specific situation, while keeping it generic enough to not exclude circumstances they mean to include. It uses phrases like "sometimes people" which is very generic as doesn't pin blame on anyone.
Third, a useful anecdote is usually one that succeeds at supporting its claim. Since this is not an anecdote it cannot be a useful anecdote. However, because it was written with a specific situation and not specific people, readers are able to put people they have meet into this story. It allows people to create their own instant anecdotes. And this does support the claim. The claim of course being: Its wrong not to treat someone like a person because said person does not treat you like an authority.

Also, no. So long as the code is still clearly readable, and the bill can be positively identified as not counterfeit you can still use it.

Unfortunately this exact situation actually occurs often.