What you are missing is that a meal that is 500 calories for person A who does not have these bacteria may be 750 calories for person B who does have these bacteria.
Yes, and that is an example of where the police went into overreaction mode. However, the same ad campaign went on in several other cities with no particular notice being taken (until after the Boston incident). Which tends to actually support my point, the police usually react appropriately. We should not judge them to have acted inappropriately until we receive evidence that they have done so. This story does not, quite, rise to that level. I assume that the police acted appropriately in this case, but there is enough question in my mind that I will keep alert for further reports on this story. If I lived local to this story, I would investigate it by inquiring of my friends if any of them knew anyone involved or with a connection to the case and what those individuals thought of the case.
Oh, I forgot to mention that you are doing exactly the same thing you said I was doing. Except that in your case it is the police that you are holding as guilty until proven innocent.
Did you miss the rest of my post? I am not in a position to get more, reliable information about this story. In addition, I am not located in an area where it is my responsibility to address this issue if it is an abuse of power, if some of those who are local to this event ask for assistance from further afield then will be time to investigate and determine whether the facts support this as an abuse of power. At this point, based on my experience, the most likely explanation for events is that the police were justified in their actions. Since I am not currently in a position where it is my responsibility (because I do not live local to the incident) to address it if it is an abuse of power and it is not practical for me to determine if there is a basis to suspect that there is an abuse of power, it makes more sense to operate based on my experience with the majority of police behavior.
Finally, you missed a key word in the part of my post that you did quote. That word is "suspect". That is not a word that says I have reached a conclusion. It means that my default is to believe that there is not a problem here, but that if future information were to suggest that there is an abuse of power (such as the student's parents suing someone over this) that my initial judgment is open to reevaluation.
No, I suspect there are good reasons to arrest this guy because, usually, the police have good reasons when they arrest someone. There are two possibilities here, neither of which is that much of a stretch. The first possibility is that this is an abuse of police power to harass someone who got on the wrong side of one or more authority figures. The second is that these two reporters are terrible reporters who think that the reasons they give in the article are the entire reason the guy was arrested and that those reasons are good reasons to arrest someone (or that we should just trust them that the reasons they do not mention are good reasons). In my experience both happen, but the second happens with much more frequency than the former. There is a third possibility, it is possible that both one and two are true in this case. However, again based on my experience, in a situation like this, it is wise to wait until more information comes out to pass judgment on the actions of law enforcement.
If I lived local to this event, I would be seeking more information to determine whether this is an abuse of police power or not. Of course, if that were the case, I would have access to either the principles(the police who conducted the investigation, the teachers at the school, people who know the student in question, etc) in this story or people who know them. Since I do not live local to the story, I will operate under the assumption that the authorities acted appropriately until people who do live locally to the story start to bring this to the more general public's attention as an abuse of power.
Either this is a travesty of justice, or there is not enough information in the article. I suspect that there are good reasons to arrest this guy, but I, also, think the reporters think that what they wrote about what the guy did is sufficient cause for him to be arrested. The article should read, "Student acts in manner that arouses suspicion of teacher. Police investigate and arrest student." The rest of the information appears to tell us something without actually doing so.
You confirmed what I believed to be true, that patrilineal endogamy is not an Islamic doctrine. You spent a bit of time explaining the genetic issues with endogamy. My post made the point that societies where a daughter marries the son of her mother's brother (or cousin if her brother does not have a suitable son) have fewer of the social pathologies we often associate with Muslim cultures. On the other hand, societies where a daughter marries the son of her father's brother (or cousin if his brother does not have a suitable son) do exhibit those pathologies, even when those societies do not practice Islam.
My understanding is that the Muslims of Pakistan, India and Afghanistan practice patrilineal endogamy. These areas were never part of the Ottoman Empire.
There was a study done a few years back that I think is related to what you are trying to get at. It was observed that certain groups from that part of the world assimilated into British society more readily than others. In particular they studied people from a particular region on the subcontinent and observed that the non-Muslims assimilated more readily than the Muslims, yet this was not necessarily true of Muslims from other regions(although it was true of a larger fraction of Muslims than other groups). They attempted to determine what was different.
When they studied the immigrants from that particular region they discovered that while all of them practiced arranged marriages with cousins, the Muslims from that region practiced patrilineal arranged marriages and the non-Muslims practiced Matrilineal arranged marriages. In addition, the clan structure was patrilineal. The effect was that among the non-Muslims, a young woman left her father's clan and married into the clan her mother came from. This tended to encourage relationships across clan boundaries. On the other hand, among the Muslims a young woman stayed within the clan she grew up in when she got married. This tended to encourage clans to remain divided. As far as I know, the practice of patrilineal arranged marriages is not a doctrine of Islam. However, it appears that most Muslim areas practice it. I wish I could remember the reference for the study because the authors made a compelling case that this practice explained the intractability of many of the cultural pathologies of Muslim countries. In addition, the authors brought in how other cultures with a similar patrilineal marriage pattern had similar pathologies, even when the cultures had few other common elements.
Except that people are talking about reinstating the "assault weapons ban" law that expired in 2004. That law did ban guns because they looked dangerous, even though they were functionally no more dangerous than many other weapons that were still legal. Perhaps it would help if you knew something about guns and about current gun laws (and about what people are actually proposing).
Um, you have your end of the world prophecies mixed up. The one that happens tomorrow is based on the fact that the Mayans never got around to creating the calendar for the next long cycle. Seeing as how their civilization collapsed/got wiped out several hundred years before the end of this one, one can understand that oversight. The rapture is part of one of the end of the world traditions that include the phrase, "no man knows the day or the hour." If you are going to make fun of nutjobs, get your nutjobs straight.
Or maybe you have no recollection of history, or have bought into a bunch of BS. Where are these "usually civil-liberty-loving liberals" who vote Democrat? Aren't they the same people who set up speech codes on college campuses? The same people who want to pass "hate-speech" laws? Notice it was the "liberal" faction of the Supreme Court that upheld the right of the government to seize private property in order to give it to some other private developer in the Kielo vs New London case. Those who are today considered "liberal" in the U.S. are big proponents of freedom of speech...for those who say things they agree with, but not so much for those who say things that they do not agree with.
There are currently no governments with the ability to enforce their laws in space. Therefor if you can get to it in space and defend it from those who want to take it from you, it's yours. Of course, if you want to sell some of it back on earth, you will need to get governments to agree to let you sell it (unless of course you smuggle it in, but that is yet an additional expense).
I assume that any interesting scrolls (that say, for example, that Mary had a husband) have been hidden safely away from the public by now.
Considering that the very first book of the New Testament says the following "Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary." Why would a manuscript saying that Mary had a husband be hidden?
2) The windows button finally has purpose. You can hit that button, start typing an app name and then space/enter to launch. I find I'm mousing less actually.
The problem I have with that is that for most apps, if I use the app often enough that I might remember the name of the app, it is going to have a shortcut on the taskbar or the desktop. Worse than that, I am pretty computer knowledgeable. I know people who refer to Adobe Acrobat as "Adobe". If they are on a computer with more than one Adobe app, they are going to have a hard time finding Acrobat (actually, they are likely to have trouble finding one of the other Adobe apps that they, also, call Adobe).
See, I am one to say, "The world is going to end." The thing is, people always get disappointed when they ask me "When?" because my answer is, "I don't know, and neither does anyone else."
You missed one other thing. The Senior VP in question said something on Twitter which was potentially very damaging to Google's relationship with other major players in the market they are in.
Despite what the Anonymous Coward said, it is not because they can reasonably expect a person in California to use it. The reason is that Delta does business in California. They have employees who work there. As a result, they need to comply with California law in any way that their business takes place in California. If they were, for example, to make the app not allow you to book a flight out of California they might be able to avoid complying with this law. I am pretty sure that if this app could not be used to book a flight to or from California Delta would have a good chance of winning based on the argument that they do not use the app to do business in California. Certainly, if they had no offices in California and flew no planes into California, this law would not apply to them, even if you could use the app to book flights on other airlines.
Forget using signing statements, he has issued "waivers" to states for No Child Left Behind law requirements, something which has no legal basis whatsoever. Whether or not you like the No Child Left Behind law (I don't), there is something seriously wrong when the President says, "If you do X, we will not enforce the law that says you must do Y," when there is not provision in any law for such an exception.
The primary role of a union is to raise money to support Democratic Party politicians, with a close second being to allow union leaders to live the same lifestyle and have the same income as a corporate CEO.
The reason that unions are going away is because they never protected anybody against the plutocrats. They were just a vehicle that union leaders used to join the ranks of the plutocrats.
Slashdot Mirror
What you are missing is that a meal that is 500 calories for person A who does not have these bacteria may be 750 calories for person B who does have these bacteria.
Yes, and that is an example of where the police went into overreaction mode. However, the same ad campaign went on in several other cities with no particular notice being taken (until after the Boston incident). Which tends to actually support my point, the police usually react appropriately. We should not judge them to have acted inappropriately until we receive evidence that they have done so. This story does not, quite, rise to that level. I assume that the police acted appropriately in this case, but there is enough question in my mind that I will keep alert for further reports on this story. If I lived local to this story, I would investigate it by inquiring of my friends if any of them knew anyone involved or with a connection to the case and what those individuals thought of the case.
Oh, I forgot to mention that you are doing exactly the same thing you said I was doing. Except that in your case it is the police that you are holding as guilty until proven innocent.
Did you miss the rest of my post? I am not in a position to get more, reliable information about this story. In addition, I am not located in an area where it is my responsibility to address this issue if it is an abuse of power, if some of those who are local to this event ask for assistance from further afield then will be time to investigate and determine whether the facts support this as an abuse of power. At this point, based on my experience, the most likely explanation for events is that the police were justified in their actions. Since I am not currently in a position where it is my responsibility (because I do not live local to the incident) to address it if it is an abuse of power and it is not practical for me to determine if there is a basis to suspect that there is an abuse of power, it makes more sense to operate based on my experience with the majority of police behavior.
Finally, you missed a key word in the part of my post that you did quote. That word is "suspect". That is not a word that says I have reached a conclusion. It means that my default is to believe that there is not a problem here, but that if future information were to suggest that there is an abuse of power (such as the student's parents suing someone over this) that my initial judgment is open to reevaluation.
No, I suspect there are good reasons to arrest this guy because, usually, the police have good reasons when they arrest someone. There are two possibilities here, neither of which is that much of a stretch. The first possibility is that this is an abuse of police power to harass someone who got on the wrong side of one or more authority figures. The second is that these two reporters are terrible reporters who think that the reasons they give in the article are the entire reason the guy was arrested and that those reasons are good reasons to arrest someone (or that we should just trust them that the reasons they do not mention are good reasons). In my experience both happen, but the second happens with much more frequency than the former. There is a third possibility, it is possible that both one and two are true in this case. However, again based on my experience, in a situation like this, it is wise to wait until more information comes out to pass judgment on the actions of law enforcement.
If I lived local to this event, I would be seeking more information to determine whether this is an abuse of police power or not. Of course, if that were the case, I would have access to either the principles(the police who conducted the investigation, the teachers at the school, people who know the student in question, etc) in this story or people who know them. Since I do not live local to the story, I will operate under the assumption that the authorities acted appropriately until people who do live locally to the story start to bring this to the more general public's attention as an abuse of power.
Either this is a travesty of justice, or there is not enough information in the article. I suspect that there are good reasons to arrest this guy, but I, also, think the reporters think that what they wrote about what the guy did is sufficient cause for him to be arrested. The article should read, "Student acts in manner that arouses suspicion of teacher. Police investigate and arrest student." The rest of the information appears to tell us something without actually doing so.
You confirmed what I believed to be true, that patrilineal endogamy is not an Islamic doctrine. You spent a bit of time explaining the genetic issues with endogamy. My post made the point that societies where a daughter marries the son of her mother's brother (or cousin if her brother does not have a suitable son) have fewer of the social pathologies we often associate with Muslim cultures. On the other hand, societies where a daughter marries the son of her father's brother (or cousin if his brother does not have a suitable son) do exhibit those pathologies, even when those societies do not practice Islam.
My understanding is that the Muslims of Pakistan, India and Afghanistan practice patrilineal endogamy. These areas were never part of the Ottoman Empire.
There was a study done a few years back that I think is related to what you are trying to get at. It was observed that certain groups from that part of the world assimilated into British society more readily than others. In particular they studied people from a particular region on the subcontinent and observed that the non-Muslims assimilated more readily than the Muslims, yet this was not necessarily true of Muslims from other regions(although it was true of a larger fraction of Muslims than other groups). They attempted to determine what was different.
When they studied the immigrants from that particular region they discovered that while all of them practiced arranged marriages with cousins, the Muslims from that region practiced patrilineal arranged marriages and the non-Muslims practiced Matrilineal arranged marriages. In addition, the clan structure was patrilineal. The effect was that among the non-Muslims, a young woman left her father's clan and married into the clan her mother came from. This tended to encourage relationships across clan boundaries. On the other hand, among the Muslims a young woman stayed within the clan she grew up in when she got married. This tended to encourage clans to remain divided. As far as I know, the practice of patrilineal arranged marriages is not a doctrine of Islam. However, it appears that most Muslim areas practice it. I wish I could remember the reference for the study because the authors made a compelling case that this practice explained the intractability of many of the cultural pathologies of Muslim countries. In addition, the authors brought in how other cultures with a similar patrilineal marriage pattern had similar pathologies, even when the cultures had few other common elements.
Except that people are talking about reinstating the "assault weapons ban" law that expired in 2004. That law did ban guns because they looked dangerous, even though they were functionally no more dangerous than many other weapons that were still legal. Perhaps it would help if you knew something about guns and about current gun laws (and about what people are actually proposing).
Um, you have your end of the world prophecies mixed up. The one that happens tomorrow is based on the fact that the Mayans never got around to creating the calendar for the next long cycle. Seeing as how their civilization collapsed/got wiped out several hundred years before the end of this one, one can understand that oversight. The rapture is part of one of the end of the world traditions that include the phrase, "no man knows the day or the hour." If you are going to make fun of nutjobs, get your nutjobs straight.
Please define "assault rifle".
Or maybe you have no recollection of history, or have bought into a bunch of BS. Where are these "usually civil-liberty-loving liberals" who vote Democrat? Aren't they the same people who set up speech codes on college campuses? The same people who want to pass "hate-speech" laws? Notice it was the "liberal" faction of the Supreme Court that upheld the right of the government to seize private property in order to give it to some other private developer in the Kielo vs New London case. Those who are today considered "liberal" in the U.S. are big proponents of freedom of speech...for those who say things they agree with, but not so much for those who say things that they do not agree with.
There are currently no governments with the ability to enforce their laws in space. Therefor if you can get to it in space and defend it from those who want to take it from you, it's yours. Of course, if you want to sell some of it back on earth, you will need to get governments to agree to let you sell it (unless of course you smuggle it in, but that is yet an additional expense).
I assume that any interesting scrolls (that say, for example, that Mary had a husband) have been hidden safely away from the public by now.
Considering that the very first book of the New Testament says the following "Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary." Why would a manuscript saying that Mary had a husband be hidden?
Because it gets them headlines.
2) The windows button finally has purpose. You can hit that button, start typing an app name and then space/enter to launch. I find I'm mousing less actually.
The problem I have with that is that for most apps, if I use the app often enough that I might remember the name of the app, it is going to have a shortcut on the taskbar or the desktop. Worse than that, I am pretty computer knowledgeable. I know people who refer to Adobe Acrobat as "Adobe". If they are on a computer with more than one Adobe app, they are going to have a hard time finding Acrobat (actually, they are likely to have trouble finding one of the other Adobe apps that they, also, call Adobe).
See, I am one to say, "The world is going to end." The thing is, people always get disappointed when they ask me "When?" because my answer is, "I don't know, and neither does anyone else."
You missed one other thing. The Senior VP in question said something on Twitter which was potentially very damaging to Google's relationship with other major players in the market they are in.
It went beyond that. It is even less reliable than MSNBC.
Despite what the Anonymous Coward said, it is not because they can reasonably expect a person in California to use it. The reason is that Delta does business in California. They have employees who work there. As a result, they need to comply with California law in any way that their business takes place in California. If they were, for example, to make the app not allow you to book a flight out of California they might be able to avoid complying with this law. I am pretty sure that if this app could not be used to book a flight to or from California Delta would have a good chance of winning based on the argument that they do not use the app to do business in California. Certainly, if they had no offices in California and flew no planes into California, this law would not apply to them, even if you could use the app to book flights on other airlines.
Forget using signing statements, he has issued "waivers" to states for No Child Left Behind law requirements, something which has no legal basis whatsoever. Whether or not you like the No Child Left Behind law (I don't), there is something seriously wrong when the President says, "If you do X, we will not enforce the law that says you must do Y," when there is not provision in any law for such an exception.
The primary role of a union is to raise money to support Democratic Party politicians, with a close second being to allow union leaders to live the same lifestyle and have the same income as a corporate CEO.
The reason that unions are going away is because they never protected anybody against the plutocrats. They were just a vehicle that union leaders used to join the ranks of the plutocrats.
But that does not mean that they would still be alive
Right because would never have been able to kill as many people if he didn't have a gun....wait, he didn't have a gun.