Actually, I'd say it should be shown in the sent messages area along with everything else--and the EMS call shouldn't automatically go in your regular call log, either. There should be a 'private' log for both, under an extra layer of security. (So, even if somebody manages to make you unlock your phone, it'll not give away that you've called EMS in the normal call log--but you can get at a complete log that'll show both contacts using some particular song-and-dance that includes a secondary passcode you can set personally.)
Defending privacy doesn't matter 99% of the time, but if you can't handle the last 1% then people will stop using your service, or they will perish (or get slammed by major hindrances).
There are scenarios where you'd want to call emergency services but not reveal your location. They might not be very common, but they might still be very important. It's not unheard of for police department to be compromised by assassins. Why not ambulances too?
Also there's just a lot of inherent danger in systems that automatically broadcast your location. Maybe Apple isn't satisfied that this one is secure.
All things considered, I'm not really sure how much more secure you could make it if you have it so it only activates when you call the specific EMS number--which ought to be a very easy security feature to implement.
Meanwhile, a lot of possible situations exist that might have you unable to give EMS your location--confusion is a very common result of blood loss and head injuries, for example, or you might be experiencing a condition known as 'being lost.'
Also, generally, if you're worried about the police department being compromised by assassins after you, you are highly unlikely to be calling EMS. You might prompt others to do so, because people with clinical paranoia with weapons are not a fun thing to be around, but you won't be.
But WHICH of the conflicting laws is wrong? That's the whole conflict...
IANAL. That said, one of the basic axioms of the law is that the law cannot require you to break the law. This is historically a very good defense, and when you're careful to do your research (since occasionally the priority of each is already known) is certain to succeed. The odds are that if it goes to court, the ruling will be that you cannot be compelled to use an illegal form of discrimination to combat illegal discrimination--even if you get a split decision, it's safe to expect the point of disagreement to be if you are being required to use an illegal form of discrimination.
What's unknown is what the hell you're supposed to do when one law says "You must do A" and the other law says "You must never do A under any circumstances." As far as the courts care, that is the only time when the laws can be said to conflict--and typically one law gets thrown out as a result once a test case has gone through the appellate process. Unfortunately, there's no mechanism in place to trigger this without having somebody deliberately break the law, be taken to court for breaking it, and then taking it through appeals in order to get it sorted out--and there have been known cases where a test case has been set up to deliberately trigger that chain of events. (Prosecutors are allowed to be annoyed with confusing and contradictory laws, too.)
And the standards for proving that are rightfully incredibly high--and unlikely to be lowered because, as a SCOTUS decision elsewhere points out, once you lower the standards they stay lowered. (This is also why you had at one point the ACLU willing to defend even Neo-Nazis' civil rights.)
Knowing the case law--though I am not a lawyer, just somebody who will read legal decisions for personal amusement--you're best off not firing somebody for doing what might be considered whistleblowing. 'Constructive firing' is possibly slightly safer, but that's mostly because the case law last I checked was, as the Magic 8 Ball would say, unclear & check later. (That's apparently working its way through the courts with the expectation that if/when it hits SCOTUS the ruling will be 'still is firing,' possibly with 'also illegal practice.' I've not checked it's status lately and am not checking for this.)
The safest option is to just, well, bribe somebody who may be a whistleblower into quitting. That will spare you having to deal with the fights on wrongful termination, and the issue of if it's whistleblowing. Given that California's not the only place that does 'list of things employers cannot care about' instead of 'protected classes' and the company's international? I'd want to keep from contributing any more fuel to the fire, especially since it's actually a good acid test of if the laws are actually effective. (If they won't protect a white male, a member of the privileged group, why I trust them to protect me?)
Given the audience here are tech nerds, not squishy-stuffs nerds: I don't think you'd even manage to get a proposal that involves manual screwing with prenatal hormone exposures to the ethics review board. You'd have to prove that there is a benefit to society that would sufficiently outweigh the harm done to the people in the study. You generally also are expected to have put some thought into how to fix what you break--or, at least, lessen the consequences thereof. Given that we don't really have a clue here, it's only going to be passed to the ERB if they're in need of a good laugh.
What we know about exogenous gondal hormone exposure during incubation can be roughly summarized as 'Bad Things.' We're only starting to get some idea what is going on during pregnancy--you'd probably get as close as you ever could ethically to this by data mining a properly designed study monitoring womb conditions so you can establish the requirements for an artificial womb. (This is taking into consideration the issue of funding the effing study, and honestly such a study could be data mined for a lot of other things that you'd never be able to do directly. And, well, it needs to be done if you want a safe, effective artificial womb.)
Most female car mechanics I've come across are very good at it, too. I suspect that it probably has to do with nearly all of them going into the field pretty much entirely because they enjoy it for its own sake, which has a tendency to result in somebody being good at it. (And, well, from my gearhead friends, apparently becoming a car mechanic is about the only way to get access to some of the equipment 'til you have the money to buy your own. I live in an area where, if you could work out the legal and security issues, you could probably make quite a bit of money by having a garage where people can rent time and equipment so they can work on their own cars.)
Scientific racism would be when you make an absolutist statement and a value judgement--"All Foo are inferior beings because they're bad at programming." There is not and should not be a problem with saying "Many Foo do not want to be programmers, and aren't necessarily going to be good at it," especially since you may well have just pinned down one of the major reasons they're not going to be good at it too. Practice improves your ability to do something, and if you don't like doing it in the first place, you're not likely to practice as much...and you may not get as much of a benefit from practice.
It should be perfectly acceptable for groups to be different in what they want and what skills they bring. Isn't that the entire reason to be wanting diversity in the workplace, anyway?
It's also kind of insulting--the general feeling you get from the "Oh you're a female programmer!" or "Oh you're a PoC programmer!" people is that is pretty much the most important achievement of yours that you can ever make in their eyes. You could create on your own a new programming language, get it to where you can compile it with a compiler written in that language, and write an entire OS in it by yourself and they'll still think your greatest achievement is 'coding while not a white man.'
Incidentally, you may well end up worsening the problem. Humans as a whole are very good at detecting empty flattery and general bullshit and typically do not like it--all of this is actually thought to have been selected for, overall. What do you think will happen to a field that wants more of a minority group, but doesn't do a damn thing to give people of that group the feeling that they'll get praised for anything more than 'doing job while minority,' even if they pull off things that their white male colleagues would (rightfully) be praised for?
It'd be less frustrating to be at a job where, while management doesn't recognize your achievements, it also doesn't recognize your white male coworker's achievements either.
The thing that really does need addressing is the people whose knee-jerk reaction to "They're different" is "You're saying they're inferior to straight white men!" (strike descriptors as needed) since that reflects their own concealed bigotries.
It's important to remember that the spread of cognitive differences does not follow stereotypes--and there's sets of things that men typically suck at compared to women. Some of this is very possibly due in significant part to differences in how they conceptualize the problem...
That last thing is the key to why you want an actually-diverse group approaching the problem: You can expect them to find a good solution faster in most cases. Think of it as an extension of the observation that to somebody who only has a hammer, most problems will look like nails.
And this is how I know you're not in any part of STEM where you're expected to know how to recognize what is and isn't a random sample...and how to approximate such because there are logistical issues in grabbing people at random from all over the planet as an experiment. And, well, I suppose it's also not terribly ethical...
One of the really interesting things is that we do know that the chance is not 50%, even for simple fertilization. There's a lot of factors involved in just the odds of conception alone--enough that people are making careers out of studying this--but those odds can be altered by such things as genetic compatibility, point in her cycle, sex acts performed (aside from the obvious one), frequency with that specific partner, and of course male fertility. Most of this list also figures into the odds of the outcome being a 'live infant.' (And yes, you can find scientific papers on this entire list, but if you want me to do it for you I expect to be paid.) Most, if not all, of these factors have been shaped by evolution, in at least part because the reproductive investment for females is higher than it is for males, especially in mammals.
Hardly a "massive" social turbulence. The number of births where the expected father isn't the real father is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% (Find your own sources). This wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
No. It's been measured from 20% to 35%. There are multiple sources for this, I suggest you start with the CDC.
If memory serves, the higher numbers are specifically for those children for whom paternity testing is done--the 2% number is what I've seen given as predicted for what might be expected with a truly random sample, and usually gets brought up to remind people that the 20%-35% number is better understood as the percentage of men who are actually right in suspecting that the child isn't theirs.
I've already answered this - see this link below. TLDR version is this: the 2% number is derived from the number of paternity fraud discovered when "daddy" tries to donate biological material to the child, and they realise that he is incompatible. The 2% number doesn't reflect wrong paternity, it reflects wrong paternity AND unusual medical procedures.
Unusual medical procedures is a better means of approximating a random sample of the population than there being questions in the first place about the paternity.
To get a truly accurate rate would require a proper random sample, and you're never getting that by itself through an ethics review board. You might manage to get approval of a study on rates within the population of something that would require you establish genetic parentage--but it'd need to be something where you can establish a reason why knowing inherited vs de novo mutation rates would be just as important as does vs doesn't have rates.
Oh, and your modern paternity test is a genetic test. The blood test has issues, including the fact that chimerism is not unknown in humans--and one of the known flavors is basically accidental in utero transplant of maternal blood stem cells. (At that age, transplants are easy.)
Depends on the class--I've been in several where you didn't need to read the textbook, a few where you were distinctly better off not reading the textbook, and one where our professor informed us on the very first day that the sole reason there was a textbook in the school bookstore for our class was because he wasn't allowed to not have one. (From experience, I would assert that 'no textbook' is distinctly preferable to a bad textbook.)
However, even in these classes, you were certainly expected to take notes--you might be able to get a copy of the slides or a lecture outline beforehand, but not always--and the notes tended to be the most useful thing you got.
There were, however, a few rounds of where some material on the texts would be gotten from the textbook, which seemed to nearly always happen when our textbook was one of the really lousy ones.
The only exception here were the lab classes, but we were encouraged to think of those classes' books as being lab manuals instead of textbooks--and you could sometimes work well by just skimming. (The chem courses had the instructions double as a way of getting us used to how you write up procedures for chem papers--all the steps, in detail, assume the reader hasn't run into a given procedure before.)
Personal experience is that what works best is the mixed approach: You start with the professor introducing the equation and walking you through a couple examples, with each part written on the board so you can get them into your notes correctly if nothing else, and then you get to do some on your own in the classroom with the professor around so you can ask questions--this sounds like switching from just being shown some examples to being left to figure it out yourself.
It really sounds like they're trying to cover up that they're trying to cut the amount of money they have to spend on instruction without cutting down on class size...
Actually, as you noted, it's only most hormonal birth control pills--but knowing the wide range of alternate birth control methods? The only reason I can come up with for a partner objecting to all of them is that he wants something he can easily sabotage with minimum chance of detection... (There's safer options that don't change anything for the male part of the experience and are harder for either side to sabotage.)
The pill isn't foolproof either, neither are condoms. Basically, don't have sex with the wrong person at the wrong time in the wrong place unless you're ready to raise a child. Pretty simple.
Got it in one. Personally, I feel it's a good way to also ensure that you don't have morning-after regrets--I mean, sex toys are easily gotten, so why not demand that any sexual partner offer me more? The only person who's going to be a pathetic loser is the one who can't manage to beat an inanimate object at all...
Hardly a "massive" social turbulence. The number of births where the expected father isn't the real father is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% (Find your own sources). This wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
No. It's been measured from 20% to 35%. There are multiple sources for this, I suggest you start with the CDC.
If memory serves, the higher numbers are specifically for those children for whom paternity testing is done--the 2% number is what I've seen given as predicted for what might be expected with a truly random sample, and usually gets brought up to remind people that the 20%-35% number is better understood as the percentage of men who are actually right in suspecting that the child isn't theirs.
Here's a protip: The correct thing to do is "not commit rape." Which is what you'd be doing if you don't push a drunk woman who's fallen onto your penis off. That you seem to think that fucking her anyway is OK makes me think you're the pathetic loser--somebody who can refuse offers is much, much less of a pathetic loser somebody who feels compelled to take any opportunity, no matter how immoral and possibly illegal they might be...
Actually, that's still within the range of reported side effects for the Pill (original version) in women--there's also been the occasional reports of psychosis and one report I've heard of some very unlucky woman got a string of drug charges until it was realized that it was the Pill that had fucked her up. (These are things that you should get told when being offered the Pill, but informed consent and birth control don't seem to quite go together.)
This is why minipill--with it's different formula and overall lower dose of hormones--got developed, and is probably the version to prefer if you're biologically female. Less likely to do all of it, right up to and including potentially killing your libido.
Female hormonal birth control can cause serious and even deadly side effects, however they are acceptable in women because Pregnancy carries far higher health risks for women, especially older ones. For males such side effects are very problematic because men don't face any additional health dangers if they do not use contraceptives
That's not how it works are all. In fact, it's somewhat worse: When the Pill got through testing, all of the side effects were considered perfectly acceptable in general. Not in a 'because pregnancy is more risky' sense, but in a flat-out 'because we do not actually give two fucks' sense...which should be a hint as to why the rules got tightened, too. (Nearly all the rounds of the FDA's rules getting tightened can be traced back to it being realized that they're fucking people over; the one exception is when it was everybody else being lax getting us a nice global panic while a paper-pusher at the FDA went "Nope!" and refused to allow Thalidomide to get approved in the US...well, for the uses wanted for it at the time. It's actually a very good cancer drug & approved for that particular use.)
We've since tightened up the rules, but since the Pill got approved before then it stays on the market even though you'd never get it through now.
Closer to ubiquitous, yes, but not quite. Wi-Fi isn't available on city buses in my home town, for instance, and I imagine that many aren't willing to pay for subscriptions to a both high-volume wired broadband ISP for use at home and a cellular ISP for use on the bus. Some choose to give up cellular Internet and are offline while riding the bus; others choose to give up home Internet and constantly worry about hitting their cap.
And even people who do have both may well want offline capabilities, because we still go places where there is no WiFi and you're lucky if you can get a reliable enough signal to make a cell phone call.
Which doesn't require that much: I live in one of the major metropolitian areas of the US, and there are parts of the cities within it that are locally infamous as being an excellent place to go if you don't want people to be able to reach you via cell phone. (Some of it gets kinda hilarious, because one of these dead spots is the main set of dorms for a major university...)
I hope everyone is enjoying 40GB PC game downloads that contain audio files for voice acting in all 8 languages.
How much of a problem I find this depends on various factors like if I'm able to cull the languages I don't want during install--though I'd admittedly prefer it if you get one language automatically...and, given that they usually charge me for all eight anyway, I'd want the others as free DLC. Doesn't really hurt that I know I'm fluent enough in enough of them that if I get annoyed by the voice acting in one, I can switch and not find the game unplayable.
It's not just that, the messaging app I'm most likely to keep is one that does...messaging, really really well. The one that's got lots of features? Especially if it's dropping the few features I want and making it worse overall at messaging? That one goes.
I'd think you could also have it be so the localizations are compartmentalized enough that you could have it only install the ones relevant--otherwise, at least stick something in the settings so I can switch languages the program's in for my own personal amusement...wait, no, that should have been 'in order to justify having them all installed anyway.' (Yes, I will do that. Being multilingual means it's fun, and the one app I've met that lets me do it has it set up so well that you don't even need to actually know a word of the language the app is in to successfully switch languages.)
My point is that making it unavailable in ordinary browsers is a realistic measure, but you are indulging in magical thinking if you believe further in security will be had by losing its source code.
You...do know that most of the emulators used for playing ROM files are backwards-engineered, some laboriously so, because the inner workings are kept secret? There's some reason to doubt that some of the game system manufacturers themselves know anymore what the inner workings of the hardware were, given that some ports look to be 'ROM+emu' packages.
The knowledge on the inner workings of the player enable a faster, smoother development of an emulator. But, really, I would expect the source for Flash to be educational...and help ensure Adobe never lives it down.
Do we really want Adobe to get to live Flash down?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I'd say it should be shown in the sent messages area along with everything else--and the EMS call shouldn't automatically go in your regular call log, either. There should be a 'private' log for both, under an extra layer of security. (So, even if somebody manages to make you unlock your phone, it'll not give away that you've called EMS in the normal call log--but you can get at a complete log that'll show both contacts using some particular song-and-dance that includes a secondary passcode you can set personally.)
Defending privacy doesn't matter 99% of the time, but if you can't handle the last 1% then people will stop using your service, or they will perish (or get slammed by major hindrances).
There are scenarios where you'd want to call emergency services but not reveal your location. They might not be very common, but they might still be very important. It's not unheard of for police department to be compromised by assassins. Why not ambulances too?
Also there's just a lot of inherent danger in systems that automatically broadcast your location. Maybe Apple isn't satisfied that this one is secure.
All things considered, I'm not really sure how much more secure you could make it if you have it so it only activates when you call the specific EMS number--which ought to be a very easy security feature to implement.
Meanwhile, a lot of possible situations exist that might have you unable to give EMS your location--confusion is a very common result of blood loss and head injuries, for example, or you might be experiencing a condition known as 'being lost.'
Also, generally, if you're worried about the police department being compromised by assassins after you, you are highly unlikely to be calling EMS. You might prompt others to do so, because people with clinical paranoia with weapons are not a fun thing to be around, but you won't be.
But WHICH of the conflicting laws is wrong? That's the whole conflict...
IANAL. That said, one of the basic axioms of the law is that the law cannot require you to break the law. This is historically a very good defense, and when you're careful to do your research (since occasionally the priority of each is already known) is certain to succeed. The odds are that if it goes to court, the ruling will be that you cannot be compelled to use an illegal form of discrimination to combat illegal discrimination--even if you get a split decision, it's safe to expect the point of disagreement to be if you are being required to use an illegal form of discrimination.
What's unknown is what the hell you're supposed to do when one law says "You must do A" and the other law says "You must never do A under any circumstances." As far as the courts care, that is the only time when the laws can be said to conflict--and typically one law gets thrown out as a result once a test case has gone through the appellate process. Unfortunately, there's no mechanism in place to trigger this without having somebody deliberately break the law, be taken to court for breaking it, and then taking it through appeals in order to get it sorted out--and there have been known cases where a test case has been set up to deliberately trigger that chain of events. (Prosecutors are allowed to be annoyed with confusing and contradictory laws, too.)
And the standards for proving that are rightfully incredibly high--and unlikely to be lowered because, as a SCOTUS decision elsewhere points out, once you lower the standards they stay lowered. (This is also why you had at one point the ACLU willing to defend even Neo-Nazis' civil rights.)
Knowing the case law--though I am not a lawyer, just somebody who will read legal decisions for personal amusement--you're best off not firing somebody for doing what might be considered whistleblowing. 'Constructive firing' is possibly slightly safer, but that's mostly because the case law last I checked was, as the Magic 8 Ball would say, unclear & check later. (That's apparently working its way through the courts with the expectation that if/when it hits SCOTUS the ruling will be 'still is firing,' possibly with 'also illegal practice.' I've not checked it's status lately and am not checking for this.)
The safest option is to just, well, bribe somebody who may be a whistleblower into quitting. That will spare you having to deal with the fights on wrongful termination, and the issue of if it's whistleblowing. Given that California's not the only place that does 'list of things employers cannot care about' instead of 'protected classes' and the company's international? I'd want to keep from contributing any more fuel to the fire, especially since it's actually a good acid test of if the laws are actually effective. (If they won't protect a white male, a member of the privileged group, why I trust them to protect me?)
Given the audience here are tech nerds, not squishy-stuffs nerds: I don't think you'd even manage to get a proposal that involves manual screwing with prenatal hormone exposures to the ethics review board. You'd have to prove that there is a benefit to society that would sufficiently outweigh the harm done to the people in the study. You generally also are expected to have put some thought into how to fix what you break--or, at least, lessen the consequences thereof. Given that we don't really have a clue here, it's only going to be passed to the ERB if they're in need of a good laugh.
What we know about exogenous gondal hormone exposure during incubation can be roughly summarized as 'Bad Things.' We're only starting to get some idea what is going on during pregnancy--you'd probably get as close as you ever could ethically to this by data mining a properly designed study monitoring womb conditions so you can establish the requirements for an artificial womb. (This is taking into consideration the issue of funding the effing study, and honestly such a study could be data mined for a lot of other things that you'd never be able to do directly. And, well, it needs to be done if you want a safe, effective artificial womb.)
Most female car mechanics I've come across are very good at it, too. I suspect that it probably has to do with nearly all of them going into the field pretty much entirely because they enjoy it for its own sake, which has a tendency to result in somebody being good at it. (And, well, from my gearhead friends, apparently becoming a car mechanic is about the only way to get access to some of the equipment 'til you have the money to buy your own. I live in an area where, if you could work out the legal and security issues, you could probably make quite a bit of money by having a garage where people can rent time and equipment so they can work on their own cars.)
Scientific racism would be when you make an absolutist statement and a value judgement--"All Foo are inferior beings because they're bad at programming." There is not and should not be a problem with saying "Many Foo do not want to be programmers, and aren't necessarily going to be good at it," especially since you may well have just pinned down one of the major reasons they're not going to be good at it too. Practice improves your ability to do something, and if you don't like doing it in the first place, you're not likely to practice as much...and you may not get as much of a benefit from practice.
It should be perfectly acceptable for groups to be different in what they want and what skills they bring. Isn't that the entire reason to be wanting diversity in the workplace, anyway?
It's also kind of insulting--the general feeling you get from the "Oh you're a female programmer!" or "Oh you're a PoC programmer!" people is that is pretty much the most important achievement of yours that you can ever make in their eyes. You could create on your own a new programming language, get it to where you can compile it with a compiler written in that language, and write an entire OS in it by yourself and they'll still think your greatest achievement is 'coding while not a white man.'
Incidentally, you may well end up worsening the problem. Humans as a whole are very good at detecting empty flattery and general bullshit and typically do not like it--all of this is actually thought to have been selected for, overall. What do you think will happen to a field that wants more of a minority group, but doesn't do a damn thing to give people of that group the feeling that they'll get praised for anything more than 'doing job while minority,' even if they pull off things that their white male colleagues would (rightfully) be praised for?
It'd be less frustrating to be at a job where, while management doesn't recognize your achievements, it also doesn't recognize your white male coworker's achievements either.
The thing that really does need addressing is the people whose knee-jerk reaction to "They're different" is "You're saying they're inferior to straight white men!" (strike descriptors as needed) since that reflects their own concealed bigotries.
It's important to remember that the spread of cognitive differences does not follow stereotypes--and there's sets of things that men typically suck at compared to women. Some of this is very possibly due in significant part to differences in how they conceptualize the problem...
That last thing is the key to why you want an actually-diverse group approaching the problem: You can expect them to find a good solution faster in most cases. Think of it as an extension of the observation that to somebody who only has a hammer, most problems will look like nails.
And this is how I know you're not in any part of STEM where you're expected to know how to recognize what is and isn't a random sample...and how to approximate such because there are logistical issues in grabbing people at random from all over the planet as an experiment. And, well, I suppose it's also not terribly ethical...
One of the really interesting things is that we do know that the chance is not 50%, even for simple fertilization. There's a lot of factors involved in just the odds of conception alone--enough that people are making careers out of studying this--but those odds can be altered by such things as genetic compatibility, point in her cycle, sex acts performed (aside from the obvious one), frequency with that specific partner, and of course male fertility. Most of this list also figures into the odds of the outcome being a 'live infant.' (And yes, you can find scientific papers on this entire list, but if you want me to do it for you I expect to be paid.) Most, if not all, of these factors have been shaped by evolution, in at least part because the reproductive investment for females is higher than it is for males, especially in mammals.
Hardly a "massive" social turbulence. The number of births where the expected father isn't the real father is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% (Find your own sources). This wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
No. It's been measured from 20% to 35%. There are multiple sources for this, I suggest you start with the CDC.
If memory serves, the higher numbers are specifically for those children for whom paternity testing is done--the 2% number is what I've seen given as predicted for what might be expected with a truly random sample, and usually gets brought up to remind people that the 20%-35% number is better understood as the percentage of men who are actually right in suspecting that the child isn't theirs.
I've already answered this - see this link below. TLDR version is this: the 2% number is derived from the number of paternity fraud discovered when "daddy" tries to donate biological material to the child, and they realise that he is incompatible. The 2% number doesn't reflect wrong paternity, it reflects wrong paternity AND unusual medical procedures.
Unusual medical procedures is a better means of approximating a random sample of the population than there being questions in the first place about the paternity.
To get a truly accurate rate would require a proper random sample, and you're never getting that by itself through an ethics review board. You might manage to get approval of a study on rates within the population of something that would require you establish genetic parentage--but it'd need to be something where you can establish a reason why knowing inherited vs de novo mutation rates would be just as important as does vs doesn't have rates.
Oh, and your modern paternity test is a genetic test. The blood test has issues, including the fact that chimerism is not unknown in humans--and one of the known flavors is basically accidental in utero transplant of maternal blood stem cells. (At that age, transplants are easy.)
Depends on the class--I've been in several where you didn't need to read the textbook, a few where you were distinctly better off not reading the textbook, and one where our professor informed us on the very first day that the sole reason there was a textbook in the school bookstore for our class was because he wasn't allowed to not have one. (From experience, I would assert that 'no textbook' is distinctly preferable to a bad textbook.)
However, even in these classes, you were certainly expected to take notes--you might be able to get a copy of the slides or a lecture outline beforehand, but not always--and the notes tended to be the most useful thing you got.
There were, however, a few rounds of where some material on the texts would be gotten from the textbook, which seemed to nearly always happen when our textbook was one of the really lousy ones.
The only exception here were the lab classes, but we were encouraged to think of those classes' books as being lab manuals instead of textbooks--and you could sometimes work well by just skimming. (The chem courses had the instructions double as a way of getting us used to how you write up procedures for chem papers--all the steps, in detail, assume the reader hasn't run into a given procedure before.)
Personal experience is that what works best is the mixed approach: You start with the professor introducing the equation and walking you through a couple examples, with each part written on the board so you can get them into your notes correctly if nothing else, and then you get to do some on your own in the classroom with the professor around so you can ask questions--this sounds like switching from just being shown some examples to being left to figure it out yourself.
It really sounds like they're trying to cover up that they're trying to cut the amount of money they have to spend on instruction without cutting down on class size...
Actually, as you noted, it's only most hormonal birth control pills--but knowing the wide range of alternate birth control methods? The only reason I can come up with for a partner objecting to all of them is that he wants something he can easily sabotage with minimum chance of detection... (There's safer options that don't change anything for the male part of the experience and are harder for either side to sabotage.)
The pill isn't foolproof either, neither are condoms. Basically, don't have sex with the wrong person at the wrong time in the wrong place unless you're ready to raise a child. Pretty simple.
Got it in one. Personally, I feel it's a good way to also ensure that you don't have morning-after regrets--I mean, sex toys are easily gotten, so why not demand that any sexual partner offer me more? The only person who's going to be a pathetic loser is the one who can't manage to beat an inanimate object at all...
Hardly a "massive" social turbulence. The number of births where the expected father isn't the real father is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% (Find your own sources). This wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
No. It's been measured from 20% to 35%. There are multiple sources for this, I suggest you start with the CDC.
If memory serves, the higher numbers are specifically for those children for whom paternity testing is done--the 2% number is what I've seen given as predicted for what might be expected with a truly random sample, and usually gets brought up to remind people that the 20%-35% number is better understood as the percentage of men who are actually right in suspecting that the child isn't theirs.
Here's a protip: The correct thing to do is "not commit rape." Which is what you'd be doing if you don't push a drunk woman who's fallen onto your penis off. That you seem to think that fucking her anyway is OK makes me think you're the pathetic loser--somebody who can refuse offers is much, much less of a pathetic loser somebody who feels compelled to take any opportunity, no matter how immoral and possibly illegal they might be...
Actually, that's still within the range of reported side effects for the Pill (original version) in women--there's also been the occasional reports of psychosis and one report I've heard of some very unlucky woman got a string of drug charges until it was realized that it was the Pill that had fucked her up. (These are things that you should get told when being offered the Pill, but informed consent and birth control don't seem to quite go together.)
This is why minipill--with it's different formula and overall lower dose of hormones--got developed, and is probably the version to prefer if you're biologically female. Less likely to do all of it, right up to and including potentially killing your libido.
Female hormonal birth control can cause serious and even deadly side effects, however they are acceptable in women because Pregnancy carries far higher health risks for women, especially older ones. For males such side effects are very problematic because men don't face any additional health dangers if they do not use contraceptives
That's not how it works are all. In fact, it's somewhat worse: When the Pill got through testing, all of the side effects were considered perfectly acceptable in general. Not in a 'because pregnancy is more risky' sense, but in a flat-out 'because we do not actually give two fucks' sense...which should be a hint as to why the rules got tightened, too. (Nearly all the rounds of the FDA's rules getting tightened can be traced back to it being realized that they're fucking people over; the one exception is when it was everybody else being lax getting us a nice global panic while a paper-pusher at the FDA went "Nope!" and refused to allow Thalidomide to get approved in the US...well, for the uses wanted for it at the time. It's actually a very good cancer drug & approved for that particular use.)
We've since tightened up the rules, but since the Pill got approved before then it stays on the market even though you'd never get it through now.
internet has become more ubiquitous.
Closer to ubiquitous, yes, but not quite. Wi-Fi isn't available on city buses in my home town, for instance, and I imagine that many aren't willing to pay for subscriptions to a both high-volume wired broadband ISP for use at home and a cellular ISP for use on the bus. Some choose to give up cellular Internet and are offline while riding the bus; others choose to give up home Internet and constantly worry about hitting their cap.
And even people who do have both may well want offline capabilities, because we still go places where there is no WiFi and you're lucky if you can get a reliable enough signal to make a cell phone call.
Which doesn't require that much: I live in one of the major metropolitian areas of the US, and there are parts of the cities within it that are locally infamous as being an excellent place to go if you don't want people to be able to reach you via cell phone. (Some of it gets kinda hilarious, because one of these dead spots is the main set of dorms for a major university...)
I hope everyone is enjoying 40GB PC game downloads that contain audio files for voice acting in all 8 languages.
How much of a problem I find this depends on various factors like if I'm able to cull the languages I don't want during install--though I'd admittedly prefer it if you get one language automatically...and, given that they usually charge me for all eight anyway, I'd want the others as free DLC. Doesn't really hurt that I know I'm fluent enough in enough of them that if I get annoyed by the voice acting in one, I can switch and not find the game unplayable.
It's not just that, the messaging app I'm most likely to keep is one that does...messaging, really really well. The one that's got lots of features? Especially if it's dropping the few features I want and making it worse overall at messaging? That one goes.
I'd think you could also have it be so the localizations are compartmentalized enough that you could have it only install the ones relevant--otherwise, at least stick something in the settings so I can switch languages the program's in for my own personal amusement...wait, no, that should have been 'in order to justify having them all installed anyway.' (Yes, I will do that. Being multilingual means it's fun, and the one app I've met that lets me do it has it set up so well that you don't even need to actually know a word of the language the app is in to successfully switch languages.)
My point is that making it unavailable in ordinary browsers is a realistic measure, but you are indulging in magical thinking if you believe further in security will be had by losing its source code.
You...do know that most of the emulators used for playing ROM files are backwards-engineered, some laboriously so, because the inner workings are kept secret? There's some reason to doubt that some of the game system manufacturers themselves know anymore what the inner workings of the hardware were, given that some ports look to be 'ROM+emu' packages.
The knowledge on the inner workings of the player enable a faster, smoother development of an emulator. But, really, I would expect the source for Flash to be educational...and help ensure Adobe never lives it down.
Do we really want Adobe to get to live Flash down?