Given that there isn't enough money to investigate every case to the nth degree, someone has to make decisions about what is to be the priority. Who can that be if it is not the FBI itself? The only alternative would appear to be a political appointee - which seems worse.
You could have the investigative agency need to get a court to sign off on closing a case, for example. You could also have priorities allocated by a committee that includes some people (whether voting or non-voting) from outside the FBI. Like maybe a citizen representative, or a victim representatives, or someone from DOJ outside the FBI, or a local law enforcement representative. For any large organization, there's more than one way you could reasonably set priorities, but you need to figure that out in the context of law and of organizational politics that are far beyond whatever will be discussed about them on Slashdot.
From the summary: 86 percent believe consumers don't understand issues around encryption backdoors.
So it look like 14 percent either (1) don't understand encryption backdoors themselves (2) are trying to get rid of the survey as quickly as possible, or (3) never interact with people and therefore assume all people know everything they know, in a sort of intellectual peek-a-boo or Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal moment.
Hollywood is interested in making money. As long as people prefer to see a certain type of person movies will have more of those people because people will then buy more movie tickets. Most movie stars of both genders are people who are considered to be very good looking for the same reason. Unless you can change the culture, you need to threaten the bottom line. And the Fat Positive movement is still small enough that they are unlikely to be successful in that regard.
Indeed; the body-positive movement has never had anywhere near the support that other movements aimed at treating people on the content of their character have had over the last fifty years. Our comedians regularly ridicule overweight politicians for their looks when it is their political acts that we should care about. Discrimination against people whose weight or look may not fit within certain norms is found through much of our society, and is mostly stupid.
While there are certainly very skilled people who are also beautiful, you can tell the difference almost immediately between walking into an office where staff is chosen for their looks and one where they are chosen for their ability. It comes across in the quality of the work and in the quality of your interactions with staff. And even in Hollywood, it results in more eye candy and less choosing the best actor. We have worse movies and worse television because of it.
The Justice Department is powerless to tell the courts what they can, can't, or must, do.
A big part of presenting a position to a court is telling them what they can or can't do. They (and then the appellate courts) have to decide if you're right. You'd be amazed at what portion of legal matters in court involve decisions made by judges where they might rather do something else that might make more sense in a particular case, but they have limited power. In reality, while there are many judges from both sides of the aisle whom we may disagree with from time to time, this restraint is why the notion of the "activist judge" is basically a myth, especially at the federal level.
The courts defer to the executive or Congress on a wide variety of matters. Still, blocking a person prevents them from viewing your tweet and thus from interacting with it, which certainly limits that person's ability to comment on that tweet in a forum with thirty million plus people. It stretches credulity that you could convince a judge that a forum of thirty million people is anything other than a fully public forum, and free speech protections are at their zenith when talking about political matters in a public forum.
The blocked person may have ample alternative avenues for communication, but preventing them from commenting on the basis of their speech is still a content-based restraint on speech and IIRC is presumptively unconstitutional. Still, First Amendment doctrine is a bit labyrinthine and it would take a full briefing to lay out and evaluate the issue fully.
It's so fantastic you're going to allow people to quit a job if you don't agree with their decision to do so. Just super.
It's not me, it's society, and it's a much bigger deal than you think. We fought a war over it. Courts basically never force people to continue working (even if there is a contract) precisely because it would be forced labor.
On the upside for employers, employment is generally at-will and people can usually be fired, whether or not we agree with that decision. On the upside for employees, people can also quit whether or not we agree with that decision.
Not only that, the EEOC will often take up a minority discrimination case, so you have a company defending itself against the deep pockets of the Federal Government.
The EEOC will sometimes take up a discrimination case. Most people who face discrimination and look for help do not have the EEOC pick up their case. Instead they ask the EEOC to help, wait a while, have the EEOC say no, look for a plaintiff's lawyer, have consults with one or two, and ultimately the lawyer usually doesn't decide to take them on as a client because the lawyer would have to bankroll the litigation and it's in some way not the perfect case for them.
Seriously, I've known people who have faced discrimination to make the "hostile work environment" stuff you hear about seem like child's play who will never get their day in court.
Discrimination cases will sometimes be effective even for white males, but they are much less common. There is also a lot of discrimination in juries that affects what justice is available for a variety of other matters.
Why not just have a geospatial database of signs that self-driving cars access? Then it won't matter what's on the sign, or if the sign even physically exists. Why is anti-stick coating the solution that "researchers" suggest?
For one thing, there's a need for temporary signs. And the sign has to physically exist for everything that isn't a self-driving car.
This.
You have to be really carefully how you design this. The self-driving car that refuses to see a stop sign on an interstate is going to absolutely love construction zones.
This is the best advertisement HBO can get. Probably a staged 'hack' intended to get more media coverage. Anyone who goes to the trouble to find this is almost certainly a watching fan already and will undoubtedly watch the download and then binge on past episodes, then watch the new stuff, posting to twitter and Facebook all the way along. I've read the song of fire and ice as well as the wildcards trust for a long time, but I've never actually seen an episode on HBO.
That is extremely unlikely--less than 1%. Generally a bad idea to directly fake being a victim of a crime. It can easily get you arrested if you do it wrong. (Most obviously by making any false reports to authorities). It can also make you look incredibly bad if anyone finds out. In this case, we know the FBI is already involved in the investigation and lying to FBI agents is a crime.
In addition, HBO just doesn't need to go to such lengths for more media coverage for Thrones. It's a viral phenomenon. If you don't hear about it, you're living under a rock.
Or are people really stupid enough to not know about broadcast [expletive] TV?
It's quite easy to not know about a technology from before your time. It's not like kids are born knowing how to wash clothes on a washboard either. Some of them don't even know how to wash clothes with modern technology by the time they go to college. I've known brilliant people who didn't know how to use a mop because nobody had ever taught them.
It's possible to do more than one thing at a time. Sex Trafficking is and should always be a bipartisan issue not beholden to the usual contest of opposing political forces coming from sources of legitimate disagreement. People being held in slavery in the modern United States is not a partisan issue. Children getting raped multiple times per day is not a partisan issue. People knowingly profiting off of that without making at least reasonable efforts to prevent it and refusing to be reasonably responsive to law enforcement in preventing it should absolutely be prosecuted and should be civilly liable. While there are legitimate reasons to refuse or insist on narrowing a request made from law enforcement if one is overbroad, this is not one of those grey areas where there is a lot of room for legitimate debate.
There is room to talk about the best way of fixing the problem, but again, this isn't and really shouldn't be a heavily partisan debate. Leaders on both sides of the aisle have spoken out against trafficking, for example. (Bush and Clinton come to mind.)
If someone wants to set up a bulletin board fine, but if it gets misused they should either step up and deal with the misuse or they should take it down, because seriously, kids are being raped.
Newspapers shut down comments sections because of racist comment threads and doxxing; this is worse. There are bounds to moral relativism. Raping kids is crossing those bounds.
... anyone owning or renting in CA would immediately experience a quality-of-life bump....
On paper, yes. But quality of life for most people is measured by more than the footprint of their living space. They also want to know that they can meet people like them, that they can have a good social life, that their family will be accepted, that their kids will have access to meaningful activities and academics, etc...
For example, I have run into a number of people who have faced a lot of discrimination in a certain state because of their ethnicity or the color of their skin. They wound up fired and broke and in Seattle trying to build a new life, and they're so much happier than when they had a job elsewhere but were dealing with that kind of mistreatment and much less social acceptance.
Really, this seems like more of an user education problem than anything else.
This, exactly this.
Not really, or at least not only that.
A ridiculous number of web sites now ask to be able to send you push notifications. It doesn't matter for most of us here (aside from being annoying) because we click no. But it's not really appropriate to be spamming everyone with those requests--you wind up with kids and old folks and the like who get their machines clobbered with notifications. "Buyer beware" is only okay when a service isn't being abused too heavily. As it becomes more mature, there should be more and more filtering. Whether that means time limits (one notification per day or per week) or whitelisting apps or reputation-managing apps or using anti-spam algorithms on the notifications, something is going to need to evolve or eventually the push notifications will become less and less useful and effective.
Get a demand letter from a lawyer. If it persists, go to court. They will settle pretty much immediately unless they are idiots--both because of the risk of bad press and because of the cost. It's just easier to delist the places.
(Lawsuits are a bad way to resolve things except for when they're not.)
In both this story and the July 18th story on the FCC, the summaries have been misleadingly one-sided in that they have utterly failed to disclose the FCC's position that *Privacy Concerns* are a large part of why they have not fully responded to the FOIA requests.
I already knew it's safe to take old medicines except tetracycline and similar antibiotics. But the surprise in this article is the fact that in a bigger study, 1/3 of medicine DOES lose its potency after expiration. The most important one is albuterol, the main "rescue" inhaler drug for asthma. This one is important because it's so tempting to stockpile--it's incredibly expensive in a lot of countries, so if you get a cheap source, you might want to buy enough for a decade or so. Too bad it doesn't last forever. I assumed all medicines were good forever if they're kept dry, but that's apparently not the case. If it differs per medicine, do the research when in doubt.
However, I can say from anecdotes (mine and others I found online) that albuterol is good for a few years after expiration.
Yes--because government does a bad job with providing meaningful expiration dates, together with excessive prescription control and just general economic incentives, many people keep drugs long after the expiration date. The problem is knowing which drugs keep their effectiveness.
Funny thing was, that dam was owned by Seattle City Light! They weren't sending that electricity over 300 miles of dedicated line over to Seattle, though - they were selling it to local utilities, and through a game of economic musical chairs were in turn eventually getting an equivalent amount of electricity from sources much nearer to Seattle.
Ownership of infrastructure is often set up the way it is for odd economics reasons. For example, IIRC historically a lot of companies that had nothing to do with whatever they owned would buy infrastructure, airplanes, and certain other major capital investments because the IRS let them deduct significantly greater amount for depreciation than the actual economic depreciation, and they could be re-sold after complete tax depreciation and start the process again. In effect it was a massive government subsidy to owners.
The planet is a rock, I don't care if it survives unless it turns out that it is an intelligent rock. I care that we survive, or failing that that our successors survive. And I care that some of our art survives: some of the beauty we have brought into the universe should be remembered, for a time.
Some lawyers are great. I've never met people more dedicated to the betterment of the world than the public interest community of lawyers. A lot of people there who spend their lives in relatively low paying jobs when they could be much better paid elsewhere, and who change the lives of thousands of people in their communities. I also know lots of great people in private practice.
That being said, the system lawyers operate in creates a lot of problems by incentivizing bad behavior, and has many other problems. The cost of services is high. Reform is hard. Dispute resolution is ridiculously expensive for matters that actually go to trial, etc...
Amazing how negative the responses to this are so far.
Cut the cord, sometimes. That's a positive thing. And huge for a kid. And it's not a problem with a device, just with becoming too dependent on it.
I was fortunate as a child to have months where television was unavailable or incredibly limited, and where the video game systems weren't connected or the computer wasn't in the house. The result? A lot of outdoor adventures and a lot of reading. I still enjoy Netflix and video games, but if you want kids to read, make that the dominant available form of entertainment for a while. And find them places to adventure in where they can learn some independence.
It's like at scout camp. Take the electronics away for a while. Children learn.
I have worked with the population that needs housing subsidies. We need a LOT more affordable housing (or housing subsidies of one sort or another)--anybody who believes otherwise doesn't know the situation on the ground. While there are occasionally people taking advantage of the system or able to pull their weight and not, there are also a LOT of people who just have one medical problem or one bad month income-wise and it snowballs into destroying a big part of their life.
(E.g. you are deciding whether to pay the rent or the food bill, don't cover the rent on time, get evicted and now fail tenant background screening while your credit score plummets because of a money judgment, so you can't find a place again, and you hope to hell you have family or friends in the area, and in the meantime your time looking for a new place and assistance takes so much time that your work suffers along with your dignity. Nobody wants to be in that situation.)
See, if you turn your brain on, you realize that no matter what kind of culture it is, they still have to compete with the rest of the world in mobilizing their women to the work force. No one is fighting women getting educations.
However, in a country where there is quite some risk to simply traveling to school each day, males are better suited to the risks.
"Quite some risk" arises because people *are* fighting women getting education.
Males *are NOT* better suited to the risks. Read "I am Malala." What exactly is a grade-school age boy going to do when men with AKs stop his school bus and take him off it? More importantly, the discussion of the importance of the radio station in fomenting the culture where girls couldn't go to school safely is probably one of the best lessons in propaganda and how a country becomes radicalized that you are otherwise likely to come across.
The risks are higher for girls because people can gain status or power within their group of thugs by keeping girls from getting an education. But men aren't better suited to the risk. And in the meantime, making it harder for girls to get an education hurts the economy--but benefits certain people who cling to absurd positions because (1) it benefits their power base personally, (2) they are afraid of what will happen if they do not conform to the absurd positions, or (3) they have been manipulated by others into believing it is in some sense morally right.
Yes, even in the US this is absolutely true, also unilateral contracts (one where all terms are set by a single party like an eula or a conditions of sale contract) are seen very different from a bilateral contracts and do not have anywhere near the same enforcement value.
The courts frequently strike down such arbitration clauses as such clauses are direct unilateral violation of rights in a given jurisdiction.
IANAL
No.
Contracts of adhesion may be interpreted against the drafter, but the drafter still gets to write them. They are still binding better than nine times out of ten. In very rare cases you may have a successful argument voiding some portion of them, but this is uncommon, especially if they are decently drafted.
Arbitration clauses and class action waivers are also binding. There are some ways to get around them sometimes to an extremely limited degree (for example, maybe you can litigate whether or not an arbitration agreement actually applies to a given dispute) but that's pretty rare.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that there isn't enough money to investigate every case to the nth degree, someone has to make decisions about what is to be the priority. Who can that be if it is not the FBI itself? The only alternative would appear to be a political appointee - which seems worse.
You could have the investigative agency need to get a court to sign off on closing a case, for example. You could also have priorities allocated by a committee that includes some people (whether voting or non-voting) from outside the FBI. Like maybe a citizen representative, or a victim representatives, or someone from DOJ outside the FBI, or a local law enforcement representative. For any large organization, there's more than one way you could reasonably set priorities, but you need to figure that out in the context of law and of organizational politics that are far beyond whatever will be discussed about them on Slashdot.
From the summary: 86 percent believe consumers don't understand issues around encryption backdoors.
So it look like 14 percent either (1) don't understand encryption backdoors themselves (2) are trying to get rid of the survey as quickly as possible, or (3) never interact with people and therefore assume all people know everything they know, in a sort of intellectual peek-a-boo or Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal moment.
Hollywood is interested in making money. As long as people prefer to see a certain type of person movies will have more of those people because people will then buy more movie tickets. Most movie stars of both genders are people who are considered to be very good looking for the same reason. Unless you can change the culture, you need to threaten the bottom line. And the Fat Positive movement is still small enough that they are unlikely to be successful in that regard.
Indeed; the body-positive movement has never had anywhere near the support that other movements aimed at treating people on the content of their character have had over the last fifty years. Our comedians regularly ridicule overweight politicians for their looks when it is their political acts that we should care about. Discrimination against people whose weight or look may not fit within certain norms is found through much of our society, and is mostly stupid.
While there are certainly very skilled people who are also beautiful, you can tell the difference almost immediately between walking into an office where staff is chosen for their looks and one where they are chosen for their ability. It comes across in the quality of the work and in the quality of your interactions with staff. And even in Hollywood, it results in more eye candy and less choosing the best actor. We have worse movies and worse television because of it.
The Justice Department is powerless to tell the courts what they can, can't, or must, do.
A big part of presenting a position to a court is telling them what they can or can't do. They (and then the appellate courts) have to decide if you're right. You'd be amazed at what portion of legal matters in court involve decisions made by judges where they might rather do something else that might make more sense in a particular case, but they have limited power. In reality, while there are many judges from both sides of the aisle whom we may disagree with from time to time, this restraint is why the notion of the "activist judge" is basically a myth, especially at the federal level.
The courts defer to the executive or Congress on a wide variety of matters. Still, blocking a person prevents them from viewing your tweet and thus from interacting with it, which certainly limits that person's ability to comment on that tweet in a forum with thirty million plus people. It stretches credulity that you could convince a judge that a forum of thirty million people is anything other than a fully public forum, and free speech protections are at their zenith when talking about political matters in a public forum.
The blocked person may have ample alternative avenues for communication, but preventing them from commenting on the basis of their speech is still a content-based restraint on speech and IIRC is presumptively unconstitutional. Still, First Amendment doctrine is a bit labyrinthine and it would take a full briefing to lay out and evaluate the issue fully.
It's so fantastic you're going to allow people to quit a job if you don't agree with their decision to do so. Just super.
It's not me, it's society, and it's a much bigger deal than you think. We fought a war over it. Courts basically never force people to continue working (even if there is a contract) precisely because it would be forced labor.
On the upside for employers, employment is generally at-will and people can usually be fired, whether or not we agree with that decision. On the upside for employees, people can also quit whether or not we agree with that decision.
Not only that, the EEOC will often take up a minority discrimination case, so you have a company defending itself against the deep pockets of the Federal Government.
The EEOC will sometimes take up a discrimination case. Most people who face discrimination and look for help do not have the EEOC pick up their case. Instead they ask the EEOC to help, wait a while, have the EEOC say no, look for a plaintiff's lawyer, have consults with one or two, and ultimately the lawyer usually doesn't decide to take them on as a client because the lawyer would have to bankroll the litigation and it's in some way not the perfect case for them.
Seriously, I've known people who have faced discrimination to make the "hostile work environment" stuff you hear about seem like child's play who will never get their day in court.
Discrimination cases will sometimes be effective even for white males, but they are much less common. There is also a lot of discrimination in juries that affects what justice is available for a variety of other matters.
Why not just have a geospatial database of signs that self-driving cars access? Then it won't matter what's on the sign, or if the sign even physically exists. Why is anti-stick coating the solution that "researchers" suggest?
For one thing, there's a need for temporary signs.
And the sign has to physically exist for everything that isn't a self-driving car.
This.
You have to be really carefully how you design this. The self-driving car that refuses to see a stop sign on an interstate is going to absolutely love construction zones.
This is the best advertisement HBO can get. Probably a staged 'hack' intended to get more media coverage. Anyone who goes to the trouble to find this is almost certainly a watching fan already and will undoubtedly watch the download and then binge on past episodes, then watch the new stuff, posting to twitter and Facebook all the way along. I've read the song of fire and ice as well as the wildcards trust for a long time, but I've never actually seen an episode on HBO.
That is extremely unlikely--less than 1%. Generally a bad idea to directly fake being a victim of a crime. It can easily get you arrested if you do it wrong. (Most obviously by making any false reports to authorities). It can also make you look incredibly bad if anyone finds out. In this case, we know the FBI is already involved in the investigation and lying to FBI agents is a crime.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...
In addition, HBO just doesn't need to go to such lengths for more media coverage for Thrones. It's a viral phenomenon. If you don't hear about it, you're living under a rock.
Or are people really stupid enough to not know about broadcast [expletive] TV?
It's quite easy to not know about a technology from before your time. It's not like kids are born knowing how to wash clothes on a washboard either. Some of them don't even know how to wash clothes with modern technology by the time they go to college. I've known brilliant people who didn't know how to use a mop because nobody had ever taught them.
It's possible to do more than one thing at a time. Sex Trafficking is and should always be a bipartisan issue not beholden to the usual contest of opposing political forces coming from sources of legitimate disagreement. People being held in slavery in the modern United States is not a partisan issue. Children getting raped multiple times per day is not a partisan issue. People knowingly profiting off of that without making at least reasonable efforts to prevent it and refusing to be reasonably responsive to law enforcement in preventing it should absolutely be prosecuted and should be civilly liable. While there are legitimate reasons to refuse or insist on narrowing a request made from law enforcement if one is overbroad, this is not one of those grey areas where there is a lot of room for legitimate debate.
There is room to talk about the best way of fixing the problem, but again, this isn't and really shouldn't be a heavily partisan debate. Leaders on both sides of the aisle have spoken out against trafficking, for example. (Bush and Clinton come to mind.)
If someone wants to set up a bulletin board fine, but if it gets misused they should either step up and deal with the misuse or they should take it down, because seriously, kids are being raped.
Newspapers shut down comments sections because of racist comment threads and doxxing; this is worse. There are bounds to moral relativism. Raping kids is crossing those bounds.
... anyone owning or renting in CA would immediately experience a quality-of-life bump. ...
On paper, yes. But quality of life for most people is measured by more than the footprint of their living space. They also want to know that they can meet people like them, that they can have a good social life, that their family will be accepted, that their kids will have access to meaningful activities and academics, etc...
For example, I have run into a number of people who have faced a lot of discrimination in a certain state because of their ethnicity or the color of their skin. They wound up fired and broke and in Seattle trying to build a new life, and they're so much happier than when they had a job elsewhere but were dealing with that kind of mistreatment and much less social acceptance.
Really, this seems like more of an user education problem than anything else.
This, exactly this.
Not really, or at least not only that.
A ridiculous number of web sites now ask to be able to send you push notifications. It doesn't matter for most of us here (aside from being annoying) because we click no. But it's not really appropriate to be spamming everyone with those requests--you wind up with kids and old folks and the like who get their machines clobbered with notifications. "Buyer beware" is only okay when a service isn't being abused too heavily. As it becomes more mature, there should be more and more filtering. Whether that means time limits (one notification per day or per week) or whitelisting apps or reputation-managing apps or using anti-spam algorithms on the notifications, something is going to need to evolve or eventually the push notifications will become less and less useful and effective.
Get a demand letter from a lawyer. If it persists, go to court. They will settle pretty much immediately unless they are idiots--both because of the risk of bad press and because of the cost. It's just easier to delist the places.
(Lawsuits are a bad way to resolve things except for when they're not.)
In both this story and the July 18th story on the FCC, the summaries have been misleadingly one-sided in that they have utterly failed to disclose the FCC's position that *Privacy Concerns* are a large part of why they have not fully responded to the FOIA requests.
I already knew it's safe to take old medicines except tetracycline and similar antibiotics. But the surprise in this article is the fact that in a bigger study, 1/3 of medicine DOES lose its potency after expiration. The most important one is albuterol, the main "rescue" inhaler drug for asthma. This one is important because it's so tempting to stockpile--it's incredibly expensive in a lot of countries, so if you get a cheap source, you might want to buy enough for a decade or so. Too bad it doesn't last forever. I assumed all medicines were good forever if they're kept dry, but that's apparently not the case. If it differs per medicine, do the research when in doubt.
However, I can say from anecdotes (mine and others I found online) that albuterol is good for a few years after expiration.
Yes--because government does a bad job with providing meaningful expiration dates, together with excessive prescription control and just general economic incentives, many people keep drugs long after the expiration date. The problem is knowing which drugs keep their effectiveness.
To run a script that only pulls the comment on a data set and then zip it?
The FCC is saying that they would have to go through and have staff members redact all personally identifiable information in the comments.
https://transition.fcc.gov/Dai...
Funny thing was, that dam was owned by Seattle City Light! They weren't sending that electricity over 300 miles of dedicated line over to Seattle, though - they were selling it to local utilities, and through a game of economic musical chairs were in turn eventually getting an equivalent amount of electricity from sources much nearer to Seattle.
Ownership of infrastructure is often set up the way it is for odd economics reasons. For example, IIRC historically a lot of companies that had nothing to do with whatever they owned would buy infrastructure, airplanes, and certain other major capital investments because the IRS let them deduct significantly greater amount for depreciation than the actual economic depreciation, and they could be re-sold after complete tax depreciation and start the process again. In effect it was a massive government subsidy to owners.
The planet is a rock, I don't care if it survives unless it turns out that it is an intelligent rock. I care that we survive, or failing that that our successors survive. And I care that some of our art survives: some of the beauty we have brought into the universe should be remembered, for a time.
We can finally begin killing all the lawyers.
Some lawyers are great. I've never met people more dedicated to the betterment of the world than the public interest community of lawyers. A lot of people there who spend their lives in relatively low paying jobs when they could be much better paid elsewhere, and who change the lives of thousands of people in their communities. I also know lots of great people in private practice.
That being said, the system lawyers operate in creates a lot of problems by incentivizing bad behavior, and has many other problems. The cost of services is high. Reform is hard. Dispute resolution is ridiculously expensive for matters that actually go to trial, etc...
Amazing how negative the responses to this are so far.
Cut the cord, sometimes. That's a positive thing. And huge for a kid. And it's not a problem with a device, just with becoming too dependent on it.
I was fortunate as a child to have months where television was unavailable or incredibly limited, and where the video game systems weren't connected or the computer wasn't in the house. The result? A lot of outdoor adventures and a lot of reading. I still enjoy Netflix and video games, but if you want kids to read, make that the dominant available form of entertainment for a while. And find them places to adventure in where they can learn some independence.
It's like at scout camp. Take the electronics away for a while. Children learn.
I have worked with the population that needs housing subsidies. We need a LOT more affordable housing (or housing subsidies of one sort or another)--anybody who believes otherwise doesn't know the situation on the ground. While there are occasionally people taking advantage of the system or able to pull their weight and not, there are also a LOT of people who just have one medical problem or one bad month income-wise and it snowballs into destroying a big part of their life.
(E.g. you are deciding whether to pay the rent or the food bill, don't cover the rent on time, get evicted and now fail tenant background screening while your credit score plummets because of a money judgment, so you can't find a place again, and you hope to hell you have family or friends in the area, and in the meantime your time looking for a new place and assistance takes so much time that your work suffers along with your dignity. Nobody wants to be in that situation.)
Just look at Coursera, EdX, Code School, and others.
Are they free? No, but neither is Netflix or Hulu.
Do any of those have solid expert panel discussions?
See, if you turn your brain on, you realize that no matter what kind of culture it is, they still have to compete with the rest of the world in mobilizing their women to the work force. No one is fighting women getting educations.
However, in a country where there is quite some risk to simply traveling to school each day, males are better suited to the risks.
"Quite some risk" arises because people *are* fighting women getting education.
Males *are NOT* better suited to the risks. Read "I am Malala." What exactly is a grade-school age boy going to do when men with AKs stop his school bus and take him off it? More importantly, the discussion of the importance of the radio station in fomenting the culture where girls couldn't go to school safely is probably one of the best lessons in propaganda and how a country becomes radicalized that you are otherwise likely to come across.
The risks are higher for girls because people can gain status or power within their group of thugs by keeping girls from getting an education. But men aren't better suited to the risk. And in the meantime, making it harder for girls to get an education hurts the economy--but benefits certain people who cling to absurd positions because (1) it benefits their power base personally, (2) they are afraid of what will happen if they do not conform to the absurd positions, or (3) they have been manipulated by others into believing it is in some sense morally right.
Yes, even in the US this is absolutely true, also unilateral contracts (one where all terms are set by a single party like an eula or a conditions of sale contract) are seen very different from a bilateral contracts and do not have anywhere near the same enforcement value.
The courts frequently strike down such arbitration clauses as such clauses are direct unilateral violation of rights in a given jurisdiction.
IANAL
No.
Contracts of adhesion may be interpreted against the drafter, but the drafter still gets to write them. They are still binding better than nine times out of ten. In very rare cases you may have a successful argument voiding some portion of them, but this is uncommon, especially if they are decently drafted.
Arbitration clauses and class action waivers are also binding. There are some ways to get around them sometimes to an extremely limited degree (for example, maybe you can litigate whether or not an arbitration agreement actually applies to a given dispute) but that's pretty rare.