A lot of third party voters wouldn't vote for a Democrat or Republican even without the choice of a third party. The "spoiler" argument is selfish and stupid.
This relates to their telecommunications network. Any editorial control they have over non-telecom services is irrelevant. For telecom, they most certainly do have common carrier status. Verifying that fact is really very easy.
I'd like to see something backing up the contention that the UK clears 95% of murder cases. If so, they have the best investigative police on Earth.
As for the fact that they report murders for the year they're charged rather than the year they're committed, that simply means a given year's rate is more representative of crime in previous years rather than that of the current year on average. It doesn't mean crime rates are actually lower than reported. It just means an accurate reflection of a given year won't occur until a later date.
I was replying to Belial6. If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe it's alright for schools to punish someone defending themselves with exactly the same repercussions as the person instigating violence against them? If so, we fundamentally disagree. I do not condone the enforcement of "lie down and take whatever someone else wants to give you." There are times when it is simply not possible to extract yourself from a situation where someone else is intent on inflicting physical harm. Believing otherwise is simply sticking your head in the sand.
It's amazing to see how many people absolutely fail at logic on this site. Kids apparently have to be able to use tech at 5 years old or they'll be damaged for life!
Kids apparently can't learn anything useful unless it involves technology, and the parents are horrible people for undertaking a short-term experiment while their children are pre-adolescent. The horror!
A year at their age won't impede their ability to learn how to use 21st century devices in the slightest. They won't suffer a damn thing, and it certainly won't deny them access to a certain career path. The above is complete hyperbole and is completely out of touch with reality.
Choosing not to use technology yourself isn't a ban, it's a choice. A ban is something imposed by an external authority. For the children, it is a ban, but parents have a reasonable right to ban things they find injurious to their child's development. There's plenty of time to learn to use an iPad, but once a child exits their toddler stage many habits are set for life. This allows for them to get used to being able to do without tech, and once they are older and have started to develop the ability to exercise self-control they can be exposed to things that are addictive at an early age.
They're not teaching them anything about tech. What they're doing is teaching them about things that aren't tech. Not starting to learn how to use advanced devices until you're 6 isn't going to do jack shit to harm these children in any way at all.
The problem is in what is viewed as a threat by police. That has gotten a lot more broad, and since SWAT teams now are used regularly to serve warrants for non-violent offenses, a lot more civilians are getting shot.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. I have no idea how each country makes them up, ur, collects them, but there are bound to be differences.
For instance, a murder in the UK is not reported as murder in yearly crime statistic reports if nobody is charged in court for the killing, and the murder is reported in the year it was charged and not the year it was committed.
Social Security taxes have always been rolled into the general budget funds, since the original amendments to the act in 1939. They have changed the way the taxes and funds were accounted for, but the actual operation of the process has been essentially the same as long as the program has existed. All surpluses have been spent on other things since the inception of the program. The "funds" in the Social Security Trust Fund are essentially IOUs from the government to itself. If you try doing the same thing yourself, you'll quickly realize that means the Fund has no actual value despite having an fictional accounting value. Sure, they may have legal value, but when you have to pay the IOU you hold on yourself to yourself, well, it means the money actually has to come from somewhere else. In terms of the government, that means borrowing, inflating, or reducing other expenditures.
Frequently, habits ingrained (such as go along to get along) in doing what the administration wants in order to get tenure in the first place stick around after tenure is received. The academic freedom received may be too little, too late.
I think all of the above plays into the result of worse performance in teaching by tenured professors, specifically because many don't wish to teach and do so only grudgingly.
If a college is focused on research, fine, but if you want a better classroom experience and educational outcome for students tenure seems to be a serious drawback.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of third party voters wouldn't vote for a Democrat or Republican even without the choice of a third party. The "spoiler" argument is selfish and stupid.
The FCC disagrees with you.
This relates to their telecommunications network. Any editorial control they have over non-telecom services is irrelevant. For telecom, they most certainly do have common carrier status. Verifying that fact is really very easy.
One major problem is that people compare the UK murder rate to the US homicide rate, which further skews the real picture.
I'd like to see something backing up the contention that the UK clears 95% of murder cases. If so, they have the best investigative police on Earth.
As for the fact that they report murders for the year they're charged rather than the year they're committed, that simply means a given year's rate is more representative of crime in previous years rather than that of the current year on average. It doesn't mean crime rates are actually lower than reported. It just means an accurate reflection of a given year won't occur until a later date.
I can only assume you are completely out of touch with reality if you truly believe that.
I was replying to Belial6. If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe it's alright for schools to punish someone defending themselves with exactly the same repercussions as the person instigating violence against them? If so, we fundamentally disagree. I do not condone the enforcement of "lie down and take whatever someone else wants to give you." There are times when it is simply not possible to extract yourself from a situation where someone else is intent on inflicting physical harm. Believing otherwise is simply sticking your head in the sand.
It's amazing to see how many people absolutely fail at logic on this site. Kids apparently have to be able to use tech at 5 years old or they'll be damaged for life!
Kids apparently can't learn anything useful unless it involves technology, and the parents are horrible people for undertaking a short-term experiment while their children are pre-adolescent. The horror!
Yes, because cutting them off until April of next year will forever cripple them. Logic fail ftw!
Only if you didn't read it and don't possess decent reasoning skills.
A year at their age won't impede their ability to learn how to use 21st century devices in the slightest. They won't suffer a damn thing, and it certainly won't deny them access to a certain career path. The above is complete hyperbole and is completely out of touch with reality.
Choosing not to use technology yourself isn't a ban, it's a choice. A ban is something imposed by an external authority. For the children, it is a ban, but parents have a reasonable right to ban things they find injurious to their child's development. There's plenty of time to learn to use an iPad, but once a child exits their toddler stage many habits are set for life. This allows for them to get used to being able to do without tech, and once they are older and have started to develop the ability to exercise self-control they can be exposed to things that are addictive at an early age.
They're not teaching them anything about tech. What they're doing is teaching them about things that aren't tech. Not starting to learn how to use advanced devices until you're 6 isn't going to do jack shit to harm these children in any way at all.
Dark matter is the Divine Sauce which creates most of the mass of the Great Pastafarian Feast known as the universe.
When this happens, there's something wrong with police culture.
The problem is in what is viewed as a threat by police. That has gotten a lot more broad, and since SWAT teams now are used regularly to serve warrants for non-violent offenses, a lot more civilians are getting shot.
Indeed. The UK murder rate is far higher than national statistics claim because they don't add any murder in which nobody is charged in court.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. I have no idea how each country makes them up, ur, collects them, but there are bound to be differences.
For instance, a murder in the UK is not reported as murder in yearly crime statistic reports if nobody is charged in court for the killing, and the murder is reported in the year it was charged and not the year it was committed.
Bullies today rarely use violence, so they can operate without any expectation of punishment.
And if you defend yourself in school, you're punished to the same extent an aggressor is.
Police don't protect and serve. Their job is to figure out how to arrest more people, even when it's unwarranted.
Social Security taxes have always been rolled into the general budget funds, since the original amendments to the act in 1939. They have changed the way the taxes and funds were accounted for, but the actual operation of the process has been essentially the same as long as the program has existed. All surpluses have been spent on other things since the inception of the program. The "funds" in the Social Security Trust Fund are essentially IOUs from the government to itself. If you try doing the same thing yourself, you'll quickly realize that means the Fund has no actual value despite having an fictional accounting value. Sure, they may have legal value, but when you have to pay the IOU you hold on yourself to yourself, well, it means the money actually has to come from somewhere else. In terms of the government, that means borrowing, inflating, or reducing other expenditures.
Frequently, habits ingrained (such as go along to get along) in doing what the administration wants in order to get tenure in the first place stick around after tenure is received. The academic freedom received may be too little, too late.
I think all of the above plays into the result of worse performance in teaching by tenured professors, specifically because many don't wish to teach and do so only grudgingly.
If a college is focused on research, fine, but if you want a better classroom experience and educational outcome for students tenure seems to be a serious drawback.
I know exactly how much bandwidth I use.