If zero-tolerance policies calling for quick suspensions and/or arrests in response to even more minor infractions are rolled back, it would seem obvious to me that suspensions and arrests should drop. Unless there's another statistic that I'm missing, I fail to see how that alone is any more than a marginally positive change. (That said, I do support getting rid of zero-tolerance policies. What I'm asking is for evidence that getting rid of those policies hasn't increased the number of reported incidents that would have resulted in suspensions or arrests under zero-tolerance policies, and separately hasn't increased the number of reported incidents that would result in suspensions or arrests even without zero-tolerance policies.)
And DirecTV shall respond, to thunderous applause, "Cease this hurricane of illogic! You're only bringing a snowstorm of criticism upon yourself. You've clouded up this whole debate; let us work together amicably and let the sun shine once more!"
Many new microeconomic empiricists/econometricists (sp?) have been able to identify causes and effects in policy changes a lot better than in the past. I wonder then: what was the relative impact of Rudy Giuliani's policies against crime (and any expansions under Michael Bloomberg) versus banning lead from gasoline, paint, et cetera? I know that pointing to the elimination of lead sounds a lot nicer than praising any one mayor, but for the sake of science, I really would like to know which it was (or if there was some other lesser-known cause for the crime drop).
"Makes you wonder whom Rep. Peter King actually thinks he's representing." I think Peter King is afraid that the truth about that might come out in the next batch of information released by Edward Snowden.
I remember when I was in middle school, a kid had brought a fake cell phone that gives you a mild shock if you press the only functional button on the phone. Of course, as cell phones were still kind of a new thing then, and as it was rare for a middle schooler to have a cell phone, a lot of people wanted to try it, and a lot of them fell for the trick. Nothing bad came of it, and while the teachers were annoyed (and may have temporarily confiscated the device and given him detention), he didn't get suspended for it. I'm glad those teachers didn't overreact like these.
We've already seen for a fact how the NSA can abuse surveillance, so I'm not sure why Senator Feinstein is continuing to argue that this can't happen. I should ask her: has she been been beating her husband? Because he looks remarkably...horse-ish. B-)
I do undergraduate research in photonics. A postdoc in our research group recently presented work including and extending from his PhD thesis which he completed last year. The thesis is freely available online, and that has inspired me to continue doing work in photonics and to also ask him more questions/work with him more closely due to the similarities between what both of us are doing. So no, American Historical Association, I can most definitely say this is a TERRIBLE idea.
I think it has to do more with their general large corporations (and not necessarily with just Sony or Nintendo in particular). I've seen here that Japan and [South] Korea seem to be two countries that treat their corporations even more favorably than the US, and that's probably because of the historical relations between the respective governments and zaibatsus/chaebols.
Well, to be fair, Jefferson did predict having to replace the Constitution every 19 years. That hasn't happened de jure, but it could be argued de facto.
Anyway, I realize that this article being on TechDirt would lead it to be interpreted as Americans disapproving of things like NSA spying, but given recent other polls showing the lack of widespread disapproval of that program and others that take away basic rights to speech, privacy, and such, does this poll really mean much in particular?
Is it just human genes that cannot be patented? If so, given the recent research into human gut biota, what will happen to every person on this planet once a biotechnology company patents the genomes of bacteria there?