One thing that I don't hear talked about in many of these discussions about the genetic components of race is how the mixed racial ancestry of many "black" people in Europe and the Americas impacts these studies.
MANY blacks in the Americas and Europe have significant European DNA. For example, even though my family identifies as black, my mother and her siblings are almost 50℅ European according to DNA tests.
How does this factor in when making medical decisions based on assumptions regarding race?
1) Am I the only person who doesn't accept random facebook friend requests, ESPECIALLY from beautiful women? If I don't know you, I just assume that you are trying to scam me by becoming my facebook friend. Then again, there must be SOME people who just randomly friend strangers that they have no connection with (or half of the stories in MTV's "Catfish" would have never happened).
2) People really shouldn't freak out too much about there family seeing nudes/sexual pics of them. My mother actually has unintentionally seen sexually explicit photos of me, and it wasn't nearly as big of a deal as I thought it would be. I let her use one of my USB drives, but forgot that there were pictures of myself and ex-girlfriends involved in some more intimate activities.
The result was that my conservative religious mommy realized her then 34yo son was not her "baby" anymore and she called the photos vulgar and pornographic, but beyond that, the world didn't end. I was embarrassed for about 30 seconds, then realized that the only thing that has really changed is she has visual proof that I am sexually active. Well, I am LIVING PROOF that she was sexually active AT LEAST ONCE, so what is the big deal?
The only REALLY uncomfortable part was when the nurse in her came out, and she started grilling me on contraception and whether I was getting regularly tested for STDs. Then she started pleading with me to tell her if she had any grandchildren out there (she doesn't). That turned into the "you really need to settle down and give me some grand-babies" discussion. I offered to buy her a puppy instead, but she said that wasn't the same.
I guess the whole point of my post is that (at least in the West) photos like this might be a little embarrassing, but if your family and friends love you, they will STILL love you even after seeing a video of you doing something that EVERYBODY does, only in private.
Wow! I had no idea that there were any links to long term problems with lasix. I have been considering the procedure for over 15 years, but never pulled the trigger. If there are long term risks, I think that I will just stick to glasses.
>The end result you describe isn't much different than a number of 4 year undergraduate degrees, PhDs or masters programs (all at "good" colleges).
The difference is that the percentage of people with that negative end result is MUCH higher. Looking at stats like the default rate for students at for-profits vs non-profits is one indicator.
>It's wrong to think that departments at not-for-profit schools don't have a marketing incentive that is (at best) indifferent to the best interests of the student.
There is definitely some truth in this. HOWEVER, a big difference is that in many cases the interests of the department and the student are more aligned at non-profits than for-profits. The most obvious example is completion/graduation rates. At least at the undergraduate and masters level, there is a strong incentive to select students that are LIKELY to graduate from the program. Bringing in woefully underprepared students who have little chance of finishing the degree seems to be strongly discouraged at the undergraduate and masters level. I cannot speak for the PhD level, since I have little experience in that area.
Contrast that with stories about MULTIPLE for-profit colleges going so far as to target the homeless for recruitment into their universities. In some cases they went so far as recruiting people who DID NOT OWN A COMPUTER to sign up for online degree programs. Since virtually all Americans (regardless of credit score) qualify for up to $20K in loans per year (with a cap of about $180K total), a students ability (or lack there of) to complete the program is irrelevant as long as the money keeps flowing in.
Yes, gonorrhea (as well as chlamydia and syphilis) can be transmitted via oral sex. In fact, I know of someone who contracted oral gonorrhea (at first she thought it was a bad sore throat) and passed it to a guy who contracted genital gonorrhea.
Yes, most people go to universities for the credential in order to gain employment. However, the reason why that credential is valuable in obtaining employment is because it implies that the holder of the credential has developed certain skills as part of their education.
One of those skills is the ability to think critically about a variety of topics. My assumption is that University of Chicago believes that in order to develop those critical thinking skills, it is a REQUIREMENT to learn an environment with a free and open exchange of ideas.
Students that want the credential BUT they do not want to complete one of the requirements of that credential should reconsider whether the credential is right for them or perhaps find another university.
To use your grocery store/gallon of milk analogy, a more accurate version would be if I went to a grocery store and asked for a gallon of milk, but demanded that it be zero calories and made from tomatoes. The store owner would tell the customer that they can buy tomato juice or water, but there is nothing labeled as MILK which meets their requirements.
As someone who has lost a fair amount of weight recently (97 lbs in just under 10 months), I was prepared to argue against this article before even reading it. However, the method he recommended (mindful eating) is basically what I used to finally lose weight.
I have been overweight/obese virtually all of my life (my baby fat was immediately replaced with fat fat). Over the years I have been under the care of two separate physicians for weight loss and taken 3 different types of prescription drugs for weight loss (Phentermine, Xenical, and Contrave). The most that I lost under those physicians and medication was about 30 lbs, which I promptly gained back PLUS an additional 30 lbs for my trouble.
Once I took a more mindful/intuative eating approach, the weight came off easily. I follow 4 basic rules that I took from a book called "I Can Make You Thin" by Paul McKenna (the book also includes some hypnosis stuff, but I don't use that).
1) When I am hungry I eat.
2) I eat what I want.
3) I eat consciously.
4) When I am full I stop.
Seems simple enough, but the devil is in the details. For example, regarding rule 1, I ONLY eat when I am hungry, not when I am bored or stressed. Learning when I was actually hungry and not just wanting to eat to change my emotions was HUGE.
Regarding rule 3 (eating consciously), that means no more eating in front of the TV/Computer, or while reading a book, or even thinking a lot about other things. I focus on eating and JUST eating. I eat with as few distractions as possible.
Regarding rule 4, knowing WHEN I was full was a HUGE issue for me. For most of my life, I ate until I was bloated or nauseous. Now as soon as I am satisfied or full I stop.
Because of Rules, 1, 3, 4, the results of rules 2 (eat what I want) were interesting. I still eat what I want, but what I want changed. I have always loved pizza, but now I am also addicted to spinach, either raw or steamed. I can honestly say that I eat more spinach in a given month than I had TOTAL in the 10 year period between 2004-2014. It's nuts. I am absolutely astounded by how few vegetables that I used to eat before this eating plan.
I don't get hungry and I don't have those cravings that everyone who has been on a diet knows so well. The key for me was that I wanted to find something that I KNEW that I could do for the rest of my life, not some diet that I would just stay on until I reached my goal weight, then revert to my old ways.
Definitely agree. IIRC, the biggest yearly loss for the Dow was 52% in 1931. While I would HATE to lose 50% of my wealth, the point is that with $50m I can EASILY ride that loss out and give it time to recover in a few years. Now, if I only had $50k in the market and was planning on using all of it on a big purchase that particular year (e.g. home down payment, child's college tuition), a 50% loss could be devastating.
Volatility doesn't seem to have as much power when the potential losses are not great enough to cripple you.
It is not just knowing that you are under 24-7 surveillance, it is knowing that there will be CONSEQUENCES for "negative" behavior while under that 24-7 surveillance.
For example, if one takes the traditional image of the tyrannical government spying on its citizens (the East German Stasi comes to mind) the fear wasn't just that the government monitors would hear you say something anti-government while in private. The fear was that they would use that private conversation as a reason to imprison, torture, and/or execute you. You had to watch every word you say for fear of detention or death.
Many Americans do not believe that their government would or could use that information against them, especially since they are not terrorists (think of the old cop line "if you are innocent you have nothing to hide). The fact is that much of the information that is being collected by the government is ALREADY being collected by Google, Facebook, Yahoo and AT&T. Most Americans rightfully assume that google is keeping track of their searches, and that AT&T has records of who they call. Why would they trust some corporation with this data, but not their government? I don't necessarily agree with this thinking, but I understand it.
Until there are MULTIPLE reports of the U.S. government using that information against ordinary Americans, you are not going to see much traction on the issue.
> Unless you planned carry a concealed gun all the time, you'd hardly ever be affected - only on the occasions where you'd have otherwise carried.
This might sound strange to people who don't carry guns (particularly if you live in a country were civilian ownership is restricted), but for the people I know with concealed carry permits, many actually do carry all the time (at least everywhere they can legally). These folks don't carry their guns only on special occasions. One firearms instructor told me that he carries everyday because "if I knew the exact day that I would need my gun in public, I would just stay home instead." They treat carrying a gun like wearing a seat belt. You don't only wear your seat belt on the highway or in heavy traffic. As soon as you get in the car, you buckle up.
I can only give my perspective as a US citizen. The best way that I could explain it is with the phrase "out of sight, out of mind." Issues have much less of an impact if a person doesn't see and feel the direct consequences in their lives.
Lets take the Snowden case. He released tons of info regarding the US spying on it's own citizens, but how does that directly effect my life today? To put another way, how do I FEEL the day to day impact of these programs? The answer is simple, I don't.
I have no idea whether the NSA has a record of every website I have viewed. I have no idea if I have a file on some government server detailing my porn preferences based on my google searches. I don't know if the government knows of my relationship status based on listening in to my phone calls. Essentially, unless and until the government decides to use this information that they may (or may not) have to blackmail/arrest/detain/publicly humiliate me, it doesn't impact my life in a noticeable way
Now, lets compare that with the gun issue. When the federal/state/local government passes a gun law, if I am a gun owner I FEEL the impact of that law. If someone wants to buy an AR-15 and there is a threat of banning the weapon, that person feels the direct impact of the issue in his life. If someone wants to carry a concealed firearm in public (something completely legal in the vast majority of states, btw) but they live some place that does not permit it, they FEEL the impact of that law.
This is also why for people who don't own guns and have no interest in doing so, gun restrictions me nothing to them. Banning assault weapons have no negative impact on the lives of people who have no desire to own such firearms.
I am certainly not saying that the right to firearms is more important than the right to privacy from government surveillance. What I am saying is that it is FAR easier to find and organize people who have felt (or would feel) the real life impacts of gun restrictions, than those who have felt the impact of the NSA's surveillance program.
Did you actually buy five guns from that dealer, or did you do five transfers with background checks? I have done a ton of transfers with my local FFL dealer, but have never actually bought a gun directly from him. He just can't compete with online prices.
In my experience, the majority of FFL license holders do not have a storefront. In fact, I just did a quick survey of the 20 FFL's who do business near my zip code. Only 8 had storefronts. There is big business in running background checks.