If these are the rules, then they do warrant a detention, by definition. You disagree with these detentions. I disagree with your disagreeing. Regardless of our opinion, these are the rules.

I strongly encourage bans on junk food in schools, and harsh punishment of potential plagiarism. If you want good behavior later, you have to encourage it.

I'd say the lesson is more like "parents are monetarily disincentivized from supporting behavior that results in detention". Detention is not free childcare.

Attendance of non-public schools is not a right. Failure to comply with rules can (and, I would argue, should) result in punishment for failure to obey known policies and rules.

That, plus you wouldn't have to worry so much about a particular "ship" hitting or generating debris.

Sure. The real question is: what is the operating point (detection vs. false alarm, or false positives versus false negatives, or ...)?

I imagine that the cost of mailing out pregnancy coupons, both paper costs and PR, is low enough to tolerate a lot of bad guesses.

You think that text is more precise than voice for communicating ideas?

Riiiiiiiight.....

There's a "lite" version (also v2).

Do you both have rights to them? That's the whole point of the question: who "owns" the intentionally-shared "mutually"-created data?

And all those family photos on the media server connected to the TV...?

This implies that your spouse is OK with the idea of making these backups in the case of potential divorce.

Implying that it could/might happen is dangerous, my friend.

Because you're both in all of those photos? Some of these things (like social media data) make sense. Others (like email)... not so much.

Profiling is only bad if it disproportionately targets particular groups or labels.

Shahidka are a vast minority of modern-day terrorists. That, plus there have been no reports or confirmed shahidka terrorist activities in the USA.

No, it requires parents to understand every game they are buying. They don't need to know every game out there - just the ones that they're willing to buy and hand to their children....

Agreed 100%. Statistically speaking, the best approach is to only scan men, as the vast majority of (current) terrorists are male, and the available pool of potential future women recruits is (currently) smaller.

Is it too crazy to expect that sampling for security should match the actual observed distribution (with a uniform prior)?