You kidding? They paid quite a lot for it!

You think the sheriff, himself, personally arrested her? Not one of his deputies?

(I can't disprove it, but that would be very unusual, statistically.)

I'm not sure what hairs you're splitting, but I don't buy it. Any and all other issues aside, any government agent (1) issued a badge and (2) a gun who can (3) apprehend you and (4) put you in the back of their car - all fit in the same basic category. Don't call them police if you like, but it's mighty disingenuous to try to call someone else on it.

(Rabid apologists: Please note that I'm not calling for an end to law enforcement or lambasting them in any way. Misinterpretation of this post may be met with excoriation, or mocking silence.)

There is a common fallacy when it comes to how the government spends its money. I mean our money.

Money is fungible. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. It's not like one dollar has higher tensile strength, and another one tastes better. They're all the same. If fines go into the general fund, then where do police funds come from? The general fund? What about when fines go to another fund? Does less money get channeled there, because fines are supporting the difference? Does that not free up that amount of money to be spent where-ever the politicians deem necessary, including the police department?

Whenever the government says "We're not spending those funds there, but other funds." you should be skeptical. They often play a shell game to re-allocate funds in legal, but unsavory ways.

Replying to AC troll, not for the troll's benefit, but because too many people are developing this perspective.

There are different types and degrees of Libertarians out there. There are some that are just as crazy as the irrational religious zealots and the tree huggers. The media is largely allied with the Democrats, and most of those that aren't are allied with the Republicans. Thus, there is a perverse incentive to cast all Libertarians in same light... as the enemy.

The truth is, sane libertarians exist, and are very centrist in their positions. They agree with Republicans on some issues, and with Democrats on others.

(disclaimer: I'm not a Libertarian, but a Republican who likes a few of their ideas. Not most, but a few.)

In California? Yeah, it frequently is.

California has a hostile business climate. Any businesses we can chase out of the state, we are chasing out of the state. Even Silicon Valley is struggling to retain companies.

I don't know the merits in this particular instance, but in CA, the presumption of ridiculousness goes to the state.

You're right. define:snarf

(Pardon the pun.)

The term "blaming the victim" has been dubious since it's very origin. I'll grab text from Wikipedia, because it's handy:

"We need to help these people understand how not to be poor." "RACIST, He's BLAMING THE VICTIMS!"

Ryan has set minorities back 4 decades. Unwed births among all races are now on the rise, and we see that there really is a strong statistical correlation with ongoing multi-generational poverty. We'd actually be a more integrated society if we'd dealt with this problem years ago. But no. The knee-jerk reaction is to assume that any action a "victim" takes must be their own fault (often false), and to assume that if anyone is in poverty, it must be someone else's fault (also false; sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't). By this twisted and broken logic, one can never suggest that an individual change their own behavior to change their outcome. Any attempt to suggest that minorities adjust their behavior or world-view has been met with vitriolic screams of racism. (In any degree, no matter how small a part of any larger plan.)

The phrase "blaming the victim" is inherently broken, not in concept, but in functional use. It is a poor excuse to make uncomfortable topics off limits, and it always has been.

The codecs (etc) are avoided because Debian doesn't want to deal with liability or licences. Steam doesn't present that particular problem. The intellectual property owner is actively contributing the software.

Yes, it's non-free, and it needs to be in the appropriate repo. But this isn't a "destroy the project, bring on the wrath of **** **, and sue everybody into oblivion" level of non-free.

(Ubuntu, on the other hand, wants more than just to be a better Debian. They've got a specific vision of where Linux ought to go, and they're trying to push into new territory. They just liked Debian as a starting point, that's all.)

(Posting while tired, subject to mistakes.)

That's backwards, actually. The less often inbreeding happens, the more dangerous. (Not that I'm advocating.)

I had a professor once say that we're all carriers of about 3 bad genetic mutations. Because these are so varied, people rarely marry with the same problem.

So, let's assume "Bob" only carries one bad recessive mutation (not on a sex chromosome), and he passes it onto half of his kids. If you grab any two of his kids, there is a 1/4 chance that both will be carriers. (This is equally true of half-siblings, since they both inherit half of Bob's DNA.) If they marry and have kids, 1/4 of them will receive broken copies from both parents, and will be terribly ill.

Assuming each person is a carrier of 3 major genetic disorders* , then the chance would be 1- (1 - 1/16)^3 ~= 17.6%, and not 2%, per child. (regardless of how common or rare those particular three disorders are)

*(Yeah, yeah, citation needed; I heard it from a genetics professor in a 101 class; it could be way off and I wouldn't know any better, but he ought to know.)

No.

(IANAG)

Each child receives 23 chromosomes from his/her mother, and 23 chromosomes from his/her father. Two of those are XX or XY. As far as inbreeding is concerned, the remaining 44 chromosomes also matter. Half-siblings share about a quarter of their chromosomes (on average). If they're of opposite genders, then it's just under a quarter.

To be clear, the real problem with inbreeding isn't that it causes bad genetic mutations, but that it brings them to the surface. Horrific genetic disorders that are dominant don't tend to propagate. They (or their kids) don't tend to survive to maturity and/or have trouble finding mates. Recessive disorders, however, lurk all over the place. I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard a professor say at one point that each of us carries about 3 major genetic disorders. They're not a problem because they're recessive. They're wide, and varied, so the chance that two carriers of the same disorder marry is pretty small (but does happen). Enter in-breeding into the equation. Suddenly there's a much higher chance that two carriers of the same disorder will marry, and some of their children may have major medical complications. (The same principle applies to minor genetic problems too.)

Animal husbandry often uses inbreeding intentionally to remove recessive genetic defects. They do so at the risk of getting very ill offspring... intentionally to weed them out. This does tend to lead toward a genetically homogeneous population, and therefore slows the rate of evolution. So, it's a trade off.

So is it good or bad for humans? I don't know. In the short term, it can be very, very bad. In the long term, we are probably benefiting from the added genetic diversity. Inbreeding might remove some of that. I'm going to tentatively say that we should probably avoid it.

(Not being a professional in this field, I am almost certainly missing something.)

As a jaded poor white person, it doesn't make sense to me how race plays into this. I don't know you or your beliefs, but there are racist who would use a phrase like that. If we ever want to have a color-blind society, we're all going to need to practice it.