So we can say that DNA evidence is part of a chain that can lead to guilt, and if we assume the known suspects represent the total population of possible suspects, then if the DNA exonerates all other suspects, then there is a case to be made for guilt, but that is a lot of caveats. As we have seen in many cases, obvious suspects are ignored because the authorities jump to quick conclusions. As said, DNA is good for exonerating people, not convicts them.
The problem we have in the US is that firms are given a great deal of leeway to insure that they can charge as high as price as the market will bear, but labor is severely restricted in doing the same. For instance firms are free to form collectives that lobby congress and produce promotional campaigns, even to the point of forcing companies to pay for such promotions, but unions have to bill lobbying efforts separate and members can opt out. Likewise firms are allowed to use some pretty significant tools to prevent labor from organizing, though firms are free to do the same with few restrictions.
What needs to be left to local authorities, even down to the teacher, is the choice of how to teach material and a limited buffet of what to teach. What needs to be done on a interstate level is developing the methods of how that learning is going to be assessed. If there was a more consistent, maybe crowdsource, assessment then teachers would probably more understand what they are supposed to teach. Outside of history of the local area, there is little reason to have significant differences in content. What we can have is local differences in content that is emphasized.
The biggest hurdle to this, and the biggest damage the NCLB did, was the need to rank teachers and students. Current testing is not objective based mastery, but rather ranking. This requires an extremely expensive test, with passing levels set arbitratily after the test is given, often to maximize the success of preferred groups of students, rather than based on the objective performance of the student to show mastery of a benchmark number of standards. Therefore instead of measuring that a student has learned the material, and that a teacher has facilitated such learning, we merely have a continuum that is independent of learning, only indicating the ability to fill in bubbles effectively.
This is where the current reforms are still failing. Leaving the punitive ranking system behind and rather focusing on learning. Common Core is a step away from this, which is why no one likes it. Parents like to know their kid is better than others. Administrators like to be able to rank teachers on arbitrary statistically invalid scales.
I had some sympathy for Tesla and their fights with states even if I though that they should invest in states first to show some good will. Now they just seem like another evil company trying to make money by empty state coffers rather than making and selling a good product.
Ti has the market because it has designed a good calculator not for general use, but for test use. The limited function makes it a bad calculator compared to the HP 49g, but I would hate to have to use my HP for a test written assuming a TI.
As tests move from paper based to computer based, I suspect the testing software will include a calculator and students will probably be moved to a similar calculator downloaded to their phone or tablet. I suspect the some College Board tests may still have require an external calculator, so TI is not in danger of losing all sales immediately. The TI is a really good machine,and they are the granddaddy of the pocket calculator, having developed the device to use their new electronics that did not at the time have a market. Interesting bit of trivia. On a College Board test a while back one of the questions put the TI into a thrashing state. You could have two calculators on the test, and if you did you could work on the second while the first finished. If you did not, well, you were screwed.
The dishonesty in this report is that they don't separate out the processed and unprocessed food. In the abstract all they list are 'carbohydrates' , not if they participants primarily existed on sugars or complex carbohydrates. Limiting simple carbohydrates(sugars) is a good thing to do. I have not seen anything that say a low fat diet consisted of unprocessed complex carbohydrate is an inferior diet to a high fat diet. However, as said, most people eat a diet rich in sugar, so it makes sense that substituting a high fat diet for a high sugar diet would yield positive results. For someone on a diet consisting primarily of fresh vegetable and dairy, with little added sugar or heavily processed food, I have not seem moving to high fat diet is good.
To answer the question, yes. Cheese and low carb type crackers make a good dinner. There are many fake meats on the market which are high fat and low carb. Tofu is always a good choice. Seitan, made by washing the carbohydrates from wheat flour is also a reasonable choice. Mix these with greens and herbs and mushrooms and one had a low carb diet. I would think this would be no worse than frozen dinners, even Amy's. I really try to limit my consumption of these things though in favor of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on wheat bread.
One big problem we have is of perception. When it became known Rush Limbaugh was a drug addict, because he abused prescription drugs it was like he was a victim, different from those urban people who abused street drugs. it was the same thing, and now we have all these people who think they are not drug addicts because they abuse prescriptions drugs, and then feel like victims of the insurance companies when they have to move to street drugs. We even have people smuggling drugs, like he smuggled Viagra from the Dominican Republic, and become they are prescription drugs they think they are different from those that smuggle cocaine.
Making plants illegal is just silly. Heavily regulating the refining of those plants into drugs makes sense. Tracking prescriptions so we identify those doctors and pharmacies that are providing drugs that are likely to be abused makes sense. But instead we gun people down on the streets, break into peoples home, just because they have ingested a chemical.
Where there's a will, there's a relative.