swlp21

Probably because there are international agreements with the minimum fields required on travel documents and "Sex" (Yes, Sex - not Gender) is listed as a required field (though actual values permitted are not specified from what I could see, so 'X' appears to be perfectly valid to add if a country wishes to do so on their documents). https://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/9303_p3_cons_en....

Indeed! That's been my route out of trouble on multiple occasions.

The setup for the first time takes some effort to get it working and that first fail-over event is both panic inducing and wonderful to see when that replica becomes a primary.

Like every disaster recovery plan, the secret is to regularly test it - do not wait until it is needed as that will be when you discover some small, but critical, element has been left out and things will not work either as expected or as needed. I've also been there and done that, unfortunately more than once - some lessons need learned more than once to get through.

I think there is an important word missing from the title, it is Police /Disciplinary/ Records that are being referenced. That is a significant difference and there is a very strong case that these should be retained in exactly the same way criminal records are retained (essentially forever) and for the same purpose - so they can be looked up and referenced should any officer come to attention and a fuller picture of their character is required.

I'm struggling to understand your reasoning :

> If Facebook reversed the decision, it's not censorship.

Using a different example, I wanted to eat in a local restaurant [a privately owned company providing a public service entirely on their own terms] but I was refused entry because I am black and their "policies" [which is the reason I am given] prohibit entry to black people. I call attention to the situation by standing outside with a placard saying this restaurant treated me in a discriminatory way because I am black. The restaurant manager then comes to me and says, sorry that was a mistake caused by the 'patron classifier' [i.e. some vague entity that implies no actual person is at fault anywhere], and I can come in now.

So, do I understand correctly that you would say the restaurant is not operating any type of discriminatory policy because it reversed the decision when attention was publicly drawn to it?

To me, that reasoning does not seem to make sense. Being embarrassed into changing a decision does not stop your original decision being wrong in the first place. It simply means you want to stop attention being drawn to it and hope I will stop making a fuss if you make an exception for me on this occasion. You can continue making that same [wrong] decision for everyone else that is unable to complain and draw attention to their plight.

> homeless people might ask for your empty bottle and do the collection

I lived in Alberta 10 years ago and this was totally a thing. One homeless guy hung around the apartment and if you were carrying drink containers he would come and say "Can I take them to the store for you?". Of course, he meant could he get the deposit money on them too. He would hang around until he could fill two or three large garbage bags then head off to the return center to collect the deposit money. In all the time I lived there, I never found out where the actual return center was as I never needed to. The few $ involved was no loss to me (or anyone else in the apartment) but went towards the homeless guy being able to buy food. Never once did he seem drunk or high so he really did seem to be doing it to get food. I would see other guys like him walking along the street with garbage bags of bottles too, so it appeared to be the thing they did and it seemed to work out for everyone as I spoke to lots of people who said they also had a local homeless person that did the same at their apartments.

The price increases (10% per year since 2011) have created a market for stolen and counterfeit cigarettes already. Creating a slow-roll prohibition will not stop people wanting to smoke tobacco products - in fact, previous evidence (e.g. alcohol and cannabis as things most people know about) shows that people are motivated to partake by the very idea of it being illicit.

The product of US prohibition was the creation of extremely wealthy alcohol running families who are nowadays big (legitimate) businesses in North America, built up through the wealth of the illegal operations during prohibition.

While the intention (zero smoking) would save many from suffering horrible deaths, observation of basic human motivation suggests the NZ experiment is more likely to make a few people extremely wealthy and not actually stop tobacco smoking at all, no matter how much better off people would be by not smoking.

Canadian internet is a dumpster fire due to the Bell/Rogers monopolies. Anti competitive behavior is ignored - Bell configure their 'VDSL2' lines into a non-compliant signal to lock out non Bell modems (anything that implements real VDSL2 standard cannot synchronize to showtime so does not work), 3rd parties like Teksavvy are forced to pay for system access and then on top have to pay a compensation ['inconvenience'] fee for each line which ends up passed on as a cost to their customers who get screwed with some of the most expensive and poorly performing internet in the world. ISPs who install their own infrastructure get screwed on insane backhaul fees which get passed to consumers as high internet service fees and the ISP has to bandwidth shape and restrict line speed to avoid backhaul saturation or 'excess usage' fees. The Liberal government actively encourages the abuse and blocks attempts to get anything fixed either through the courts or parliament (which, like any dysfunctional democracy, rarely sits now - but that's a different story).

Are you sure about that? The CDC suggests many similar complications (which would cost exactly the same to treat regardless of the genesis of them) according to their website and indicates [mostly un-vaccinated] people die from chickenpox too. The comparison surprised me too, but seems to be remarkably appropriate.

https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/about/complications.html

I'm not sure I understand - do you mean these suggestions are placed there by Twitter to deligitimize the original tweet [who, in that case, would have a valid complaint but is being maligned by association with the addition of "crank stuff"] ?

Or are you saying the original tweet is from a crank and the placement by twitter of additional "crank stuff" is proof of the crank label?

BTW when I view the tweet (also not logged in), I got no suggestions at all, so Twitter are presenting it in a different way to different visitors (i.e. you and me for sure). Perhaps you were part of an A-B test?

> 1) Eliminate "tracking" which separates high achievers into advanced classes where they can't help the poorer students.

I'm not familiar with US school teaching methods, but is it not normally the teachers job to help the poorer [less able] students?

I don't think it is correct to say only one drug is measured in µg.

Levothyroxine (for underactive thyroid) is typically administered in µg doses - but patient confusion with the more common mg means most medical staff will translate any mg dose a patient claims to be taking to µg automatically.

It may be atypical, but it's certainly not rare for drugs to be µg doses.

Scotland has an entirely distinct legal system with a single unified police agency (with it's own serious and organised crime division). There has never been a connection between the legal system in Scotland and that of England and Wales. Scots laws are primarily passed by the independent Scottish Parliament with only a small number of matters reserved for the UK Parliament in London which passes distinct statutory instruments for Scotland to create approximate equivalence between the 'English' and 'Scottish' laws. These result in anomalies like the violent imagery laws in Scotland are more strict than those of England, meaning a cartoon image in England can be legal to possess but have strict liability severe punishment in Scotland; Scotland retains a right to silence upon arrest but in England remaining silent can be considered by a court to be an admission of guilt (sorry US readers, there is no 5th amendment in England and Wales; you do not have the option of "never talk to the police").

The difference has long irritated 'the English Establishment' so much that an informal verse was sung at one point as an adjunct to what is now the UK National Anthem (but was not officially added contrary to some popular belief[1]).

It also gave rise to the deeply racist phrase "Scot Free" in relation to people being acquitted in trials - during 'show trials' to crush anti-establishment figures, Scots juries would regularly return 'not proven' verdicts as it was necessary for all parts of an indictment to be 'proved' and juries used the verdict to rebel against unjust trials of English opponents. The phrase was used to denigrate those thus freed by juries and persists throughout the English speaking world today and is in common usage despite it's origin as a racist epithet towards Scots and the Scottish legal system.

[1] http://www.sath.org.uk/edscot/www.educationscotland.gov.uk/s...