We are not, which is why I said I've given up arguing with you. I believe your professor and I are talking about one thing and you took it as another and got offended.I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
We are not, which is why I said I've given up arguing with you. I believe your professor and I are talking about one thing and you took it as another and got offended.I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
We are not, which is why I said I've given up arguing with you. I believe your professor and I are talking about one thing and you took it as another and got offended.
Can you refresh my memory when this occured, so I can better understand your question?
The government can't do that.
My understanding is, the First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship. Social media platforms are private companies and can censor what people post on their websites as they see fit.
Weren't there certain files released about a certain higher ups working for a certain bird having direct email talks from a certain president's administration about removing posts of individuals or "dealing with them"? Would that fall under private or government censorship?
I think if you ask geneticists they will tell you to re-ask your loaded question. I will tell you Yes it is possible and already done.Not my professor, and what the professor is saying I believe is about the same as saying you could sample my DNA and (aside from the clues provided by Y-DNA and mtdna) determine with any degree of accuracy where my ancestors were in the world over 1000 years ago. It's not possible.
3) Once moved out of the original location, DNA mutations continue to happen yet since the 2 populations are separated, they don't interbreed so you can assume no presence of mixing afterward.
If factural and true makes me wonder why it was never challenged in court?Weren't there certain files released about a certain higher ups working for a certain bird having direct email talks from a certain president's administration about removing posts of individuals or "dealing with them"? Would that fall under private or government censorship?
Can you refresh my memory when this occured, so I can better understand your question?
The government can't do that.
My understanding is, the First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship. Social media platforms are private companies and can censor what people post on their websites as they see fit.
You would have to know it as a fact...like before people hopped on planes and boats one population was physically isolation from another population. It used to happen all the time.How can you assume or know that? Especially when dealing with humans, who are well known for moving around from place to place even when seas are in the way.
Well, I cannot say I follow. Plus, no one ever called me a Constitutional Lawyer. Above my paygrade.Weren't there certain files released about a certain higher ups working for a certain bird having direct email talks from a certain president's administration about removing posts of individuals or "dealing with them"? Would that fall under private or government censorship?
I cannot assume nobody moved around, again I can assume most people don't move around based on how far apart the populations' DNA differ across natural barriers like ocean, mountain (Himalaya), etc.How can you assume or know that? Especially when dealing with humans, who are well known for moving around from place to place even when seas are in the way.
Ummm...there is NO free speech on BITOG. Go post a few more swear words and see how free your speech is here. It's a private plateform and if you swear, talk about politics, religion, or CV-19 they can and will restrict that speech and we ALL AGREE TO IT when we sign up. If you come to my business you have NO right to free speech in my office. That's just a fact of the Constitution and nothing about that has changed in centuries - people just became dummer and lost any concept of what the Bill of Rights actually means. Kinda like idiots who scream HIPAA at everything - it has a very specific meaning and context.Wow this thread is way off from the title. LOL
So you only pay attention to news that agrees with your world view? There's plenty of information out there for you to sift through if you cared.
In theory you are correct, however the government can do whatever it wants as long as the people are too busy watching Real Housewives and hitting refresh every second to see what their favorite celebrity is eating today. Our forefathers were chucking tea into the bay a LONG time ago compared to where we are now. The only people up in arms now are those clamoring for MORE oppression, not less. It's a crazy world.
So by your logic, I can hire a hitman to kill someone and I can not be charged for murder......because I didn't do it?
Granted, the government didn't really have to do much convincing, the people in charge at the private companies wanted to do it anyway and mostly were already with practices in place already. It was more of just the government giving them targets to add to their sweeps.
Still illegal unfortunately.
I was right there with you, happy to point out that if Facebook/Twitter/etc are so bad and horrible at blocking you, why do you use them? Social media is not a requirement to life, ask me how I know. Stop supporting them (since the customer is the product) and they will change their ways cause they like money and/or competition will spring up. But when the government starts "helping" choose targets it's over the line.
BTW - We should be outraged about anyone censoring any speech. This isn't about a bookstore asking a person ranting inside their walls about how Kindle is better to leave. These are businesses who's sole purpose and design is to exchange and express opinions and ideas. For instance, would you be ok if BITOG was encouraged to ban you because you ****** off a sponsor or a more tenured member?
Whenever someone feels it necessary to silence those with differing opinions it's a clear sign that their position is weak.
I cannot assume nobody moved around, again I can assume most people don't move around based on how far apart the populations' DNA differ across natural barriers like ocean, mountain (Himalaya), etc.
Again, we are talking about a LARGE, millions in number, population. I'm sure once in a while you will find a direct 40 generation later prince of Japan in Nigeria for real, but as a whole people in Nigeria does not have DNA mutated in Japan 1000 years ago.
Does that answer your question?
No, most people consider me pretty open minded and accepting of others and their beliefs, whether I agree with them or not.Wow this thread is way off from the title. LOL
So you only pay attention to news that agrees with your world view? There's plenty of information out there for you to sift through if you cared.
In theory you are correct, however the government can do whatever it wants as long as the people are too busy watching Real Housewives and hitting refresh every second to see what their favorite celebrity is eating today. Our forefathers were chucking tea into the bay a LONG time ago compared to where we are now. The only people up in arms now are those clamoring for MORE oppression, not less. It's a crazy world.
So by your logic, I can hire a hitman to kill someone and I can not be charged for murder......because I didn't do it?
Granted, the government didn't really have to do much convincing, the people in charge at the private companies wanted to do it anyway and mostly were already with practices in place already. It was more of just the government giving them targets to add to their sweeps.
Still illegal unfortunately.
I was right there with you, happy to point out that if Facebook/Twitter/etc are so bad and horrible at blocking you, why do you use them? Social media is not a requirement to life, ask me how I know. Stop supporting them (since the customer is the product) and they will change their ways cause they like money and/or competition will spring up. But when the government starts "helping" choose targets it's over the line.
BTW - We should be outraged about anyone censoring any speech. This isn't about a bookstore asking a person ranting inside their walls about how Kindle is better to leave. These are businesses who's sole purpose and design is to exchange and express opinions and ideas. For instance, would you be ok if BITOG was encouraged to ban you because you ****** off a sponsor or a more tenured member?
Whenever someone feels it necessary to silence those with differing opinions it's a clear sign that their position is weak.
If it is just one guy, maybe 1/(2 to the power of 40) assuming 40 generations per 1000 years.Sure. One more question. What are the chances that someone who had ancestors in Japan 1000 years ago, but whose more recent ancestry going back 400-500 years is mixed with various European populations, would actually still carry DNA mutated in Japan?
So just stick your head in the sand, and keep it there until it affects you.What's it matter to you? Why do you care? Or anyone else other than the ones attending?
Personally I think its kind of silly, both the separate events, and the reporting of it... But its none of my concern, it has no effect on your personal freedoms, you are free to dislike it but I don't know why so many people like to get into other people's personal business?
If everyone just respected everyone else's right to be who they are, and kept their opinions and judgements to themselves, these groups probably wouldn't feel the need to hold a separate event. This idea probably started when some jerk who used their free speech to heckle people at previous graduation...
If it is just one guy, maybe 1/(2 to the power of 40) assuming 40 generations per 1000 years.
If we are talking about a large population migration (say 1M in today's standard or maybe 10000 in thousands of years ago), then it would be 100%. We already have an example called N gene markers. Scandanavians have East / North East Asian genes and supposedly about 6% of their DNA is from Asia.