They don't have to prove that he intentionally lied. That precedent was set in the Scooter Libby case where he was convicted of perjury for remembering a conversation differently than the other party to the conversation.
The problem with that is that according to the transcript he was asked a question over and above the "court instructions". The court instructions refer to a form that potential jurors are asked to fill out. The transcript refers to a direct question asked during voir dire. While it is possible that he legitimately believed that the court instructions applied to the question, that does not change the fact that he failed to answer the question as asked. It is also possible he either misunderstood the court instructions or flat out lied about them and that no such instruction was ever issued.
The MacBook Air is merely another one of the overpriced netbooks. The fact that people are willing to buy it because it has the Apple logo does not mean it is any better of a product than the others.
No, PC makers have been trying to sell premium something like a netbook at a premium price over regular laptops for years. I remember when Microsoft and Intel first started to try and sell the world on the idea of UMPCs in 2006. When Asus came out with the Eee PC in 2007 it took the wind out of those sails for awhile, the Intel decided to try and revive the idea in 2011. It will not work any better this time around then it did the first time. For the price they are trying to sell these for, most people want the full capability of a PC, which requires a larger screen. There just aren't that many applications which require enough processing power to justify the high cost of these that doesn't also require more screen real estate than these can provide.
This is where political discourse goes wrong in this country. Was the Tea Party left-wing or right-wing? Was Occupy Wall Street left-wing or right-wing? Which one called for limited government? Which one called for more government regulation?
I will say this, the Democratic Party says they love the poor. I believe them, why else would they work so hard to make more of them? The Democratic Party says that the Republican Party loves the rich, and once again, I believe the Democrats, because why else would the Republicans work so hard to make more rich people?
Not by the U.S. standard of left and right. In the U.S., the central planners are left wing, opponents of central planning are right wing. Stalin and Hitler were both big proponents of centrally planned economies.
Stalin and Hitler were both left wing by U.S. standards. Please name me someone who set up a comparable police state who was right wing by U.S. definitions of the term?
Re:More bias from women than from men, against wom
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
I know that many people consider the Bible to contain those things. I even know some of the things that people claim are that way, but I do not agree that that is true. The writers of the Bible consistently show a greater regard for women and outsiders than their contemporaries.
The place where your logic fails is that I have had job offers where, when I turned down the initial offer, they offered me more money. If more women followed that strategy it would not be long before they were being offered similar levels to men. Again this line of argument is based on the assumption that the OP's suggestion that women accept lower offers than men is correct, which is unproven at this time.
Except that women tend to accept the lower salary and not seek another job that pays more (not all women, it is just a tendency when one examines the group as a whole. There are definitely exceptions).
Except that it has been proven in several studies (which I do not currently have access to). It has been shown that one of the problems faced by women who advance to high levels in management (or other high paying careers) is finding men that they are willing to marry and that are willing to marry them. That is the studies showed that women tended to seek a mate who earned more than they did and/or had greater prestige, while men tended to seek mates who made less than they did and/or had positions of lower prestige. My recollection of the studies is that women had a stronger bias against marrying men "below" them than men had against marrying women who were "above" them, but not by a lot (although I may be misremembering that part).
Re:More bias from women than from men, against wom
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 2
You know you might want to try actually reading the Bible sometime. Then you might discover passages such as this: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Re:it already is socially unacceptable
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
So, how do you recommend that we address sexism and racism? As the original poster pointed out, affirmative action is a form a racism (or sexism, depending on what form it takes). Racism is favoring one individual over another purely on the basis of the race of each individual. I am not quite sure what progressive taxation has to do with the discussion of sexism and racism. However, "corrective hiring practices" is just another way of saying "affirmative action", except that it usually applies to situations where racist or sexist hiring practices in the past have been "proven".
Why? Assuming that it is true that women accept lower offers than men, don't you think that the people who are making the hiring decision are likely aware of that (at least subconsciously)?
The thing you have to ask yourself is this: since electric cars were first developed at more or less the same time as ICE cars and were initially more popular than ICE cars, how come electric cars have fallen behind ICE cars in development?
That's because they aren't any good as a primary vehicle for most people. Electric cars were among the first successful cars built and were preferred to ICE cars in the early days of the 20th Century because they were quieter and less smelly. Unfortunately, they were also less efficient for the types of uses people have for cars.
Serious development at a commercial level has only been going on for a couple of decades,...
There was quite a bit of "serious development at a commercial level" on electric vehicles in the late 1800s to early 1900s. They were considered far superior to ICE vehicles in the early days because they were quieter and not as smelly. Unfortunately, the technology proved to be less efficient for most uses people had for cars than ICE vehicles, so they lost out. People have been trying to develop successful electric cars ever since.
So, people have been working on electric cars for approaching 200 years, but they have just now developed a technology that hasn't yet been deployed, but is going to make them the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel?
Except that if you listen to all of the politicians who have talked about introducing a mileage tax, they have all wanted to put a tracking device in on-road vehicles.
How long do electric cars need to be around before you consider them a mature technology? Electric cars have been around since the 1800s. I would hardly consider that a "young" technology.
How long do EVs need to be around before cost starts coming down? 30 years? 40 years? 200 years? If you chose the last answer, EVs should become practical in another 16 or so years.
Seven years ago was 2005. According to Wikipedia, RIM turned its first profit in 2004. So you appear to be saying that you declared Blackberry dead just when it started taking off. That is certainly possible, but it doesn't mean you are prescient, it means you are an idiot. In addition you comment that you thought their infrastructure was "cool for the beginning of the 90's", considering that the first device using RIM technology shipped in 1998, that means you thought their technology was obsolete when it first shipped. I could go on, but your comment suggests that you know nothing about the history of RIM
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have to prove that he intentionally lied. That precedent was set in the Scooter Libby case where he was convicted of perjury for remembering a conversation differently than the other party to the conversation.
The problem with that is that according to the transcript he was asked a question over and above the "court instructions". The court instructions refer to a form that potential jurors are asked to fill out. The transcript refers to a direct question asked during voir dire. While it is possible that he legitimately believed that the court instructions applied to the question, that does not change the fact that he failed to answer the question as asked. It is also possible he either misunderstood the court instructions or flat out lied about them and that no such instruction was ever issued.
The MacBook Air is merely another one of the overpriced netbooks. The fact that people are willing to buy it because it has the Apple logo does not mean it is any better of a product than the others.
No, PC makers have been trying to sell premium something like a netbook at a premium price over regular laptops for years. I remember when Microsoft and Intel first started to try and sell the world on the idea of UMPCs in 2006. When Asus came out with the Eee PC in 2007 it took the wind out of those sails for awhile, the Intel decided to try and revive the idea in 2011. It will not work any better this time around then it did the first time. For the price they are trying to sell these for, most people want the full capability of a PC, which requires a larger screen. There just aren't that many applications which require enough processing power to justify the high cost of these that doesn't also require more screen real estate than these can provide.
A netbook that is priced like an expensive laptop.
You mean the ones he published last week?
This is where political discourse goes wrong in this country. Was the Tea Party left-wing or right-wing? Was Occupy Wall Street left-wing or right-wing? Which one called for limited government? Which one called for more government regulation?
I will say this, the Democratic Party says they love the poor. I believe them, why else would they work so hard to make more of them? The Democratic Party says that the Republican Party loves the rich, and once again, I believe the Democrats, because why else would the Republicans work so hard to make more rich people?
Not by the U.S. standard of left and right. In the U.S., the central planners are left wing, opponents of central planning are right wing. Stalin and Hitler were both big proponents of centrally planned economies.
Stalin and Hitler were both left wing by U.S. standards. Please name me someone who set up a comparable police state who was right wing by U.S. definitions of the term?
I know that many people consider the Bible to contain those things. I even know some of the things that people claim are that way, but I do not agree that that is true. The writers of the Bible consistently show a greater regard for women and outsiders than their contemporaries.
The place where your logic fails is that I have had job offers where, when I turned down the initial offer, they offered me more money. If more women followed that strategy it would not be long before they were being offered similar levels to men. Again this line of argument is based on the assumption that the OP's suggestion that women accept lower offers than men is correct, which is unproven at this time.
Except that women tend to accept the lower salary and not seek another job that pays more (not all women, it is just a tendency when one examines the group as a whole. There are definitely exceptions).
Except that it has been proven in several studies (which I do not currently have access to). It has been shown that one of the problems faced by women who advance to high levels in management (or other high paying careers) is finding men that they are willing to marry and that are willing to marry them. That is the studies showed that women tended to seek a mate who earned more than they did and/or had greater prestige, while men tended to seek mates who made less than they did and/or had positions of lower prestige. My recollection of the studies is that women had a stronger bias against marrying men "below" them than men had against marrying women who were "above" them, but not by a lot (although I may be misremembering that part).
You know you might want to try actually reading the Bible sometime. Then you might discover passages such as this: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
So, how do you recommend that we address sexism and racism? As the original poster pointed out, affirmative action is a form a racism (or sexism, depending on what form it takes). Racism is favoring one individual over another purely on the basis of the race of each individual. I am not quite sure what progressive taxation has to do with the discussion of sexism and racism. However, "corrective hiring practices" is just another way of saying "affirmative action", except that it usually applies to situations where racist or sexist hiring practices in the past have been "proven".
Why? Assuming that it is true that women accept lower offers than men, don't you think that the people who are making the hiring decision are likely aware of that (at least subconsciously)?
The thing you have to ask yourself is this: since electric cars were first developed at more or less the same time as ICE cars and were initially more popular than ICE cars, how come electric cars have fallen behind ICE cars in development?
That's because they aren't any good as a primary vehicle for most people. Electric cars were among the first successful cars built and were preferred to ICE cars in the early days of the 20th Century because they were quieter and less smelly. Unfortunately, they were also less efficient for the types of uses people have for cars.
Serious development at a commercial level has only been going on for a couple of decades,...
There was quite a bit of "serious development at a commercial level" on electric vehicles in the late 1800s to early 1900s. They were considered far superior to ICE vehicles in the early days because they were quieter and not as smelly. Unfortunately, the technology proved to be less efficient for most uses people had for cars than ICE vehicles, so they lost out. People have been trying to develop successful electric cars ever since.
So, people have been working on electric cars for approaching 200 years, but they have just now developed a technology that hasn't yet been deployed, but is going to make them the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel?
Except that if you listen to all of the politicians who have talked about introducing a mileage tax, they have all wanted to put a tracking device in on-road vehicles.
This is just an argument being used as an excuse to install trackers in cars so that the government can track us down wherever we go.
The technology is still young.
How long do electric cars need to be around before you consider them a mature technology? Electric cars have been around since the 1800s. I would hardly consider that a "young" technology.
How long do EVs need to be around before cost starts coming down? 30 years? 40 years? 200 years? If you chose the last answer, EVs should become practical in another 16 or so years.
Seven years ago was 2005. According to Wikipedia, RIM turned its first profit in 2004. So you appear to be saying that you declared Blackberry dead just when it started taking off. That is certainly possible, but it doesn't mean you are prescient, it means you are an idiot. In addition you comment that you thought their infrastructure was "cool for the beginning of the 90's", considering that the first device using RIM technology shipped in 1998, that means you thought their technology was obsolete when it first shipped. I could go on, but your comment suggests that you know nothing about the history of RIM