Agreed. One way to reconcile it would be that a bride that invites lots of guests is more into it the marriage for the approval of her friends. She would see a divorce as a social embarrassment.
Many churches teach that divorced people cannot remarry or even date unless they were a victim of adultery.
If a person remarries after a divorce, churches teach that they are still married to their old wife and are committing adultery every day with his legal wife.
but only one promotes disinformation along with their bias
That's because one is more in line with your world view so you suffer from confirmation bias when trying to compare the two.
To be clear, both networks are an embarrassment and neither should call themselves a news network. They both know that tribalism and sensationalism is what the unsophisticated masses want to hear. It worked on you.
Fox just gets called out more often because they happen to be the only network that caters to social conservatives and has a much larger audience.
This is science working. It's also NASA saying "hey, wait a minute", which You People always seem to say never happens. It's also STILL saying that the oceans are warming, just not the deep oceans. It also says the deep oceans are REALLY hard to measure, so perhaps it's wrong. We'll see.
Defense attorneys and the justice system may know that, but juries don't. Other than DNA evidence, eyewitness testimony (especially from victims) is considered gold standard evidence by juries.
It's unfortunate because eyewitness identification of strangers (especially strangers of a differing race) are very unreliable.
It's not accident that prosecutors and cops have been very upset about the "CSI effect" since it has partly educated juries to expect some physical evidence.
Like most "unlmited" plans, it's not really unlimited as it has a high speed cap. Unless you pay for a higher cap, the service is throttled severely to 2g speeds after the high speed cap is exceeded.
It may mean different things, but in the US they ALL vote republican.
No they don't. Small government conservatives tend to vote libertarian, stay at home or even vote for a democrat that values personal liberty when a social conservative is running.
Unfortunately, both parties only recognize personal liberty in narrow cases.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. One way to reconcile it would be that a bride that invites lots of guests is more into it the marriage for the approval of her friends. She would see a divorce as a social embarrassment.
Many churches teach that divorced people cannot remarry or even date unless they were a victim of adultery.
If a person remarries after a divorce, churches teach that they are still married to their old wife and are committing adultery every day with his legal wife.
And shame the spouses if they consider divorce.
Like I said, one is more in line with your world view so confirmation bias blinds you to the shortcomings.
but only one promotes disinformation along with their bias
That's because one is more in line with your world view so you suffer from confirmation bias when trying to compare the two.
To be clear, both networks are an embarrassment and neither should call themselves a news network. They both know that tribalism and sensationalism is what the unsophisticated masses want to hear. It worked on you.
Fox just gets called out more often because they happen to be the only network that caters to social conservatives and has a much larger audience.
What should he accuse WIFI of doing?
To be fair, Musk most likely realizes that societies tend to need a "big idea" to focus on long term investments.
This is science working. It's also NASA saying "hey, wait a minute", which You People always seem to say never happens. It's also STILL saying that the oceans are warming, just not the deep oceans. It also says the deep oceans are REALLY hard to measure, so perhaps it's wrong. We'll see.
To be fair, James Hansen is no longer at NASA.
Have you found that it is difficult to convince other jurors that eyewitness testimony is very unreliable?
I've found that most jurors are very swayed by eyewitness identifications, heinousness of the crime and if the defendant "looks guilty".
Thanks, that seems like a much more reasonable ratio.
We learned from first world war that leaving a vacuum in defeated countries and making them fend for themselves is a recipe for disaster.
Law enforcement has known this for a long time, but they don't care.
Defense attorneys and the justice system may know that, but juries don't. Other than DNA evidence, eyewitness testimony (especially from victims) is considered gold standard evidence by juries.
It's unfortunate because eyewitness identification of strangers (especially strangers of a differing race) are very unreliable.
It's not accident that prosecutors and cops have been very upset about the "CSI effect" since it has partly educated juries to expect some physical evidence.
Are you sure about your calculations? Not challenging you or anything, but the 66 ratio seems low.
Like most "unlmited" plans, it's not really unlimited as it has a high speed cap. Unless you pay for a higher cap, the service is throttled severely to 2g speeds after the high speed cap is exceeded.
Political events have nothing to do with conveying information.
A person that attends a political event actually knows less about reality after they leave than before they walked in.
You must be in Atlanta.
You have absolutely no evidence to support that wild assertion. Wishful thinking that supports your worldview is not a form of evidence.
No problem. Glad I could help.
Or they'd send an attorney that they have on retainer to get the case dismissed as frivolous and charge you with the attorney's fees.
Judges do not like plaintiffs that do not have attorneys, so you'd be screwed.
That's the silliest idea I've heard in a long time. People who attend political events are the least sophisticated and least informed group possible.
Do you really think that anything of substance is gleaned at political events?
It may mean different things, but in the US they ALL vote republican.
No they don't. Small government conservatives tend to vote libertarian, stay at home or even vote for a democrat that values personal liberty when a social conservative is running.
Unfortunately, both parties only recognize personal liberty in narrow cases.
That was the point.
Could you rephrase that?
i see what you're saying but I don't think the cost savings on this mission came from the launch itself.