But here come the arguments/complaints about one's "right" to have their digital toy with them at all times in 3... 2...
They have the "toy" with them, but by calling it a toy you trivialize the problem.
For example, you're in a classroom and the person sitting next to you goes into anaphylactic shock because of some food allergy. You pull your phone out to call 911 -- oops, no. Or diabetic shock. Sorry. You have to hope the teacher has his phone handy.
Or you are a diabetic who has one of these newfangled glucose monitors that talk to an app on your phone and alert you to spikes (positive or negative) that you need to deal with. Sorry, no, your phone is in a bag and you cannot manage your own health and safety.
Or a shooter shows up and the first person he takes out is the teacher. Call 911 to report... no, sorry.
The proper solution is to punish use when it is inappropriate, not ban all use just because a few cannot deal with it. The cell phone is not a "toy", it is a tool, and it can be used for good or for bad. Banning all use is dumb, and an abuse of power. It's a "because we can get away with it" act.
It was an interesting journey reading comments online about these bags. Especially the one about the use of this product in a courthouse in Pennsylvania. They reported that a lot of the bags were simply destroyed by people who wanted their phones. I'm guessing that any school will have a significant percentage of bags that have a fancy magnetic-controlled lock on one end and a slit in the fabric at the other. Or a large number of students who just carry a strong magnet...
Now explain how schools are going to start forcing smart watches into bags, too, because smart watches talk to smart phones, even if the latter are in a cloth bag.
Better to NOT have governments tracking everyone's movements
"Facial recognition" is not synonymous with "tracking everyone's movements". Nice try at conflating the two so you can beat the straw man into submission.
I've seen other articles say similar things such as furloughed govt employees will not be given backpay.
I don't know what media you read, but every reference to this I've heard has been explicit that everyone gets back pay. Banks are making loans based on that fact.
It's just ridiculous fear mongering and political-based nonsense to say that contractors won't be able to bill for hours they've worked during the shutdown. The projects weren't cancelled, the funding was held up.
It would be interesting to hear how much of the time during NASA's first week will be taken up with meetings called by PHB dealing with how to get back to work?
A lot of rubbish would be produced, but occasionally we'd get something as good as Wikipedia.
You forget. Any system that creates so many free people that they can create "Wikipedia" also creates so many free people who can make crap edits and participate in edit wars to any "Wikipedia".
In Usenet terms, it's the "Eternal September" from AOL. Lots of new smart participants, but a lot more wankers.
Most of his edits are very minor, like updating "1911-12" to "1911â"12" (notice the difference?).
Yes, he replaces an en-dash with an em-dash, which 1) makes no difference in the meaning, and 2) is probably more correct as the former. It's a "hyphen" to normal folks, and either one works. Especially on/. where the em-dash shows up goofy.
and changing article categories from "Sports Events" to "Sports Events in Europe".
Because, God knows, sports events in Europe are not true sports events, so they need the additional clarification. Sheesh.
perhaps it will be easier to search for those soccer games now that they are labelled as occurring in Europe (I doubt it, but I don't know for sure).
If you're searching for soccer in Europe, you're probably already looking by league name and not just geography. I wonder, does he have a script just waiting to be run to change "Sports Events in Europe" to "Sports Events in the UK" for, e.g., BPL, the day brexit takes effect?
Did anyone notice? He's Russian (on his mother's side) working IN the US government, editing a source of data that many voters make use of when researching candidates? Has anyone looked for his meddling in data on Hillary?
I know what his point was. I was making a reference to the/. story about journalists getting their knickers in a knot because tweets are telling them to "learn to code".
They've banned people already for simply tweeting the phrase.
Then it isn't "they might", now is it?
Cutting and pasting the spokeshole talking point doesn't make him wrong.
Cutting and pasting his talking point neither makes him wrong nor makes him right. It IS the point of the article, however. Twitter is not saying they might punish people just for tweeting "learn to code", they are saying they won't treat it as 'abusive behaviour'. It contradicts the headline, and the summary contains nothing that supports a claim of "might" -- future tense possibility.
No, it isn't. The summary itself contradicts the flamebait headline:
representatives for the social media company had backed away from the position they related to him earlier, which was that the phrase "learn to code" itself constituted abusive behavior.
So tweeting "learn to code" is not harassment. Tweeting it a thousand times would be. Tweeting "have a nice day" a thousand times would be, too. Whatever else is or is not harassment, this is just/. flamebait describing a complicated circumstance in a trivial way and then claiming a trivial act is being punished unfairly.
The window of opportunity for us software engineers to solve the global problem of misinformation is rapidly closing
Thank you for your contribution. It will fail because:
X -- it attempts to enforce a solution to a social problem via technical means.*
It's a mesh network that hides personal identities while retaining consistency of identity
A global mesh network with no validation of who is saying what, only that it is the same person speaking every time. Sure. That's gonna solve the problem.
* stolen from a standard Usenet posting responding to each know-it-all solution to Usenet problems.
They are trained to do this and therefore can figure things out much better than you or I can.
You've never heard the media reporting on something you have personal experience with, have you? What's remarkable is the number of people who hear and read what the media write about things they know, and know they've gotten it wrong, but then trust the media to be right about everything else. And now this message that they media knows better than we do about what is right and true.
So doubling the wage from $7.80 to $15 for 100 burgers an hour probably increases the cost of each burger by $0.15.
Then doubling the minimum wage for 10 an hour would increase the cost by $1.50. That's for every burger, even the ones that are on the current $1 menu. Since the true average rate is somewhere between the two numbers, the cost, and thus price, increase will be somewhere in between the two.
Or there will be fewer people employed.
And they have fewer people on duty as it's quieter.
The times I've counted at least four is during the quiet hours. I also doubt they have too many employees who come to work for one hour each twice or three times a day.
This company makes beautiful multi-color silk-screened multi-layer through-hole plated PCBs for cheaper than I can buy bare copper plate board to etch them myself.
Of course they can. They already have the machinery in place, and they buy the materials in bulk. They also sell the product in bulk.
YOU have to buy from a distributor in small quantities and make small production runs. Your costs per board are always going to be higher, even when you forget to include your own time and effort.
That is not a quality based on where they are, except for the costs they can avoid by not having US environmental and employment regulations to comply with.
increasing the minimum wage of someone making 100 hamburgers an hour by $1
What about doubling the minimum wage from $7.80 or so to $15?
100 burgers an hour is more than one a minute. I've been in McD's. During rush times you might hit that number. During the rest of the day you're doing a lot fewer. Plus, it's not just one person involved in making those burgers. There's at least four people in a store, sometimes more.
you're asked by the FBI if you were carrying cash from point A to point B on Thursday and you panic and say no.
In other words you deliberately lie. How is this "another way" from using a different deliberate lie trying to prove you won't be charged for lying when you slip up in an interview?
Let's try this another way. You CANNOT use the fact that the cops WILL charge you for lying to the cops when you do so deliberately as proof of any kind that they will NOT charge you when the "factually incorrect" statement you make isn't a deliberate lie. The fact is the cops cannot tell a-priori the difference between an intent to lie and a "slip up" that results in incorrect information, so they will assume the worst and let the legal system sort it out.
The point is are you really suggesting that Stone handing over stolen documents to Wikileaks is the same as "eating a strawberry icecream"
I am suggesting no such thing. I am replying to a claim that the cops won't charge you with lying to the cops if you slip up in an interview. That incorrect claim was made in response to a generic statement about not talking to the cops. I said nothing about Stone.
This isn't censorship, its simply not promoting crap conspiracies. Cretins can still post them to YouTube if they want.
There's a place with ten million videos. All categorized and tagged. But no, they won't tell you about other videos similar to the ones you've already watched because you might believe them. They aren't preventing you from finding them, they're just making it harder.
It would be like a vast library of books put on the shelves in some random order with no card catalog to help you find anything. The library isn't preventing you from finding the one book you want, it's just making it harder to do so. ("Like" is not "identical to", btw.)
Is that "censorship"? Well, in the modern sense of the word (which I disagree with strongly), it is.
you latch onto one thing and extrapolate from that. Normal, logical people don't do that.
Normal, logical people do that all the time. Extrapolation is necessary for daily life. Science requires extrapolation. We like to think it does not, but it actually depends on it.
There's a book: Getting Science Wrong that talks about this. You may not agree with all the conclusions he makes, but it does point out a lot of assumptions about the philosophy behind "science". One of those is that we can extrapolate to tomorrow based on observations from today.
Negative tags such as Conspiracy/Fake should prevent the video showing up on any of other users' 'Recommended Videos' or 'Top Videos' pages
I get as much entertainment out of watching conspiracy theory videos as the morons who spend hours every day watching cute kitten videos. Why would you prevent YouTube from recommending the latest ones when it clearly can see from my history that I want to watch them?
The problem with a company doing this kind of thing based on "revenue" and demands that certain kinds of things not be viewed is that it can often extend to the things that YOU want to view.
You know, "I wasn't X so I didn't object when they came for X..." kind of stuff.
No,.whoswho is the gTLD that the companies that send spam saying "you're a leader in your field and you should be listed on yourfield.whoswho and we can do that for only $100..." would use.
My point RE the "not really" is you're not charged with lying to the FBI if you just "slip up."
"Slip up" means "you tell two different stories" or "the story changes" or "the story is factually incorrect" starting with an INTENT to tell the truth but a faulty or incomplete memory. "Lying to the FBI" means "you tell two different stories" or "the story changes" or "the story is factually incorrect" starting with an INTENT to tell a lie.
The only difference between the two is INTENT, which the FBI cannot determine, so they will ASSUME the intent was to lie.
You're charged if you make a material lie that tries to obstruct justice
So exactly how material is it if you lie about doing something that isn't illegal when they ask you what you did? It's not illegal, so they aren't going to charge you with it anyway, and it's not a crime involving anyone else, so what difference does it make? "Did you have a strawberry ice cream cone at 2PM today?" "No." "Did Frank Smith ask you to have a strawberry ice cream cone at 2PM today?" "No." "We can prove you had one!" "Ok, I did have one, I remember now." "Ok, well then, you lied, and we'll charge you with lying even though we can't charge you for eating an ice cream cone."
The only way that the lie is material is because it gives the cops/FBI something to charge you with. It is arguably entrapment at that point, because if they hadn't asked you, you wouldn't have "lied", and the only reason you "lied" is because they asked you.
In legal terms - "knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements."
And "know" and "will" are two things that cannot be proven, they can only be inferred. Hell, even if I told you last week that yes, I did have a strawberry ice cream cone, if you ask me today I might say "no" simply because I forgot I did. There is no "know" and "will" in that lie.
Saying your bank-robbing friend went to the beach with you (when he didn't) falls into this category.
Like I said, trying to prove that the cops won't charge you with lying to them when you slip-up in an interview by giving an example of them charging you with lying when you deliberately lie is pretty stupid. Hey, I can prove they won't charge you with lying to them ever because they will charge you with armed robbery when they catch you with a gun in a bank during an armed robbery, using that kind of logic.
Yes, really. And your next paragraph says exactly what you deny.
You can of course, decline to talk to law enforcement. But once you agree to talk to them, you are required to tell the truth, because lying to them can be considered obstruction of justice.
Which is another way of saying "That is exactly the reason you shouldn't talk to cops, because even if you are completely innocent they can convict you based on a slip-up in the interview."
If I do that, then my lie about you being on the beach with me has obstructed justice - That's a crime. That isn't a "slip-up in the interview"
So to prove that they won't charge you with lying based on a slip-up you use an example of where you deliberately lied to them? Sorry. They will charge you with lying if you slip-up in an interview. That's because they won't ask you just once if you tell them he was with you "on the beach at the time". They'll ask you fifteen times, in thirteen different ways. "On a beach." Which beach? Where on the beach? What did you take to the beach? How did you get to the beach? "at the time." What time did you get there? What time did you leave? What time did you meet with him? What time did you separate? Were you with him the entire time? Yes? Did he ever go out of your sight? No? Oh, wait, he went to the bathroom once, I forgot. So he was out of your sight? You lied!
If you really were "on the beach at the time" with him, UNLESS you were planning on creating an alibi, you'll not remember every detail they ask you about. You'll forget stuff. You'll not bother remembering stuff that was completely unimportant until you need to tell the cops exactly what happened. For example, I just met with a couple of people in another part of the building. I couldn't tell you exactly what time I met with them, or when I left, or even a complete recreation of what we talked about. As I tell the story I will remember things, and if anything I remember differs from what I've already said, I've lied to the cops.
If you think you'd be exempt from that "standard of evidence" you're hopelessly naive.
"Potatoe" was a valid spelling alternative for "potato" a long time before Dan Quayle was born.
Who gives a shit?
People who are literate and can recognize politically based bullshit when you write it. Quayle did not give us a word that was in the lexicon for a very very long time before he was even born. Your insult was based on your own ignorance, so of course you don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
But here come the arguments/complaints about one's "right" to have their digital toy with them at all times in 3... 2...
They have the "toy" with them, but by calling it a toy you trivialize the problem.
For example, you're in a classroom and the person sitting next to you goes into anaphylactic shock because of some food allergy. You pull your phone out to call 911 -- oops, no. Or diabetic shock. Sorry. You have to hope the teacher has his phone handy.
Or you are a diabetic who has one of these newfangled glucose monitors that talk to an app on your phone and alert you to spikes (positive or negative) that you need to deal with. Sorry, no, your phone is in a bag and you cannot manage your own health and safety.
Or a shooter shows up and the first person he takes out is the teacher. Call 911 to report ... no, sorry.
The proper solution is to punish use when it is inappropriate, not ban all use just because a few cannot deal with it. The cell phone is not a "toy", it is a tool, and it can be used for good or for bad. Banning all use is dumb, and an abuse of power. It's a "because we can get away with it" act.
It was an interesting journey reading comments online about these bags. Especially the one about the use of this product in a courthouse in Pennsylvania. They reported that a lot of the bags were simply destroyed by people who wanted their phones. I'm guessing that any school will have a significant percentage of bags that have a fancy magnetic-controlled lock on one end and a slit in the fabric at the other. Or a large number of students who just carry a strong magnet...
Now explain how schools are going to start forcing smart watches into bags, too, because smart watches talk to smart phones, even if the latter are in a cloth bag.
Better to NOT have governments tracking everyone's movements
"Facial recognition" is not synonymous with "tracking everyone's movements". Nice try at conflating the two so you can beat the straw man into submission.
I've seen other articles say similar things such as furloughed govt employees will not be given backpay.
I don't know what media you read, but every reference to this I've heard has been explicit that everyone gets back pay. Banks are making loans based on that fact.
It's just ridiculous fear mongering and political-based nonsense to say that contractors won't be able to bill for hours they've worked during the shutdown. The projects weren't cancelled, the funding was held up.
It would be interesting to hear how much of the time during NASA's first week will be taken up with meetings called by PHB dealing with how to get back to work?
A lot of rubbish would be produced, but occasionally we'd get something as good as Wikipedia.
You forget. Any system that creates so many free people that they can create "Wikipedia" also creates so many free people who can make crap edits and participate in edit wars to any "Wikipedia".
In Usenet terms, it's the "Eternal September" from AOL. Lots of new smart participants, but a lot more wankers.
Most of his edits are very minor, like updating "1911-12" to "1911â"12" (notice the difference?).
Yes, he replaces an en-dash with an em-dash, which 1) makes no difference in the meaning, and 2) is probably more correct as the former. It's a "hyphen" to normal folks, and either one works. Especially on /. where the em-dash shows up goofy.
and changing article categories from "Sports Events" to "Sports Events in Europe".
Because, God knows, sports events in Europe are not true sports events, so they need the additional clarification. Sheesh.
perhaps it will be easier to search for those soccer games now that they are labelled as occurring in Europe (I doubt it, but I don't know for sure).
If you're searching for soccer in Europe, you're probably already looking by league name and not just geography. I wonder, does he have a script just waiting to be run to change "Sports Events in Europe" to "Sports Events in the UK" for, e.g., BPL, the day brexit takes effect?
Did anyone notice? He's Russian (on his mother's side) working IN the US government, editing a source of data that many voters make use of when researching candidates? Has anyone looked for his meddling in data on Hillary?
I know what his point was. I was making a reference to the /. story about journalists getting their knickers in a knot because tweets are telling them to "learn to code".
Yes because I'm sure the kid that was going to be a "journalist" otherwise will make a FABULOUS developer.
FTFY.
They've banned people already for simply tweeting the phrase.
Then it isn't "they might", now is it?
Cutting and pasting the spokeshole talking point doesn't make him wrong.
Cutting and pasting his talking point neither makes him wrong nor makes him right. It IS the point of the article, however. Twitter is not saying they might punish people just for tweeting "learn to code", they are saying they won't treat it as 'abusive behaviour'. It contradicts the headline, and the summary contains nothing that supports a claim of "might" -- future tense possibility.
Tweeting "Learn to code" is harassment.
No, it isn't. The summary itself contradicts the flamebait headline:
representatives for the social media company had backed away from the position they related to him earlier, which was that the phrase "learn to code" itself constituted abusive behavior.
So tweeting "learn to code" is not harassment. Tweeting it a thousand times would be. Tweeting "have a nice day" a thousand times would be, too. Whatever else is or is not harassment, this is just /. flamebait describing a complicated circumstance in a trivial way and then claiming a trivial act is being punished unfairly.
Piracy is good because it prevents piracy? Got it.
No, piracy is good for business because it keeps the business from raising prices to what the market would otherwise bear.
Sorry, that's not good for business. It's good for schmucks who actually pay for the content but bad for business overall.
The argument (above) that people will pirate the movie but buy the t-shirt (or the sequel) is just silly.
The window of opportunity for us software engineers to solve the global problem of misinformation is rapidly closing
Thank you for your contribution. It will fail because:
X -- it attempts to enforce a solution to a social problem via technical means.*
It's a mesh network that hides personal identities while retaining consistency of identity
A global mesh network with no validation of who is saying what, only that it is the same person speaking every time. Sure. That's gonna solve the problem.
* stolen from a standard Usenet posting responding to each know-it-all solution to Usenet problems.
They are trained to do this and therefore can figure things out much better than you or I can.
You've never heard the media reporting on something you have personal experience with, have you? What's remarkable is the number of people who hear and read what the media write about things they know, and know they've gotten it wrong, but then trust the media to be right about everything else. And now this message that they media knows better than we do about what is right and true.
So doubling the wage from $7.80 to $15 for 100 burgers an hour probably increases the cost of each burger by $0.15.
Then doubling the minimum wage for 10 an hour would increase the cost by $1.50. That's for every burger, even the ones that are on the current $1 menu. Since the true average rate is somewhere between the two numbers, the cost, and thus price, increase will be somewhere in between the two.
Or there will be fewer people employed.
And they have fewer people on duty as it's quieter.
The times I've counted at least four is during the quiet hours. I also doubt they have too many employees who come to work for one hour each twice or three times a day.
This company makes beautiful multi-color silk-screened multi-layer through-hole plated PCBs for cheaper than I can buy bare copper plate board to etch them myself.
Of course they can. They already have the machinery in place, and they buy the materials in bulk. They also sell the product in bulk.
YOU have to buy from a distributor in small quantities and make small production runs. Your costs per board are always going to be higher, even when you forget to include your own time and effort.
That is not a quality based on where they are, except for the costs they can avoid by not having US environmental and employment regulations to comply with.
increasing the minimum wage of someone making 100 hamburgers an hour by $1
What about doubling the minimum wage from $7.80 or so to $15?
100 burgers an hour is more than one a minute. I've been in McD's. During rush times you might hit that number. During the rest of the day you're doing a lot fewer. Plus, it's not just one person involved in making those burgers. There's at least four people in a store, sometimes more.
you're asked by the FBI if you were carrying cash from point A to point B on Thursday and you panic and say no.
In other words you deliberately lie. How is this "another way" from using a different deliberate lie trying to prove you won't be charged for lying when you slip up in an interview?
Let's try this another way. You CANNOT use the fact that the cops WILL charge you for lying to the cops when you do so deliberately as proof of any kind that they will NOT charge you when the "factually incorrect" statement you make isn't a deliberate lie. The fact is the cops cannot tell a-priori the difference between an intent to lie and a "slip up" that results in incorrect information, so they will assume the worst and let the legal system sort it out.
The point is are you really suggesting that Stone handing over stolen documents to Wikileaks is the same as "eating a strawberry icecream"
I am suggesting no such thing. I am replying to a claim that the cops won't charge you with lying to the cops if you slip up in an interview. That incorrect claim was made in response to a generic statement about not talking to the cops. I said nothing about Stone.
This isn't censorship, its simply not promoting crap conspiracies. Cretins can still post them to YouTube if they want.
There's a place with ten million videos. All categorized and tagged. But no, they won't tell you about other videos similar to the ones you've already watched because you might believe them. They aren't preventing you from finding them, they're just making it harder.
It would be like a vast library of books put on the shelves in some random order with no card catalog to help you find anything. The library isn't preventing you from finding the one book you want, it's just making it harder to do so. ("Like" is not "identical to", btw.)
Is that "censorship"? Well, in the modern sense of the word (which I disagree with strongly), it is.
you latch onto one thing and extrapolate from that. Normal, logical people don't do that.
Normal, logical people do that all the time. Extrapolation is necessary for daily life. Science requires extrapolation. We like to think it does not, but it actually depends on it.
There's a book: Getting Science Wrong that talks about this. You may not agree with all the conclusions he makes, but it does point out a lot of assumptions about the philosophy behind "science". One of those is that we can extrapolate to tomorrow based on observations from today.
Negative tags such as Conspiracy/Fake should prevent the video showing up on any of other users' 'Recommended Videos' or 'Top Videos' pages
I get as much entertainment out of watching conspiracy theory videos as the morons who spend hours every day watching cute kitten videos. Why would you prevent YouTube from recommending the latest ones when it clearly can see from my history that I want to watch them?
The problem with a company doing this kind of thing based on "revenue" and demands that certain kinds of things not be viewed is that it can often extend to the things that YOU want to view. You know, "I wasn't X so I didn't object when they came for X..." kind of stuff.
Do you know who I am?! ed-gruberman.whoswho
That sounds more like "ed-gruberman.thatswho".
No, .whoswho is the gTLD that the companies that send spam saying "you're a leader in your field and you should be listed on yourfield.whoswho and we can do that for only $100 ..." would use.
My point RE the "not really" is you're not charged with lying to the FBI if you just "slip up."
"Slip up" means "you tell two different stories" or "the story changes" or "the story is factually incorrect" starting with an INTENT to tell the truth but a faulty or incomplete memory. "Lying to the FBI" means "you tell two different stories" or "the story changes" or "the story is factually incorrect" starting with an INTENT to tell a lie.
The only difference between the two is INTENT, which the FBI cannot determine, so they will ASSUME the intent was to lie.
You're charged if you make a material lie that tries to obstruct justice
So exactly how material is it if you lie about doing something that isn't illegal when they ask you what you did? It's not illegal, so they aren't going to charge you with it anyway, and it's not a crime involving anyone else, so what difference does it make? "Did you have a strawberry ice cream cone at 2PM today?" "No." "Did Frank Smith ask you to have a strawberry ice cream cone at 2PM today?" "No." "We can prove you had one!" "Ok, I did have one, I remember now." "Ok, well then, you lied, and we'll charge you with lying even though we can't charge you for eating an ice cream cone."
The only way that the lie is material is because it gives the cops/FBI something to charge you with. It is arguably entrapment at that point, because if they hadn't asked you, you wouldn't have "lied", and the only reason you "lied" is because they asked you.
In legal terms - "knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements."
And "know" and "will" are two things that cannot be proven, they can only be inferred. Hell, even if I told you last week that yes, I did have a strawberry ice cream cone, if you ask me today I might say "no" simply because I forgot I did. There is no "know" and "will" in that lie.
Saying your bank-robbing friend went to the beach with you (when he didn't) falls into this category.
Like I said, trying to prove that the cops won't charge you with lying to them when you slip-up in an interview by giving an example of them charging you with lying when you deliberately lie is pretty stupid. Hey, I can prove they won't charge you with lying to them ever because they will charge you with armed robbery when they catch you with a gun in a bank during an armed robbery, using that kind of logic.
Not really.
Yes, really. And your next paragraph says exactly what you deny.
You can of course, decline to talk to law enforcement. But once you agree to talk to them, you are required to tell the truth, because lying to them can be considered obstruction of justice.
Which is another way of saying "That is exactly the reason you shouldn't talk to cops, because even if you are completely innocent they can convict you based on a slip-up in the interview."
If I do that, then my lie about you being on the beach with me has obstructed justice - That's a crime. That isn't a "slip-up in the interview"
So to prove that they won't charge you with lying based on a slip-up you use an example of where you deliberately lied to them? Sorry. They will charge you with lying if you slip-up in an interview. That's because they won't ask you just once if you tell them he was with you "on the beach at the time". They'll ask you fifteen times, in thirteen different ways. "On a beach." Which beach? Where on the beach? What did you take to the beach? How did you get to the beach? "at the time." What time did you get there? What time did you leave? What time did you meet with him? What time did you separate? Were you with him the entire time? Yes? Did he ever go out of your sight? No? Oh, wait, he went to the bathroom once, I forgot. So he was out of your sight? You lied!
If you really were "on the beach at the time" with him, UNLESS you were planning on creating an alibi, you'll not remember every detail they ask you about. You'll forget stuff. You'll not bother remembering stuff that was completely unimportant until you need to tell the cops exactly what happened. For example, I just met with a couple of people in another part of the building. I couldn't tell you exactly what time I met with them, or when I left, or even a complete recreation of what we talked about. As I tell the story I will remember things, and if anything I remember differs from what I've already said, I've lied to the cops.
If you think you'd be exempt from that "standard of evidence" you're hopelessly naive.
"Potatoe" was a valid spelling alternative for "potato" a long time before Dan Quayle was born.
Who gives a shit?
People who are literate and can recognize politically based bullshit when you write it. Quayle did not give us a word that was in the lexicon for a very very long time before he was even born. Your insult was based on your own ignorance, so of course you don't care.
At least Quayle gave us "potatoe" -- so, there's that...
"Potatoe" was a valid spelling alternative for "potato" a long time before Dan Quayle was born.
Richard Nixon, the last criminal commander-in-chief (well, last one to get caught)
Perjury is a crime, and I recall a more recent President who did that.