Is anyone seriously disputing that she experienced sexual discrimination at Uber?
Then why the weasel words?
The study quotes a 19% difference. So why inflate that by 31% to 25%? And even worse, use that inflated number in the headline?
I wonder what you have to do to do sufficient damage to an enemy?
They talk about starting with 10kW lasers; Steel has a specific heat of about 0.5, so if you trained the laser on the target for one second, you could vaporise a little over six grams of steel (not counting losses from transmission through the air, reflection etc) I can see that if you're using your laser to assassinate someone from a drone, that's certainly enough to kill someone, but is it enough to destroy a truck or an aeroplane? Is the laser even capable of operating continuously for a second?
Taxing something, merely because you have the power to do so, does not justify the tax.
It seems to me that this describes pretty much all tax.
It's interesting that when this was first looked at in 1992 the specific reasoning behind not levying a 'use tax' was that the burden would be too high. It seems so me that if that's the case then there's probably scope to allow levying use tax on outside purchases if a way can be found to make the burden reasonable. For instance, could the court decide that use tax could be levied if there was a flat rate of use tax that applied to all items, whatever their type, if purchased from an out-of-state supplier? Also, I don't know what South Dakota's use tax laws are like, but it seems to me that the state might only have to prove that its use tax wouldn't create an undue burden.
>Do you believe rehabilitation is impossible or do you want revenge?
I don't believe that someone who commits mass murder can be rehabilitated, no. It isn't about revenge; it's about public safety.
Someone once pointed out that hoping a rapist gets raped in prison isn't a victory for his victim(s), because it somehow gives him what he had coming to him, but it's actually a victory for rape and violence. I wish I could remember who said that, because they are right. The score doesn't go Rapist: 1 World: 1. It goes Rape: 2.
What this man did is unspeakable, and he absolutely deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. If he needs to be kept away from other prisoners as a safety issue, there are ways to do that without keeping him in solitary confinement, which has been shown conclusively to be profoundly cruel and harmful.
Putting him in solitary confinement, as a punitive measure, is not a victory for the good people in the world. It's a victory for inhumane treatment of human beings. This ruling is, in my opinion, very good and very strong for human rights, *precisely* because it was brought by such a despicable and horrible person. It affirms that all of us have basic human rights, even the absolute worst of us on this planet.
Will this bill have a special exception to prevent the victims of the US drone program in Warizistan from suing the US government?
This is precisely why I lost all interest in Oculus the instant I heard that it had been acquired by Facebook.
$50 (£35) is probably less than it costs for my Wife and I to go to the cinema, once you've factored in travel and babysittings costs.
I wish the gun control debate in the US could get beyond the 'do more guns result in more people getting shot?' question, and move on to 'Okay, so more guns means more people getting shot, but guns are important to us, so can we just discuss what level of people getting shot are we prepared to tolerate?'
It just seems so dishonest otherwise.
No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.