I'm assuming that the nice white thermal dissipating ceramic the space shuttle used during atmospheric re-entry would work great as a defense.
I don't like to make assumptions, but it does sound like a fairly reasonable one to me. I'd like to see someone test it.
English absorbs words and they become part of the language, albeit ones with roots in different languages.
Dude, we didn't even change the pronunciation of "taco", or those other words (much). They're not loanwords if you're trying to use them faithfully and you know what language they belong to. Ice-a creamu, that's a loanword. CD pray-er, debatable.
I solved that problem by just not watching Stargate after it became boring. Then when Atlantis came out, I was excited, and watched it. That made me go back and watch the original show. I'm just sad they only cancelled the last show when it was starting to hit its stride. If they were just going to do that, they didn't need to bother to begin with.
So this Japanese guy arrives at the airport, jumps in a taxi, smiles at the driver and says
Those filthy commies, stealing the bread from the mouths of our American corporations! Nuke them immediately!
Croatia's the one next to France, right?
Could have been worse: George Lucas.
You're a hoot at parties, aren't you?
How close are we, really, to StartsWithABang growing some hair, shaving off that ridiculous beard, and getting a proper job?
I'm sure there are other places they can be found, though it might take a bit of searching.
In Soviet Russia, APK's hosts file updates systemd!!!!
Wouldn't that pesky atmosphere get in the way?
The primary concerns in the case of New Orleans were racial (oh my god, black people, watch out!). Not long term planning.
Right, I agree with you. It was a land grab. The purpose was not positive.
To be more technical:
The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard requires that the "facts of the case" be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - every one of them individually, with a list of facts to prove being given in the jury instructions and depending on the crime and jurisdiction For example, in a murder case, basic facts can be "The victim is dead" and "The defendant deliberately killed them". Beyond that, the prosecution "bears the burden" of demonstrating these facts as undeniably true. For more about what the legal burden is, there's details here.
The same does not hold true to what are called "affirmative defenses" or "defense theories". For example, if you charge me with assault and say I hit you with a chair, and I say that I was trying to stop you because you were trying to rape me, you don't face a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and 100% of the burden to prove that you weren't trying to rape me. Depending on the circumstances, there's either a "shared burden" or I would bear the burden of proof on my own. If the defense is to be analyzed on its own, as it's not a "basic fact", but rather a "defense theory", it would not on its own face a "reasonable doubt" standard (generally a "preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing evidence" - although the claim may shift the jury's views toward whether there's reasonable doubt toward the basic facts in other ways.
There are many different types of defense theories, too numerous to go into here. And in most crimes, claims of consent are treated as defense theories - they don't on their own need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (they contribute to doubt relating to the basic facts but are not themselves a specific fact for jury evaluation), and there's either a shared or shifted defense burden. If you say "Hey, I wasn't robbing her, she gave me the money because she wanted to help me out", the burden doesn't fall 100% on me to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt that I didn't - it's your theory, you have to bear part of the burden of proof for it. The case as a whole still needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, of course.
It would be nice - and in fact, would only be basic fairness - if rape cases faced the same standard. Unfortunately, in most jurisdictions, it does not work that way. Consent is not treated as a defense theory. Humans are not treated as in a perpetual state of consent for giving away money, for being taken strange places by strangers, or any of the other sorts of cases where "consent" defenses are common.... except that they generally are treated as being in a perpetual state of consent for sex. No matter how weird, twisted, sick the sexual practice, with whatever person they may be, even with a person not matching your sexuality, you're presumed by default to be in consent for it. And the burden falls 100% on the accuser in this one type of case to prove that consent was not given.
And this is wrong.
The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project