when an executive engages in sexual acts with a subordinate within an organization, it constitutes sexual harassment.

Utter bullshit. Only if coercive elements are involved is it oppressive in any way, unless you're a weak minded, politically correct ninny. And in which case, I don't care what you think anyway.

Just for one example, my lady is the much loved daughter of a lawyer and his secretary, who he wooed and married and stayed with her entire life. Then, in turn, she was my student; I met her in that environment and we fell in love. Since then, we've been together 15 years and I guaren-fucking-tee you our relationship is mighty fine. Your direct insinuation that this process -- either example -- was in ANY way wrongheaded just shows you up as lacking the clues you need. What you're talking about is politically correct nonsense and bogus legislation.

Let me tell you the metric for "ok": It's informed consent. Nothing else. You can't have consent with pressure; what you have there is capitulation. But the idea that any intersection of differing levels of authority and personal relationships sans pressure are suspect, or worse, wrong, is just sick, a product of thinking that is grossly in error. If you had half a brain, you'd already have worked it out. How could a police officer or a judge or a politician ever find a mate? A martial arts instructor? By definition, the authority and/or power distribution is uneven. That's normal.

The fact is, it is ok, and one thing that is NOT ok, is some dweeb questioning someone else's choices absent any complaint from them. You are not your brother's (or sister's) mommy. Or, more concisely, fuck off.

If you can show that any remark I made about the new Mac Pro was ill-informed because *I* wasn't paying attention, as opposed to speculative based on Apple not releasing info, have at it. Otherwise, yeah, you're a troll, so what. All Apple has said so far about the unit is it will support 3 4k monitors, 6 thunderbolt, 2 firewire, and 4 USB(3), with one CPU socket and 4 ram sockets, no internal HD or card expansion. All of my remarks about it that I can recall, at least, have been in that context.

But as I say, if you can point to something different...

Leaking the pre-credit flash-back scene for episode 7...... I get it - Clone War II.... is that you, J J Abrams?

What, and Silicon Valley is an economical place to live? HAH! Try buying a house in Palo Alto, Mountain View or Sunnyvale and then get back to me about how cheap it is to live there.

It may be that SF is more expensive than the valley now, but it hasn't been that way historically, and that's _certainly_ not true of Oakland. Oakland is much cheaper than the valley, has better public transportation, as good food, less traffic, and better views. And you're closer to the east bay hills, which are fantastic for recreation, and closer to Yosemite, and I could go on and on...

The other kind of person is a misanthrope, not an introvert. I'm an introvert, and I definitely enjoyed living in San Francisco more than living in the valley. I enjoy still more living in Vermont, though. The real thing that's killing the valley is that you don't have to live there anymore, not that it's gotten worse.

Yelp is your friend. I've had very good luck with it in Silicon Valley.

Oakland is a big city (in terms of area, not population). There are _really_ nice neighborhoods, and it has a decent downtown. Great Chinatown. The gang thing will get less prevalent over time if Silicon Valley really does move there. If I had to choose where in the Bay Area to live, Oakland would be high on the list. For one thing, they have public transportation, unlike Silicon Valley.

There are tons of good restaurants in Silicon Valley. My favorite Korean soup place is in central Palo Alto. Fabulous Indian food. Sure, there's good food in Oakland and San Francisco, but it's population density and services that make those locations more desirable, not food. And really, neither San Francisco nor Oakland are particularly urban anyway—they're just _more_ urban than Silicon Valley.

It's not actually a city, it's more like a long series of 80s era malls which have been reworked to house Trader Joes and suchlike.

Anybody who complains that Si Valley is too suburban has not lived in Northern Virginia. The Peninsula and the corridor down to San Jose has lots of little cities with smallish but eclectic centers strung like pearls along El Camino, 101 and Caltrain. Compared to the Beltway's endless fields full of asphalt and cookie-cutter tracts, it's a walkable urban paradise.

Abusive monopolies and massive quasi-governmental corporations practically fall into the same category as the state, so (little "L") libertarians would be opposed to them as well. Libertarianism doesn't exclude the use of regulation for the preservation of liberty. As the GP stated, there would still be laws concerning murder, etc.

Robber barons and feudal lords may be the poster child of (capital "L") Libertarianism, but not (lowercase "L") libertarianism.

That reminds me of how awesome zmodem was with its resume capability. That changed things for the better. Then we moved on to http and lost resume for the longest time again...

coffin

Impeachment basically has its parallels in "we find enough reason here to go to trial"; the second stage, where the person of high office is convicted of the charges brought in the impeachment, did not so find in the case of President Clinton.

It's as if you were arrested for X, but they failed to convict you of X.

Impeachment is meaningless under such circumstances. The more so as this wasn't anything to do with his job, this was a sexual matter they really had no business whatsoever asking him about in the first place.

Personally, I wish he'd said: "Are you really asking me questions about my sex life? Because you have no right to ask such questions, and I have no obligation to give you any answers. Those are private matters. Now, do you have any legitimate questions, or are we done here? Lying -- though I can't really say I blame him much -- was a poor way out, and gave the MORONS in congress an excuse to cobble up a dog and pony show out of it, in the process wasting many taxpayer dollars, their precious time (well, it'd be precious if they'd use it for the purposes for which we elected them, anyway), and interfering with the operation of the presidency.

I was in a NATO Navy for some years, and have seen more than one scenario like this one unfold. Although there definitely may be some individuals clinging on to a lifeboat for dear life, I would consider the Nina lost. Not implausible for such racing yacht in the roughness of the Tasman Sea in ( local ) winter. Reports mentioned rough seas of up to 8 meters. I guess in the front(s) the Nina has had to endure, gusts could have easily gone over 80 knots. Under such conditions, a racing yacht as low on the water as the Nina can go down in a matter of minutes... The Aussies and especially the Kiwi CG are doing all they can, but the Tasman Sea measures about 2,380,000 square miles... At this point, anything less than a miracle is to be ruled out, and any miracle highly unlikely. Rest to their souls.