Did he do that? Was there a threat that would make anytime think that's what happened? Was that known before he was treated 'differently'? Or was he treated differently just because the person that was murdered was rich? If the guy that has been killed had been a homeless person or a drug dealer do you think we'd have seen his face on national news?
Supposing he is a 'murderer', is there some reason he should be handled any different than any other murderer? Why the death penalty, tv coverage, nationwide man hunt, etc? Why don't all murderers get federal charges and the death penalty by default?
The point is, if he's going to be treated special by the prosecution then it's fair to treat him differently on the defense side, and that meant in the court of public opinion as well. Why villainize him while letting someone else off with a public defenders and a half asleep state prosecutor?
Likely a mixture of these answers, though if you want to wait for an expert to weigh in maybe ask for that. A roadway is obviously a very different environment with a lot of money and research put into ensuring it can handle a lot of traffic and weight, having to accommodate worst case scenarios so it's obviously going to have a very strong base, and a comparitively very durable and thick base of asphalt. Your driveway, on the other hand, is probably going to be covered in a mixture very much driven by price. If you do the minimum underlayment and thickness, you're probably going to need to give it every advantage possible to avoid rework.
Pretty sure that was the joke. I don't know how they can lie about the height of someone who must certainly be one of the most photographed people in the world (POTUS, I mean, why in the world anyone would want to photograph Trump himself is beyond me), but pretty sure even that one is wrong. The others are much easier to lie about, even if they are obviously wrong.
So if you invested 10% of your monthly income every month for 20 years, in a single company, you could be worth 0.00001% of what bezos is worth. Or you could have picked the wrong company and have every cent of your savings wiped out. Sounds like a win/win!
Well that's one place we can agree anyway, trial and error are very valuable tools, they just need to be weilded carefully and not considered an error too soon. That makes it risky though.
I know i come of as pessimistic, and by a lot of measures i am, but usually only in comparison to the dismissive or condescending attitudes many people seem to have on the subject. Just build trains, duh... They work here, just do it there!
The backlash to poorly thought it arguments are usually people doubling down on their argument in the other direction, so I'd prefer to temper optimism and encourage actual conversation. Even if i may have trouble with that second part :)
Right, if it's good enough it can quit advertising itself.
Really the only reason for a logo like that is to advertise to other people that you are wearing good quality. Upper income people who can afford actual high quality can't effectively 'show off' that way, so they usually content themselves with flying under the radar while still comfortably fitting in wherever they feel like, or showing of in other ways like cars and vacations, but mid or lower income didn't have as much leeway and have to take advantage of what they have available if they want to feel either part of a group or better than others.
Not sure what you mean by constant, it is definitely a huge gradient, but the layout of the US vs the EU is so drastically different that at almost every level routes that are well suited to train in Europe are often overwhelmingly inefficient in the US.
Everything from building up routes between major cities to regional and local end up being too low volume to support themselves.
There is at least an argument to be made that some/many routes should be heavily subsidized long enough to allow industry and society in general grow around them, by which time they could become self supporting, but most people don't realize just how big the US is in land compared to it's population, and that often results in a lot of ground to cover just for relatively few people each to get to a lot of places.
The only real question is who is making the decision.
If it's the woman, all that matters is that she consider the person to 'lack desire' from her perspective and she is fine. Seems like this should be fine from God's perspective, he would know if she made the judgement in good faith.
If the judgement is made by the community, then most of your interpretations are going to be so subjective that they either can't be made at all, or could only be judged to have been faulty after the fact, in which case the woman should still be okay, since there's no way for her to judge beforehand if a male has desire.
Unless society, or at least get community, comes together and says certain men can be expected to have no desire with a high enough degree of accuracy that she is free to choose one, it would be wrong to judge her to be at fault if a specific male had the wrong kind of desire unbeknownst to her.
Does say that vertical takeoff is part of the plan. Probably worth an awkward looking plane if the goal is to eliminate the need for infrastructure like modern airports.
Well it did say it was a milestone flight, as well as 68 miles not necessarily meaning on a straight road you could drive 70mph on.
There are a lot of good arguments for rail or other means of transportation, but the travel volume vs the infrastructure required are vastly different in the US than in many parts of Europe/Asia. Think 'lots of medium distance low volume routes' that aren't economically feasible since there are existing routes. If you went through the effort of building a train route, you would have to charge so much per person to make it pay for itself that no one could afford it and they would take other methods.
I'm Europe, there seem to be enough 'short, high volume routes' that are economically feasible that considering adding other legs to them make sense, or they just already work.
Pretty much 'anything' clothing. I guess if it's a clothing brand of good quality and there is no choice except to wear it with the logo they stick on it might be an exception, but anything outside of that is basically paying to belong to some club with basically no membership requirements except spending money.
Well, in case you were being serious, the point i was responding to was the 'if it's obvious to everyone that she's gay, then wearing a shirt with a shirt boating about it is somehow a little cringe'.
My point was both that just because someone looks stereotypically gay doesn't mean they are, so it's fair to wear a shirt proudly admitting it, even if it is a little over the top. The earlier comment about it being similar to sometimes Uncle wearing a shirt offering 'mustache rides' is completely off the mark since that is more of a crude case of a man trying to either boat about his manliness, or defect implications that he's gay.
These shirts are basically leaning into the 'f-you, this is who i am', unless they were specifically wearing them to a lesbian meet up hoping to impress other girls with the words on their shirt. If that were the case then it would match almost exactly to the mustache rides example.
To close to possible. The troubleshooting should have been plugging the USB cable in to get the mouse working, and the new problem was her toaster not working a week later.
From what I've seen, hail rarely harms the paint at all before the point where it will leave dents.