Totally intuitive... unfortunately, ALT + F4 is one of those "look in order to find it" sequences, that are much harder to find than other shortcuts in the dark.
And the start menu replaced with a full screen version, and buttons replaced with gestures that are meant for touch devices, but which are pretty annoying with a mouse, and a mix of "widget/app" applications with real applications, some of which have both versions, and a very non-intuitive way of closing the non-full-applications apps, where you have to first exit the app, then mouse to the top left corner, drag down, find the app you want to close, then right click on it to close it... but don't mouse too far over or the list disappears and you start over. Lots of cool stuff like that which are being touted as added benefits.
Distill alcohol... there ya go. Takes a chemistry degree to work in a lab where they make liquor... but yes, it takes no degree to work where they make beer.
Dependency hell? You sure you aren't thinking of Redhat/Fedora? I've never had any dependency issues with Ubuntu that I didn't have with Debian, which is to say, I've never run into any... still... if you aren't into the GUI and you don't want to use their daemons or additional features, I can't see why you would pick them over Debian anyway. Oh, that's right. Paid developers which allows for packages to make it into the stable builds sooner so you don't wait 3 years for the version of Apache from 3 years ago to be added to your latest release. I forgot about that.
Are you talking about Microsoft or Apple now? I asked Siri and she was of no help, so I tried to find the answers on Apple's map app and it led me astray.
He's referring to how fresh, ripe vegetables often bruise when being handled more than lightly... so he's using that as proof that the items were not shipped entirely ripe. I can't speak to whether or not that is a viable argument.
Yeah yeah... hehe. Let's just say, it was a murder case, and the main reason most jurors wanted to convict him and slam him with every year they could was because it was shown that he was a repeat marajuana dealer and a general shady character, so it was obvious that even though there was clear evidence that he did have a hand in someone's death, it wasn't absolutely clear that he did not do it by accident. The stubborn guys wanted to hang him basically, the seemingly intelligent leader/foreman thought that it was pretty clear cut that he did it but didn't want to slam him with all the years for each of the items he was accused for, the "followers" as I shall refer to them were basically for whatever the foreman said, and the undecideds wanted to discuss the facts as they were presented to us and hear what everyone thought before making their own decisions. I had to keep returning to the facts because there was a lot of "he's a bad guy, he must be guilty" talk going on, and it was quite out of hand. I can only assume, and somewhat logically conclude from the few juror interviews that have come out so far, that this type of issue was also going on in the Sammy vs. Apple case.
He's referring to the using of sex to get one's way/money/goods I believe. That's why when you get married, you stop getting it... because they already have everything you own.:o)
It's a conflict of interest if the person isn't clearly guilty of murder, but your reason for convicting and sentencing them to jail time is because you are afraid they might be, yes. If you have some reason to be biased against the defendant in a case, so that that may cloud your judgement unfairly, that is the definition of conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is defined as "A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self-interest and professional interest or public interest." or some variation of that depending on what source you use... basically, needing the outcome of this trial to be for the plaintiff (Apple) in order to have a stronger case should he need to defend his own patents in the future is exactly what a conflict of interest is.
I had jury duty this year, and I can say from that one experience, that jury's definitely want to do what is right... but they will often fail miserably, and will almost always follow those they feel have more knowledge on the subject at hand. What I saw was a couple very angry people who let their anger cloud their judgement and made them very stubborn and hard to deal with. One seemingly intelligent person who did a lot of steering when it came to the majority of the group, because they saw him as their leader and what he said, no matter what it was, was good enough for them. A couple undecided people who were actually open to listening to both sides, and myself, who had to argue my points again and again to get people to come to their senses. It was a nightmare... and that was a much more simple case than this one. We deliberated for six hours on six points, three of which were clear cut. I can't imagine sitting on a jury for a case of this magnitude and coming to a decision in less than a work week.
then again... when the foreman makes statements after the trial about how he decided he needed to uphold Apple's patents to more or less set precedence in case his own technology based patents were ever in need of defending... that sort of does make it a conflict of interest.
Are you referring to the parts where they contradicted themselves, or the parts where they awarded large sums of money to "punish" Samsung, when twice in the jury instructions, it is stated that the award is to cover losses and not to punish the parties involved?
Well, seeing as this case obviously proves that Samsung products are exactly like Apple products, it does sound like there are millions of people being overcharged;o)
Both sexual organs have a hood that is the same thing as others are pointing out by the fact that there is such a thing as female circumcision. They have shown that both hoods are actually the same just developed slightly differently to accommodate the specific anatomy.
Let me add, head-on collisions however would be different. The damage to the cars themselves may be the same, but the occupants of the lighter car would have more force exerted on them, and thus be subject to a higher injury risk.
I see where I made my mistake. I was simply talking in terms of vehicular damage, or energy exerted on the vehicles, which would be the same, thus a larger crumple zone or longer front end would help in the collision. In terms of what energy is exerted on the passengers, the lighter vehicle would indeed be more dangerous as they would have far greater forces exerted on them as they are stopped and thrust backwards.
Motorcycles aren't really designed for efficiency in most cases. A lot of them get less gas mileage than some pure gasoline cars. As for switching fuel sources, I'm sure that will be a big part of the designs coming in the future, but I'm counting on the use of new lighter materials in design as well, to bring the weight down without necessarily making everyone drive a Micro-Machine.
There was a collision on a local interstate where two 18-wheelers sandwiches an F-150 and basically crushed the pickup and it's occupant, so your assessment has been proven. If the collision is big enough it won't matter what you drive. As far as simple head-on collisions between two cars however, as long as you have enough crumple space in your car, a lighter car will also help reduce the force of the accident.
Actually, if a heavier car hits an immovable object, that car is going to be subjected to more destructive force, while a lighter car will have less inertia and thus, there will be less force exerted back into the car. As long as we can lighten cars by using new, lighter materials that are just as strong, we should still be able to build larger vehicles that simply weigh less.
Slashdot Mirror
Totally intuitive... unfortunately, ALT + F4 is one of those "look in order to find it" sequences, that are much harder to find than other shortcuts in the dark.
And the start menu replaced with a full screen version, and buttons replaced with gestures that are meant for touch devices, but which are pretty annoying with a mouse, and a mix of "widget/app" applications with real applications, some of which have both versions, and a very non-intuitive way of closing the non-full-applications apps, where you have to first exit the app, then mouse to the top left corner, drag down, find the app you want to close, then right click on it to close it... but don't mouse too far over or the list disappears and you start over. Lots of cool stuff like that which are being touted as added benefits.
Well, they call the Air Force tech support, which is here in the states, but everyone has this redneck accent so they are terribly hard to understand.
At least Google offers services for FREE. Verizon charges you $100/month to have your data farmed so you can get ads you don't want.
Distill alcohol... there ya go. Takes a chemistry degree to work in a lab where they make liquor... but yes, it takes no degree to work where they make beer.
Dependency hell? You sure you aren't thinking of Redhat/Fedora? I've never had any dependency issues with Ubuntu that I didn't have with Debian, which is to say, I've never run into any... still... if you aren't into the GUI and you don't want to use their daemons or additional features, I can't see why you would pick them over Debian anyway. Oh, that's right. Paid developers which allows for packages to make it into the stable builds sooner so you don't wait 3 years for the version of Apache from 3 years ago to be added to your latest release. I forgot about that.
Are you talking about Microsoft or Apple now? I asked Siri and she was of no help, so I tried to find the answers on Apple's map app and it led me astray.
He's referring to how fresh, ripe vegetables often bruise when being handled more than lightly... so he's using that as proof that the items were not shipped entirely ripe. I can't speak to whether or not that is a viable argument.
Prior art is too confusing and will only slow everyone down, therefore you must throw it out!
Yeah yeah... hehe. Let's just say, it was a murder case, and the main reason most jurors wanted to convict him and slam him with every year they could was because it was shown that he was a repeat marajuana dealer and a general shady character, so it was obvious that even though there was clear evidence that he did have a hand in someone's death, it wasn't absolutely clear that he did not do it by accident. The stubborn guys wanted to hang him basically, the seemingly intelligent leader/foreman thought that it was pretty clear cut that he did it but didn't want to slam him with all the years for each of the items he was accused for, the "followers" as I shall refer to them were basically for whatever the foreman said, and the undecideds wanted to discuss the facts as they were presented to us and hear what everyone thought before making their own decisions. I had to keep returning to the facts because there was a lot of "he's a bad guy, he must be guilty" talk going on, and it was quite out of hand. I can only assume, and somewhat logically conclude from the few juror interviews that have come out so far, that this type of issue was also going on in the Sammy vs. Apple case.
He's referring to the using of sex to get one's way/money/goods I believe. That's why when you get married, you stop getting it... because they already have everything you own. :o)
It's a conflict of interest if the person isn't clearly guilty of murder, but your reason for convicting and sentencing them to jail time is because you are afraid they might be, yes. If you have some reason to be biased against the defendant in a case, so that that may cloud your judgement unfairly, that is the definition of conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is defined as "A situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person's self-interest and professional interest or public interest." or some variation of that depending on what source you use... basically, needing the outcome of this trial to be for the plaintiff (Apple) in order to have a stronger case should he need to defend his own patents in the future is exactly what a conflict of interest is.
I had jury duty this year, and I can say from that one experience, that jury's definitely want to do what is right... but they will often fail miserably, and will almost always follow those they feel have more knowledge on the subject at hand. What I saw was a couple very angry people who let their anger cloud their judgement and made them very stubborn and hard to deal with. One seemingly intelligent person who did a lot of steering when it came to the majority of the group, because they saw him as their leader and what he said, no matter what it was, was good enough for them. A couple undecided people who were actually open to listening to both sides, and myself, who had to argue my points again and again to get people to come to their senses. It was a nightmare... and that was a much more simple case than this one. We deliberated for six hours on six points, three of which were clear cut. I can't imagine sitting on a jury for a case of this magnitude and coming to a decision in less than a work week.
then again... when the foreman makes statements after the trial about how he decided he needed to uphold Apple's patents to more or less set precedence in case his own technology based patents were ever in need of defending... that sort of does make it a conflict of interest.
Obviously that is the appeal. :o)
Are you referring to the parts where they contradicted themselves, or the parts where they awarded large sums of money to "punish" Samsung, when twice in the jury instructions, it is stated that the award is to cover losses and not to punish the parties involved?
Well, seeing as this case obviously proves that Samsung products are exactly like Apple products, it does sound like there are millions of people being overcharged ;o)
You don't read the news on the intarwebs much do you?
Both sexual organs have a hood that is the same thing as others are pointing out by the fact that there is such a thing as female circumcision. They have shown that both hoods are actually the same just developed slightly differently to accommodate the specific anatomy.
Let me add, head-on collisions however would be different. The damage to the cars themselves may be the same, but the occupants of the lighter car would have more force exerted on them, and thus be subject to a higher injury risk.
I see where I made my mistake. I was simply talking in terms of vehicular damage, or energy exerted on the vehicles, which would be the same, thus a larger crumple zone or longer front end would help in the collision. In terms of what energy is exerted on the passengers, the lighter vehicle would indeed be more dangerous as they would have far greater forces exerted on them as they are stopped and thrust backwards.
I'll be filling my F-350 Super-Duty up with DOUBLE RAINBOWS!!!
Motorcycles aren't really designed for efficiency in most cases. A lot of them get less gas mileage than some pure gasoline cars. As for switching fuel sources, I'm sure that will be a big part of the designs coming in the future, but I'm counting on the use of new lighter materials in design as well, to bring the weight down without necessarily making everyone drive a Micro-Machine.
There was a collision on a local interstate where two 18-wheelers sandwiches an F-150 and basically crushed the pickup and it's occupant, so your assessment has been proven. If the collision is big enough it won't matter what you drive. As far as simple head-on collisions between two cars however, as long as you have enough crumple space in your car, a lighter car will also help reduce the force of the accident.
Actually, if a heavier car hits an immovable object, that car is going to be subjected to more destructive force, while a lighter car will have less inertia and thus, there will be less force exerted back into the car. As long as we can lighten cars by using new, lighter materials that are just as strong, we should still be able to build larger vehicles that simply weigh less.